Bad PR for PIAA umps

[griff901c]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Come on, Matt. How can you, with a straight face, claim that this is reactionary given the list of offenses.

I might give you the DUI as being insignificant, but the others should exclude an official from being around young ball players.


* Child pornography

* Molestation charges

* Gun crimes

* Drug offenses

* Assaults

* Fraud

* Various forms of theft


Tim.

Just to fuel the fire...What is a gun crime?

griff

[griff901c]

Originally Posted by griff901c

Just to fuel the fire...What is a gun crime?

griff

BigUmp56...anybody....?

My point being...gun crime really is a very broad term..fueling paranoia with the masses. Throwing out generic terms does everyone a disservice.

As an avid hunter/sportsman I own many firearms along with ammunition. I keep my all my firearms( except my personal defense weapons) in a gun safe.

Now for the sake of this storyline suppose the police come to my home to arrest me for say...hit and run. Now lets say I resist arrest and have to be forcibly removed from my home. I will bet you dollars to donuts the police and newspaper report will allude to a "cache" of weapons. All legal...yet with todays pc physco(sp)-babble I am now a threat..nut-job if you will( easy RPatrino)..

So again my question is..what is a gun crime?

Did you mean a crime commited with a gun?

Two different things, to be sure.

griff

[Rich]

Originally Posted by TxUmp

How can you exclude DUI from your list? Anyone who drives after drinking places everyone near him in grave danger. It is a SERIOUS offense - in my mind much worse than fraud or theft.

And anyone who has a DUI at 21 should be kept from officiating for life. Matter of fact, that person should never be allowed to hold any job, vote, etc. etc.

This whole background check thing is fine, but some people are going to get caught up in this that shouldn't. And the officials shouldn't be required to pay for it, either. If the schools want it so badly, LET THEM pay for it.

[canadaump6]

Originally Posted by Matt

While I agree that the potential consequences are much higher, the mindset of someone who gets a single DUI as opposed to someone who commits a single act of the others is much different. A person who has a single DUI (and none in a significant period of time since then) made a bad decision, with no intent to cause harm, and most likely learned from it (a classic case of drift theory for you criminologists out there.) The other crimes do entail an element of intent to cause harm.

Okay Matt, seeing as you are ignorant to the dangers of DUI, I suggest you watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmHbO_viBIg

The intent doesn't really matter. A person decided to drive while intoxicated, knowing that he was putting other people at risk of serious injury or death.

As for theft, what if you stole something, and the cashier thought you might be ready to commit a more violent crime, and came at you with a baseball bat (or worse)? Now you have put yourself in danger as well as any onlookers who might feel obliged to get involved. Theft arouses suspision, and can become more than just a petty crime.

Step out of law enforcement and the army until you change your attitude.

[griff901c]

As for theft, what if you stole something, and the cashier thought you might be ready to commit a more violent crime, and came at you with a baseball bat (or worse)? Now you have put yourself in danger as well as any onlookers who might feel obliged to get involved. Theft arouses suspision, and can become more than just a petty crime.

Step out of law enforcement and the army until you change your attitude.[/QUOTE]

What would a more violent crime be? Say I just stole( shoplifting would be the proper term) a six pack of beer. Now you come at me with a bat..am I going to resort to a more violent act..doubtful..probably run like heck...drop the beer and go.

Now are you telling me that coming at me with a bat is reasonable given the crime? Who is putting whom in peril? And the onlookers? What peril are they in? I don't understand.

And as Matt stated..he is not a LEO.....and step out of the army until you change your attitude....he can do that?



griff

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

Okay Matt, seeing as you are ignorant to the dangers of DUI, I suggest you watch this video[...]

The intent doesn't really matter. A person decided to drive while intoxicated, knowing that he was putting other people at risk of serious injury or death.

I did not read anywhere that Matt was ignorant to the dangers. I think we all know what can happen when you drink and drive. Of course intent is not a factor under the law, but I would think most people who drink and drive do not intend to cause harm. They still have done something wrong and should be punished. That is not being disputed here. The assertion that a person with one DUI will have learned and changed because of it is, I think, a valid one.

Originally Posted by canadaump6

Step out of law enforcement and the army until you change your attitude.

His attitude seems fine to me.

[bossman72]

the PIAA recently released a 5 page statement regarding this article. Here is an excerpt that directly responded to the article:

NOTE REGARDING RECENT PUBLICATIONS ON THIS ISSUE:
In a recent article published by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, it was reported that a few
PIAA-registered officials had been convicted of criminal offenses but had been allowed
to officiate PIAA Contests. The reporter did a thorough job and, while concerned that
any persons convicted of serious crimes have officiated Contests, PIAA was not
disappointed to see that fewer than 1% of the PIAA-registered officials in the District VII
and District VIII areas had prior criminal convictions of any kind, and most of those were
for misdemeanors and offenses that occurred 15 to 20 years ago. PIAA was even more
pleased to note that, after the thorough and yearlong investigation was completed, there
was no finding that any official, at any time, committed an offense relating to, or arising
out of, his or her officiating duties. In any event, PIAA was grateful that the reporter
brought to the attention of PIAA incidents that raise question about whether certain
officials should remain registered with PIAA.
PIAA promptly responded to the information provided to it by investigating the persons
identified by the reporter. Almost all had been convicted of offenses prior to when PIAA
began to require newly registering officials to disclose prior criminal convictions. Most
of the convictions were over ten years ago, with the official maintaining a clean record
since the earlier conviction. Only one of the convictions was for a felony that would
have automatically barred the official from registration (that official, who had already
been suspended by PIAA, will soon have a hearing to determine whether to remove him
from the list of registered officials). PIAA has contacted each of the identified officials
and obtained information permitting PIAA to make a reasoned assessment as to
whether any of them should be disqualified from further officiating. What was learned
about some of the officials identified in the article are set forth below:
● David Coligan: The article reports on various charges brought against Mr.
Coligan, apparently taking as fact the allegations made against him. It then notes in
passing that Mr. Coligan was actually guilty only of a summary offense and paid a $249
fine. A criminal background check of Mr. Coligan would not have disclosed any
offenses that would have barred him from any employment with a school or otherwise.
● William Miller: The article reports that Mr. Miller pled guilty to "interference
with the custody of children." He was placed on probation and received no prison time.
PIAA determined the Mr. Miller was involved with a public outreach ministry in a drug
infested area. The child in question was discovered at the outdoor outreach ministry,
accompanied by sixty other children and four counselors. There was no allegation of
abuse, threats or intimidation of the child.
A couple of additional observations and corrections to the Post-Gazette article are
probably also appropriate for those who may have read it:
● The article incorrectly asserts that "though partially funded by tax dollars, the
PIAA also maintains it is not bound by state laws requiring checks on anyone in contact
with children." This statement is incorrect in both of its premises. First, PIAA is a nonprofit
corporation that is not funded by any governmental entity and receives no tax
dollars. The second error is the incorrect assumption that "state laws require checks on
anyone in contact with children." No such law exists. Rather, Acts 34 and 151 do
require schools to conduct such background checks for certain persons. PIAA,
however, is not a school and, so far as we are aware, no person with knowledge of the
laws has ever implied that the laws would apply to PIAA.
● The article also incorrectly states that Acts 34 and 151 "bar anyone convicted of
most misdemeanors from working in schools near children." The crimes identified
under the Acts are specifically limited to a fairly narrow range of offenses, most of which
are felonies.
● While the article states, without support, that there are dozens of PIAA-registered
officials with criminal records, it fails to note that almost all of these are for summary
offenses or misdemeanors and that most occurred more than ten years ago, with the
officials maintaining a "clean" record since then. None of the offenses relate to
interscholastic athletics.
● The article implied that PIAA, which reported $567,982 in membership dues from
athletic officials, should not have much difficulty in implementing mandatory criminal
background checks. However, those dues total an average of only $41.45 per each of
the 13,700 registered officials and those registration fees are used to cover a wide
range of services provided in training and organization. The anticipated cost of
background

[yawetag]

For those of you that wish to read the full statement: http://www.piaa.org/assets/web/docum...essRelease.pdf

Originally Posted by bossman72

the PIAA recently released a 5 page statement regarding this article. Here is an excerpt that directly responded to the article: