Bad PR for PIAA umps
 

Read these articles in today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Absolutely sickening.

All of the stories talk about officials with horrible criminal backgrounds (including child pornography, sexual assault, etc) officiating HS sports in Western Pennsylvania.

I was in the same HS and summer ball association as one the guys that is mentioned in the articles. I probably worked a few dozen games with him over the years. Obviously, I had no idea about his past run-ins with the law. Another poster on this board also was a member of the same association.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08258/912085-454.stm

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08258/912039-454.stm

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08258/912087-364.stm

You're right, Toad. It's not good PR for us. However, when you look at the "others" who are listed, you see that one of them is/was? a social studies teachers at one of the PIAA member schools. So, apparently the Act34 clearance missed it too. No doubt that this reporter just happened to forget to mention that point.

I'm PIAA-registered too - just not in that district. The reporter's project was talked about OFFLINE by a number of us at this year's convention. The consensus was that background checks are probably coming AND that they are pretty much useless.

If/when the checks come, I am not sure right now whether I am going to be willing to pay to have somebody check my background. If I decide not to go through that, I guess I'll be done with high school sports.

They are going to require that the officials to foot the bill? hmm...I wouldn't imagine that many officials would like that, no matter if they have something to hide or not.

-Josh

IHSA requires a check. It's included in the fees. But they're only good if you've been caught before.

With the increase in the registration fees - the official ends up paying for these checks. Did you get an increase in game fees to covers the additional cost? Probably not.

Steve,

I agree that they are only good if you have been caught. Rumor has it that my former association, both HS and summer ball, are considering getting the background checks next year even if they are not a PIAA requirement. They see it as a way to get more games and/or pay.

my.02
 

its certainly not good news/pr for the organization.....I expect background checks to become standard soon.... I dont have a problem with it as I already have to have one for another league I call. It cost me $10.....(league splits the cost with us)

I have not worked with any of the people named in the article, but they did officiate basketball and football at my local HS....

This is a bit reactionary, given the lists of crimes in the article.

I have a conviction of one of those crimes listed.

I work in law enforcement. I also have a TS/SCI security clearance due to my position in the Army.

But I guess I would be one of those scumbag criminals that shouldn't be around children, huh?

Being a law enforcement officer and having certain security clearance does not make your conviction any better looking than someone with the same conviction and a different job and no security clearance.

I'm not an LEO. I get paid more than them.

My point is that a conviction for a minor offense (which would be the majority of the crimes mentioned in the article) in no way affects my abilities or responsibilities, or the safety of others. It is a meaningless issue at this point, just like the majority of crimes listed in the article.

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.

DUI not serious?
 

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.

Because they make no distinctions. A thirty-year veteran umpire who may have shoplifted as an 18-year-old, but has not had so much as a speeding ticket since then, would be included on this list.

The story is a useless piece of incomplete information.

True, I guess that does go to character.


Tim.

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.