Most of you have read how in Florida this year a little girl was kidnapped and killed by a pervert sex offender.
That girl was Jessica Lunsford and what happened to her is beyond horrible.
We are all offended that a child could be harmed like this.


Since that happened, the Florida Legislature passed a new law that was signed by the governor. The Lusford Act is the name of this revision of an existing law.
Florida Statute 1012.32.

Only now, about eight weeks before the law coming into use (September 1st) has anyone really taken a look at what it means.

Effective this year, if you officiate for Florida schools,

1. You have to have a background check that includes a nationwide FBI check called a Level 2
Not a problem for the vast majority of us but......
The list of disqualifies is extensive and there is at present no course of appeal.
If you have paid the penalty of your felony offense and have restored you voting rights, too bad.

2. If you work in more than one county, you must have a separate background check for each county.
Why? Each county?

3. You have to pay in excess of 60 dollars for each background check.
No agency has agreed on the cost yet but everyone is pretty sure it is more than 60 dollars each

4. You have to have this background check where you are fingerprinted performed at the school district offices where an automated system scans your fingerprints and submits it.
So you have to travel to each County Seat to get a check done,

No problem for many, but I worked in ten counties in the 2004 season and in five counties in the 2005 season.

5. At present, there is no agreement as to who pays for this.
The Florida Department of Law Enforcement does not know, The Florida Department of Education says the school systems must pay. Some school boards say the officials must absorb the cost.

In the county where I live, it will cost (to someone) between 30 to 40 thousand dollars

You read that right, $30,000 to $40,000 dollars.

At the present rates, Florida High School sports officials will (on average) have to work a minimum of three games just to pay for our registration and background checks

Then there are the issues for our school systems in that all volunteers on school grounds have to have this background check. So long to the homeroom moms, to the parents who keep the scorebooks, to the reading coaches etc unless you have the check done.

All deliveries to the schools also fall under this law. So now, the cafeteria deliveries are a problem, The UPS delivery is a problem, office supply deliveries are not allowed without a background check.

I have had one School Board member tell me that it is possible that the schools will not be able to perform their day-to-day business after September 1st.


What a mess,
First, you have to prove you are innocent then you have to pay to work.

A law designed to protect our kids is in the end going to hurt those very kids

Oh no, the sky is falling.

These background checks are needed to protect children from being around predators.

Many states do them.

I don't know of any state that has implemented it in a way where it is prohibitively expensive or complicated for officials.

Z

Zebraman,
I appreciate your insinuation that I am chicken little (insert the sarcasm here)

I posted the message to point out how things affect us.
If our schools end up having to foot this bill for backgournd check it will be a disaster for scholastic athletics.

We have been assured that if the schools have to pay, then athletics will cesae to exist in the 10th largest school district in the nation.

Not good,
nor is it good for the athletes who are trying to get to college on athletic scholarships etc.

This all stems from a guy who kidnapped and killed a child who lived across the road from him

Not from a school, nor was he a teacher, volunteer, or sports official.

Our legislature used a sledgehammer to kill a gnat.

Hopefully, when you guys have to face this issue you can speak to what we are experiencing so that your schools don't suffer the same turmoil

I'm not sure, Dan. I know that our background check in Oregon is state-level only, and we don't have to get a different one for each county in which we work, so we're not paying nearly as much. We also only pay for one per year, regardless of how many sports we work, so if a person works two or three sports, it only adds $15 or $20 to whatever fees the association charges for membership. If we had to add $60 or more to our membership fees, it would be a substantial raise in cost, and a detriment to good reffing in Portland. And if anyone else had to foot this bill, it would be a huge detriment to high school sports in Portland. I think Scott has a point that the Florida legislature is shooting a sparrow with a howitzer.

[Edited by Brad on Jun 30th, 2005 at 01:56 PM]

I'm not sure, Dan. I know that our background check in Oregon is state-level only, and we don't have to get a different one for each county in which we work, so we're not paying nearly as much. We also only pay for one per year, regardless of how many sports we work, so if a person works two or three sports, it only adds $15 or $20 to whatever fees the association charges for membership. If we had to add $60 or more to our membership fees, it would be a substantial raise in cost, and a detriment to good reffing in Portland. And if anyone else had to foot this bill, it would be a huge detriment to high school sports in Portland. I think Scott has a point that the Florida legislature is shooting a sparrow with a howitzer. [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what you're not sure of, so let's try & narrow it down:

- Did I say many of us found the process, in practice, to be no big deal? I think I did.

- Did you say you found the process, in practice, to be no big deal? I think you did.

- Are you saying that requiring a 1 time expense of $60 is too much to pay to ensure the safety of kids? I hope not.

As for Florida requiring county by county checks...maybe some really bright Floridian will discover there are these things called "computers" which can be attached with "wires" so they can "share information" from county to county.

Amazing, I know, but true.

Scott,

Our state has had background checks since around 1998. Our state pays for them and it is not a big deal. We had to start these checks when someone that officiated had been found out to have been a child sex offender. Then everyone had to give their state IDs to verify their criminal record. It is really not a big deal. If you have not done anything, you really do not have much to worry about. I have done background checks for certain licenses outside of officiating before. I really think you are over reacting.

Peace

In some states, you don't even need the wires to connect the computers!

The idea of the checks is ok, the problem lies in the implementation.
Obviously you did read teh post very well.

there is no real plan in place as to who pays
Or how much
who controls the checks
the law requires a check in each county it doesn't matter if you fax the report of email it. NOT ALLOWED

How many officials work in the county in which you work?
We have between 500 and 600 in one county alone
Now add the rest of the state.
The schools can't afford it nor can the absorb the cost for their volunteers.

Does your state requre every delivery driver to the schools to have a background check?
I am willing to bet the don't.

Hell, the power companies will have to have teh checks in order to repair transformers on the grounds (Lightening is a huge factor here with hundreds of strikes a day, and lightening is a year round problem here)


[Edited by Brad on Jun 30th, 2005 at 01:56 PM]

Let's bring 'em along slowly.

Scott,

If you do not know how this is going to be implemented, what makes you think each school is going to have to pay for a background check?

Our state Athletic Association gives us our background checks. I am sure that if there are background checks, the information is going to be passed around.

As I stated, I am sure they are not going to make each county pay for a completely different background check every single time you work. I am sure you will have to take one background check, given by your association and that information will be made available to the individuals that it matters to. I would really suspect if you have something in your record that would be a concern to the schools than you (or anyone) would not be able to work across the state. Then you probably would not be licensed to work games in the entire state.

Peace

I'm not sure what you're not sure of, so let's try & narrow it down:

- Did I say many of us found the process, in practice, to be no big deal? I think I did.

- Did you say you found the process, in practice, to be no big deal? I think you did.

- Are you saying that requiring a 1 time expense of $60 is too much to pay to ensure the safety of kids? I hope not.

As for Florida requiring county by county checks...maybe some really bright Floridian will discover there are these things called "computers" which can be attached with "wires" so they can "share information" from county to county.

Amazing, I know, but true.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Wow, feeling curmudgeonly today, Dan?

I think Scott's point is that it won't be just $60, it will be substantially higher, and that no one quite knows how high. and that there will be many refs who won't pay it. and that schools won't want to absorb the increased cost for refs, since this bill gives them a number of other background check costs.

I think Scott's point is that this bill was an over-reaction and is going to cause problems for Florida refs. I think we can afford to notice the problem, and wonder if our states will over-react, too. Got no sympathy at all for that, Dan?

Of 4 people who offered an opinion all said their own experience was it's not a big deal.

I don't expect my particular state will rewrite the current laws to mirror what's going on in Florida (more likely they'll repeal the current laws once they discover Florida has done something similar).

In any event anybody who has contact with kids needs to certify, somehow, that they are trustworthy. Period.

So no, I have no sympathy for your position that Florida is 'over-reacting' and doing too much to protect the kids in Forida.

It sounds like there is a lot of speculation. Has the system been put in place yet? Has it been decided who is going to pay and how the information is going to be shared? I would assume that some consideration is going to be made for officials based on the current structure of officiating. I would seriously doubt that a law would be put in place that would totally rock the normal practices and have individual officials pay thousands of dollars to get a background check to make only a few hundred dollars. Until Scott has more information, I think his concerns might be an over-reaction to what will really happen. If that concern is a strong concern, I am sure he could talk to a State Senator or some school officials to voice his concern. Until all that happens, we are just speculating at this time.

Peace

What I know for sure is that there have been laws enacted in Oregon that were feard to "going to end life as we know it" and then didn't, and there have been bills that were feard and then did. I guess time will tell whether Florida has gone to far. Scott, I hope you'll update us in September as to the reality that falls into place.

Wouldnt it make sense for the assoc. to process a bg check ONCE and then not assign that official, or instate that person for officiating?

I'd like to play devil's advocate for the moment. Can anyone quote one case where a high school sports official sexually molested a player? I'm trying to understand how that would work with 1000 people packed into the gym watching. Maybe he sneaks into the locker room after the game and rapes the star center. It would seem to me that a fan in the stands would have more opportunity to molest a player than an official. Do all of the fans have to have a background check before buying a ticket to the gym? Do we have background checks before anyone can enter school property.

To repeat my initial request. Name a case where a high school sports official sexually molested a player.

Might be more worried of comments made by some official who may be a sex offender.

My thought on the Florida stuff is they haven't decided what to do about the checks yet but when they do I hope the system isn't as screwed up as the voting in 2000 was.

http://www.gopfun.com/2000archives/ballot.htm

Try voting for anybody but Gore

Not to worry. Florida has a new system:

http://media.funny.co.uk/files/2795.jpg

Some of the problems with the new law is that there is no control stated in the law. ie who holds the checks or who pays.

We do have legal opinions that say the school boards have to pay which they cannot afford.
We as an association cannot run the checks and then "assure" the school boards because of constraints within the law.

The cost is not even been agreed upon. I have heard and read numbers between 47 and 100 but nobody can actually point to any one thing and say, "It costs X dollars"

Under the law, the check must be done with the FDLE and then the FBI to reach a level 2 clearance.

From what I have been told about other states, and I believe the FHSAA staff, no one knows of another state that has officials that have to meet these restrictions.

Let me quote this applicable part to you,
"The security background investigations under this section must ensure that no persons subject to the provisions of this section have
<b> been found guilty of, regardless of adjudication, or entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to, </b>
any offense prohibited under any of the following provisions of the Florida Statutes or under any similar statute of another jurisdiction:"

Take a look at the disqualifiers, most don't even deal with kids or sex.

(a) Section 393.135, relating to sexual misconduct with certain developmentally disabled clients and reporting of such sexual misconduct.
(b) Section 394.4593, relating to sexual misconduct with certain mental health patients and reporting of such sexual misconduct.
(c) Section 415.111, relating to adult abuse, neglect, or exploitation of aged persons or disabled adults.
(d) Section 782.04, relating to murder.
(e) Section 782.07, relating to manslaughter, aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult, or aggravated manslaughter of a child.
(f) Section 782.071, relating to vehicular homicide.
(g) Section 782.09, relating to killing of an unborn child by injury to the mother.
(h) Section 784.011, relating to assault, if the victim of the offense was a minor.
(i) Section 784.021, relating to aggravated assault.
(j) Section 784.03, relating to battery, if the victim of the offense was a minor.
(k) Section 784.045, relating to aggravated battery.
(l) Section 784.075, relating to battery on a detention or commitment facility staff.
(m) Section 787.01, relating to kidnapping.
(n) Section 787.02, relating to false imprisonment.
(o) Section 787.04(2), relating to taking, enticing, or removing a child beyond the state limits with criminal intent pending custody proceedings.
(p) Section 787.04(3), relating to carrying a child beyond the state lines with criminal intent to avoid producing a child at a custody hearing or delivering the child to the designated person.
(q) Section 790.115(1), relating to exhibiting firearms or weapons within 1,000 feet of a school.
(r) Section 790.115(2)(b), relating to possessing an electric weapon or device, destructive device, or other weapon on school property.
(s) Section 794.011, relating to sexual battery.
(t) Former s. 794.041, relating to prohibited acts of persons in familial or custodial authority.
(u) Chapter 796, relating to prostitution.
(v) Section 798.02, relating to lewd and lascivious behavior.
(w) Chapter 800, relating to lewdness and indecent exposure.
(x) Section 806.01, relating to arson.
(y) Chapter 812, relating to theft, robbery, and related crimes, if the offense is a felony.
(z) Section 817.563, relating to fraudulent sale of controlled substances, only if the offense was a felony.
(aa) Section 825.102, relating to abuse, aggravated abuse, or neglect of an elderly person or disabled adult.
(bb) Section 825.1025, relating to lewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of an elderly person or disabled adult.
(cc) Section 825.103, relating to exploitation of an elderly person or disabled adult, if the offense was a felony.
(dd) Section 826.04, relating to incest.
(ee) Section 827.03, relating to child abuse, aggravated child abuse, or neglect of a child.
(ff) Section 827.04, relating to contributing to the delinquency or dependency of a child.
(gg) Former s. 827.05, relating to negligent treatment of children.
(hh) Section 827.071, relating to sexual performance by a child.
(ii) Section 843.01, relating to resisting arrest with violence.
(jj) Section 843.025, relating to depriving a law enforcement, correctional, or correctional probation officer means of protection or communication.
(kk) Section 843.12, relating to aiding in an escape.
(ll) Section 843.13, relating to aiding in the escape of juvenile inmates in correctional institutions.
(mm) Chapter 847, relating to obscene literature.
(nn) Section 874.05(1), relating to encouraging or recruiting another to join a criminal gang.
(oo) Chapter 893, relating to drug abuse prevention and control, only if the offense was a felony or if any other person involved in the offense was a minor.
(pp) Section 916.0175, relating to sexual misconduct with certain forensic clients and reporting of such sexual misconduct.
(qq) Section 944.35(3), relating to inflicting cruel or inhuman treatment on an inmate resulting in great bodily harm.
(rr) Section 944.46, relating to harboring, concealing, or aiding an escaped prisoner.
(ss) Section 944.47, relating to introduction of contraband into a correctional facility.
(tt) Section 985.4045, relating to sexual misconduct in juvenile justice programs.
(uu) Section 985.4046, relating to contraband introduced into detention facilities.

The new system aint gonna work.

They show the circle as being black, but the crayon is red.

Under the law, we as an association cannot run the checks
It has to be done by the school board (one per county) AND because of the wording of the law, we have to get one for each county.

That is another reason we are raising a fuss over it.

All of this areas legislators are involved as well as the media in the Tampa area.

Well, THIS guy won't be getting many games...http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/12016640.htm

Post fixed above so that the link works.

I'm sorry that I fixed it after I read it. From <b>below</b> an outhouse seat? Shudder!

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jun 29th, 2005 at 08:09 PM]

Thanks for the fix. The guy is NOT going from the outhouse to the penthouse. The story is on yahoo as the link may require registration. Many of those are chemical jobs along that highway.

You can enter nh peeping tom outhouse or something like that.

[Edited by 26 Year Gap on Jun 29th, 2005 at 08:30 PM]

I have to register to see that article, can anyone give another link o post?

go to yahoo or google & enter "nh peeping tom outhouse" in the 'news' section.

Here's the story....yuck!

ALBANY, N.H. (AHN) - A teenage girl went to use the bathroom and found the something toilet looking back at her.

Police pulled 45-year old Gary Moody from a tank under the toilet of log cabin outhouse off the Kancamagas Highway in Albany - the tank and the man was full of human waste.


According to police, they got a call from the parents of a teenage girl who said when she went to use the facilities, she saw Moody's face staring back at her from the hole.

Moody was hosed off before police cuffed him, reporting he was treated like "hazardous material."



Police reportedly don't know how long Moody was in the tank, but because the door was locked, authorities figure he must have gone in through the toilet.


Moody is charged with criminal trespass and could face more charges. He is out on bail and due back in court next month.

They were talking about that story this morning on the radio but I figured it was just a bunch of crap.

Well, we know what he has for brains.

Don't count on it, Dan - this is the state where elderly Jewish ladies who were life-long Democrats somehow decided to vote for Pat Buchannan . . .