Pervets, new laws and effects

[scottk_61]

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

[zebraman]

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

[scottk_61]

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

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
[B]

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]

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rainmaker


Many of us have faced this issue already, in practice it's no BFD.

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
[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.

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

[scottk_61]

Originally posted by Dan_ref


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.

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]

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

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

Let's bring 'em along slowly.

[JRutledge]

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

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

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.

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?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rainmaker
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.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by rainmaker


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?

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

[rainmaker]

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.

[ace]

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?