This is starting to become a big story in the Boston area. Does you association have a policy regarding criminal background checks?

First reported in The Salem News last week.
From : http://www.thebostonchannel.com/heal...83/detail.html

SALEM, Mass. -- A convicted sex offender is working as a referee at high school basketball games on the North Shore.

Framingham, Mass., resident Philip Paul was convicted in the late 1980s of indecent assault and battery and rape of a minor.

Paul told the Salem News both convictions involved the same 15-year-old boy in New Hampshire. He served two years in prison.

A supervisor of referees, Paul Halloran, said the local board voted to let Paul continue working because of his clean record since his crimes.

Halloran noted referees have no unsupervised contact with athletes.

Paul is a Level Two sex offender, meaning he has a moderate risk of re-offending.

Paul said that he takes responsibility for what he did, but he's paid his debt to society.

He said in 17 years no one's complained about his conduct or ethics.

Illinois has a criminal background check.

Would Illinois let a guy with a record like that officiate though?

Also in Illinois we have to give information to the IHSA about a conviction dealing with sex offenses or drug offenses and the reasons why we were convicted (if that applies to us) of a crime in order maintain a license. Getting an official's license in our state is like applying for any other license where ethics and responsibility are at the heart of having the license. You have to apply to a state organization and that state organization is responsible for qualifying you to work. It sounds like the problem that might happen in other states is local official’s associations are too involved in giving games and do not have the resources to check up on things like a criminal background of a potential official.

Peace

Nope

I used to have this mindset as well. "It's not like he's gonna have the chance to molest a kid during the game, or even in a locker room after the game."

But somebody on this forum (maybe Juulie) noted that nobody can supervise this ref away from the court after he's built up some trust and/or respect with the players. The players come to have a certain level of trust in the officials if they see them regularly (or at least the officials are no longer "strangers"). So what might happen if the ref just "happens" to run into one of these kids at the mall or somewhere else where they're away from the parents?

While this particular official may have paid for his past crimes, I don't think we can allow him to have that much contact with the kids. JMO.

I suspect this will lead to a host of changes. For now, the high school ruling body, the Mass. Interscholastic Athtletic Assn., is saying that since officials are not school employees -- and since they do not have unsupervised contact with students -- no background checks are required.

The local officials associations in Mass. do not assign officials. They only test them, train them and "certify" that they are properly trained as basketball officials. We are assigned by independent commissioners, who are hired by the leagues (high school athletic directors, for H.S. games) and who can use any official they want.

I suspect the pressure will be great on the MIAA to demand that all officials in all sports submit to a criminal background check. The question -- in part -- is at what point does a criminal background disqualify you from officiating? Is it only sex crimes? What about assault? What about larceny? And I also think the pressure will mount on individual associations to perform their own background checks. But.... I know a lot of officials who do not want the responsibility to decide on their own what should "disqualify" an official from working a game.

I find this topic very uncomfortable. This guy was convicted 18 years ago. He has not been in trouble since. He does not have unsupervised time with the players. Yet I understand why so many people think he should be barred for life from officiating. Of course, that does not stop him from working in a mall, a pizza joint or anywhere else kids hang out.

We let officials with speeding tickets and DUI's officiate. It has been 17 years, how long does he have to "pay for his crimes?"

Here is Jersey there is no background check. But I hear in NYC they are pushing for it. So it may only be a matter of time before we start feeling the heat to do it here.

The problem is we have convinced ourselves that we need to be afraid of everything. When I was growing up we would be exposed to all kinds of things and no one was up in arms. Now we think a background check is going to prevent kids from being violated any more than the guy that has never been caught. I agree we all should know things about people's criminal background, but why is a DUI much better than crimes with drugs or sexual offenses? Just goes to show this country has much hypocrisy that will never be admitted to.

Peace

VA currently doesnt do background checks, at least not VHSL.

Fine and/or prison are not the only way certain crimes are punished. Felons in most states lose voting rights. DUI offenders lose driving privileges. Sex offenders lose the privilege of being around kids.

It's very consistent.

When they are sexual crimes against minors, the answer to your question is "forever". Sex offenders do not get rehabilitated, in my layman's opinion.

Speeding tickets and drunk driving have nothing to do with officiating. You're talking apples and oranges. You want tougher sanctions against drunk drivers? I'm right with you on that, brother. But those issues are separate from allowing sex offenders to interact with children. I don't see the hypocrisy that Rut mentions, at least in this particular case.

OK, whatever you say Dan. ;)

Peace

I, too, have a problem believing that sex offenders ever get "cured." Background checks are coming to officiating I am sure.

Once you commit certain crimes, you should expect that doors will be closed to certain things.