Criminal Record Checks

[Bad Zebra]

State of Florida requires any individual who works on a high school campus to submit to a fingerprint and background check every five years. The state legislature passed the Jessica Lunsford act several years ago and all sports officials as well as any other type of subcontractor or contractor who enters school grounds must submit as a condition of their hiring.

It is expensive to say the least...around $65 per individual. Initially the state and local school boards absorbed the cost for officials. Now, a couple years in, we're on our own. Kind of a sign of the times we live and work in.

Jessica Lunsford was a 9 year old was was raped and murdered by a convicted sex offender in Feb 2005. Her assailant lived about 100 yards from her home. The Jessica Lunsford act also requires much closer tracking of sex offenders in Florida, which seem to be abundant here. Her murderer awaits execution on Florida's death row.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

Her murderer awaits execution on Florida's death row.

They should bring Old Sparky out of retirement.

[Back In The Saddle]

I'd prefer to see him drawn and quarted with a rusty, dull chainsaw. But we could strap the pieces into old sparky and have a go with it.

[jmaellis]

I was surprised when I began officiating volleyball about three years ago, then basketball last year and softball this year that I have not been asked/required to undergo a criminal background check. Rationalizing that sports officials are somehow less of a threat because they (are supposed to) only have contact with the children on the court, is just not a reasonable excuse for not having them undergo some sort of background check. Officiating could easily provide the opportunity for future access to the child/teen.

With that being said, the truth of the matter is, even though we need to be concerned about those people with a history, we need to be even more concerned about those who have yet to be caught.

[MadCityRef]

When the Jessica law first came into effect, the b/g check was for EACH county in FLA the official worked.

IL, yes, included in license fee. WI, none.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jmaellis

Rationalizing that sports officials are somehow less of a threat because they (are supposed to) only have contact with the children on the court, is just not a reasonable excuse for not having them undergo some sort of background check. Officiating could easily provide the opportunity for future access to the child/teen.

How so? I'm not rationalizing it. I'm thinking of the cost against the risk. The cost is high, especially since most of the time the officials would have to foot the bill for the background checks. The risk of not doing it is extremely low.

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

How so? I'm not rationalizing it. I'm thinking of the cost against the risk. The cost is high, especially since most of the time the officials would have to foot the bill for the background checks. The risk of not doing it is extremely low.

In Washington State, we have to submit one every 2-3 years. No cost to us. I haven't talked to any officials in our area that are against it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by zebraman

In Washington State, we have to submit one every 2-3 years. No cost to us. I haven't talked to any officials in our area that are against it.

I wouldn't have a problem with it either if I didn't have to pay for it. Although, if the state is paying for them, I'd probably have a problem as a tax-payer. I think it's a waste of money.

It's not an issue in Colorado, though, so I don't have a dog in the fight either way.

[Texas Aggie]

Background Checks will begin in Texas starting the 08-09 school year, and at a cost or $65-85 to each official.

This isn't settled yet. TASO is looking to see if officials are covered by a recently enacted state statute that talks about employees of school district contractors being required to have background checks conducted. There are a lot of problems with this. First of all, officials aren't employees. Second, usually, the local chapter doesn't actually contract with the school but rather with the school. Some may say this is a distinction without a difference, but that can be important when discussing statutory interpretation. Finally, believe it or not, the way the statute is worded, it doesn't make clear what hurdles, if any, must be cleared. In other words, the individual doesn't actually have to PASS a background check, just have one administered. In addition, it doesn't talk about what offenses or other background information would disqualify an official from working. Could a quick search on publicdata.com suffice? I see nothing in the statute that says it can't. Thus, an expensive check may not be necessary.

With that said, it appears that I am one of the ones in our chapter who, by committee appointment, will be working on this. Lets keep this topic active because I'm interested in what's going on elsewhere.

[jmaellis]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

How so? I'm not rationalizing it. I'm thinking of the cost against the risk. The cost is high, especially since most of the time the officials would have to foot the bill for the background checks. The risk of not doing it is extremely low.

I've been a law enforcement officer for 16 years; the past 10 as a detective/investigator handling primarily crimes against children. I'm not trying to be snotty, but you obviously are not informed regarding who is a "risk", and what the levels of risk are.

Although I completely agree that officials should not have to foot the bill, or all of it; I'm still, never-the-less very surprised that as a three sport official I've not been required to go through at least a basic background check.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jmaellis

I've been a law enforcement officer for 16 years; the past 10 as a detective/investigator handling primarily crimes against children. I'm not trying to be snotty, but you obviously are not informed regarding who is a "risk", and what the levels of risk are.

It wouldn't be the first time I spouted off without knowing what I was talking about.

That said, tell me how officials present a risk for committing crimes against children and how that risk is enhanced by the nature of our work as officials. Inform me.

Also, can someone point to a single instance where a child was molested by an official with aid from his position as an official. To make it even more difficult, I'd add that we should be able to show that the instance would not have happened if background checks had been done on that official.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Also, can someone point to a single instance where a child was molested by an official with aid from his position as an official. To make it even more difficult, I'd add that we should be able to show that the instance would not have happened if background checks had been done on that official.

We had an official convicted a major crime a few years ago for getting into a relationship with an underaged player he initially met at games (he was probably around 30, she was about 15-16). I think it was statutory rape??? It may have been some other charge but he did real prison time.

Would the check have prevented it (it was before Oregon did checks)??? I don't know, but it will make sure he doesn't get another chance.

[jmaellis]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It wouldn't be the first time I spouted off without knowing what I was talking about.

That said, tell me how officials present a risk for committing crimes against children and how that risk is enhanced by the nature of our work as officials. Inform me.

The issue with regard to child molesters is access .. and the potential for future, unsupervised access, sometimes well into the future. Here is a scenario that's not to far fetched in my experience:

"Hi there, I'm sorry I had to call you for all those [insert violation, foul]. You know, I like to help out kids who are having trouble with their game. Your coach probably doesn't have the time to spend with you as an individual to improve your game. I'll be hosting a clinic with just a few girls/boys on [insert date & time] @ [insert location, probably a public access playground or similar]. Come on buy, it's free." So she/he shows up and, behold, she/he is the only kid there.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Also, can someone point to a single instance where a child was molested by an official with aid from his position as an official.

You asked: http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/oc...r-life-prison/

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

To make it even more difficult, I'd add that we should be able to show that the instance would not have happened if background checks had been done on that official.

Unfortunately, thats not quantifiable. If there was something in his background, would it have disqualified him from being an official. What is the standard for that association, local or state? Regardless, assuming there was not a background check on this official, if there had been and there was something there, at least you would know.

I'm sure it's clear that I think background checks are important, and that the benefits far outweigh the cost (regardless of who is paying), Background checks can (but now always) weed out potential problem people.

BUT, regardless of whether or not someone is in favor of mandated background checks, the reality is that they only alert you to those that have already been caught .. we should be equally concerned about those that have yet to be caught.

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Also, can someone point to a single instance where a child was molested by an official with aid from his position as an official. To make it even more difficult, I'd add that we should be able to show that the instance would not have happened if background checks had been done on that official.

I know of two officials locally (not basketball) who used their position as a referee to get to know young athletes which then led to inappropriate interaction. Those officials were terminated. I have also read a couple newspaper stories in our state in the past couple of years where officials were sent to prison for using their officiating as a way to get to know young athletes and then abusing them sexually. Background checks won't stop everything, but they could help keep previous abusers from joining our ranks.

[BigTex]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It wouldn't be the first time I spouted off without knowing what I was talking about.

That said, tell me how officials present a risk for committing crimes against children and how that risk is enhanced by the nature of our work as officials. Inform me.

Also, can someone point to a single instance where a child was molested by an official with aid from his position as an official. To make it even more difficult, I'd add that we should be able to show that the instance would not have happened if background checks had been done on that official.

When an official enters the school, s/he basically has free roam of the place. The threat is not necessarily on the court, but possibly at other times and in other places around the school. As a parent of school-aged children, an official, and a member of Law Enforcement, I have no problems with background checks. I think anyone (maintenance, contractors, catering, repairmen, etc) who has unescorted access to schools should undergo some kind of check.