It seems that if a state wants to implement background checks, they should set up some sort of appeal process for those with a record. Not that I want to create a loophole, but there is no objective criteria for what should disqualify an official. This is a case where a subjective human has to make a judgment call.

You know, kind of like calling a backcourt violation with the last touch/first touch rule. Depends on the situation. :)

By the way, Snaqwells- If we didn't have rhetorical questions, could we still ask hypothetical questions?

Oh I absolutely agree. But it's that lack of objective criteria that makes me think we should just limit it to sexual crimes. And this crap about some child sex crimes not making the list is just crazy. It may be the nuclear option, but it's a nuclear crime; even the first time. That's the whole point of the registry, to prevent (as much as possible) a second time.

The other stuff comes out in other ways, IMO. Someone with a violent personality will expose that personality flaw very quickly as an official and won't last long. There is also a good deal of self-selection involved, in that those personality types don't gravitate towards officiating anyway. They'll stick out in our crowd.

And I love the hypothetical question and plan on using it. Thanks.

True, but I think that often we are so worried about being objective that we create strict rules that end up being worse than simply dealing with the problems of subjectivity, while (obviously) losing the advantages of subjectivity.

Well, I think that is the problem - people get rather simplistic with it - "All sex crimes should be the 'nuclear' option!" which is why you end up with situation where some guy has sex with his 16 year old girlfriend, and now he is a "sex offender".

Or someone gets drunk and grabs a waitresses boob and suddenly he is a registered sex offender.

I am now saying those things are not bad - but they aren't really what the sex offender registeries are for, or should be for, which is to protect people from a potential predator. As a general rule, we hold to the idea that once you serve your time, society has no right to ostracize you in an excessive way. We make an exception for sexual crimes due to recidivism rates and the danger they pose to children.

So when we toss a bunch of people in there who do not fit that profile, we are probably doing them a disservice, while at the same time diluting the power of the registery for those who do fir that profile.

And there is a clear correlation to background checks for officials. By casting the net ridiculously widely (ALL officials must be checked) while not showing any tangible benefit (officials are not really the threat to begin with in any statistically significant manner), we are making that same error, IMO.

I agree in principal (you'll find no one more annoyed at "zero tolerance" than I am). I'm still pondering this whole thing, frankly.

Frankly, I agree with all of this. My point is that someone had mentioned that a child porn conviction did not necessarily put someone on the list. In my opinion, it should. Someone gets a kiddie porn conviction, stick him in the registry.

A young adult with an older teenager? No way. Or the kids getting sex-crime convictions for sexting on their cell phones? Stupid.

Certain crimes (kiddie porn, predatory rape) should be automatic registration upon release. Others (statutory rape) should allow for some discretion from the judge and/or jury.

That's due to a medical condition. Don't you watch "Nurse Jackie" on Showtime?

http://l.yimg.com/l/tv/us/img/site/8...0132028_th.jpg

Camron, I see you feel very strongly about this, and that's fine - you certainly have a right to feel that way. But what if the state you're working doesn't use that criteria for denial of an officiating license? And you somehow found out by accident a new official, who just moved to the area, had a murder conviction 20 years ago, and now wants to be a member of your association and work HS games. Would you refuse to work games with that person? What do you tell others about your refusal to work with that person? Do you feel strongly enough to let others know not to let this individual be an official? Which is more important to you - your feelings that a former murder should never be around kids anymore for the rest of his/her life, or do you respect the state association's right to select the criteria and that person's right to privacy about his/her past? Would you "grin and bear it" and work that other official anyway?

I don't think the above questions would fall under "paranoia", but rather they are legitimate questions involving how people react to information they would or should not normally have access to. Should Camron decide this new offical shouldn't work, and do whatever he can to let others know about this information, when the state association already decided they could work as an official? What if there are others in the state office, or local associations, that feel strongly about other types of charges, such as tax evasion, or draft-dodging? Do they get to make the same decisions to attempt to allow or deny a person to officiate based on their own feelings and standards?

If you want to change the state criteria and make murder or manslaughter a reason for denial, or any other type of conviction, then so be it. But I'm not sure it's "paranoia" to think others can use the information outside of proper channels to forward their own line of thinking, even if it was to do their best to embarrass the individual to keep them from officiating.

Finally, I still have yet to hear of any particular incident involving abuse or crime against a child by an official using their position as an official, much less multiple incidents. I have, however, heard and read about multiple stories of teachers sexually abusing students - so it makes sense to give teachers background checks. I've also heard multiple stories of relatives abusing children - where's the outrage about states or the federal government not requiring background checks on all relatives before they are allowed to have contact with those kids? As mentioned before, what problem are we addressing with background checks for officials? And why does the official have to bear the cost?

Would a background check reveal if a guy is a registered sax offender?

http://c1.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/i...709b21df4c.jpg

Keep that up and you'll be singing a different tune.

Oh I doubt that.

Yes...I would refuse...as an independant contractor, that is among my rights. And yes, I would tell others...about the persons conviction and that I have chosen to not work with them. Just becasue an organization has a hole in its policies doesn't mean you have to ignore issues.

If it is information the public shouldn't have access to, fight to have the information taken off the public record.

I have, several pages ago, provides exactly such an example. Not from hearsay...from a local example of a person I have worked games with.

What problem? An opportunity to repeat their offense. It may not stop it completely but it does close one door. And why the official? Becasue we're independant contractors...it is up to us to meet the qualifications for the job.

I would add to M&M's request the desire to find such an example that would have been prevented with background checks but not with a sex registry check.

And your answer to his other point really lays it out. You put murder on your list, what about DUI? Or Fraud? Or check kiting?

And your willingness to share that information with others is why I don't like the idea, in general. When Nosy Ned gets a hold of a file and sees things that he doens't like but the state has deemed irrelevant, Nosy Ned will be likely to share that info; unless he has a very real incentive not to.

I have access to such files in my job (not public record, but accessible with background checks), but it's very clear that I can only access them for job related purposes and I cannot share the information I get with anyone who does not share my job related purpose. If I decide to break that trust, I risk my clearance and by extension my job.

Nosy Ned has no such incentive for secrecy since he likely got the information by other-than-legal means. Worse, what happens if Nosy Ned is the one trusted with reviewing the files to ensure the applicants meet the state standards? That's why one of my questions is whether the person responsible for reviewing the files has a law enforcement security clearance.

This is exactly the sentiment that bothers me. You are, in effect, taking policy that is enacted by a governing body, into your own hands. In law enforcement, those people are called vigilanties. If you truly believe that there should be a longer list of disqualifying charges, then, as you say in the next quote, why not fight to have the policy changed? Why do you get to impose your values unto someone else, over and above what the governing body dictates? And, if you get to do that, then so should others. What about the person who feels a female who had an abortion should never officiate because they murdered a child? Or, how about the husband of that woman? Aren't they effectively guilty of conspiracy, and should not be allowed to ever come near a child as well? What about the assignor who feels any convicted offense, traffic tickets included, reflects upon the integrity of the person, and therefore should not be allowed to officiate?

If you feel my examples are starting to get silly, then why do you get to draw the line over what's important and what's "silly" when it comes to other people's lives? You have a right to control what you do, and you can chose not to work with that person. But it is the telling others about private information that bothers me. It is imposing your different standards over and above what the governing body has already determined.

Now here's the part I honestly have a question about - is it truly a public record? Can I go in anywhere and request a full background check on you, without your permission?

I did see that, but you didn't say whether that person, who is still in jail, committed the crime as a result of being an official, or was that a person who committed a crime, who also happened to be an official?

So you don't believe someone who has committed any crime can ever be considered rehabilitated?

As I mentioned before, there are crimes I think we all can agree should disqualify an individual from being a licensed official for school games. But it is up to the governing body that issues the licenses to determine what those specific disqualifying events should be. And the information provided should be only about those specific requirements, not about everything.

Partly because I'm an independent contractor. I get to choose who I will and will not work with. If I were an employee, I wouldn't have such freedom...short of quitting.

Again, as independent contractors, we can choose who we will or will not work with...doesn't have to be rational.

Once again, the assignor can choose who to hire however they see fit as long as it doesn't touch any of the protected areas (race, gender, etc.).

If the assignor feels that a traffic ticket is sufficient to exclude people, that is their choice...they're doing the hiring....as long as they do it consistently.

Those governing bodies aren't ruling that the information can be known...just that they don't consider it to be enough to exclude the person. Again, you are calling it private information. It is not. The guilty party might want it to be private but they don't have that choice.

Most arrests and convictions are public record. My local newspaper lists all arrests made by the city police each week. Court cases are also widely reported in newspapers...not necessarily front page but somewhere.

If a person can't talk about the facts detailed in a newspaper article, what can anyone talk about?
Yes, the initial contacts with the juvenile were directly through their position as an official. The acquaintance and initial "relationship" was started in the gym during and/or around the games with him there as an official. They then got together outside of the game setting and the rest is history.

Sure I do....but recidivism rates are strongly against them. They're welcome to do lots of things. But for many offenses, they shouldn't be allowed easy access to society's more vulnerable members.

Can't really disagree there....I'm just puzzled about the complete resistance to background checks. I'm fine with governing bodies doing that job if they are actually doing it. But the lack of the governing bodies doing the right thing doesn't mean that a problem should be ignored.