Background Checks

[Adam]

Camron, I think we've about exhausted this from my perspective, so I'll just offer this before I bow out.

Even public information can be considered sensitive and private when it's compiled in a manner that is easily attainable by those without proper clearances. I would also venture to guess that not all states have such information so easily available. Yes, there are police blotters in most newspapers, but if someone applies for an official's license in Denver, we won't be able to dig up old newspaper articles to find out if he's ever been arrested and/or convicted. It would be too cumbersome and labor-intensive.

That's how public information can remain, for the most part, private. In effect if not in theory.

And regarding your response to M&M, my problem is not with someone who may refuse to work with another person with a history they find objectionable. You could refuse to work with someone because he's Republican for all I care. It's the sharing of that ill-gained information I object to.

[M&M Guy]

Camron, maybe you missed my initial point - I'm not against background checks in general. If there's a major problem with an individual, a background check can shed light on that problem and prevent possible future problems of the same issues. If the state says an offical who has a previous history of sexual abuse towards children should not officiate, then a law enforcement background check is certainly the best way to check for that.

One problem I have (and apparently Snaqs agrees as well) is with "unauthorized" people having access to private information, and unfortunately you are helping to prove my point. I don't have a problem with you refusing to work with someone because they have a background you do not agree with. That is certainly your right. What you haven't addressed is your willingness to tell others about that background in order to embarrass or outright prevent that official from working, based on your moral standard, even though they would qualify based on the state's standards. That doesn't simply address your right to not work with that individual, but now you are attempting to impose your standards on them, and their ability to officiate. As you said, and I agree, if you don't like the standard the state imposes, work to change it. But don't impose your own standards unilaterally on others, outside of current regulations. I think it's safe to say you wouldn't like the same done to you.

The other problem I have is whether this addresses a real problem. Your example is very unfortunate, but again, this is one specific incident. Just as important - would a background check have prevented it? Did this individual have a previous record of the same offense, or was this the first conviction? Do sports officials have the same or higher percentage of child sex abuse conviction rates over the general population? If so, then background checks on these convictions would be a good idea. Otherwise, it is at best a waste of money, and at worst a invasion of privacy. I'm not talking about "hiding" things that should be known, I'm talking about keeping things private that don't need to be known.

[rsl]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

So not to be flippant or anything, but just to make a point...

What is this official's name? Since it public information, I'm sure you don't mind posting it. Some of us will search for the newspaper article because we are interested in the details.

Seriously, I don't want you to post the name, but I noticed that you haven't and it goes to the point that sometimes public information is better not shared.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rsl

So not to be flippant or anything, but just to make a point...

What is this official's name? Since it public information, I'm sure you don't mind posting it. Some of us will search for the newspaper article because we are interested in the details.

Seriously, I don't want you to post the name, but I noticed that you haven't and it goes to the point that sometimes public information is better not shared.

While I share your general point at the end, I don't think not posting the name of the official means anything.

1. No one asked.
2. It's not relevant to this discussion, really.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Camron,...

There are a few basic claims in oppostion of background checks:

1. That officials don't have the access to kids to commit such crime
   • I've provided an example that directly refutes those ideas...that the claim that officials don't get such access is false. They do...maybe not as much as teachers or coaches...but they do.
2. That criminal convictions are private...for authorized personnel only
   • They are public record as long as the person is not a minor
   • Define unauthorized. Just who is not authorized to read the newspaper columns mentioning criminal convictions?
   • To tell others about a person's criminal past that may be relevant is merely prudent. It not an invasion of privacy or an attempt to embarrass them. I can't impose my standards on anyone by telling others. It will be the others who make the choice to agree with the risk and take action or to ignore it. It is neither libelous nor slanderous to state provable fact.
3. That officials will be harmed through leaked informatoin far more often that it will protect the kids
   • No example of a "leak" of private information obtained from officials/coaches/teachers background checks has been cited
   • No example of an official being harmed by an error or by an irrelevant conviction has been cited.
   • The common system proposed doesn't communicate the details....only OK or not OK...not much to leak.
4. That a background check wouldn't prevent the crime
   • No claim has been made that it will prevent all crimes.
   • Most people convicted or just about any crime have a hard time changing their behavior....why allow them (those who have a problem that could impact the kids) in a position that puts them closer to the kids than the general public.

Basicaly, the oppostion to them has little merit.

[Adam]

Camron, you have not stated that the example you spoke of would have been prevented by a background check.

You have not addressed the fact that while the information may or may not be public (that will depend on jurisdiction), the labor intensive nature of extracting that information from newspapers and court records essentially makes the information private. My evidence for this is that police officers are prohibited from using their official resources to do background checks outside the performance of their duties. If it's all public information, why would it matter?

You can find plenty of examples of people leaking private information about a person for purposes that are purely vindictive. I don't think this needs to be relegated to examples of officials. For one, background checks on officials are relatively new so there's been far fewer opportunities for this to happen. Secondly, unless you can show a greater propensity among the officiating community for these crimes, the risks of exposure (of the private info) should be considered equal to the general population.

The common system you speak of has to have a decision maker. Someone has to review the entire file in order to make the "go or no go" decision. What then happens to that entire file? I assume there would need to be checks on that process, which would require storage of the entire file. As soon as that file is compiled, it needs to be stored, protected, and restricted.

You're free to be dismissive of the arguments against background checks all you want, but you dismissing them doesn't mean they're without merit any more than me bringing them up gives them merit.

[rsl]

Sorry for my previous post. It was not meant to be hostile, but it definitely read that way.

For the record, I started this reading this thread opposed to checks and would now support limited background checks if my state proposes them.

For completeness, Cameron's summary missed one point. They can be expensive, and it appears that some states are going overboard in what they require. Cost would be an issue for me, and might make not officiate even though my record is clean. Do checks, but keep them simple and inexpensive if possible, and provide an appeal process.

[M&M Guy]

Camron, (ok, you can stop reading now, like you did on the last post. )

But, just in case you are still reading, my opposition never mentioned #1 or #4, and you've mis-represented my oppostion in points #2 and #3. But, I'll give it a shot:

#1 - Since "access to kids" is the standard, do you agree there should be required background checks on all realtives of all kids? (Silly, of course.) But I was not one who advocated not having background checks solely because of access issues. I don't believe I brought it up at all.

#2 - Snaqs makes my point on private vs. public information. If it is all totally public information, why can I not get a background check on you without your permission? I also don't have a problem with allowing what is "relative" information. My objection, which you continue to pass over or ignore, is the issue of who decides what is "relative"? My definition of "relative information" is past convictions based on what the appropriate governing body decides. If they decide all traffic tickets count, then so be it. You have said you would tell others information that the governing body doesn't deem relevent, but that in your opinion should be relevent. That is effectively passing out non-relative information for the purpose of attempting to keep someone from doing something they would be able to do under the current rules as set up. That is one of my 2 main objections. That didn't appear on your list.

#3 - See #2. You've already given me the example of what happens when someone has non-relevent information - you would be happy to leak information that the governing body does not deem relevent to officiating. Are you saying you are the only person that feels that way?

#4 - Background checks will never prevent first-time offenders, or offenders that have avoided prosecution. Was the specific official that you know convicted of any previous crimes that a background check would have detected? Since it is public information, can you find out for us and let us know? Not details, obviously, but I would be willing to reconsider if a background check would've prevented that particular crime.

In the meantime, you still have not shown there is a problem that needs correcting - do sports officials have an equal or greater-than-average percentage of these types of convictions than the general public? (If this is all public information, then someone should have these statistics available.) If so, then fine, background checks should be required for those types of convictions, and those who show those convictions should not be allowed to officiate. I believe I've said that from the beginning. But if there is not a problem to address, than the issue, as mentioned by others, is simply an expense that provides no real benefit.

If we cannot see eye-to-eye on this one, I guess I'm done. I've got burgers to defrost for this weekend.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Camron, (ok, you can stop reading now, like you did on the last post. )

I didn't stop reading nor did I mean to imply my points were in response to your. I was just summarizing the most common objections made by all.

I never said I would "leak" information. If I found out information from a confidential source, I wouldn't spread it outside of appropriate channels. If I knew about from public records (e.g., the newpaper), I would have no problem telling others. That is the difference. If it IS private, I respect that. But much of what has been said to be private is not.

As for the police...they're not allowed to use the police systems to conduct such checks but they're not forbidden from searching in the same ways available to the public.

The percentage of convictions is entirely irrelevant...unless it is 0.

True enough about 1st time offenders...but it will prevent 2nd time offenders from coming from the officiating ranks. Or, are you saying that since you can't stop them all, you shouldn't try to stop any?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I didn't stop reading nor did I mean to imply my points were in response to your. I was just summarizing the most common objections made by all.

I never said I would "leak" information. If I found out information from a confidential source, I wouldn't spread it outside of appropriate channels. If I knew about from public records (e.g., the newpaper), I would have no problem telling others. That is the difference. If it IS private, I respect that. But much of what has been said to be private is not.

As for the police...they're not allowed to use the police systems to conduct such checks but they're not forbidden from searching in the same ways available to the public.

The percentage of convictions is entirely irrelevant...unless it is 0.

True enough about 1st time offenders...but it will prevent 2nd time offenders from coming from the officiating ranks. Or, are you saying that since you can't stop them all, you shouldn't try to stop any?

My follow up question would be whether you'd feel compelled to tell others about information you got from a background check but you assumed was public record.

Yes, police can use other publicly available channels for such things as getting backgrounds on their kids' dates. But even for that, you need a name and date of birth (at least here in CO). Other states, that may not be available without consent of the subject of the check.

No, I'm not saying you shouldn't try to stop any. I'm saying that "even just one" may or may not be worth the effort and expense and privacy invasions. I'm saying it's debatable. If it were a thousand such cases that would have been prevented, it's a no-brainer. If it's zero known cases that would have been prevented, then the question is still unanswered.

Every available means is not necessarily the right way to go. You're right, if it's just $6.95 for a compilation of publicly available information; I'm okay with it with the strong caveat that I want to know who has access to that file, where it's stored (the storage would cover both sides of this, the official and the person who made the decision), and what kind of clearance and training those with access have had.

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There are a few basic claims in oppostion of background checks:[LIST=1][*]That officials don't have the access to kids to commit such crime[LIST][*]I've provided an example that directly refutes those ideas...that the claim that officials don't get such access is false. They do...maybe not as much as teachers or coaches...but they do.

This is incorrect. You have not shown an example of where officials have access due to their being officials that is somehow more privileged than they would otherwise.

Everyone has "access" to kids - since we don't lock kids away in a tower.

Further, as has been asked *several* times, where are the statistics that show this is a problem beyond a singular anecdote, which we have no details about, and frankly, have no real idea is actually relevant?

You are saying that tens of thousands of officials should undergo background checks because of *one* incident?

[*]Most people convicted or just about any crime have a hard time changing their behavior....why allow them (those who have a problem that could impact the kids) in a position that puts them closer to the kids than the general public.

Officials are not "closer" to kids than the general public. The general public is MUCH closer to kids than an official acting in his official capacity. Indeed, I have never once been alone with a child due to my job as an official, yet I am alone with children almost every single day outside that capacity. I suspect this is true for almost all officials.

Basicaly, the oppostion to them has little merit.

No, the demand for them has no merit, and since the burden of proof is on those asking us to submit to them, that ought to be telling. There has not been a single compelling argument made for background checks. The claim that this is a problem has, as its totality of evidence, a single unsourced and un-examined anecdotal "just so" story, while repeated requests for objective measures of the problem have been refused.

The opposition is incredibly simple - you don't have the right to poke around in other people private lives unless you can show a compelling need to do so. No such need has been shown, or even attempted to be shown.

Your entire argument sums up to "Well, if you don't have anything to hide, then it should not matter if I dig into your personal life".

Your statements about your willingness to divulge personal information to others in an effort to get them blacklisted even for crimes that have nothing to do with children is rather telling, I suspect.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Berkut

Further, as has been asked *several* times, where are the statistics that show this is a problem beyond a singular anecdote, which we have no details about, and frankly, have no real idea is actually relevant?

I've asked for the statistics of how many officials have been negatively affected by leaked information...and I've yet to get those. So, by your standard, the leaking of information is not a problem at all.

Originally Posted by Berkut

You are saying that tens of thousands of officials should undergo background checks because of *one* incident?

You've yet to provide how it harms the officials to be checked...where are those statistics?

Originally Posted by Berkut

Your statements about your willingness to divulge personal information to others in an effort to get them blacklisted even for crimes that have nothing to do with children is rather telling, I suspect.

Again, you confuse personal info with public information.

If someone killed 3 people in a bank robbery 20 years ago, they made the choice to forever be a saddled with their crime. Why would I let my friends work with such a person without them knowing who they are working with? Why would I allow them to work games for my friend's kids without making it known so that they can make their own informed decision. I'm not willing to take on that responsibility for others.

[Adam]

Camron, Berkut's point is that the burden is on those who wish to require background checks rather than on those who wish to refrain. Without a compelling benefit, that burden doesn't seem to be met.

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Camron, Berkut's point is that the burden is on those who wish to require background checks rather than on those who wish to refrain. Without a compelling benefit, that burden doesn't seem to be met.

Bingo.

I don't have to prove that I will be harmed in order to refuse to allow someone to dig into my private life - rather you have to prove that any potential harm done to me by said digging is outweighed by a compelling need. And pages and pages of debate later, there has still not be one single piece of objective evidence provided that there is any actual problem here that needs solving.

This is pretty basic stuff, really. According to Camron's idea of "liberty" police should be allowed to search anyone's home anytime they like, even without a warrant - after all, if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't mind anyway...

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Berkut

And pages and pages of debate later, there has still not be one single piece of objective evidence provided that there is any actual problem here that needs solving.

Being that I am in DC and associated with the military - this sounds like our government/military at work.

Let's throw money at it or invent a new process - but, is there really a need or problem to solve? As Berkut says, while I'm sure we don't have all the data, it has not been proven that there is an issue.