I don't think it is. I know all of the states around me when I first got my license in the early 80s had "paper" drivers licenses without pictures. The transistion to pictures occured in the mid 80's. Technology made photo ID's much easier around then. Before, they would have to take a paper "photo" and laminate it along with a paper license. The ability to print photos onto plastic licenses just didn't widely exist much earlier.

Well, if they're asking you to submit it to EVERY venu, I agree that is unnecessary. Only the state certification should need access to the info. Being certified by the state should be sufficient to the venus to indicate that your check has been done.

OK, murder then. Also, overdue library books.

Was there malicious intnet?

Isn't the intnet full of malicious code?

BTW, I'm not positive I'd put murder in the automatic category either, although I must admit to some ambivalence on it.

If enough time had passed (and I'd say a 25 year prison sentence would be a lot of time), and the individual currently displays sufficient character, I'd be inclined to allow him to officiate. What exactly do we think he's going to do in an officiating environment?

That said, I wouldn't have a hard time accepting the decision to leave these folks out, either. There is significance to the point that there are certain crimes that will forever alter a person's ability to participate in society.

M&M, I have no desire to find out what you checked out of the library. My officiating fees don't cover the required therapy.

Nice try. But the relationship, even as independant contractors, will always have employer/employee like elements. One being that they pay you and you get paid. Another is that they can set the qualifications for who they will contract with....insurance, licensing, etc. Setting qualificatoins for independant contractors is well within thier rights.

There are several good sources of information on what causes a person to become an employee and setting qualifications for the job are not among them. See any of the following:

• Legal Definition of 'Independent Contractor'
• Independent Contractor Law & Legal Definition
• Independent Contractor (Self-Employed) or Employee?
• Independent Contractor legal definition of Independent Contractor. Independent Contractor synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

I agree that the individual schools shouldn't and don't need the information...only that the certification authority has done a basic check and has found nothing that would prohibit you from working as an official. If you're certified, that is all the school needs to know.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

The "right" comparson would be either:

- An official harms a kid as a result of using their position, and it could've been prevented by a background check ahead of time.
- "Private" information regarding an offiical that was obtained through the official's background check has been leaked to the general public.


or:

- An <S>official</S> person harms a kid <S>as a result of using their position</S>, and it could've been prevented by a background check ahead of time.
- "Private" information has been leaked to the general public.

There are certain choices that people make that permanently close doors to them....even after 50 years of great behavior. Even if they might be OK now, they made their bed a long time ago. The end of a prison sentence never makes the infraction go away or the victim return to life (in the case of murder/manslaughter) or makes the victim's hurt go away (rape). Someone who criminally takes another person's life or rapes someone, has made their own choice to give up a lot of opportunities. They can't undo thier crime...so they can't undo their choice and recover what they lost.

The main problem with your references is that independent contractor laws and classifications vary from one state to another. And certain classifications like this might be different in how you file or claim independent contractor status.

And I have no idea if there is any court case that made this issue clear as Nevada mentioned. I know in my state the IHSA wanted all associations to participate in an "Observer's Program" to help make officials better. But it was made very clear to those associations that the information would not be used for post season assignments (all made by the IHSA directly) because this would violate independent contractor classifications and might have the IHSA fined or have to pay every official in the state benefits and pay other tax monies for their "employees."

I also recall that Florida passed some kind of law that required all sports officials (and it might have dealt with other professions) to have to file a background check in each county and the officials themselves had to pay for each background check. I believe there was some litigation or modification of the policy because it had other ramifications when the law was created.

It is very possible that someone could sue any jurisdiction over this issue when we are not employees. Not saying it would be successful, but it could happen.

Peace

From a "grandfathered" official in Pa, I've got some mixed feelings and thoughts. But one of the thoughts I'd like those supporting the checks to think about - what is the organization requiring the checks going to do with the official they have gotten a false positive on? The organization has suspended returning official or not sanctioned the new oficial - and now, it turns out that the check was wrong. This official has been labeled as a likely sex offender or child molestor. I don't see any way to make this up to that official who was falsely accused. Once that "accusation" is made, there's no real return.

You didn't explain why one of those closed doors should be sports officiating.

There doesn't have to be an explanation. Such criminals just have to live with the fact that they will not be welcome in some circles and there will be many occupations they will never qualify for. They gave up many of their rights (even the right to an explanation) the moment they chose to commit the crime.

Of course, whatever you say goes...no need to even explain why:rolleyes:

Only someone with something to hide would question it. :cool:

While I understand your attempt to make a "proper" comparison, I am still focused on the underlying questions: Has there EVER been a case, or cases, of a sports official harming a child, and the initial or repeated contact with that child was a result of that person being an official? And, secondly, is there a reasonable chance that case or cases would have been prevented if there had been a background check?

In other words, is there really a problem that needs to be addressed?

As for possible leaking of information, no, I do not have official records or statistics, but I am going on anecdotal information on leaks. I think we are all aware of most of the high-profile cases, such as the names on the baseball PHD list that continue to be leaked, and I'm sure most of us are aware of more local examples. Can I be sure my information - name, address, SS#, arrest record, types of books overdue, etc., - is just as safe in some state high school association office as it is in a federal courthouse?

More importantly, if the reports are not filtered, why would I want to supply more than the required information to the state? If the state has made the requirement that only felonies involving drugs or sex, especially around children, are the only criteria for rejection of a license, then they should not need to know about the manslaughter conviction from 25 years ago, or that the overdue book is The Kama Sutra. You can argue that manslaughter should be a criteria - fine, make it so. If it is not, then the people involved in making those decisions (who do not belong to a government agency or law enforcement) do not need to know non-essential information.

So, if there are documented cases of officials with prior records doing harm to the kids they come in contact with, then I'm all for doing what is necessary to both protect the kids and keep me from being associated with those scumbags. But I should only have to supply the necessary information, not any more. And there should be sufficient safeguards in place to protect that information. If there is no real problem, then there is no necessary information to provide.

It's important to note that the PA law does not single out officials. It applies to anyone who is employed either as salaried or hourly employee or independent contractor by a school district or other school entity. It also applies to day care centers, facilities for the mentally handicapped, social service agencies that work with children, etc.

Second, the clearances that new officials must provide do not contain raw information. They certify that no disqualifying information under the law was found. For those of us who have a military background or had another type of job where a clearance was required, you know you either got the clearance or you didn't. But the clearance your boss got on you did not contain any raw information about you. In PA the state police have been doing background checks for decades. I have never heard of a single leak of information. And how about the hundreds of thousands the FBI does annually?

Finally, officials can submit copies of their clearances to the PIAA. The PIAA web site will note for each official when each clearance was received. ADs can go online and see if an official is cleared, just as schools can go to an online state database to see if teachers are cleared.

The law is the law. The chance of it being changed to exempt officials is someplace to the far side of none. So while it may make some people feel good to vent about how unfair it is, in PA you have a simple choice: get the clearances or don't officiate.

If you're telling me that the state police collect the data, then provide essntially a "Clear" or "Not Clear" to the PIAA, then I agree with how it's handled. That eliminates my objection to providing a non-law enforcement agency with information they don't need. And if the law applies to everyone who deals with kids, and not simply adding officials to the list, then it's being applied fairly.

But I still haven't been shown there's a problem that these background checks correct.

Wow, I thought I was hard core. I disagree that there doesn't have to be an explanation. I agree that there are some crimes that carry permanent penalties, but in those cases there are compelling reasons for those. They can be explained. If someone who gets charged and convicted of murder for what happened in a bar fight when he was 19 loses his right to drink alcohol for the rest of his life, that can be fairly argued. Tim Donaghy has likely lost his right to ever officiate again, and it makes sense. Pete Rose, same thing with baseball.

If we're going to exclude a long-ago murderer from officiating, I think they deserve the right to an explanation. The connection is lost on me. I'm not above reason on this, though.

Also, as I've said, if a majority reached a consensus differing from my opinion, I'd have an easy time going along.

Back to M&M's question though. Is this really a problem?

He/she IS a murderer...not was....will always be. That IS the explanation. They've proven they can't be trusted in society. Such a person just simply shouldn't work around kids.
Is there really a problem with doing them? I've yet to see anything more than paranoia about someone knowing about a past conviction.

Note that as mentioned above, these checks are not required ONLY for officials in the places that do them. The requirements that officials get them come from much broader requirements for background checks on all contractors/employees working in the school. To exclude officials or any other group would just create a mess.

Maybe officials aren't the largest problem. Perhaps it is the plumbers or the fundraising repsj or the booster club parents. But they're treating everyone the same.

M&M's other point about who is making these decisions is valid. Who gets to see the reports, and are they trusted and vetted law enforcement officials or analysts? Knowing who gets to see the information is vital to whether or not I'd be willing to submit a background report.

If it's your local chapter secretary, or even the secretary at the state office, I'm not convinced that person has the appropriate law enforcement security clearance to view the documentation.

It's a detail that would have to be worked out.

No, It's simpler than that. You request the clearances and the clearances are provided to you. You are either cleared or you are not. For example, you request the FBI criminal record check. The FBI is asked if there is any record of you having committed any of the list of crimes that would disquality you from receiving the clearance. If the answer is no, you get the clearance. If the answer is yes, you don't get the clearance (there are options to appeal). You also request a PA State Police record check. You then provide the copies of the clearances to any propsective employer covered under the law -- school district, law enforcement department, social service agency, nursing home, etc. If you are a sports official, you will have the option of sending your clearances to the PIAA which will put them in the database. That will allow the AD to check the database. But if you want you can provide each AD with the copies and send nothing to the PIAA. This law applies to almost everyone whose job brings them into regular contact with children. (I'm a college prof and our new hires have to do it because they may have contact with students under 18.) No prospective employer ever sees any of the raw information.

And for those of you who worry about "leaks" of information from your criminal history, if you don't have a criminal history there's nothing to leak, is there? This is essentially a criminal history/court record check, not a total background investigation where they look at your employment, credit history, how often you cheat on your wife. There is nothing else there to leak.

Not quite that simple. The PIAA does require officials subject to the check to submit the results to the PIAA. No submission, no registration. In terms of the 3 reports, are you sure that no offenses other than disqualifying offenses appear? Are you aware of someone receiving the reports that had non-qualifying offenses that didn't appear on their reports. I am not sure and this is something that I may follow up with the PIAA leadership because it is surely an issue for officials.

Out of curiosity, I requested a PA state police criminal check report although I was not required to do so by the PIAA. It was inexpensive ($10), immediately available on line and anyone can request his/her report. Here are the results with identifying information removed.


Pennsylvania State Police
1800 Elmerton Avenue
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110
Response for Criminal Record Check


Namexxx
Streetxxx

Cityxx, Statexx Zipxxx TELEPHONE xxx

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE DOES HEREBY CERTIFY THAT:
Name: XXX
Date of Birth: XXX
Social Security #: XXX
Sex: X
Race: XXXX
Date of Request: 08/20/2009 07:32 AM
Purpose of Request: School District

Maiden Name and/or Alias (1) (2)
(3) (4)

*** HAS NO CRIMINAL RECORD IN PENNSYLVANIA BASED ON A CHECK BASED ON THE ABOVE IDENTIFIERS - REFER TO CONTROL #RXXX ***
THE RESPONSE IS BASED ON A COMPARISON OF DATA PROVIDED BY THE REQUESTER AGAINST INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE FILES OF THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE CENTRAL REPOSITORY ONLY. PLEASE CONFIRM IDENTIFIERS PROVIDED. POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION CANNOT BE MADE WITHOUT FINGERPRINTS THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE RESPONSE DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF CRIMINAL RECORDS, WHICH MIGHT BE CONTAINED IN THE REPOSITORIES OF OTHER LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES.
COMPARISON MADE WITH FINGERPRINTS

THE INFORMATION ON THIS CERTIFICATION FORM CAN BE VALIDATED BY ACCESSING THE PENNSYLVANIA ACCESS TO CRIMINAL HISTORY (PATCH) RECORD CHECK STATUS SCREEN https://epatch.state.pa.us/RCStatusSearch.jsp) AND SUBMITTING A STATUS CHECK REQUEST THAT CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING - SUBJECT'S NAME (EXACTLY AS INITIALLY ENTERED), CONTROL NUMBER AND DATE OF REQUEST. PATCH WILL FIND AND DISPLAY THE CORRESPONDING RECORD CHECK REQUEST. DETAILS ON THE REQUEST CAN BE VIEWED BY CLICKING ON THE CONTROL NUMBER. YOU WILL BE ABLE TO VERIFY IF THIS REQUEST WAS SENT OUT AS A NO RECORD OR RECORD RESPONSE BY THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE.
QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS CRIMINAL RECORD CHECK SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE PATCH HELP LINE AT TELEPHONE NUMBER 717-425-5546 FOR LOCAL CALLS OR TOLL FREE AT 1-888-QUERY-PA (1-888-783-7972).
Certified by:
Lieutenant Michael F. Gillelan, Director
Criminal Records and Identification Division
Pennsylvania State Police DISSEMINATED BY: SYSTEM
08/20/2009

wanja,

Thanks. ADs are required to go to the site you provided and check to be sure that that the clearance the official provided was indeed a "no record" report. A report could be forged. Again, it's important to note that nothing in the report will be provided. It will certify that the official received either a "no record" report or a "record" report.

In the past 10 years two middle-aged officials from my area have been busted -- one for statutory rape and the other for child porn. Both served time. I can't believe anyone would seriously suggest those guys should not be banned for life from officiating. Do some of you guys really want men like this moving to your state and officiating your daughters' games???? That's what background checks will prevent. I'm incredulous that anyone opposes them.

Make it simple. Those guys should just be banned from life.

I am beginning to support background checks- especially at a cost of $10. You did say these guys were middle aged, so they probably should not ref again ever. But to suggest someone be banned for life for statutory rape is bogus. It could be a 22 year old who hooked up with a seventeen year old who looks 29 at an adult bar, or it could be a 45 year old referee who gave a 15 year old player a ride home from a game. The first did not make a life long mistake, and the second made an eternal error.

I think that is part of the point- background checks raise the very difficult question of how bad is bad enough to be banned.

The total cost in PA is not $10. That is the cost for the state police report. Including the required fingerprinting and 2 other reports the total cost is about $60 as I recall.

Please read the entire context of what's been written before passing judgment. These crimes are the prime example of what I'm talking about and will be more readily and cheaply available on a sex-offender registry.

These guys should be banned, I don't question that and never have.

Here's what I am saying:

1. These guys don't have necessary access, in their capacity as officials, that makes it more dangerous.

2. Background checks can give a false sense of security, making people feel comfortable rather than preventing knuckleheads from even having the sort of off-court access we have. There's no reason to stick us in an active lockerroom with students (wrestlers for example) who are showering or dressing.

3. Sex-registries are sufficient to ban the ones who have been caught before.

4. The question of who exactly views the reports and makes decisions needs to be resolved in each jurisdiction.

The problem is that's not the case, at least in PA. The sex offender registry does not include all persons convicted of sex offenses, in fact, it includes only a small minority. That's because it's the "nuclear option." It's a public record. A person on that registry will have his life essentially destroyed. He'll be ridiculed and harassed wherever he goes. It will be almost impossible to find a job. As a result, judges impose registration only for the most heinous and incorrigible offenders. It's reserved largely for sexual predators. Many people commit acts that should ban them from working with children, including officiating, but are not serious enough to destroy their lives. In PA, a first offense for exposing oneself to little girls, or child porn, or putting a hidden camera in the girls locker room, will probably not get the offender on the registry. But pretty clearly those guys should not be officiating. In addition, there are nonsexual crimes that will result in the offender being banned from working with children. A conviction for nonsexual child abuse will do it, and should.

Some mistakes follow you the rest of your life. If you work for a bank and get convicted of embezzlement, you'll never work for a bank again. It doesn't matter if you were 25 or 55 when you did it. If you dealt drugs when you were young and foolish, you'll never pass a background investigation for a federal law enforcement job. If you're convicted of exposing yourself to little girls, you'll never be a teacher, or, in PA, an official. I have no problem with that.

My "problem" with it is simply that there is not a problem that needs solving to beign with.

I don't care if some guy who was convicted of looking at child pron ever gets to officiate again - screw 'em, I have no sympathy for them.

What I *do* care about is that someone has come along and told me that if I want to officiate, I must allow them to dig into my personal life beyond what they can simply ask me about, so that they can assuage their hysteria about the non-existent problem of officials molesting children.

If you don't want people with previous criminal histories of whatever sort officiating, then make that the terms of employment. Since the issue is continuing punishment for them, as opposed to any concern that they are actually a tangible threat, then that will deal with that problem in the vast majority of cases, without the need to go and do background checks on officials, 99% of which have nothing to check, and even the 1% (if it is that high) aren't actually any kind of real threat anyway, since they don't have unsupervised access to children.

This is the information I'm looking for. Frankly, it changes quite a bit for me. If you're telling me there are sex crimes against children that don't show up on a registry, then background checks make sense. Let me add this very important caveat, though.

They won't solve the problem, and they probably won't prevent anything at all. What I have yet to hear about is a previously convicted sex offender using his capacity as an official to gain access to a child for the purpose of abusing that child. I've read about officials who committed these offenses, but never in their capacity or because of the access they enjoyed as officials.

My concern is that some are going to want to stretch the disqualifying offenses to include things that should not be included. Some say add "murder," assault, etc. While I'm not against adding "murder," I think there are other crimes that have no bearing on whether a man or woman can act as an official. The article referenced in this thread was written by a man who seems indignant that a man convicted of fraud could be an official. WTF?

I ump ASA softball and we have a laundry list of things that can disqualify you from umping. I wish I could find the email with the exact list but it included fraud and minor drug offenses.

FWIW I think you guys have done a good job discussing this. :)

See, and I find that goofy. Some states will do it one way, others yet a different way. My job requires clearance of those particular crimes, too, but I see no reason those offenders should be prevented from officiating.

Maybe one way is if you're eligible to vote, you can ref. If not, no go.

Oddly enough, despite my position on background checks, I am actually a lot more "tough" on what should DQ someone from officiating. IMO, a criminal history of any serious crime is pretty telling.

Not because of any hysteria that sounds like "Think of the children!", which is 99% emotional nonsense, but simply because officiating is a job that first and foremost demands exceptional integrity, and a criminal record suggests a lack of said integrity.

However, I also think that hard and fast rules about this are foolish - you need at least some level of subjectivity so people can make sane exceptions. I would basically want to consider things like:

1. The nature of the crime - does it involve issues of trust, integrity, and character?
2. How long ago did it happen? What was the age of the potential official when it happened? Is it likely that this was a one-off incident, or is there a pattern?
3. What level of officiating are we talking about? Is there room for some restrictive rules about what this person can officiate, for some period of time, to ascertain their fitness?

Again, I do not agree that blanket background checks are justified or even ethical, however, in any case.

I would agree that a pattern of behavior would be more telling than even a single vehicular manslaughter charge when a person was 21. The problem is, that sort of analysis is necessarily subjective and therefore vulnerable to abuse (by those making the decisions).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

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.

More On Checks....
 

One of our Local Rec Leagues just opened their website for this year's fall and winter registration. Under the "Volunteer" Section, which includes referees is:

III. KIDS SAFE PROGRAM INFORMATION:

The following information is required from all adults participating in activities that involve children.

*Have you lived at your present address for the past 5 years: -CHOOSE-Yes/No
If NO list previous address:

Have you ever been arrested for or convicted of any of the following applicable offenses:
*Murder? NoYes
*Child Pornography? NoYes
*Rape? NoYes
*Kidnapping or abducting a child? NoYes
*Child Abuse? NoYes
*Distribution of a controlled substance? NoYes

If you answered yes to any of these questions, please explain:

*Please read the following statement and check the box to indicate your agreement.

I understand my appointment to a position is contingent upon my consenting to undergo and successfully complete a criminal records check.

Missed one
 

A guy who ran for State Representative in my district in 2008 (fortunately, he lost) just plead guilty in a plea agreement to incest. He was originally charged with raping his "estranged" daughter. Maybe incest should be on their list. Oh yeah - I knew the guy because we were both members of the local Chamber of Commerce.

In case you're interested, here's the story:

Former Tigard legislative candidate pleads guilty to incest charge