Background Checks

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have heard of cases where someone that was a referee got in trouble. I have never heard of a case where someone was in trouble based on doing their job specifically. It has usually been off the court/field where this has taken place. That being said, I still think background checks are necessary. You do not want people that have certain histories around kids or young adults. Or at least be able to identify those individuals so no one is shocked when things happen.

Peace

Other than the warm-fuzzy, what tangible benefit could there possibly be that cannot be gained from running them against registered sex-offender registries?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Other than the warm-fuzzy, what tangible benefit could there possibly be that cannot be gained from running them against registered sex-offender registries?

I was not against it. I am just talking about the likelihood of an official being an actual violator in the current job. Of course anyone can be a violator easily outside of this profession. It really is not that big of a deal if you ask me. Most offenders are still people a child would know, not some stranger.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I was not against it. I am just talking about the likelihood of an official being an actual violator in the current job. Of course anyone can be a violator easily outside of this profession. It really is not that big of a deal if you ask me. Most offenders are still people a child would know, not some stranger.

Peace

Sorry, I should have clipped. I was responding specifically to your comment that background checks are necessary. While there certainly have been sex offenders who happened to be officials; I have yet to hear of a case where an official was able to manipulate his position as a referee (or umpire) to gain private access to a child.

Even when I've been in uncomfortable situations (sharing locker rooms with kids or placed in a coach's office inside a locker room without adult coaching staff around), I can't imagine I'd be able to use my "authority" as an official for anything nefarious.

From what I understand, the key ingredient for that would be for the kids to trust and/or fear the adults; not very stinking likely for an official whom they see for a total of 5 minutes or less. That obviously doesn't apply to officials who work in other capacities, such as teachers or coaches.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Sorry, I should have clipped. I was responding specifically to your comment that background checks are necessary. While there certainly have been sex offenders who happened to be officials; I have yet to hear of a case where an official was able to manipulate his position as a referee (or umpire) to gain private access to a child.

Even when I've been in uncomfortable situations (sharing locker rooms with kids or placed in a coach's office inside a locker room without adult coaching staff around), I can't imagine I'd be able to use my "authority" as an official for anything nefarious.

From what I understand, the key ingredient for that would be for the kids to trust and/or fear the adults; not very stinking likely for an official whom they see for a total of 5 minutes or less. That obviously doesn't apply to officials who work in other capacities, such as teachers or coaches.

That is why I made the original statement. If no one has heard of a case where an official used their role as an official, then do we really need them if the purpose is for sexual offenses? But what is sometimes necessary is not always done for those purposes. We have been doing background checks for years. They do not bother me because I have nothing to hide. I am sure this changes based on the person. And I hear of teachers and coaches having very inappropriate contact with minors all the time. Then again what we do is a privilege and everyone should not be doing it no matter how unnecessary a background check might be.

Peace

[Hugh Refner]

It's when they start doing credit checks that we should begin worrying.

[wanja]

Here's a link to a newspaper article regarding an investigation of PIAA officials with criminal backgrounds.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Can someone tell me what a background check will show that's both relevant and unavailable on a sex-offender registry?

A sex offender registry will not include serious, non-sexual offenses such as homicide and endangering the welfare of a minor unrelated to sex.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is why I made the original statement. If no one has heard of a case where an official used their role as an official, then do we really need them if the purpose is for sexual offenses? But what is sometimes necessary is not always done for those purposes. We have been doing background checks for years. They do not bother me because I have nothing to hide. I am sure this changes based on the person. And I hear of teachers and coaches having very inappropriate contact with minors all the time. Then again what we do is a privilege and everyone should not be doing it no matter how unnecessary a background check might be.

Peace

I'm with you on what I have to hide, but the question becomes what is worth hiding. I personally don't care if Coach Snuffy had a DUI when he was 22, but some parent might find it relevant. I would personally argue that other than sexual misconduct, there is no other reason for a background check. I don't see that anything else is even relevant.

I'm a little less trusting of those who say, "my intentions are good, please trust me with your information." Their intentions and actions may be good, but they won't be in charge forever, and there's no guarantee the next dictator will be just as benevolent.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by wanja

Here's a link to a newspaper article regarding an investigation of PIAA officials with criminal backgrounds.

I read the article and I have a question. What's a "crime of falsity"? Not declaring you're wearing false teeth? A female not declaring she's wearing .....er, never mind.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by wanja

Here's a link to a newspaper article regarding an investigation of PIAA officials with criminal backgrounds.




A sex offender registry will not include serious, non-sexual offenses such as homicide and endangering the welfare of a minor unrelated to sex.

My question then is, "So what?"

Personally, I don't think they're relevant to whether a person should be allowed to officiate. What problem is this supposed to solve? How many convicted killers are officiating high school sports? What crime would we expect them to commit during a basketball game?

As for endangerment, the same question pertains. What exactly is this designed to prevent?

Look, I'd be ok with the privacy issues and the expense involved if it could be shown that it would prevent some crimes; but I have yet to see a single instance where a crime was committed by an official, as an official, that would have been prevented by a background check and subsequent screening.

[mbyron]

We do not have background checks (yet). Here's the Ohio policy (from the OHSAA Officials Handbook):

7.5 Criminal Convictions
1. New License Application or Renewal. An Officiating Permit will not be issued or renewed for
anyone:
a. convicted, or adjudicated with a finding of fault, guilt or violation, in regard to an offense involving
a minor any sexual offense unless/until such offense has been reversed by proper authority with
jurisdiction over the matter; or,
b. convicted, or adjudicated with a finding of fault, guilt or violation, in regard to an offense involving
any illegal/illicit drug or controlled substance as prescribed by federal or state law or regulation,
prior to five (5) years following the completion of any sentence/parole/probation period imposed for
the offense; or,
c. currently serving a sentence or a parole/probation period for any offense or adjudication of guilt
imposed by any court, judge or administrative body, other than simple traffic violations.
2. Currently Licensed Officials
a. When a current OHSAA licensed official is indicted or charged with any criminal offense or charged
with a violation of any statute pertaining to minors, drugs or a controlled substance, such license
will automatically be suspended, pending resolution of the indictment or charge. Conviction or
adjudication of fault, guilt or a violation under any such indictment or charge shall result in
immediate and automatic forfeiture of the officiating permit.
b. Current OHSAA licensed sports officials must inform the OHSAA of any such indictment or charge
immediately upon receipt of or upon having knowledge of such indictment or charge. Failure to
notify the OHSAA shall itself be a basis for immediate and automatic forfeiture of the officiating
license.
3. Reinstatement/Reapplication of License. An official whose license has been forfeited, suspended or
revoked or an applicant who is denied a license, under the provisions of this policy, may petition for
reinstatement/reapplication based on the following:
a. If suspension, revocation or forfeiture of a license is based upon conviction, adjudication or finding
as a result of a felony: the official/applicant may petition for a license one year after the completion
of the parole/probation period; other than conviction of illegal illicit drugs, controlled substance
where a 5 year probation period is used, or immediately upon dismissal or reversal of the charge or
conviction (provided the offense was NOT involving a minor or a sexual offense).
b. If suspension, revocation, forfeiture or denial results from a misdemeanor or other non-felony
charge: the official/applicant may petition for a license immediately upon the completion of the
parole/probation period (provided the offense was NOT involving a minor or a sexual offense).
c. If suspension, revocation, forfeiture or denial of a license is based upon any conviction, adjudication
or finding involving a minor or sexual offense, reinstatement/reapplication will not be permitted,
unless/until such offense has been reversed by proper authority having jurisdiction over the matter.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

My question then is, "So what?"

Personally, I don't think they're relevant to whether a person should be allowed to officiate. What problem is this supposed to solve? How many convicted killers are officiating high school sports? What crime would we expect them to commit during a basketball game?

As for endangerment, the same question pertains. What exactly is this designed to prevent?

Look, I'd be ok with the privacy issues and the expense involved if it could be shown that it would prevent some crimes; but I have yet to see a single instance where a crime was committed by an official, as an official, that would have been prevented by a background check and subsequent screening.

It makes everyone feel better like many policies implemented. It does not do much of anything else in my opinion.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It makes everyone feel better like many policies implemented. It does not do much of anything else in my opinion.

Peace

Hence my question starting with "other than the warm-fuzzy." Making people feel better isn't enough of a reason to implement a policy that costs money, IMO. I'd say it's actually doing more harm than good if it makes people feel better for no real reason.

And reading the article linked above didn't do anything for me either. Unless someone show me two things, I remain unconvinced:

1. There is a statistical correlation between those who commit such crimes as fraud, theft, "falsities," and even violent crimes with those who commit sexual crimes against minors.

and

2. There is a vulnerability to sports officials in particular, in their capacity as sports officials, that can be at least partly solved by background checks.

I have doubts on both, to be honest.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Hence my question starting with "other than the warm-fuzzy." Making people feel better isn't enough of a reason to implement a policy that costs money, IMO. I'd say it's actually doing more harm than good if it makes people feel better for no real reason.

And reading the article linked above didn't do anything for me either. Unless someone show me two things, I remain unconvinced:

1. There is a statistical correlation between those who commit such crimes as fraud, theft, "falsities," and even violent crimes with those who commit sexual crimes against minors.

and

2. There is a vulnerability to sports officials in particular, in their capacity as sports officials, that can be at least partly solved by background checks.

I have doubts on both, to be honest.

I completely agree in principle. There is really no real reason to have a policy of background checks. But the problem too is that we are in a litigious culture. If anything happens to someone, we have a tendency to blame someone no matter how much they are to really blame. And I bet that if these policies were not in place, the minute someone gets in trouble or an incident happens, a lack of a policy would likely be apart of a lawsuit. That being said, it really does not hurt to have a policy. You get to check information that might be seen as threatening and most people feel good that organizations are doing something about it. But in a perfect world there is no need for any policy. But people are so paranoid of what happens with their children.

I just remember when I was a kid, we had no cell phones, GPS systems and we would be all over the neighborhood with no parental supervision and someone how we were not harmed or killed by some child predator. I am not saying things did not happen to kids of my era, but it was hardly a stranger it was a family member or a friend of the family. But because of the media attention, we have people convinced that there are people lurking in the shadows that you need to be the most concerned with.

Peace

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I just remember when I was a kid, we had no cell phones, GPS systems and we would be all over the neighborhood with no parental supervision and someone how we were not harmed or killed by some child predator. I am not saying things did not happen to kids of my era, but it was hardly a stranger it was a family member or a friend of the family. But because of the media attention, we have people convinced that there are people lurking in the shadows that you need to be the most concerned with.

Peace

It still is. You're much more likely to be victimized by someone you already know and not by some random predator. (i.e. those awful sports officials in this case )

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zm1283

It still is. You're much more likely to be victimized by someone you already know and not by some random predator. (i.e. those awful sports officials in this case )

I am very aware of that. But I was a kid when the Atlanta inner-city were missing and you would hear of kids that were missing across the country and found in some remote place dead. Many of these laws and values started to come out of the 80s to the 90s. It started to become or seem like an epidemic and then we felt that every kid needed to be watched at all times. I even remember when there was this big push to teach us (when I was a kid) to not talk to strangers and only talk to people we knew. Then it became obvious that the "strangers" were the uncle or aunt or the good family friend.

Peace