Background Checks

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Berkut

If there was no need to take my picture to get a drivers license, yes, I would question why they wanted to do so.

However, it seems rather clear that it is in fact necessary to the concept of licensing drivers that their picture be taken, so I accept that as a reasonable request.

It is? I have had a US driver's license that did not have a picture. Pictures have only become standard on driver's licenses in the past 20-25 years. For the 1st 100 years or so of cars, pictures were not part of driver's licenses. So, it is demonstrably clear that they are not a necessity.

Originally Posted by Berkut

There is nothing "paranoid" about this - I don't think that word means what you think it means.

That is exactly what it is.

[M&M Guy]

What type of controls will exist over this information? How will officials know that only the information necessary will be used, and that the rest will be ignored and/or protected?

Why would I want some secretary in some state high school association somewhere knowing about my bra-burning incident? What if she personally finds it offensive, mentions it to several co-workers over lunch, they agree, and I get put on the banned list, even though I met the official criteria? Or, what if an official does have a manslaughter conviction in their past, and someone who feels like Mark in the office sees that and decides he is going to take it upon himself to send out e-mails to all of the official's associations "informing" them of this Manson-like individual? What if an official has a prior DUI, stops by the local gas station on the way out of town after a game to pick up a beer, and hits a student in the parking lot - won't the school still get sued for allowing that official to work, knowing they had the background check that already showed that particular "problem"?

Will everyone else with the same level of contact with the kids be subject to the same checks? How about the parents who work the concession stands?

It just seems to bring up too many questions for the apparent "problems" it might solve.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I assume someone in Mayberry, NC would enter the info so that someone else in Beverly Hills can see the record.

Ironic that you would say that. This year's president of our local rec league is the spitting image of Floyd the barber! Not kidding.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Berkut

So you get the added bonus of having your fingerprints on file with the State somewhere as well.

Is a cheek swab next?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Doesn't matter.

The real question is whether we should depend on her to tell her next employer (possibly a school system) about her conviction or whether her employer should do background checks.

What do you think her next victim's lawyer would say when they're suing the school for millions for negligence...since it was so easy to find out about her history...$millions that each of us will have to pay through higher taxes. The schools are protecting themselves as much as anything.

This is NOT an employer/employee relationship. The schools have gone out of their way over the past decade to declare sports officials to be independent contractors. This was clearly done to save money. The schools did not wish to pay for workmans comp if an official was injured during a game, pick up the insurance premiums for officials, provide any health benefits, send out W-2 forms, deal with state registration fees, etc.
This is a legal classification is a really big deal.

My opinion is that if they are going to dump all of these costs on the officials and claim that they are NOT their boss, then they do not have a right to certain information which an employer would.

If my state decides to force officials to submit to background checks, I will immediately contend that they are establishing an employer/employee relationship, and must remove sports officials from the independent contractor classification. We'll see how they like the consequences of that. I'm sure that the officials association could get a court hearing on that issue.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

I think a history of convictions for violent crimes, even if not committed against children, should disqualify someone from officiating. Do you want someone who served 25+ years for manslaughter being around your kid?

Are you aware that that is what one is charged with if crash into someone while driving drunk and kill that person?

Legal Definition of Manslaughter

So if someone went to party while in college, got drunk, tried to drive home anyway, and ended up in a crash which killed someone, then is convicted of manslaughter and serves his time, you are saying that should disqualify this individual from officiating HS sports?

What does that have to do being around kids?

Sorry, Padgett, but you are off the mark with that example. Now had you written murder, which "requires malicious intent," then I would be with you.

[constable]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

What type of controls will exist over this information? How will officials know that only the information necessary will be used, and that the rest will be ignored and/or protected?

Why would I want some secretary in some state high school association somewhere knowing about my bra-burning incident? What if she personally finds it offensive, mentions it to several co-workers over lunch, they agree, and I get put on the banned list, even though I met the official criteria? Or, what if an official does have a manslaughter conviction in their past, and someone who feels like Mark in the office sees that and decides he is going to take it upon himself to send out e-mails to all of the official's associations "informing" them of this Manson-like individual? What if an official has a prior DUI, stops by the local gas station on the way out of town after a game to pick up a beer, and hits a student in the parking lot - won't the school still get sued for allowing that official to work, knowing they had the background check that already showed that particular "problem"?

Will everyone else with the same level of contact with the kids be subject to the same checks? How about the parents who work the concession stands?

It just seems to bring up too many questions for the apparent "problems" it might solve.

Man some people are paranoid.

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Is a cheek swab next?

Hey, you don't have anything to hide, do you? What is a small DNA sample for us law abiding citizens with nothing to hide?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by constable

Man some people are paranoid.

I may be paranoid, but there still could be people out to get me...

You tell me, which happens more often?:
- 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 has been leaked to the general public.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is? I have had a US driver's license that did not have a picture. Pictures have only become standard on driver's licenses in the past 20-25 years. For the 1st 100 years or so of cars, pictures were not part of driver's licenses. So, it is demonstrably clear that they are not a necessity.

There is a compelling reason for law enforcement officers to be able to positively identify a driver during a traffic stop. No, it's not so they make sure they write the ticket for the right person. It's for officer safety, so they know whether or not the driver has a history of violence. Without a picture ID, such positive identification is impossible.

So, maybe they did it without pictures for the first 80 years (I would say that's an overstatement as I think most states have had pictures on the licenses for quite a few years.) I think there is a very clear distinction here between having your picture on a license and submitting your background check to every venue you officiate.

The picture on your license provides a very clear benefit. The background checks do not.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So, maybe they did it without pictures for the first 80 years (I would say that's an overstatement as I think most states have had pictures on the licenses for quite a few years.)

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.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I think there is a very clear distinction here between having your picture on a license and submitting your background check to every venue you officiate.

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.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The picture on your license provides a very clear benefit. The background checks do not.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Sorry, Padgett, but you are off the mark with that example. Now had you written murder, which "requires malicious intent," then I would be with you.

OK, murder then. Also, overdue library books.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Also, overdue library books.

Was there malicious intnet?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Was there malicious intnet?

Isn't the intnet full of malicious code?

[Adam]

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.