Background Checks

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

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 official person 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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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

[Steve M]

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.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by LDUB

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.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There doesn't have to be an explanation.

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

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by LDUB

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

Only someone with something to hide would question it.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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 official person 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.

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.

[ref1986]

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by ref1986

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.
Ok - no problems here.
Second, the clearances that new officials must provide do not contain raw information. They certify that no disqualifying information under the law was found.Who is "they? The state police? An outside agency? The PIAA? Who actually has access to the raw data and determines whether the official meets the criteria? 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?You mean like the unauthorized ones that were leaked on members of Congress a year or so back?

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. No, I'm not talking about exempting officials if all other similar employees and contractors remain that law. But, if "the law is the law" is the overriding factor, and we don't have a choice, then wouldn't we all still be under British rule? 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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

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.

[Adam]

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.