Background Checks

[rsl]

Has anyone ever heard of an abuse case involving a referee? By the nature of our work, our every action is scrutinized by two coaches and numerous fans. We don't have much opportunity to misbehave.

The only exception is when administrators put us compromising situations, i.e., have us dress in inappropriate locations.

Background checks would be better spent on coaches, who have close and continuing contact with players.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by rsl

Background checks would be better spent on coaches, who have close and continuing contact with players.

Our local kids rec league performs background checks on all coaches, assistant coaches and "parent helpers". We do this every year, even for those who have been with us for a long time. You just never know.

BTW - we don't do anything like this for officials. We have about 40 officials and we pretty much know all of them. About 15 or so are HS kids.

Also BTW - one of our Board members is an attorney and he has his firm run these for us at their cost, which is under $5 each. It's well worth it. In the past five years, we were able to "weed out" two guys who had a history of a crime against a child. We run about 250 of these a year and we wind up not allowing about 2 or 3 per year to coach. Usually, if someone has a record, they won't even apply, since the application makes them agree to a background check.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rsl

Has anyone ever heard of an abuse case involving a referee? By the nature of our work, our every action is scrutinized by two coaches and numerous fans. We don't have much opportunity to misbehave.

The only exception is when administrators put us compromising situations, i.e., have us dress in inappropriate locations.

Background checks would be better spent on coaches, who have close and continuing contact with players.

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

[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.

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rsl

Has anyone ever heard of an abuse case involving a referee? By the nature of our work, our every action is scrutinized by two coaches and numerous fans. We don't have much opportunity to misbehave.

The only exception is when administrators put us compromising situations, i.e., have us dress in inappropriate locations.

Yes, I have...I think the guy is still in jail....and even if the administrators don't put the official in a compromising situation, the official that desires to do so can find one.

[rsl]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes, I have...I think the guy is still in jail....and even if the administrators don't put the official in a compromising situation, the official that desires to do so can find one.

Agreed. And after listening to all the arguments given here, I think I might support background checks in our association- cheap ones at least. We don't get paid enough to justify expensive ones.

What was described in Pennsylvania seems way over the top.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes, I have...I think the guy is still in jail....and even if the administrators don't put the official in a compromising situation, the official that desires to do so can find one.

Was he a prior offender?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Was he a prior offender?

I don't know.

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes, I have...I think the guy is still in jail....and even if the administrators don't put the official in a compromising situation, the official that desires to do so can find one.

They can?

I cannot imagine how - I get to a game site, I go to a private locker room, I change, I officiate the game, I return to a private locker room.

When do I ever have access to kids alone?

This is a solution without a problem, and considering it is a solution that

A. Costs money
B. Takes time
C. Is prone to error, and
D. Most importantly is a blatant violation of basic privacy rights

it is utterly ridiculous.

We do background checks where I officiate, and I have nothing to hide. I am not willing to take a stand on principle in this case, but it does bother me. I don't like the idea of someone poking around in my private life without very good reason, and the fevered imagination of some busy body who thinks officials have any access to children is not a good reason.

I want statistics. I want verifiable, objective data defining the scope of the problem this "solution" is fixing.

Anyone have any?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Berkut

They can?

I cannot imagine how - I get to a game site, I go to a private locker room, I change, I officiate the game, I return to a private locker room.

When do I ever have access to kids alone?

Really? It wouldn't be that hard...unless someone is watching you every moment to ensure you don't leave that private locker room and escorts you around the facility never taking their eyes off of you when you're not on the court. Remeber, you're the upstanding one...the problem ones will find a way.

Originally Posted by Berkut

This is a solution without a problem, and considering it is a solution that

A. Costs money

I'm willing to pay $3-5 once every three years as we do here in Oregon for the additional check that any contractor (referees, electricians, computer technician, roofer, etc.) working in the school is at least not a known risk. That fact that it is so cheap and that it might stop just 1-2 incidents is worth it. Referees might be among those with the least opportunity but to be fair, they apply the requirements to all contractors and employees.

Originally Posted by Berkut

B. Takes time

All of about 5 seconds when I register...and only once every three years.

Originally Posted by Berkut

C. Is prone to error, and

And this is a reason not to take a precaution? Certainly some risks make be missed but missing 2% of the problems is no reason to not catch the other 98% (percentages made up just for illustration).
Anyone that is flagged as a risk should be reviewed for accuracy before taking action.

Originally Posted by Berkut

D. Most importantly is a blatant violation of basic privacy rights

There is no invasion of privacy. You are not forced to officate for the school system. You have the right to not work around the kids. An invasion of privacy would be if they did this without you having the option to decline the assignments.

Originally Posted by Berkut

it is utterly ridiculous.

We do background checks where I officiate, and I have nothing to hide. I am not willing to take a stand on principle in this case, but it does bother me. I don't like the idea of someone poking around in my private life without very good reason, and the fevered imagination of some busy body who thinks officials have any access to children is not a good reason.

I want statistics. I want verifiable, objective data defining the scope of the problem this "solution" is fixing.

Anyone have any?