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.

[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.