Background Checks

[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?

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

So you have hypothesized a problem - officials leaving their locker rooms to go molest kids.

So, how often does this happen then?

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.

The check here in New York is $100 per person.

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.

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

But it takes time to run the check - here in New York is a couple of weeks, and you are not supposed to officiate in that time. And *someone* is taking the time to do the background check,and make sure they are up to date, and all the administration necessary. Just some more school overhead, yeah!

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).

It is a reason to mitigate against the fact that there is no proven problem that this solves to begin with.

What about people who are unfairly accused as a result of some error? What about the fact that everytime you do a background check on someone, their data is out there in yet another place that it can be stolen or abused or simply mislaid or mishandled?

Anyone that is flagged as a risk should be reviewed for accuracy before taking action.

Of course - which takes more time and money, and runs more risk of abuse. Who is doing this checking? How do I know they will handle the data appropriately and with my best interests in mind? Are they qualified to have access to this data, and understand how it can be legally used or not used?

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.

Semantics.

They are going to go through my background and try to find out things about me that they are not willing to ascertain simply by asking me. Anytime some governing body is going to demand information from me, simple privacy also demands that they have some justifiable reason for needing it that clearly outweighs the potential negatives (and *I* get to define those negatives, since it is MY information). Or rather, that *should* be the standard that is used, IMO.

Instead the standard is "Hey, if you have nothing to hide, you should not mind random people digging through your past, right?!?!"

Well, I do mind. It doesn't matter, since I have no leverage, and am not willing to give up officiating over it (although I know people who have), but it is ridiculous.

I notice you kind of cut out my request for objective and reliable statistics for how widespread the problem of officials molesting kids is, such that these kinds of measures are needed to solve the problem...

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Berkut

So you have hypothesized a problem - officials leaving their locker rooms to go molest kids.

I don't think that's the real concern

I think the concern (the validity of the concern is different) is that an official will make friends with the kid, arrange to "accidentally" bump into the kid after practice the next night, and then offer him/her a ride home...

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I don't think that's the real concern

I think the concern (the validity of the concern is different) is that an official will make friends with the kid, arrange to "accidentally" bump into the kid after practice the next night, and then offer him/her a ride home...

That seems rather far fetched - and if the concern is that anyone who has any contact with kids should get this same check...grocery store clerks? The guywho works at blockbuster?

I mean really - *anyone* could theoretically use a relationship to get closer to a child. You would have to background check *everyone* if that is your standard.

Of course, you know what my next comment is - can I see some stats for how often officials use their capacity as officials to create this relationship that they later exploit to molest children, and of course I would like to know what percentage of that number would be prevented by a background check.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Berkut

That seems rather far fetched - and if the concern is that anyone who has any contact with kids should get this same check...grocery store clerks? The guywho works at blockbuster?

I mean really - *anyone* could theoretically use a relationship to get closer to a child. You would have to background check *everyone* if that is your standard.

Of course, you know what my next comment is - can I see some stats for how often officials use their capacity as officials to create this relationship that they later exploit to molest children, and of course I would like to know what percentage of that number would be prevented by a background check.

You're not the first one who's asked this question in this thread.

My biggest problem relates to the questions of who has access to it, who is making the decisions on who can officiate and who can't, and where does that information get stored?

And if it's decided now that only sexual and violent crimes are relevant, but that information is stored, then it can be later decided that DUIs, petty theft, and fraud (for examples) are relevant. Maybe speeding tickets count, too? Domestic violence charges (as opposed to convictions), perhaps? All of this stuff is available on a basic criminal history.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I don't think that's the real concern

I think the concern (the validity of the concern is different) is that an official will make friends with the kid, arrange to "accidentally" bump into the kid after practice the next night, and then offer him/her a ride home...

And THAT is more or less what happened here in Portland with the official I'm aware of....that went to jail.

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And THAT is more or less what happened here in Portland with the official I'm aware of....that went to jail.

Two questions:

1. Is there some reason to think that absent his position as an official, he would not have been able to find some child to befriend and molest?

2. Did he have a history that would have excluded him from officiating had a background check been done?

3. Does this happen a lot?

OK, so that is three questions...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Berkut

So you have hypothesized a problem - officials leaving their locker rooms to go molest kids.

So, how often does this happen then?

You said there was no opportunity. I only provided a perfectly viable opportunity.

Originally Posted by Berkut

The check here in New York is $100 per person.

The real complaint should be that they're overcharging, not that they're doing it at all. Of course, they're probably using the excess to pay for some other program that the politicians use to buy votes.

Originally Posted by Berkut

But it takes time to run the check - here in New York is a couple of weeks, and you are not supposed to officiate in that time. And *someone* is taking the time to do the background check,and make sure they are up to date, and all the administration necessary. Just some more school overhead, yeah!

You make it sound like doing taxes....it is not that complicated. The check is not the problem, it is the timing of the check. Have officials register 1-2 months before the season...plenty of time to do a simple check. Schedule them anyway and revoke thier schedule if something shows up.

Originally Posted by Berkut

It is a reason to mitigate against the fact that there is no proven problem that this solves to begin with.

What about people who are unfairly accused as a result of some error? What about the fact that everytime you do a background check on someone, their data is out there in yet another place that it can be stolen or abused or simply mislaid or mishandled?

There are proven problems. The fact that sex offenders continue to assualt kids is enough of a reason to do a background check. It's easy and it is (should be) cheap. There is no good reason to not do it for the benefit it provides....even if it only saves a few victims the experience.

Originally Posted by Berkut

Of course - which takes more time and money, and runs more risk of abuse. Who is doing this checking? How do I know they will handle the data appropriately and with my best interests in mind? Are they qualified to have access to this data, and understand how it can be legally used or not used?

The assoications don't get the data here at all...they get an OK or not OK from the state activities association. The checks are done by the same people who do it for all school employees.

Originally Posted by Berkut

Semantics.

They are going to go through my background and try to find out things about me that they are not willing to ascertain simply by asking me.

And, if you were a child molestor, you'd be perfectly willing to tell anyone that asked?

Originally Posted by Berkut

Anytime some governing body is going to demand information from me, simple privacy also demands that they have some justifiable reason for needing it that clearly outweighs the potential negatives (and *I* get to define those negatives, since it is MY information). Or rather, that *should* be the standard that is used, IMO.

As I said before. You have the choice to meet the requirements of the job or look for a different job.

Originally Posted by Berkut

Instead the standard is "Hey, if you have nothing to hide, you should not mind random people digging through your past, right?!?!"

Well, I do mind. It doesn't matter, since I have no leverage, and am not willing to give up officiating over it (although I know people who have), but it is ridiculous.

And those are the same people who think that everything is a consipiracy.

Originally Posted by Berkut

I notice you kind of cut out my request for objective and reliable statistics for how widespread the problem of officials molesting kids is, such that these kinds of measures are needed to solve the problem...

I cut it out becasue I don't have data....but I do have direct knowledge of at least one incident that happened right here...by a guy I knew through officiating. That is all that I need to know. It happens. And this guy shouldn't be allowed to officiate anywhere again...and how is a place expected to stop him from doing so without a background check?

It basically comes down to the fact that the school system is responsible for protecting the safety of the children under their custody so far as it is feasable. When easily obtainable information that could have prevented a crime was not referenced, the school has not upheld thier responsibility.

[Berkut]

So your basic position is that as long as someone somewhere did something then, tens of thousands of others people's right to simple privacy can and should be waived, whether they like it or not?

Does this apply to all crimes, or only those that involve kids?

Well, that is not all *I* need to know - if you want to argue that it is reasonable to pry into my private life, an anecdote about someone somewhere once doing something somewhere once is not really adequate to convice me. I want to see some data, I want to know the scope of the problem your prying is going to solve, and how it will solve it, and what the repurcussions are.

Granted, those kinds of anecdotes are (sadly) adequate to convince the emotional hyterics to go ahead and trample my privacy, but it isn't something we should be proud of, but rather something we should lament. Just another little slice of libery cut away to provide some fictional sense of security.

[JRutledge]

I see both arguments. I really do not think it is necessary to give a background check for someone that is really not accessible to kids. And if we are, it is not because we are allowed that access. What we do is really out in the open. If we are given close access to kids, that could be completely prevented by administrations on so many levels.

I also see the invasion on some level. But a background check is only going to find those that are convicted offenders. If you are not convicted, you still can slip through the cracks. And there are a lot of people that are not convicted that commit acts against minors. I also think it is kind of a waste of money on some level when you are not giving background checks to fans and other individuals who will have much more access to children. But a lot of policies are for nothing more than a peace of mind. I just think there are other way to achieve that peace.

Peace