Background Checks

[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.