Background Checks

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Berkut

Not really - the fact that he is a human being who lives in a society puts him in place to befriend kids. He could have walked into the gym and sat down next to some kid and befriended him, or it is even likely that he is already friends with lots of kids, like his relatives.

No....officiating game gives an official acess that a fan wouldn't have had. They have repeated contacts with the same kids in a trusting environment that allows the offender to develop a trust with the child.

Originally Posted by Berkut

Barn door, except this barn has no sides, roof, or door for that matter.

So, since you can't close all access, don't bother with any...particularly the most likely or the most easily addressed?

Originally Posted by Berkut

Officiating does not provide anyone with any special access to kids - that is the danger, not the fact that you are there and kids are there - that happens everytime I walk into my local grocery store.

Sure it does. Positions of authority, even if in limited venues, give access that the random person does not have.

Originally Posted by Berkut

Emotive nonsense. Of course once is too much - but that doesn't mean that any all imposition on others (99.999% of whom are perfectly innocent) is justified as long as it can stop one single instance of a crime being committed.

Citation please? You might be suprised to find that he number of offenders is a bit higher than 0.001%.

Originally Posted by Berkut

That same logic can (and has) been used to justify any kind of restriction of liberty or invasion of privacy. The reality is that bad things will happen. We don't want to live in a police state (and in fact most police states still ahve bad things happening anyway - generally much MORE bad things), so we have presumably decided that there should be some kind of balancing mechanism for how we restrict the innocent majority in order to protect ourselves from the criminal minority.

That balancing mechanism involves some sort of *objective* measure of risk weighed against the imposition the "fix" imposes on everyone else, and the effectiveness of the fix. So far, nobody has been able to EVER provide a single piece of data to measure the risk of NOT doing background checks on officials, or shown how the fix will reduce that risk.

And this should be easy to find, if in fact there is a problem. People have been officiating without background checks for decades - surely if this is a problem, there ought to be lots of data about it, right? Lots of police reports of officials who abuse their position to molest kids?

Right?

Do you not think that the whole idea of a background check was started by having kids molested only to find out that the teacher/coach/referee had a record of the same behavior elsewhere that would have been easily discovered with a simple background check?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Do you not think that the whole idea of a background check was started by having kids molested only to find out that the teacher/coach/referee had a record of the same behavior elsewhere that would have been easily discovered with a simple background check?

No. I think the teachers and coaches got started that way. Officials got thrown in when someone realized we weren't included in the background checks. IOW, it didn't matter that the problem wasn't there, only that we weren't included in the solution.

It's a warm-fuzzy that does more harm than good, IMO.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It's a warm-fuzzy that does more harm than good, IMO.

I doubt that anyone has been harmed by being asked to submit to a basic background check....not a full investigation into your full life including what books you checked out from the library 20 years ago.

Anyone that is denied officiating because of what is revealed on the backgorund check can only blame themselves. Bad choices have consequences. Just because they'd like them to be forgotten about doesn't mean they should. When certain lines are crossed, there are opportunities that should no longer exist for that person...ever.

[constable]

I still stand by my point- if you have nothing to hide than WHO CARES.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by constable

I still stand by my point- if you have nothing to hide than WHO CARES.

Define "nothing to hide." We all make mistakes when we're young. Look, I'm confident I would pass a background check. But I know there are people who have made mistakes they wouldn't want made public, and that have no bearing on their ability to officiate.

A DUI when you're 19 shouldn't preclude you from officiating, and it may well be something you don't want made public. A background check, when completed, will need to be stored some place. What happens when Nosy Ned gets a hold of it and publicizes it. Or what about an arrest at a political demonstration?

I know it's not the same thing, but the founders of our country made it clear the "if you have nothing to hide" mantra meant nothing to them. There's a reason illegal search and seizures are prohibited. Hell, I'm sure if we had mandatory inspections of everyone's personal computers, we'd catch a lot more child porn afficianados and prevent quite a few crimes.

If you've got nothing to hide....

[rsl]

Originally Posted by constable

I still stand by my point- if you have nothing to hide than WHO CARES.

If it costs $5, maybe. If it costs $100, as it apparently does in New York, I care. As many have pointed out, the cost/benefit ratio is small given the risk with referees, and we may lose some good referees.

Oh, and by the way, I do have nothing to hide.

[Berkut]

The entire "If you ahve nothing to hide, you should not care if I have access to your private information" argument is really rather fascist.

I guess I just broke Godwins law, but there it is.

The standard is not "Do you have anything to hide", the standard is "Can you prove to me why you NEED to go poking around in my life?". Whether or not I have "something to hide" is completely irrelevant to whether or not you have the right to demand access to my private life.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Berkut

The entire "If you ahve nothing to hide, you should not care if I have access to your private information" argument is really rather fascist.

I guess I just broke Godwins law, but there it is.

The standard is not "Do you have anything to hide", the standard is "Can you prove to me why you NEED to go poking around in my life?". Whether or not I have "something to hide" is completely irrelevant to whether or not you have the right to demand access to my private life.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I doubt that anyone has been harmed by being asked to submit to a basic background check....not a full investigation into your full life including what books you checked out from the library 20 years ago.

Anyone that is denied officiating because of what is revealed on the backgorund check can only blame themselves. Bad choices have consequences. Just because they'd like them to be forgotten about doesn't mean they should. When certain lines are crossed, there are opportunities that should no longer exist for that person...ever.

Sorry, Camron, I wasn't clear. First, let me address this point, then I'll clarify what I actually meant. A basic background check will likely pull up any arrests during adulthood, and will definitely pull any convictions that haven't been stricken from the record.

Do you really think a marijuana possession charge (personal quantities) from 15 years ago is relevant? What about an assault charge from a bar fight 12 years ago? Or maybe the guy who was convicted of blocking the entrance to an abortion clinic or a Marine Recruiting Office when he was in college. There's a lot of information about someone that can be gleened from a background check that should remain private.

There's nothing that can be accomplished with this that couldn't be done with a sex registry check.

Now, back to what I meant that post. I didn't really mean anything with regard to harm to the officials submitting background checks. I am more concerned with Mrs. Basketball Mom thinking all is well because everyone who works in that school has had their background checked. There's a false sense of security stemming from an action that has no benefit.

"It's a warm fuzzy" means simply that it makes people feel better without any real benefit.

"Does more harm" refers to the false sense of security. They're just rearranging the deck chairs, IMO.

[JRutledge]

Did Mary Kay Letourneau hurt any child before she was convicted as a sex offender? And Letourneau was a teacher that was able to gain the trust of a young man when he was vulnerable and powerless (I know many here might suggest they wish it was them, but that is not the point ). But the point I am trying to make here is a lot of sex offense happen much more from people that have direct access to those children. I have dated a couple of people that were molested and it did not happen to them by people other than family members or close friends. These individuals were never convicted or even prosecuted in any way. So what if someone is never prosecuted and is totally guilty of a crime is around children? I think the point Berut is making is a very valid one. It makes us all feel better, but as an official I cannot think of any situation where I even knew a kid beyond the court or field other than them recognizing me as an official. And if that is the standard, I do not need to be an official, I could be a fan. When we are on that field or court, everyone sees my interaction with them.

If anything I have been afraid of being put in places by the school that might be seen as inappropriate. Ever been in a girl's locker room and had a young girl walk in the locker room with a bunch of naked men? Not a good feeling and all it would take is the right complaint and one of us in that room might get accused of some inappropriate behavior. And if a charge was made, would that make a child safer the next time?

There was a coach in my area that was accused of having an inappropriate relationship with a teenage girl. He went to jail for 50+ years or so. And as an official I see many more fans having interactions with kids that I will never have. I might only see a player once. A fan of a school might be at all the games and talk to the kids afterwards. I do not see how officials have that kind of interaction realistically without being accused of being totally unprofessional in other ways. If we talk to a coach too long our motives are questioned. So how do we have a relationship with a player and no one says a word?

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Did Mary Kay Letourneau hurt any child before she was convicted as a sex offender?

Doesn't matter.

The real question is whether we should depend on her to tell her next employer (possibly a school system) about her conviction or whether her employer should do background checks.

What do you think her next victim's lawyer would say when they're suing the school for millions for negligence...since it was so easy to find out about her history...$millions that each of us will have to pay through higher taxes. The schools are protecting themselves as much as anything.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Doesn't matter.

The real question is whether we should depend on her to tell her next employer (possibly a school system) about her conviction or whether her employer should do background checks.

Did she tell the first employer that she was engaging in inappropriate contact? Of course not, but the point is she had more access to this kid (now her husband) much more than I will ever have with a young person during and after a game.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

What do you think her next victim's lawyer would say when they're suing the school for millions for negligence...since it was so easy to find out about her history...$millions that each of us will have to pay through higher taxes. The schools are protecting themselves as much as anything.

Well anyone can sue over anything. I am sure someone might one day sue over how far the background checks should go.

The bottom line is that policy should not be made on whether it stops one person out of thousands. All I am saying is that you need more than a background check. You need policies that keep kids away from adults in inappropriate ways.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Doesn't matter.

The real question is whether we should depend on her to tell her next employer (possibly a school system) about her conviction or whether her employer should do background checks.

What do you think her next victim's lawyer would say when they're suing the school for millions for negligence...since it was so easy to find out about her history...$millions that each of us will have to pay through higher taxes. The schools are protecting themselves as much as anything.

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.

[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.

[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