Background Checks

[M&M Guy]

What type of controls will exist over this information? How will officials know that only the information necessary will be used, and that the rest will be ignored and/or protected?

Why would I want some secretary in some state high school association somewhere knowing about my bra-burning incident? What if she personally finds it offensive, mentions it to several co-workers over lunch, they agree, and I get put on the banned list, even though I met the official criteria? Or, what if an official does have a manslaughter conviction in their past, and someone who feels like Mark in the office sees that and decides he is going to take it upon himself to send out e-mails to all of the official's associations "informing" them of this Manson-like individual? What if an official has a prior DUI, stops by the local gas station on the way out of town after a game to pick up a beer, and hits a student in the parking lot - won't the school still get sued for allowing that official to work, knowing they had the background check that already showed that particular "problem"?

Will everyone else with the same level of contact with the kids be subject to the same checks? How about the parents who work the concession stands?

It just seems to bring up too many questions for the apparent "problems" it might solve.

[constable]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

What type of controls will exist over this information? How will officials know that only the information necessary will be used, and that the rest will be ignored and/or protected?

Why would I want some secretary in some state high school association somewhere knowing about my bra-burning incident? What if she personally finds it offensive, mentions it to several co-workers over lunch, they agree, and I get put on the banned list, even though I met the official criteria? Or, what if an official does have a manslaughter conviction in their past, and someone who feels like Mark in the office sees that and decides he is going to take it upon himself to send out e-mails to all of the official's associations "informing" them of this Manson-like individual? What if an official has a prior DUI, stops by the local gas station on the way out of town after a game to pick up a beer, and hits a student in the parking lot - won't the school still get sued for allowing that official to work, knowing they had the background check that already showed that particular "problem"?

Will everyone else with the same level of contact with the kids be subject to the same checks? How about the parents who work the concession stands?

It just seems to bring up too many questions for the apparent "problems" it might solve.

Man some people are paranoid.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by constable

Man some people are paranoid.

I may be paranoid, but there still could be people out to get me...

You tell me, which happens more often?:
- An official harms a kid as a result of using their position, and it could've been prevented by a background check ahead of time.
- "Private" information has been leaked to the general public.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I may be paranoid, but there still could be people out to get me...

You tell me, which happens more often?:
- An official harms a kid as a result of using their position, and it could've been prevented by a background check ahead of time.
- "Private" information has been leaked to the general public.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

The "right" comparson would be either:

- An official harms a kid as a result of using their position, and it could've been prevented by a background check ahead of time.
- "Private" information regarding an offiical that was obtained through the official's background check has been leaked to the general public.


or:

- An official person harms a kid as a result of using their position, and it could've been prevented by a background check ahead of time.
- "Private" information has been leaked to the general public.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You're comparing apples and oranges.

The "right" comparson would be either:

- An official harms a kid as a result of using their position, and it could've been prevented by a background check ahead of time.
- "Private" information regarding an offiical that was obtained through the official's background check has been leaked to the general public.


or:

- An official person harms a kid as a result of using their position, and it could've been prevented by a background check ahead of time.
- "Private" information has been leaked to the general public.

While I understand your attempt to make a "proper" comparison, I am still focused on the underlying questions: Has there EVER been a case, or cases, of a sports official harming a child, and the initial or repeated contact with that child was a result of that person being an official? And, secondly, is there a reasonable chance that case or cases would have been prevented if there had been a background check?

In other words, is there really a problem that needs to be addressed?

As for possible leaking of information, no, I do not have official records or statistics, but I am going on anecdotal information on leaks. I think we are all aware of most of the high-profile cases, such as the names on the baseball PHD list that continue to be leaked, and I'm sure most of us are aware of more local examples. Can I be sure my information - name, address, SS#, arrest record, types of books overdue, etc., - is just as safe in some state high school association office as it is in a federal courthouse?

More importantly, if the reports are not filtered, why would I want to supply more than the required information to the state? If the state has made the requirement that only felonies involving drugs or sex, especially around children, are the only criteria for rejection of a license, then they should not need to know about the manslaughter conviction from 25 years ago, or that the overdue book is The Kama Sutra. You can argue that manslaughter should be a criteria - fine, make it so. If it is not, then the people involved in making those decisions (who do not belong to a government agency or law enforcement) do not need to know non-essential information.

So, if there are documented cases of officials with prior records doing harm to the kids they come in contact with, then I'm all for doing what is necessary to both protect the kids and keep me from being associated with those scumbags. But I should only have to supply the necessary information, not any more. And there should be sufficient safeguards in place to protect that information. If there is no real problem, then there is no necessary information to provide.

[ref1986]

It's important to note that the PA law does not single out officials. It applies to anyone who is employed either as salaried or hourly employee or independent contractor by a school district or other school entity. It also applies to day care centers, facilities for the mentally handicapped, social service agencies that work with children, etc.

Second, the clearances that new officials must provide do not contain raw information. They certify that no disqualifying information under the law was found. For those of us who have a military background or had another type of job where a clearance was required, you know you either got the clearance or you didn't. But the clearance your boss got on you did not contain any raw information about you. In PA the state police have been doing background checks for decades. I have never heard of a single leak of information. And how about the hundreds of thousands the FBI does annually?

Finally, officials can submit copies of their clearances to the PIAA. The PIAA web site will note for each official when each clearance was received. ADs can go online and see if an official is cleared, just as schools can go to an online state database to see if teachers are cleared.

The law is the law. The chance of it being changed to exempt officials is someplace to the far side of none. So while it may make some people feel good to vent about how unfair it is, in PA you have a simple choice: get the clearances or don't officiate.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by ref1986

It's important to note that the PA law does not single out officials. It applies to anyone who is employed either as salaried or hourly employee or independent contractor by a school district or other school entity. It also applies to day care centers, facilities for the mentally handicapped, social service agencies that work with children, etc.
Ok - no problems here.
Second, the clearances that new officials must provide do not contain raw information. They certify that no disqualifying information under the law was found.Who is "they? The state police? An outside agency? The PIAA? Who actually has access to the raw data and determines whether the official meets the criteria? For those of us who have a military background or had another type of job where a clearance was required, you know you either got the clearance or you didn't. But the clearance your boss got on you did not contain any raw information about you. In PA the state police have been doing background checks for decades. I have never heard of a single leak of information. And how about the hundreds of thousands the FBI does annually?You mean like the unauthorized ones that were leaked on members of Congress a year or so back?

Finally, officials can submit copies of their clearances to the PIAA. The PIAA web site will note for each official when each clearance was received. ADs can go online and see if an official is cleared, just as schools can go to an online state database to see if teachers are cleared.

The law is the law. The chance of it being changed to exempt officials is someplace to the far side of none. No, I'm not talking about exempting officials if all other similar employees and contractors remain that law. But, if "the law is the law" is the overriding factor, and we don't have a choice, then wouldn't we all still be under British rule? So while it may make some people feel good to vent about how unfair it is, in PA you have a simple choice: get the clearances or don't officiate.

If you're telling me that the state police collect the data, then provide essntially a "Clear" or "Not Clear" to the PIAA, then I agree with how it's handled. That eliminates my objection to providing a non-law enforcement agency with information they don't need. And if the law applies to everyone who deals with kids, and not simply adding officials to the list, then it's being applied fairly.

But I still haven't been shown there's a problem that these background checks correct.