The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 27, 2009, 05:02pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy View Post
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 28, 2009, 11:28am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 5,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
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.
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department.

(Used with permission.)
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 28, 2009, 01:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 31
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 28, 2009, 02:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 5,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by ref1986 View Post
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.
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department.

(Used with permission.)
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 28, 2009, 10:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy View Post
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.
No, It's simpler than that. You request the clearances and the clearances are provided to you. You are either cleared or you are not. For example, you request the FBI criminal record check. The FBI is asked if there is any record of you having committed any of the list of crimes that would disquality you from receiving the clearance. If the answer is no, you get the clearance. If the answer is yes, you don't get the clearance (there are options to appeal). You also request a PA State Police record check. You then provide the copies of the clearances to any propsective employer covered under the law -- school district, law enforcement department, social service agency, nursing home, etc. If you are a sports official, you will have the option of sending your clearances to the PIAA which will put them in the database. That will allow the AD to check the database. But if you want you can provide each AD with the copies and send nothing to the PIAA. This law applies to almost everyone whose job brings them into regular contact with children. (I'm a college prof and our new hires have to do it because they may have contact with students under 18.) No prospective employer ever sees any of the raw information.

And for those of you who worry about "leaks" of information from your criminal history, if you don't have a criminal history there's nothing to leak, is there? This is essentially a criminal history/court record check, not a total background investigation where they look at your employment, credit history, how often you cheat on your wife. There is nothing else there to leak.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 28, 2009, 11:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by ref1986 View Post
No, It's simpler than that.
Not quite that simple. The PIAA does require officials subject to the check to submit the results to the PIAA. No submission, no registration. In terms of the 3 reports, are you sure that no offenses other than disqualifying offenses appear? Are you aware of someone receiving the reports that had non-qualifying offenses that didn't appear on their reports. I am not sure and this is something that I may follow up with the PIAA leadership because it is surely an issue for officials.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sat Aug 29, 2009, 12:31am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 278
Out of curiosity, I requested a PA state police criminal check report although I was not required to do so by the PIAA. It was inexpensive ($10), immediately available on line and anyone can request his/her report. Here are the results with identifying information removed.


Pennsylvania State Police
1800 Elmerton Avenue
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110
Response for Criminal Record Check


Namexxx
Streetxxx

Cityxx, Statexx Zipxxx TELEPHONE xxx

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE DOES HEREBY CERTIFY THAT:
Name: XXX
Date of Birth: XXX
Social Security #: XXX
Sex: X
Race: XXXX
Date of Request: 08/20/2009 07:32 AM
Purpose of Request: School District

Maiden Name and/or Alias (1) (2)
(3) (4)

*** HAS NO CRIMINAL RECORD IN PENNSYLVANIA BASED ON A CHECK BASED ON THE ABOVE IDENTIFIERS - REFER TO CONTROL #RXXX ***
THE RESPONSE IS BASED ON A COMPARISON OF DATA PROVIDED BY THE REQUESTER AGAINST INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE FILES OF THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE CENTRAL REPOSITORY ONLY. PLEASE CONFIRM IDENTIFIERS PROVIDED. POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION CANNOT BE MADE WITHOUT FINGERPRINTS THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE RESPONSE DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF CRIMINAL RECORDS, WHICH MIGHT BE CONTAINED IN THE REPOSITORIES OF OTHER LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES.
COMPARISON MADE WITH FINGERPRINTS

THE INFORMATION ON THIS CERTIFICATION FORM CAN BE VALIDATED BY ACCESSING THE PENNSYLVANIA ACCESS TO CRIMINAL HISTORY (PATCH) RECORD CHECK STATUS SCREEN https://epatch.state.pa.us/RCStatusSearch.jsp) AND SUBMITTING A STATUS CHECK REQUEST THAT CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING - SUBJECT'S NAME (EXACTLY AS INITIALLY ENTERED), CONTROL NUMBER AND DATE OF REQUEST. PATCH WILL FIND AND DISPLAY THE CORRESPONDING RECORD CHECK REQUEST. DETAILS ON THE REQUEST CAN BE VIEWED BY CLICKING ON THE CONTROL NUMBER. YOU WILL BE ABLE TO VERIFY IF THIS REQUEST WAS SENT OUT AS A NO RECORD OR RECORD RESPONSE BY THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE.
QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS CRIMINAL RECORD CHECK SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE PATCH HELP LINE AT TELEPHONE NUMBER 717-425-5546 FOR LOCAL CALLS OR TOLL FREE AT 1-888-QUERY-PA (1-888-783-7972).
Certified by:
Lieutenant Michael F. Gillelan, Director
Criminal Records and Identification Division
Pennsylvania State Police DISSEMINATED BY: SYSTEM
08/20/2009
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Background Checks Cub42 Baseball 29 Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:06am
Background Checks SergioJ Softball 20 Mon Feb 12, 2007 07:17am
background checks oatmealqueen Basketball 30 Mon May 22, 2006 01:33pm
Background checks huup ref Basketball 4 Tue Jan 17, 2006 01:14am
Little League Background Checks GarthB Baseball 10 Mon Oct 28, 2002 02:48pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:46am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1