Background Checks

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There are certain choices that people make that permanently close doors to them....even after 50 years of great behavior. Even if they might be OK now, they made their bed a long time ago. The end of a prison sentence never makes the infraction go away or the victim return to life (in the case of murder/manslaughter) or makes the victim's hurt go away (rape). Someone who criminally takes another person's life or rapes someone, has made their own choice to give up a lot of opportunities. They can't undo thier crime...so they can't undo their choice and recover what they lost.

You didn't explain why one of those closed doors should be sports officiating.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by LDUB

You didn't explain why one of those closed doors should be sports officiating.

There doesn't have to be an explanation. Such criminals just have to live with the fact that they will not be welcome in some circles and there will be many occupations they will never qualify for. They gave up many of their rights (even the right to an explanation) the moment they chose to commit the crime.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There doesn't have to be an explanation.

Of course, whatever you say goes...no need to even explain why

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by LDUB

Of course, whatever you say goes...no need to even explain why

Only someone with something to hide would question it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There doesn't have to be an explanation. Such criminals just have to live with the fact that they will not be welcome in some circles and there will be many occupations they will never qualify for. They gave up many of their rights (even the right to an explanation) the moment they chose to commit the crime.

Wow, I thought I was hard core. I disagree that there doesn't have to be an explanation. I agree that there are some crimes that carry permanent penalties, but in those cases there are compelling reasons for those. They can be explained. If someone who gets charged and convicted of murder for what happened in a bar fight when he was 19 loses his right to drink alcohol for the rest of his life, that can be fairly argued. Tim Donaghy has likely lost his right to ever officiate again, and it makes sense. Pete Rose, same thing with baseball.

If we're going to exclude a long-ago murderer from officiating, I think they deserve the right to an explanation. The connection is lost on me. I'm not above reason on this, though.

Also, as I've said, if a majority reached a consensus differing from my opinion, I'd have an easy time going along.

Back to M&M's question though. Is this really a problem?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Wow, I thought I was hard core. I disagree that there doesn't have to be an explanation. I agree that there are some crimes that carry permanent penalties, but in those cases there are compelling reasons for those. They can be explained. If someone who gets charged and convicted of murder for what happened in a bar fight when he was 19 loses his right to drink alcohol for the rest of his life, that can be fairly argued. Tim Donaghy has likely lost his right to ever officiate again, and it makes sense. Pete Rose, same thing with baseball.

If we're going to exclude a long-ago murderer from officiating, I think they deserve the right to an explanation. The connection is lost on me. I'm not above reason on this, though.

He/she IS a murderer...not was....will always be. That IS the explanation. They've proven they can't be trusted in society. Such a person just simply shouldn't work around kids.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Back to M&M's question though. Is this really a problem?

Is there really a problem with doing them? I've yet to see anything more than paranoia about someone knowing about a past conviction.

Note that as mentioned above, these checks are not required ONLY for officials in the places that do them. The requirements that officials get them come from much broader requirements for background checks on all contractors/employees working in the school. To exclude officials or any other group would just create a mess.

Maybe officials aren't the largest problem. Perhaps it is the plumbers or the fundraising repsj or the booster club parents. But they're treating everyone the same.

[Adam]

M&M's other point about who is making these decisions is valid. Who gets to see the reports, and are they trusted and vetted law enforcement officials or analysts? Knowing who gets to see the information is vital to whether or not I'd be willing to submit a background report.

If it's your local chapter secretary, or even the secretary at the state office, I'm not convinced that person has the appropriate law enforcement security clearance to view the documentation.

It's a detail that would have to be worked out.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

He/she IS a murderer...not was....will always be. That IS the explanation. They've proven they can't be trusted in society. Such a person just simply shouldn't work around kids.

Camron, I see you feel very strongly about this, and that's fine - you certainly have a right to feel that way. But what if the state you're working doesn't use that criteria for denial of an officiating license? And you somehow found out by accident a new official, who just moved to the area, had a murder conviction 20 years ago, and now wants to be a member of your association and work HS games. Would you refuse to work games with that person? What do you tell others about your refusal to work with that person? Do you feel strongly enough to let others know not to let this individual be an official? Which is more important to you - your feelings that a former murder should never be around kids anymore for the rest of his/her life, or do you respect the state association's right to select the criteria and that person's right to privacy about his/her past? Would you "grin and bear it" and work that other official anyway?

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Is there really a problem with doing them? I've yet to see anything more than paranoia about someone knowing about a past conviction.

I don't think the above questions would fall under "paranoia", but rather they are legitimate questions involving how people react to information they would or should not normally have access to. Should Camron decide this new offical shouldn't work, and do whatever he can to let others know about this information, when the state association already decided they could work as an official? What if there are others in the state office, or local associations, that feel strongly about other types of charges, such as tax evasion, or draft-dodging? Do they get to make the same decisions to attempt to allow or deny a person to officiate based on their own feelings and standards?

If you want to change the state criteria and make murder or manslaughter a reason for denial, or any other type of conviction, then so be it. But I'm not sure it's "paranoia" to think others can use the information outside of proper channels to forward their own line of thinking, even if it was to do their best to embarrass the individual to keep them from officiating.

Finally, I still have yet to hear of any particular incident involving abuse or crime against a child by an official using their position as an official, much less multiple incidents. I have, however, heard and read about multiple stories of teachers sexually abusing students - so it makes sense to give teachers background checks. I've also heard multiple stories of relatives abusing children - where's the outrage about states or the federal government not requiring background checks on all relatives before they are allowed to have contact with those kids? As mentioned before, what problem are we addressing with background checks for officials? And why does the official have to bear the cost?

[Mark Padgett]

Would a background check reveal if a guy is a registered sax offender?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Would a background check reveal if a guy is a registered sax offender?

Keep that up and you'll be singing a different tune.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Camron, I see you feel very strongly about this, and that's fine - you certainly have a right to feel that way. But what if the state you're working doesn't use that criteria for denial of an officiating license? And you somehow found out by accident a new official, who just moved to the area, had a murder conviction 20 years ago, and now wants to be a member of your association and work HS games. Would you refuse to work games with that person? What do you tell others about your refusal to work with that person? Do you feel strongly enough to let others know not to let this individual be an official? Which is more important to you - your feelings that a former murder should never be around kids anymore for the rest of his/her life, or do you respect the state association's right to select the criteria and that person's right to privacy about his/her past? Would you "grin and bear it" and work that other official anyway?

Yes...I would refuse...as an independant contractor, that is among my rights. And yes, I would tell others...about the persons conviction and that I have chosen to not work with them. Just becasue an organization has a hole in its policies doesn't mean you have to ignore issues.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I don't think the above questions would fall under "paranoia", but rather they are legitimate questions involving how people react to information they would or should not normally have access to.

If you want to change the state criteria and make murder or manslaughter a reason for denial, or any other type of conviction, then so be it. But I'm not sure it's "paranoia" to think others can use the information outside of proper channels to forward their own line of thinking, even if it was to do their best to embarrass the individual to keep them from officiating.

If it is information the public shouldn't have access to, fight to have the information taken off the public record.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Finally, I still have yet to hear of any particular incident involving abuse or crime against a child by an official using their position as an official, much less multiple incidents.

I have, several pages ago, provides exactly such an example. Not from hearsay...from a local example of a person I have worked games with.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

...
As mentioned before, what problem are we addressing with background checks for officials? And why does the official have to bear the cost?

What problem? An opportunity to repeat their offense. It may not stop it completely but it does close one door. And why the official? Becasue we're independant contractors...it is up to us to meet the qualifications for the job.

[Adam]

I would add to M&M's request the desire to find such an example that would have been prevented with background checks but not with a sex registry check.

And your answer to his other point really lays it out. You put murder on your list, what about DUI? Or Fraud? Or check kiting?

And your willingness to share that information with others is why I don't like the idea, in general. When Nosy Ned gets a hold of a file and sees things that he doens't like but the state has deemed irrelevant, Nosy Ned will be likely to share that info; unless he has a very real incentive not to.

I have access to such files in my job (not public record, but accessible with background checks), but it's very clear that I can only access them for job related purposes and I cannot share the information I get with anyone who does not share my job related purpose. If I decide to break that trust, I risk my clearance and by extension my job.

Nosy Ned has no such incentive for secrecy since he likely got the information by other-than-legal means. Worse, what happens if Nosy Ned is the one trusted with reviewing the files to ensure the applicants meet the state standards? That's why one of my questions is whether the person responsible for reviewing the files has a law enforcement security clearance.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes...I would refuse...as an independant contractor, that is among my rights. And yes, I would tell others...about the persons conviction and that I have chosen to not work with them. Just becasue an organization has a hole in its policies doesn't mean you have to ignore issues.

This is exactly the sentiment that bothers me. You are, in effect, taking policy that is enacted by a governing body, into your own hands. In law enforcement, those people are called vigilanties. If you truly believe that there should be a longer list of disqualifying charges, then, as you say in the next quote, why not fight to have the policy changed? Why do you get to impose your values unto someone else, over and above what the governing body dictates? And, if you get to do that, then so should others. What about the person who feels a female who had an abortion should never officiate because they murdered a child? Or, how about the husband of that woman? Aren't they effectively guilty of conspiracy, and should not be allowed to ever come near a child as well? What about the assignor who feels any convicted offense, traffic tickets included, reflects upon the integrity of the person, and therefore should not be allowed to officiate?

If you feel my examples are starting to get silly, then why do you get to draw the line over what's important and what's "silly" when it comes to other people's lives? You have a right to control what you do, and you can chose not to work with that person. But it is the telling others about private information that bothers me. It is imposing your different standards over and above what the governing body has already determined.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If it is information the public shouldn't have access to, fight to have the information taken off the public record.

Now here's the part I honestly have a question about - is it truly a public record? Can I go in anywhere and request a full background check on you, without your permission?

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I have, several pages ago, provides exactly such an example. Not from hearsay...from a local example of a person I have worked games with.

I did see that, but you didn't say whether that person, who is still in jail, committed the crime as a result of being an official, or was that a person who committed a crime, who also happened to be an official?

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

What problem? An opportunity to repeat their offense. It may not stop it completely but it does close one door.

So you don't believe someone who has committed any crime can ever be considered rehabilitated?

As I mentioned before, there are crimes I think we all can agree should disqualify an individual from being a licensed official for school games. But it is up to the governing body that issues the licenses to determine what those specific disqualifying events should be. And the information provided should be only about those specific requirements, not about everything.