Background Checks

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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

Oh I doubt that.

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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 vigilantes. 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?
.

Partly because I'm an independent contractor. I get to choose who I will and will not work with. If I were an employee, I wouldn't have such freedom...short of quitting.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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?
.

Again, as independent contractors, we can choose who we will or will not work with...doesn't have to be rational.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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?

.

Once again, the assignor can choose who to hire however they see fit as long as it doesn't touch any of the protected areas (race, gender, etc.).

If the assignor feels that a traffic ticket is sufficient to exclude people, that is their choice...they're doing the hiring....as long as they do it consistently.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.


.

Those governing bodies aren't ruling that the information can be known...just that they don't consider it to be enough to exclude the person. Again, you are calling it private information. It is not. The guilty party might want it to be private but they don't have that choice.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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?
.

Most arrests and convictions are public record. My local newspaper lists all arrests made by the city police each week. Court cases are also widely reported in newspapers...not necessarily front page but somewhere.

If a person can't talk about the facts detailed in a newspaper article, what can anyone talk about?

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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?

Yes, the initial contacts with the juvenile were directly through their position as an official. The acquaintance and initial "relationship" was started in the gym during and/or around the games with him there as an official. They then got together outside of the game setting and the rest is history.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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

Sure I do....but recidivism rates are strongly against them. They're welcome to do lots of things. But for many offenses, they shouldn't be allowed easy access to society's more vulnerable members.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

Can't really disagree there....I'm just puzzled about the complete resistance to background checks. I'm fine with governing bodies doing that job if they are actually doing it. But the lack of the governing bodies doing the right thing doesn't mean that a problem should be ignored.

[Adam]

Camron, I think we've about exhausted this from my perspective, so I'll just offer this before I bow out.

Even public information can be considered sensitive and private when it's compiled in a manner that is easily attainable by those without proper clearances. I would also venture to guess that not all states have such information so easily available. Yes, there are police blotters in most newspapers, but if someone applies for an official's license in Denver, we won't be able to dig up old newspaper articles to find out if he's ever been arrested and/or convicted. It would be too cumbersome and labor-intensive.

That's how public information can remain, for the most part, private. In effect if not in theory.

And regarding your response to M&M, my problem is not with someone who may refuse to work with another person with a history they find objectionable. You could refuse to work with someone because he's Republican for all I care. It's the sharing of that ill-gained information I object to.

[M&M Guy]

Camron, maybe you missed my initial point - I'm not against background checks in general. If there's a major problem with an individual, a background check can shed light on that problem and prevent possible future problems of the same issues. If the state says an offical who has a previous history of sexual abuse towards children should not officiate, then a law enforcement background check is certainly the best way to check for that.

One problem I have (and apparently Snaqs agrees as well) is with "unauthorized" people having access to private information, and unfortunately you are helping to prove my point. I don't have a problem with you refusing to work with someone because they have a background you do not agree with. That is certainly your right. What you haven't addressed is your willingness to tell others about that background in order to embarrass or outright prevent that official from working, based on your moral standard, even though they would qualify based on the state's standards. That doesn't simply address your right to not work with that individual, but now you are attempting to impose your standards on them, and their ability to officiate. As you said, and I agree, if you don't like the standard the state imposes, work to change it. But don't impose your own standards unilaterally on others, outside of current regulations. I think it's safe to say you wouldn't like the same done to you.

The other problem I have is whether this addresses a real problem. Your example is very unfortunate, but again, this is one specific incident. Just as important - would a background check have prevented it? Did this individual have a previous record of the same offense, or was this the first conviction? Do sports officials have the same or higher percentage of child sex abuse conviction rates over the general population? If so, then background checks on these convictions would be a good idea. Otherwise, it is at best a waste of money, and at worst a invasion of privacy. I'm not talking about "hiding" things that should be known, I'm talking about keeping things private that don't need to be known.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Camron,...

There are a few basic claims in oppostion of background checks:

1. That officials don't have the access to kids to commit such crime
   • I've provided an example that directly refutes those ideas...that the claim that officials don't get such access is false. They do...maybe not as much as teachers or coaches...but they do.
2. That criminal convictions are private...for authorized personnel only
   • They are public record as long as the person is not a minor
   • Define unauthorized. Just who is not authorized to read the newspaper columns mentioning criminal convictions?
   • To tell others about a person's criminal past that may be relevant is merely prudent. It not an invasion of privacy or an attempt to embarrass them. I can't impose my standards on anyone by telling others. It will be the others who make the choice to agree with the risk and take action or to ignore it. It is neither libelous nor slanderous to state provable fact.
3. That officials will be harmed through leaked informatoin far more often that it will protect the kids
   • No example of a "leak" of private information obtained from officials/coaches/teachers background checks has been cited
   • No example of an official being harmed by an error or by an irrelevant conviction has been cited.
   • The common system proposed doesn't communicate the details....only OK or not OK...not much to leak.
4. That a background check wouldn't prevent the crime
   • No claim has been made that it will prevent all crimes.
   • Most people convicted or just about any crime have a hard time changing their behavior....why allow them (those who have a problem that could impact the kids) in a position that puts them closer to the kids than the general public.

Basicaly, the oppostion to them has little merit.

[rsl]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes, the initial contacts with the juvenile were directly through their position as an official. The acquaintance and initial "relationship" was started in the gym during and/or around the games with him there as an official. They then got together outside of the game setting and the rest is history.

So not to be flippant or anything, but just to make a point...

What is this official's name? Since it public information, I'm sure you don't mind posting it. Some of us will search for the newspaper article because we are interested in the details.

Seriously, I don't want you to post the name, but I noticed that you haven't and it goes to the point that sometimes public information is better not shared.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rsl

So not to be flippant or anything, but just to make a point...

What is this official's name? Since it public information, I'm sure you don't mind posting it. Some of us will search for the newspaper article because we are interested in the details.

Seriously, I don't want you to post the name, but I noticed that you haven't and it goes to the point that sometimes public information is better not shared.

While I share your general point at the end, I don't think not posting the name of the official means anything.

1. No one asked.
2. It's not relevant to this discussion, really.