Background Checks

[ref1986]

wanja,

Thanks. ADs are required to go to the site you provided and check to be sure that that the clearance the official provided was indeed a "no record" report. A report could be forged. Again, it's important to note that nothing in the report will be provided. It will certify that the official received either a "no record" report or a "record" report.

In the past 10 years two middle-aged officials from my area have been busted -- one for statutory rape and the other for child porn. Both served time. I can't believe anyone would seriously suggest those guys should not be banned for life from officiating. Do some of you guys really want men like this moving to your state and officiating your daughters' games???? That's what background checks will prevent. I'm incredulous that anyone opposes them.

[Hugh Refner]

Originally Posted by ref1986

In the past 10 years two middle-aged officials from my area have been busted -- one for statutory rape and the other for child porn. Both served time. I can't believe anyone would seriously suggest those guys should not be banned for life from officiating.

Make it simple. Those guys should just be banned from life.

[rsl]

Originally Posted by ref1986

wanja,
I can't believe anyone would seriously suggest those guys should not be banned for life from officiating. Do some of you guys really want men like this moving to your state and officiating your daughters' games???? That's what background checks will prevent. I'm incredulous that anyone opposes them.

I am beginning to support background checks- especially at a cost of $10. You did say these guys were middle aged, so they probably should not ref again ever. But to suggest someone be banned for life for statutory rape is bogus. It could be a 22 year old who hooked up with a seventeen year old who looks 29 at an adult bar, or it could be a 45 year old referee who gave a 15 year old player a ride home from a game. The first did not make a life long mistake, and the second made an eternal error.

I think that is part of the point- background checks raise the very difficult question of how bad is bad enough to be banned.

[wanja]

Originally Posted by rsl

I am beginning to support background checks- especially at a cost of $10.

The total cost in PA is not $10. That is the cost for the state police report. Including the required fingerprinting and 2 other reports the total cost is about $60 as I recall.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ref1986

wanja,

Thanks. ADs are required to go to the site you provided and check to be sure that that the clearance the official provided was indeed a "no record" report. A report could be forged. Again, it's important to note that nothing in the report will be provided. It will certify that the official received either a "no record" report or a "record" report.

In the past 10 years two middle-aged officials from my area have been busted -- one for statutory rape and the other for child porn. Both served time. I can't believe anyone would seriously suggest those guys should not be banned for life from officiating. Do some of you guys really want men like this moving to your state and officiating your daughters' games???? That's what background checks will prevent. I'm incredulous that anyone opposes them.

Please read the entire context of what's been written before passing judgment. These crimes are the prime example of what I'm talking about and will be more readily and cheaply available on a sex-offender registry.

These guys should be banned, I don't question that and never have.

Here's what I am saying:

1. These guys don't have necessary access, in their capacity as officials, that makes it more dangerous.

2. Background checks can give a false sense of security, making people feel comfortable rather than preventing knuckleheads from even having the sort of off-court access we have. There's no reason to stick us in an active lockerroom with students (wrestlers for example) who are showering or dressing.

3. Sex-registries are sufficient to ban the ones who have been caught before.

4. The question of who exactly views the reports and makes decisions needs to be resolved in each jurisdiction.

[ref1986]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Please read the entire context of what's been written before passing judgment. These crimes are the prime example of what I'm talking about and will be more readily and cheaply available on a sex-offender registry . . . Sex-registries are sufficient to ban the ones who have been caught before.

The problem is that's not the case, at least in PA. The sex offender registry does not include all persons convicted of sex offenses, in fact, it includes only a small minority. That's because it's the "nuclear option." It's a public record. A person on that registry will have his life essentially destroyed. He'll be ridiculed and harassed wherever he goes. It will be almost impossible to find a job. As a result, judges impose registration only for the most heinous and incorrigible offenders. It's reserved largely for sexual predators. Many people commit acts that should ban them from working with children, including officiating, but are not serious enough to destroy their lives. In PA, a first offense for exposing oneself to little girls, or child porn, or putting a hidden camera in the girls locker room, will probably not get the offender on the registry. But pretty clearly those guys should not be officiating. In addition, there are nonsexual crimes that will result in the offender being banned from working with children. A conviction for nonsexual child abuse will do it, and should.

Some mistakes follow you the rest of your life. If you work for a bank and get convicted of embezzlement, you'll never work for a bank again. It doesn't matter if you were 25 or 55 when you did it. If you dealt drugs when you were young and foolish, you'll never pass a background investigation for a federal law enforcement job. If you're convicted of exposing yourself to little girls, you'll never be a teacher, or, in PA, an official. I have no problem with that.

[Berkut]

My "problem" with it is simply that there is not a problem that needs solving to beign with.

I don't care if some guy who was convicted of looking at child pron ever gets to officiate again - screw 'em, I have no sympathy for them.

What I *do* care about is that someone has come along and told me that if I want to officiate, I must allow them to dig into my personal life beyond what they can simply ask me about, so that they can assuage their hysteria about the non-existent problem of officials molesting children.

If you don't want people with previous criminal histories of whatever sort officiating, then make that the terms of employment. Since the issue is continuing punishment for them, as opposed to any concern that they are actually a tangible threat, then that will deal with that problem in the vast majority of cases, without the need to go and do background checks on officials, 99% of which have nothing to check, and even the 1% (if it is that high) aren't actually any kind of real threat anyway, since they don't have unsupervised access to children.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ref1986

The problem is that's not the case, at least in PA. The sex offender registry does not include all persons convicted of sex offenses, in fact, it includes only a small minority. That's because it's the "nuclear option." It's a public record. A person on that registry will have his life essentially destroyed. He'll be ridiculed and harassed wherever he goes. It will be almost impossible to find a job. As a result, judges impose registration only for the most heinous and incorrigible offenders. It's reserved largely for sexual predators. Many people commit acts that should ban them from working with children, including officiating, but are not serious enough to destroy their lives. In PA, a first offense for exposing oneself to little girls, or child porn, or putting a hidden camera in the girls locker room, will probably not get the offender on the registry. But pretty clearly those guys should not be officiating. In addition, there are nonsexual crimes that will result in the offender being banned from working with children. A conviction for nonsexual child abuse will do it, and should.

Some mistakes follow you the rest of your life. If you work for a bank and get convicted of embezzlement, you'll never work for a bank again. It doesn't matter if you were 25 or 55 when you did it. If you dealt drugs when you were young and foolish, you'll never pass a background investigation for a federal law enforcement job. If you're convicted of exposing yourself to little girls, you'll never be a teacher, or, in PA, an official. I have no problem with that.

This is the information I'm looking for. Frankly, it changes quite a bit for me. If you're telling me there are sex crimes against children that don't show up on a registry, then background checks make sense. Let me add this very important caveat, though.

They won't solve the problem, and they probably won't prevent anything at all. What I have yet to hear about is a previously convicted sex offender using his capacity as an official to gain access to a child for the purpose of abusing that child. I've read about officials who committed these offenses, but never in their capacity or because of the access they enjoyed as officials.

My concern is that some are going to want to stretch the disqualifying offenses to include things that should not be included. Some say add "murder," assault, etc. While I'm not against adding "murder," I think there are other crimes that have no bearing on whether a man or woman can act as an official. The article referenced in this thread was written by a man who seems indignant that a man convicted of fraud could be an official. WTF?

[Chess Ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

My concern is that some are going to want to stretch the disqualifying offenses to include things that should not be included. Some say add "murder," assault, etc. While I'm not against adding "murder," I think there are other crimes that have no bearing on whether a man or woman can act as an official. The article referenced in this thread was written by a man who seems indignant that a man convicted of fraud could be an official. WTF?

I ump ASA softball and we have a laundry list of things that can disqualify you from umping. I wish I could find the email with the exact list but it included fraud and minor drug offenses.

FWIW I think you guys have done a good job discussing this.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Chess Ref

I ump ASA softball and we have a laundry list of things that can disqualify you from umping. I wish I could find the email with the exact list but it included fraud and minor drug offenses.

FWIW I think you guys have done a good job discussing this.

See, and I find that goofy. Some states will do it one way, others yet a different way. My job requires clearance of those particular crimes, too, but I see no reason those offenders should be prevented from officiating.

Maybe one way is if you're eligible to vote, you can ref. If not, no go.

[Berkut]

Oddly enough, despite my position on background checks, I am actually a lot more "tough" on what should DQ someone from officiating. IMO, a criminal history of any serious crime is pretty telling.

Not because of any hysteria that sounds like "Think of the children!", which is 99% emotional nonsense, but simply because officiating is a job that first and foremost demands exceptional integrity, and a criminal record suggests a lack of said integrity.

However, I also think that hard and fast rules about this are foolish - you need at least some level of subjectivity so people can make sane exceptions. I would basically want to consider things like:

1. The nature of the crime - does it involve issues of trust, integrity, and character?
2. How long ago did it happen? What was the age of the potential official when it happened? Is it likely that this was a one-off incident, or is there a pattern?
3. What level of officiating are we talking about? Is there room for some restrictive rules about what this person can officiate, for some period of time, to ascertain their fitness?

Again, I do not agree that blanket background checks are justified or even ethical, however, in any case.