Background Checks

[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.

[Adam]

I would agree that a pattern of behavior would be more telling than even a single vehicular manslaughter charge when a person was 21. The problem is, that sort of analysis is necessarily subjective and therefore vulnerable to abuse (by those making the decisions).

[rsl]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I would agree that a pattern of behavior would be more telling than even a single vehicular manslaughter charge when a person was 21. The problem is, that sort of analysis is necessarily subjective and therefore vulnerable to abuse (by those making the decisions).

It seems that if a state wants to implement background checks, they should set up some sort of appeal process for those with a record. Not that I want to create a loophole, but there is no objective criteria for what should disqualify an official. This is a case where a subjective human has to make a judgment call.

You know, kind of like calling a backcourt violation with the last touch/first touch rule. Depends on the situation.

By the way, Snaqwells- If we didn't have rhetorical questions, could we still ask hypothetical questions?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rsl

It seems that if a state wants to implement background checks, they should set up some sort of appeal process for those with a record. Not that I want to create a loophole, but there is no objective criteria for what should disqualify an official. This is a case where a subjective human has to make a judgment call.

You know, kind of like calling a backcourt violation with the last touch/first touch rule. Depends on the situation.

By the way, Snaqwells- If we didn't have rhetorical questions, could we still ask hypothetical questions?

Oh I absolutely agree. But it's that lack of objective criteria that makes me think we should just limit it to sexual crimes. And this crap about some child sex crimes not making the list is just crazy. It may be the nuclear option, but it's a nuclear crime; even the first time. That's the whole point of the registry, to prevent (as much as possible) a second time.

The other stuff comes out in other ways, IMO. Someone with a violent personality will expose that personality flaw very quickly as an official and won't last long. There is also a good deal of self-selection involved, in that those personality types don't gravitate towards officiating anyway. They'll stick out in our crowd.

And I love the hypothetical question and plan on using it. Thanks.

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Oh I absolutely agree. But it's that lack of objective criteria that makes me think we should just limit it to sexual crimes. And this crap about some child sex crimes not making the list is just crazy. It may be the nuclear option, but it's a nuclear crime; even the first time.

Well, I think that is the problem - people get rather simplistic with it - "All sex crimes should be the 'nuclear' option!" which is why you end up with situation where some guy has sex with his 16 year old girlfriend, and now he is a "sex offender".

Or someone gets drunk and grabs a waitresses boob and suddenly he is a registered sex offender.

I am now saying those things are not bad - but they aren't really what the sex offender registeries are for, or should be for, which is to protect people from a potential predator. As a general rule, we hold to the idea that once you serve your time, society has no right to ostracize you in an excessive way. We make an exception for sexual crimes due to recidivism rates and the danger they pose to children.

So when we toss a bunch of people in there who do not fit that profile, we are probably doing them a disservice, while at the same time diluting the power of the registery for those who do fir that profile.

And there is a clear correlation to background checks for officials. By casting the net ridiculously widely (ALL officials must be checked) while not showing any tangible benefit (officials are not really the threat to begin with in any statistically significant manner), we are making that same error, IMO.

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I would agree that a pattern of behavior would be more telling than even a single vehicular manslaughter charge when a person was 21. The problem is, that sort of analysis is necessarily subjective and therefore vulnerable to abuse (by those making the decisions).

True, but I think that often we are so worried about being objective that we create strict rules that end up being worse than simply dealing with the problems of subjectivity, while (obviously) losing the advantages of subjectivity.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Berkut

True, but I think that often we are so worried about being objective that we create strict rules that end up being worse than simply dealing with the problems of subjectivity, while (obviously) losing the advantages of subjectivity.

I agree in principal (you'll find no one more annoyed at "zero tolerance" than I am). I'm still pondering this whole thing, frankly.