Background Checks

[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.

[Adam]

Camron, you have not stated that the example you spoke of would have been prevented by a background check.

You have not addressed the fact that while the information may or may not be public (that will depend on jurisdiction), the labor intensive nature of extracting that information from newspapers and court records essentially makes the information private. My evidence for this is that police officers are prohibited from using their official resources to do background checks outside the performance of their duties. If it's all public information, why would it matter?

You can find plenty of examples of people leaking private information about a person for purposes that are purely vindictive. I don't think this needs to be relegated to examples of officials. For one, background checks on officials are relatively new so there's been far fewer opportunities for this to happen. Secondly, unless you can show a greater propensity among the officiating community for these crimes, the risks of exposure (of the private info) should be considered equal to the general population.

The common system you speak of has to have a decision maker. Someone has to review the entire file in order to make the "go or no go" decision. What then happens to that entire file? I assume there would need to be checks on that process, which would require storage of the entire file. As soon as that file is compiled, it needs to be stored, protected, and restricted.

You're free to be dismissive of the arguments against background checks all you want, but you dismissing them doesn't mean they're without merit any more than me bringing them up gives them merit.

[rsl]

Sorry for my previous post. It was not meant to be hostile, but it definitely read that way.

For the record, I started this reading this thread opposed to checks and would now support limited background checks if my state proposes them.

For completeness, Cameron's summary missed one point. They can be expensive, and it appears that some states are going overboard in what they require. Cost would be an issue for me, and might make not officiate even though my record is clean. Do checks, but keep them simple and inexpensive if possible, and provide an appeal process.

[M&M Guy]

Camron, (ok, you can stop reading now, like you did on the last post. )

But, just in case you are still reading, my opposition never mentioned #1 or #4, and you've mis-represented my oppostion in points #2 and #3. But, I'll give it a shot:

#1 - Since "access to kids" is the standard, do you agree there should be required background checks on all realtives of all kids? (Silly, of course.) But I was not one who advocated not having background checks solely because of access issues. I don't believe I brought it up at all.

#2 - Snaqs makes my point on private vs. public information. If it is all totally public information, why can I not get a background check on you without your permission? I also don't have a problem with allowing what is "relative" information. My objection, which you continue to pass over or ignore, is the issue of who decides what is "relative"? My definition of "relative information" is past convictions based on what the appropriate governing body decides. If they decide all traffic tickets count, then so be it. You have said you would tell others information that the governing body doesn't deem relevent, but that in your opinion should be relevent. That is effectively passing out non-relative information for the purpose of attempting to keep someone from doing something they would be able to do under the current rules as set up. That is one of my 2 main objections. That didn't appear on your list.

#3 - See #2. You've already given me the example of what happens when someone has non-relevent information - you would be happy to leak information that the governing body does not deem relevent to officiating. Are you saying you are the only person that feels that way?

#4 - Background checks will never prevent first-time offenders, or offenders that have avoided prosecution. Was the specific official that you know convicted of any previous crimes that a background check would have detected? Since it is public information, can you find out for us and let us know? Not details, obviously, but I would be willing to reconsider if a background check would've prevented that particular crime.

In the meantime, you still have not shown there is a problem that needs correcting - do sports officials have an equal or greater-than-average percentage of these types of convictions than the general public? (If this is all public information, then someone should have these statistics available.) If so, then fine, background checks should be required for those types of convictions, and those who show those convictions should not be allowed to officiate. I believe I've said that from the beginning. But if there is not a problem to address, than the issue, as mentioned by others, is simply an expense that provides no real benefit.

If we cannot see eye-to-eye on this one, I guess I'm done. I've got burgers to defrost for this weekend.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Camron, (ok, you can stop reading now, like you did on the last post. )

I didn't stop reading nor did I mean to imply my points were in response to your. I was just summarizing the most common objections made by all.

I never said I would "leak" information. If I found out information from a confidential source, I wouldn't spread it outside of appropriate channels. If I knew about from public records (e.g., the newpaper), I would have no problem telling others. That is the difference. If it IS private, I respect that. But much of what has been said to be private is not.

As for the police...they're not allowed to use the police systems to conduct such checks but they're not forbidden from searching in the same ways available to the public.

The percentage of convictions is entirely irrelevant...unless it is 0.

True enough about 1st time offenders...but it will prevent 2nd time offenders from coming from the officiating ranks. Or, are you saying that since you can't stop them all, you shouldn't try to stop any?

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There are a few basic claims in oppostion of background checks:[LIST=1][*]That officials don't have the access to kids to commit such crime[LIST][*]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.

This is incorrect. You have not shown an example of where officials have access due to their being officials that is somehow more privileged than they would otherwise.

Everyone has "access" to kids - since we don't lock kids away in a tower.

Further, as has been asked *several* times, where are the statistics that show this is a problem beyond a singular anecdote, which we have no details about, and frankly, have no real idea is actually relevant?

You are saying that tens of thousands of officials should undergo background checks because of *one* incident?

[*]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.

Officials are not "closer" to kids than the general public. The general public is MUCH closer to kids than an official acting in his official capacity. Indeed, I have never once been alone with a child due to my job as an official, yet I am alone with children almost every single day outside that capacity. I suspect this is true for almost all officials.

Basicaly, the oppostion to them has little merit.

No, the demand for them has no merit, and since the burden of proof is on those asking us to submit to them, that ought to be telling. There has not been a single compelling argument made for background checks. The claim that this is a problem has, as its totality of evidence, a single unsourced and un-examined anecdotal "just so" story, while repeated requests for objective measures of the problem have been refused.

The opposition is incredibly simple - you don't have the right to poke around in other people private lives unless you can show a compelling need to do so. No such need has been shown, or even attempted to be shown.

Your entire argument sums up to "Well, if you don't have anything to hide, then it should not matter if I dig into your personal life".

Your statements about your willingness to divulge personal information to others in an effort to get them blacklisted even for crimes that have nothing to do with children is rather telling, I suspect.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Berkut

Further, as has been asked *several* times, where are the statistics that show this is a problem beyond a singular anecdote, which we have no details about, and frankly, have no real idea is actually relevant?

I've asked for the statistics of how many officials have been negatively affected by leaked information...and I've yet to get those. So, by your standard, the leaking of information is not a problem at all.

Originally Posted by Berkut

You are saying that tens of thousands of officials should undergo background checks because of *one* incident?

You've yet to provide how it harms the officials to be checked...where are those statistics?

Originally Posted by Berkut

Your statements about your willingness to divulge personal information to others in an effort to get them blacklisted even for crimes that have nothing to do with children is rather telling, I suspect.

Again, you confuse personal info with public information.

If someone killed 3 people in a bank robbery 20 years ago, they made the choice to forever be a saddled with their crime. Why would I let my friends work with such a person without them knowing who they are working with? Why would I allow them to work games for my friend's kids without making it known so that they can make their own informed decision. I'm not willing to take on that responsibility for others.

[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.