Any creepy referees in Denver area?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Are coaches required to directly pay for their background checks? Teachers?

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I googled random states - all of them I checked (I stopped after 7, as a good statistician would) do require background checks for teachers (which includes coaches) and 6 of the 7 had the school paying.

Employee vs. independent contractor. We're a vendor to the school...actually several schools. Not really that much different than a plumber or other repair person. That makes it more upon us to meet the requirements of the job. If we were employees, then I'd expect them to pay for it. When I hire a vendor (it could even be a company with employees), I expect their certifications to tell me all I need to know about them and I shouldn't be expected to do a background check on their employees. I expect them to have already done so. That is what is happening here...the schools are contracting out the job of officiating and expect to hire an outside service (each of you are a company of one) to provide that can just show up and work, having met all the necessary qualifications.

Would you rather fill out background forms for each and every school (and take a pay cut from each one as they would have to do to cover the cost of it) or pay $3 extra as part of your certification that provides all of the schools with a guarantee that if they stick with certified officials, they're getting officials who have had a background check.

It's $3 people...and not even every year. Now, if your state is charging a lot more than that, perhaps the real issue isn't who is paying but why they're charging so much or doing it so frequently (people that are ok one day are rarely not ok the next...there is no need to do them yearly).

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

...
It's $3 people...and not even every year. Now, if your state is charging a lot more than that, perhaps the real issue isn't who is paying but why they're charging so much or doing it so frequently (people that are ok one day are rarely not ok the next...there is no need to do them yearly).

Well, someone has already posted that it cost him $30. Whether that's annual, or 1-time, he didn't state.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Well, someone has already posted that it cost him $30. Whether that's annual, or 1-time, he didn't state.

For HS sports in Arizona, we pay a registration fee to the State Association of $75 for the first sport and $40 for each additional sport.

In addition, we are required (as of the 2012-13 school year) to obtain a fingerprint clearance card from the State, just like teachers. The cost of the fingerprints and background check are approx $80, but it is valid for six years.

Our game fees for all sports with the exception of volleyball went up $5.00 per game this year, but we are still among the lowest in the nation.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Andy

Our game fees for all sports with the exception of volleyball went up $5.00 per game this year, but we are still among the lowest in the nation.

I think about 45 states are among the lowest in the nation!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Employee vs. independent contractor. We're a vendor to the school...actually several schools. Not really that much different than a plumber or other repair person. That makes it more upon us to meet the requirements of the job. If we were employees, then I'd expect them to pay for it. When I hire a vendor (it could even be a company with employees), I expect their certifications to tell me all I need to know about them and I shouldn't be expected to do a background check on their employees. I expect them to have already done so. That is what is happening here...the schools are contracting out the job of officiating and expect to hire an outside service (each of you are a company of one) to provide that can just show up and work, having met all the necessary qualifications.

Would you rather fill out background forms for each and every school (and take a pay cut from each one as they would have to do to cover the cost of it) or pay $3 extra as part of your certification that provides all of the schools with a guarantee that if they stick with certified officials, they're getting officials who have had a background check.

It's $3 people...and not even every year. Now, if your state is charging a lot more than that, perhaps the real issue isn't who is paying but why they're charging so much or doing it so frequently (people that are ok one day are rarely not ok the next...there is no need to do them yearly).

My concern has little to do with the cost, to be honest. I'm far more concerned with who has access to that information, even the personal information that is non-disqualifying.

Further, I'm concerned with the reasoning. I'm just not sold on its value.

Frequency and cost are separate issues, IMO.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

My concern has little to do with the cost, to be honest. I'm far more concerned with who has access to that information, even the personal information that is non-disqualifying.

Further, I'm concerned with the reasoning. I'm just not sold on its value.

Frequency and cost are separate issues, IMO.

So, the information you provide to sign up and be certified is also used for the background check and you're worried about that? Or are you worried about what your background check might show?

There is nothing I provide for the background check that isn't already required to just work. Seems like you should really have a problem signing up to be an official if that is the case.

If you're worried about what someone might find about about you (that is probably in a public record somewhere) I'm wondering what you're hiding.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

So, the information you provide to sign up and be certified is also used for the background check and you're worried about that? Or are you worried about what your background check might show?

There is nothing I provide for the background check that isn't already required to just work. Seems like you should really have a problem signing up to be an official if that is the case.

If you're worried about what someone might find about about you (that is probably in a public record somewhere) I'm wondering what you're hiding.

So not wanting to share personal information means he is "hiding" something? What a stupid thing to say...

Ever been a victim of Identity Theft because some organization wasn't careful enough with your personal information? Obviously not...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So not wanting to share personal information means he is "hiding" something? What a stupid thing to say...

Ever been a victim of Identity Theft because some organization wasn't careful enough with your personal information? Obviously not...

He already shared all the same info with the same people to sign up as an official. What else is he sharing? That specific risk isn't increased because of a background check.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

He already shared all the same info with the same people to sign up as an official. What else is he sharing? That specific risk isn't increased because of a background check.

It is about what comes up on a background check. It's more than felonies that show up, much of which I wouldn't want made public. Who sees the report? How long do they store it? Where is it stored? How is it protected?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

He already shared all the same info with the same people to sign up as an official. What else is he sharing? That specific risk isn't increased because of a background check.

Not true...at least not here. All I gave my local association was an address and SSN...the background check requires DL#, DOB, previous addresses, names of family members (spouse, etc), and fingerprints.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Not true...at least not here. All I gave my local association was an address and SSN...the background check requires DL#, DOB, previous addresses, names of family members (spouse, etc), and fingerprints.

None of that, aside from DOB, is requested for ours.

Perhaps there lies the real difference....not all background checks that we're talking about are the same.

I'd agree they don't need all of that. Name, SSN, DOB. That should be enough for a basic screen to see if anything shows up.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

So, the information you provide to sign up and be certified is also used for the background check and you're worried about that? Or are you worried about what your background check might show?

There is nothing I provide for the background check that isn't already required to just work. Seems like you should really have a problem signing up to be an official if that is the case.

If you're worried about what someone might find about about you (that is probably in a public record somewhere) I'm wondering what you're hiding.

You completely misread what I wrote. I have no felonies or even misdemeanor convictions. But frankly, I don't want the entire world knowing about my traffic offenses. While they aren't an issue for officiating, they would show up on a background check.

Other things that may show up: credit history, past tax issues, divorce filings, custody filings, etc. None of those things are disqualifying events, so they aren't the public's business: yet I know for a fact they will show up on a background check.

So, again, how comprehensive is a background check going to be? Who reviews it to determine whether I have any disqualifying events? How long does that get stored? Who has access to it while it's stored? How secure is that storage?

Frankly, assuming someone has something to hide simply because they want to safeguard personal information is a bit Orwellian.

[BayStateRef]

There are no background or criminal record checks (yet) in Massachusetts public schools for officials. But the Catholic schools started requiring a criminal record check a couple of years ago. I know some other sports where their private associations have started to require these checks.

Massachusetts limits disclosure to criminal convictions. Organizations that access these records must have a specific procedure in place that describes who gets the records, what they will do with them, etc. Youth sports groups are required to obtain criminal information on coaches and some of them extend this to officials.

But I know of very few groups that have clear policies as to what is a disqualifying crime. Is a shoplifting conviction from 30 years ago? How about a bar fight from college? I have seen one policy that says any sex crime is disqualifying...which would include something like urinating in public if it is charged as "public exposure." No matter that it was after a night of heavy drinking as a teenager many years ago. I believe that in Pennsylvania a conviction for fraud or embezzlement is disqualifying to be a sports official.

I don't have unsupervised access to students, so I don't understand why I should have anyone looking at my (non-existent) criminal record.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

....

I don't have unsupervised access to students, so I don't understand why I should have anyone looking at my (non-existent) criminal record.

This pretty much sums up my entire feelings why sports officials should not have to undergo background checks, especially at their own expense.

Besides, as a colleague on the softball board wisely points out...

Background checks only identify those that have already been caught.

[MD Longhorn]

Actually, I think the request for background checks weeds out more people than the procuring and reading of the background check does.