Any creepy referees in Denver area?
 

Anyone know this guy?

7NEWS - Girl basketball players in Lakewood told police 'creepy' referee kept groping them in games - Local Story

That story brings up a couple issues...

1) Always be cognizant of where you're handing a female player the ball...especially if they are short. I aim for the gut so any slight misses don't end up in the wrong place. Not a bad idea to step back afterward either.

2) Background checks...since Florida is a haven for freaks like this guy, we submit fingerprints and a background check to the state before being registered...required by legislation of all adults coming in contact with students (known as the Jessica Lunsford Act). I think a number of states have similar checks.

With all the video out there, you'de figure this one would be pretty easy to catch.

I know him
 

And have worked with him several times. I never noticed anything unusual and I have a pretty good eye for seeing everything on the court. I'm also well aware of stuff off the court.

Toren

If I'm handing the ball to a thrower-in I'm leaving it in a position so that they have to grab it from me or I do a short (very short) toss. I never put into their body.

1) I tend to bounce the ball on almost all throw in plays. I never thought it would be helpful in this way, I just like the way it gives me an immediate angle to see plays.

2) Anytime any profession is dealing with kids, background checks should be required.

Wow. I'm not sure background checks would have caught this guy, as his sole conviction was for misdemeanor assault. He was arrested for sexual assault, but the charges were reduced.

Stupid, though, regardless. It's just weird to me that it only happened in one game, or was only reported in one game. How does a parent not catch this when it's so out in the open like that? It doesn't make sense.

The lie he apparently told was in response to whether he had ever been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor other than a traffic offense. Had he answered that truthfully, I still don't know that he would have been barred. I don't know the CHSAA policy on officials with 15-year old assault convictions.

"Then the referee would, again, brush a teen player across her breasts with both hands after handing her the ball for an inbounds pass. Or he would grab a player's buttocks, according to police records obtained by 7NEWS."

Really? How would one brush with both hands and not have someone go ballistic. How would one grab "buttocks" and not have someone stop them. I guarantee that if this happened in my daughter's game - the player would smack his arm away, the coach would step up, and if that failed, so would the fans. There's no WAY this happened during games in public gyms.

""Okay, this is getting weird," one girl recalled thinking to herself when she spoke with police detectives." --- what an incredibly and not believably mild reaction...

Sorry ... I don't buy this at all.

1, me too, and me too.

2. I'm not as convinced that background checks would help, or are necessary. We've talked about it before, but the public nature of all of our contact with the kids significantly reduces the risk of this sort of thing. Further, I'm not overly comfortable with background check information being kept on file somewhere. There are a lot of details I have yet to see hashed out that give me pause.

Various sports, various organizations, I probably get 6-8 background checks a year. I have no issue with them. And honestly, just the fact that they make you fill out the permission sheet to let them run BC's on you is likely enough to filter out the truly hard cases.

Agreed...but ya have to hold it somewhere for them to grab it.

Not close enough to touch them in an inappropriate place, that's for sure.

I think I'll bounce from now on, even on the FC endline.

This.

This just does not sound very possible without someone other than the players making comments. Unfortunately we contact player often and sometimes very innocently. I know I have bushed cheerleaders and did so either running into them or them not in the proper spot. It just sounds fishy if they have to look at video to determine this happened. I smell a rat.

Peace

Another reason to stay away from girls/woman's basketball. Now if we could only get cheerleaders outlawed or moved to another gym and out of our way!

My sentiment exactly.

Peace

Wisconsin is raising licensing fees next year so that all 9000 officials can pay for their own background checks. What cost me $50 this year will cost me $80 next year. I'm not necessarily opposed to background checks but at the same time wonder how effective they are.

To be fair, I'll more than break even because the game rates for playoff contests are going up next season, as well. The increase is going to hit the subvarsity guys and those guys who don't work the postseason the hardest as it will look like a pure money-grab to them.

Poor concept
 

As the officials are independent contractors, not employees of the state office or school district, background checks are not proper. I'm not giving my personal information to these people who are not my employer. Furthermore, I have no control over how they safeguard this information.
Over the past two years I convinced our state office that they have no need for our SS#. I'm certainly not going to backtrack now.
Lastly, the issue of who pays for it is huge. If the school people want the background check, then they would need to come up with the funds for it.

In the past five years, I've seen several reports of teachers having misconduct issues with students and they are employees and have background checks. So they aren't effective anyway.

It appears that you aren't as aware as you think! ;)

I'm still trying to find out how this is even possible. Hand the ball to a player with two hands and have both hands brush against their chest. This seems very awkward and near impossible unless you're looking right at the person while you hand them the ball.

I'm sure we have an official in Oregon who disagrees with this sentiment. He believes officials should absorb all costs associated the privilege of officiating basketball games.

I'm fine with background checks. I understand why the state wants to eliminate some people and also wants to limit liability. Unlike Nevada, I am willing to subject myself to such a check. I just want to know why officials end up bearing the costs of such things and it isn't passed through to the schools.

To me, it's the same answer to one of my favorite jokes: Because they can.

(There's part of me that wonders why officials need to pay anything to officiate games. Why do we? Same answer - "Because they can.")

I'm still trying to figure why officials have to pay so much for camps.

One thing I liked about Ed Rush (PAC-12, not current NBA ref) is that he didn't believe officials should have to pay to try out for a conference. Pay for teaching camps, yes, try-out camps, no. He said part of the reason coordinators get paid by conferences is to find officials to work.

It's crazy. Conference supervisor gets paid by the host to provide 3 officials/game for X amount of games. Then 40-80 officials pay the supervisor $300-$600 to participate in the camp.

Yes, Oregon does charge us. It is something like $3 every 2-3 years...they don't require one every year.

And it isn't a privilege, it is a job requirement. Many jobs have requirements...degrees, licenses, certifications, dues, etc. And then, you get a level of pay that is associated with meeting the requirements. Cut out some requirements and you get a lower pay.

From the state's Athletic Officials Handbook...
And who pays is really irrelevant, becasue, in the end end, it is all the same. The schools are just going to look at the total bill when they consider how much they can afford for officials. They don't really care whether that money is going to game fees, travel, or a background check. If they cover the background check, they're going to fight for lower game fees or travel. It really doesn't change anything.

I think Ed Rush is absolutely right. It's trickled down to the HS level, too. I worked a junior college game with a HS assignor a while back (it may have even been a season ago) and he mentioned I did a good job and that he could use me for some games. When I followed up, he told me he had a camp in the summer he wanted me to come to before he'd assign me.

Really? For 2 or 3 HS dates? You can't get a feel for my work WORKING WITH ME for 40 clock minutes of basketball?

I have already paid for 3 camps this summer and I feel that camps are an important way for me to fine tune my game -- but I won't be adding a fourth.

+1

NCAAW CCA manual dictates the ball be handed to a player for a throwin along the frontcourt endline. When I am the L doing this, I take a step back to separate myself from the player.

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

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).

Yes...at least I had to pay for both. When they instituted the checks for teachers, I had already had 12 years in the District. They deducted the cost from my check. When I got back into coaching football, I had to pay the $75 dollar fee myself.

Interestingly, it was $75 for the check to be a coach, but only $54 for the check to get a concealed weapons permit.

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

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.

Ultimately, it is the schools that will bear these costs. If they force you to pay for a background, you simply reciprocate by raising the game fees you charge them to work their games.

The Land Of Steady Habits ...
 

Here in Connecticut we went to background checks about four years ago. Those who were already officiating at that time were grandfathered in and didn't have to pay any fees. Those who were new to officiating were charged, and are charged, a fee. I'm not sure what the fee was, or is.

If only it worked that way.

It doesn't.

Grandfathered in? As in no background check was done?

Sorry ...
 

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The state interscholastic sports governing body paid for all the background checks for "existing" officials.

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.

Everything is negotiable. Officiating is a business. If you're willing to just sit there and take what they're offering, then that's your perogative. But if a school wants to start taking money out of my pocket, I can choose to stop providing the service, or raise my fees to cover my costs. If you get other officials to stand with you, it can work that way.

I think many of the posts are accurate.

Unfortunately, we live in a society where protecting our personal information is important. I would like to think my local association is an organization I can trust. If not, and my information was used in a negative way the association would become the "Tomegun Officiating Association"...:D

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...

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

Unless I'm being paid by my officials association (rare, but possible), why would my officials association need my SSN?

Many associations collect game fees from the schools, etc. and then pay the umpires and issue 1099s.

Not where I live, but a place where I used to live.

That's the only way to get paid in Virginia if you want to ref HS basketball.

That is how it is done out here.

Like I said earlier, the background check here for reffing/coaching and the one for getting a concealed weapons permit are basically the same thing. Only the CCW permit is cheaper.

What Rich said...they pay us on behalf of the schools and issue the 1099s. The schools don't ask for or get our SSNs. I'd rather have one organization get them than 100 schools.

And I said umpires -- I meant officials. Clearly my mind is in baseball mode - I've worked 9 games in the last 5 days.

Ok, so less rare where you are... but I still ask. UNLESS I'm being paid by my association, why would they need my SSN?

I see your point there, but schools are USED to having employees, and have protocols and programs for keeping private information private.

Associations are very often just an amalgamation of ex-officials pitching in... the guy in charge of the information is very likely 6 different guys over 10 years - and none of them trained in information security.

Given the choice between 100 schools who are able to keep things secure, and 6 average joes who have no clue how to (or even that it's important), I choose the schools.

Sure, but the way it really works is, "Well, if you don't want to do it, someone else is willing to."

I'm ok with it, it is what it is. But at some point, they have to realize that you're going to start weeding out good officials. $30 here and there starts to add up.

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.

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.

Given that the official is an independent contractor, there is no employer who is entitled to conduct a background check. In my area, the officials are also not employees of the local association, so even the association can't do them.
So this is not akin to a plumbing company being hired by the schools to perform work. Yet even if it were, the different companies could decide on their own whether to conduct checks and the schools could then select which company to do business with. Since there is only one association in my area, there is no competitor. Thus the schools can either deal with us or go find officials on their own. They have opted to contract with the association, and since the business is done through a contract, all the officials group has to do is not agree to put a background check provision in the contract.

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.

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

You might want to check out the official we had in our association who spent a few years in jail after forming a relationship with a kid he had contact with through officiating. Those that want to have unsupervised contact will find a way. No association would want to have him join their board now and the background check would prevent it. Otherwise, he's free to try it again.

And then tried to come across the river and ref for us...heard we used background checks and declined to do the paperwork.

DING DING DING DING

This x1000.

So a placebo effect would have been sufficient

I get a little pissy when people start using news stories to enact measures that would have done nothing to prevent the event that precipitated the story. This particular story will likely lead to background checks in Colorado, and I will comply with it (not a big deal for me). I'm not comfortable with the application and logistics.

I had to submit to a background check to be registered to officiate with the MN State High School League. Didn't cost me anything that I can recall. I believe it was in response to a new law passed by the MN legislature.

Associations don't do background checks, nor should they IMHO. But they do check to make sure you're registered with the high school league (and if you fail the background check, you won't be registered).

IIRC, the background check is good for 3 or 4 years.

If a background check had been done on this guy before that incident (assuming this was his first conviction) it would have done NOTHING to prevent that from happening. Now that he has been caught, the background check should pick that up.

Actually it wouldn't, at least not yet..

But if we assume he's guilty and eventually convicted, then a BC should pick that up ... and wouldn't that be the point of the BC - to keep it from happening again?

I'm wondering ... has there been any sort of follow up information on this story? I still don't believe the whole thing - too many not believable things in it.

Background checks for officials is a solution in search of a problem.

We aren't alone with kids. They need to give the head bagger at the local supermarket a background check before they do it to officials.

Catholic schools went into panic mode when the priest sex scandal broke and adopted all sorts of rules requiring everyone from cafeteria ladies to the principal to undergo training and checks so they could claim they checked everybody who had any contact with a child. It was a product of the lack of supervision by a variety of dioceses over priests and was equal parts prevention and public relations. Officials will soon be in the same boat after nitwit school board members try to grab some ink by proposing it. and anyone who objects will branded as having "something to hide." The thing is, the pervs are going after kids who they get in private after gaining their trust; they're not getting jobs reffing a ballgame in front of the kids' parents so they can get fresh with kids.

But we're close enough to them and can be around them enough to gain their trust....and perhaps turn that into something more. It has happened here and will happen again. It would have happened near here had our neighboring organization not done such a check....that prevented the person that got caught in our our from joining a different one. When it happens to someone you know, you'll wonder why the organization didn't bother to require a simple and cheap criminal history check that likely would have shown the offender to have a history. It doesn't have to be a through and expensive check...the basc checks are enough.

Yeah we are around kids, but we do not have necessarily more access to kids than fans or other people that are at a school. Better yet if the school does the right things we are not in any actual person contact with students except on the playing surface area. All the sex offense cases that involved an official that I have heard was never surrounding the games, but some off site situation that often did not involve the sport the person was officiating. I have no problem with background checks on many levels, but think some of this is over stated how important they are to actually protecting kids. There are by far more teachers sleeping with kids than officials.

Peace

My biggest fear is that the schools, and parents, will somehow see background checks as a great and successful measure. This is the danger in doing "something." A better option, IMO, would be as Jeff suggests here and just ensuring that officials don't have unsupervised access to kids on school property.

How many times have we had kids walk into our dressing areas to get something for coach, or to pick up some homework they left in that office?

I had a young lady walk into a locker room (girl's locker room) where a bunch of men were literally about to take off their pants when she walked in on us for some Saturday morning games. There was about 6 or us in the room and this girl just walks up in the locker room like it was nothing. That was IMO the fault of the school, not us. And if the right situation took place, we would have been accused of something inappropriate that we did not do. The guy in the OP was accused of something out in the open; I can only imagine what would have been the tenor if that situation where the young lady walked into our locker room and accused someone of doing something to her. And we had no video tape to back us up. And no one noticed so much in the OP story that authorities had to review the tape.

I think we have a solution clearly looking for a problem if people feel this will prevent all interactions that would be deemed inappropriate with officials.

Peace

So is any person who regularly buys a ticket at the door and attends HS games.
They can sit courtside all season at most gyms without difficulty.

Should the schools being asking fans to sign up for an approved spectator list? Perhaps there can be a sort of TSA approved frequent fan admittance line!

Yep, the local sports fans are more involved with players and students than an official who might see the same players two or three times a year.

I just went to a Coach's Hall of Fame Dinner where coaches, players, officials and fans of the game were inducted into the HOF. I can tell you that many of those people that were not officials had a bigger impact or knowledge of the kids that play than any of the officials in our current role.

Peace

It's definitely a way for the coordinators to make money, but it's a double-edged sword as far as charging vs not charging for a try-out camp.

If it's paid anyone can go if they pony up the dough — if it is free, then there has to be some sort of selection process. Otherwise you'd have tons of people showing up for free that otherwise wouldn't (and shouldn't) be there. Plus, it adds a layer of politics to it —*moreso than there already is.

So, I agree with you, since I think the process is too expensive for those wanting to move up, but I'm not sure that making the camps free solves the problem rather than simply trading one set of problems out for another.

I think you have an employee vs contractor issue here. As independent contractors the burden to pay for a background check probably legally falls on us — versus as an employee it would fall on the school / district.

Edited to add...

^^^ Yeah. This.

Actually, I work as a teacher. I had to pay for my own background checks.

I wonder if this ever happens in the Lingerie Football League? !