Background Checks Come To Colorado

[Adam]

Those of us in Colorado got emails today from CHSAA stating that we will have to submit an arrest report from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation before the seasons this year.

Some questions raised on our local FB page that aren't answered in the memo from CHSAA:

1. Who stores the information?
2. How is the review board assigned?

And the big question dealing with efficacy: What's to prevent a convicted offender from using an alias to get his officiating license and submitting an arrest report for the fictional alias? I don't recall submitting any ID when I signed up the first time.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Adam

Those of us in Colorado got emails today from CHSAA stating that we will have to submit an arrest report from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation before the seasons this year.

Some questions raised on our local FB page that aren't answered in the memo from CHSAA:

1. Who stores the information?
2. How is the review board assigned?

And the big question dealing with efficacy: What's to prevent a convicted offender from using an alias to get his officiating license and submitting an arrest report for the fictional alias? I don't recall submitting any ID when I signed up the first time.

Fingerprints?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Fingerprints?

Not part of the package at this point.

[rockyroad]

But you will have to provide SSN and DL#, correct?

[MD Longhorn]

An "arrest" report? I don't even know how I'd go about finding that sort of thing on myself. Background checks are one thing - "arrest report" sounds like something entirely different... and the 2 concerns you raised are exactly what I would have a problem with.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by Adam

What's to prevent a convicted offender from using an alias to get his officiating license and submitting an arrest report for the fictional alias?

How would the person get paid? I know different places do things differently, but I imaging all sorts of problems come tax time if my W-2 from officiating didn't match my real name.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

An "arrest" report? I don't even know how I'd go about finding that sort of thing on myself. Background checks are one thing - "arrest report" sounds like something entirely different... and the 2 concerns you raised are exactly what I would have a problem with.

Instructions were given to go to the CBI website and buy the form. Sounds pretty simple, but I'll let you know if it's different. The idea is any arrests you've had will show up and require further documentation to show their disposition. Convictions will require review by a board.

[Adam]

Perusing the website, it sure seems easy to submit false information (no SSN required). Name and birthday are all that are required.

[shavano]

CHSAA officials had to know this was coming after the events of the basketball season. The letter from MT & TR even states "highly publicized arrests of officials" as the primary reason for the new policy. Wonder how many officials are simply going to say "enough" and walk away...

Be ready for the additional notes in your state packet this fall bemoaning the lack of officials again.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

How would the person get paid? I know different places do things differently, but I imaging all sorts of problems come tax time if my W-2 from officiating didn't match my real name.

That's funny. Think this through all the way.

Joe Smith applies for officiating as John Doe.
Joe Smith gets regular W2 from his regular job as Joe Smith.
John Doe's W2 goes ... somewhere. Joe Smith doesn't care, and certainly doesn't include it in his taxes.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by shavano

CHSAA officials had to know this was coming after the events of the basketball season. The letter from MT & TR even states "highly publicized arrests of officials" as the primary reason for the new policy. Wonder how many officials are simply going to say "enough" and walk away...

Be ready for the additional notes in your state packet this fall bemoaning the lack of officials again.

Agreed. It's a publicity move, and I don't see how it actually has any benefit. I just don't see any way to verify the identity. The $7 is nominal enough, especially since it's good for three years.

I haven't read any follow up on the situation in Denver, but I'm still wondering how much this would have helped.

The other thing that cracks me up is the offer of amnesty to those who have marked "no" on the felony/misdemeanor question in the past. Those folks should have been honest before, and this would be a good chance to weed them out for integrity issues.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

That's funny. Think this through all the way.

Joe Smith applies for officiating as John Doe.
Joe Smith gets regular W2 from his regular job as Joe Smith.
John Doe's W2 goes ... somewhere. Joe Smith doesn't care, and certainly doesn't include it in his taxes.

Exactly. I had exactly one 1099 this year, no W2s. Even if Joe Smith claimed all the income on his taxes, he wouldn't need to show the 1099s or W2s to prove anything.

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by shavano

CHSAA officials had to know this was coming after the events of the basketball season. The letter from MT & TR even states "highly publicized arrests of officials" as the primary reason for the new policy. Wonder how many officials are simply going to say "enough" and walk away..
.

There's an awful lot of "insider" chatter here. Could you please translate and explain for those of us who don't work in Colorado.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

There's an awful lot of "insider" chatter here. Could you please translate and explain for those of us who don't work in Colorado.

MT and TR are the initials of the folks who sent and wrote the memo and email.

The event he's talking about was discussed here on the board, when they arrested an official in the Denver area for allegedly copping a feel with female players during a game. He had a previous arrest that ended up with a simple assault conviction, so the media started portraying it as something that would have been prevented with background checks.

[shavano]

Originally Posted by Adam

The other thing that cracks me up is the offer of amnesty to those who have marked "no" on the felony/misdemeanor question in the past. Those folks should have been honest before, and this would be a good chance to weed them out for integrity issues.

Kinda wondered about that one myself. Notice that it said, you get amnesty now for being dishonest, but don't lie from here on out.


Things that make ya go.....