WAG Kathy Klages coaching at Twistars!

[chalkbowl]

AH, but if something happens, the gym can be held liable. I just read an article about that happening. The gym did not background check a custodian, and then he molested a young girl (lots of extenuating circumstances). The gym was found liable for not checking, and had to pay, eventually declaring bankruptcy. That gym now background checks everyone who works there. Smart practice....

I agree that background checks on all employees is a smart practice, and my current gym does. Unfortunately, due to a few moves over the years, I have worked at several other gyms so I know that background checks on all employees is not always a thing.

 

[MILgymFAM]

I agree that background checks on all employees is a smart practice, and my current gym does. Unfortunately, due to a few moves over the years, I have worked at several other gyms so I know that background checks on all employees is not always a thing.

Heck, my girls just got a police background check today- at 13 and 16 years old- so they could volunteer at a local school. It's not an onerous requirement at all for anyone with regular contact with children.

 

[rjb123]

I think that my concern with the list is that it is SO slow moving. It seems to take a LONG time to have someone put on there, and in the meanwhile, they can gym hop and have access to a lot of kids. Is there some stop gap in there? As in accusations lead to an immediate suspension pending investigation?

 

[skschlag]

It actually isn't that slow. I know one guy who was on there within in a month of conviction.

 

[coachmolly]

I agree that background checks on all employees is a smart practice, and my current gym does. Unfortunately, due to a few moves over the years, I have worked at several other gyms so I know that background checks on all employees is not always a thing.

I've worked at 2 gyms that only required background checks/USAG membership for coaches on the floor at meets. It's a pretty common practice. I'm also amazed at the number of gym owners who do not check references before hiring a coach. I know it's a pain, and most of the time they will be fine, but in the case above- would things have turned out differently if employers had checked with his previous employer? Even without a conviction, the previous employer might have been able to say, "you know, we have some concerns. Be careful" ultimately preventing those future incidents.

 

[notthatmom]

I think that my concern with the list is that it is SO slow moving. It seems to take a LONG time to have someone put on there, and in the meanwhile, they can gym hop and have access to a lot of kids. Is there some stop gap in there? As in accusations lead to an immediate suspension pending investigation?

Reading the bylaws the other day, I think they have to wait for an actual conviction.

 

[rjb123]

Reading the bylaws the other day, I think they have to wait for an actual conviction.

Yes, and while they are going through this process, how many other kids do they "coach"? In the public schools when someone is accused, they immediately suspend them until investigation etc are complete. Why could USAG not do this to protect kids?

 

[skschlag]

So, here, we just went through this. THe coach was removed (he was also a teacher) from school and gym while he was goign through the trial. He could not move due to his bail agreement, and it was all in teh newspaper.

Now, until they are reported, there is little that can be done.

 

[notthatmom]

Yes, and while they are going through this process, how many other kids do they "coach"? In the public schools when someone is accused, they immediately suspend them until investigation etc are complete. Why could USAG not do this to protect kids?

I totally agree that should be the policy. Luckily in Nadsar's case, everyone in the United States knows who he is, so we don't have to worry about that one (although is he sitting in jail awaiting trial still?)

 

[wallinbl]

Yes, and while they are going through this process, how many other kids do they "coach"? In the public schools when someone is accused, they immediately suspend them until investigation etc are complete. Why could USAG not do this to protect kids?

Public schools are the ones paying the salary while they're suspended. With USAG, they'd be asking the clubs to pay it. Most clubs don't have that kind of cash (multiply your tuition times the number of girls in the gym, then look up rent on warehouse space, staff wages, and figure out utility and insurance costs - the gym isn't printing money).

I'm not justifying it; just pointing out that they're not very analogous.

 

[Randomactsofcheer]

Public schools are the ones paying the salary while they're suspended. With USAG, they'd be asking the clubs to pay it. Most clubs don't have that kind of cash (multiply your tuition times the number of girls in the gym, then look up rent on warehouse space, staff wages, and figure out utility and insurance costs - the gym isn't printing money).

I'm not justifying it; just pointing out that they're not very analogous.

A gym can suspend a coach without pay. Teachers are often suspended without pay if they are under investigation for lewd or innapropriate conduct. The same goes for law enforcement officers. Gyms can protect themselves by having a policy for situations like this spelled out in their employee handbooks that employees must agree to before hire.

 

[wallinbl]

A gym can suspend a coach without pay. Teachers are often suspended without pay if they are under investigation for lewd or innapropriate conduct. The same goes for law enforcement officers. Gyms can protect themselves by having a policy for situations like this spelled out in their employee handbooks that employees must agree to before hire.

Which I understand, though I'm less inclined to suggest anyone do that. It's not really in the spirit of our rights in this country - innocent until proven guilty. There isn't an easy or good answer. I'd prefer suspending with pay, as you can wreck someone's financial situation with a false allegation. Coaches and teachers don't make a lot of money. A suspension without pay likely means missing a rent or mortgage payment and difficulty paying their bills or eating, while they're now paying legal bills.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

In reading both articles more carefully, skschlag is correct. He was hired, working at Sanford Academy, and convicted...before information that children were also harmed at Apex had come out. He was fired from Sanford Academy, for reasons unrelated to the case, and hired at The Gym Company before he was arrested. Therefore he wasn't on the ineligible list nor did he have any sort of record that would show up in a background check until AFTER working at all three of these gyms!

very good. precisely what happened.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

Reading the bylaws the other day, I think they have to wait for an actual conviction.

they do not. our system went from 'innocent until proven guilty' to 'guilty until you prove your innocence pending the outcome of your...' to 'preponderance'.
as with a few on the list now, they have no charges which led to convictions. and there is one that went to criminal trial and was found not guilty. 30 years later he was discovered over on the T&T side. his former victims hunted him down. it was their stories culminating in 'preponderance' that finally got him banned
and that guy is still coaching in a "non-member club".

 

[Deleted member D3987]

I agree that background checks on all employees is a smart practice, and my current gym does. Unfortunately, due to a few moves over the years, I have worked at several other gyms so I know that background checks on all employees is not always a thing.

but it will be now. SafeSport and then the insurance carriers are going to require this. it's coming...for ALL 'Member Clubs'.

 

[BachFlyer]

very good. precisely what happened.

Do you ever stop being condescending?

 

[AmandaLynn]

I made a post and then second guessed it.

Ignore this.

 

[sce]

Do you ever stop being condescending?

I just did not see his post that way. I felt it was agreement and support of the poster.

 

[BachFlyer]

If it were the first time, perhaps I'd agree.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

I just did not see his post that way. I felt it was agreement and support of the poster.

very good! precisely correct!!