ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)


KS: Wichita YMCA to implement daily sex offender registry checks

The Greater Wichita YMCA is implementing a new sex offender check system after a Kid Zone employee was accused of sexually assaulting a child.

In an e-mail to members, Wichita YMCA CEO and President Ronn McMahon announced the YMCA will implement daily sex offender registry checks. McMahon said the system will notify daily of any staff member, guest or participant with a change in their status. Full Article


Join the discussion

  1. Gralphr

    I thought all YMCA’s banned sex offenders?

  2. Dustin

    Once again, the registry made no difference regarding prevention. Bur it’s still useful because sex offenses are never listed in a criminal background check. (/sarc)

  3. cool CA RC

    I bet this employee ep was accused of sexually assaulting a child wasn’t even on the list in the 1st place.

  4. AJ

    Right, because had a daily-check policy been in place beforehand, this wouldn’t have happened. The story makes no mention of his being a RC, and one of the commenters even checked the KS ML for him…and he’s not on it. So, as the commenter says, checking the NSOR would have returned nothing.

    That’s it, America, keep closing the barn door after the horses are out.

  5. Paul

    Just so we’re clear, they’re going to check the registry for persons not listed on the registry. Seems legit!

  6. Facts shouls matter

    Once again, we’re scapegoated and the go-to “usual suspects” when something like this happens. There is NOTHING proactive or preventative about the registry, but the illusory “identification” safety myth persists!

  7. Agamemnon

    How does a registry that only lists crimes AFTER they are committed prevent new crimes again?

  8. R M

    “Have you ever heard or observed anything about this candidate that would make you reluctant to recommend him/her for a job with children?”

    I heard the man served ice cream to kids at his child’s birthday party and smiled while he was doing it. He must be a pervert, don’t hire him. Or insert any dialog where someone doesn’t want a certain person to work at the YMCA.

    • Clarence

      So true. Although few are even in this market, no male will be hired for any leadership positions involving minors. Our children will grow up without any male role models outside of the small probability that they have one in the home.

      I guess we will see the effect of this on generations to come.

  9. Tim Moore

    Why don’t they just create a Static 99 for people who haven’t yet been caught committing a sex crime. Say take a representative sample group of citizens (all white, middle age males) and come up with 10 distiguishing factors in their lives (ie., age at time survey, sexual preference, maybe eye color, whatever, who knows what will be significant until you survey it, etc.). Wait five years and see who is convicted of a sex crime. Take those people and see which of those 10 factors most fit the convicts. Voila, there you have it. Apply that test to everyone looking for a job. You find many things in common with previous convicted sex offenders, then you must be a sex offender, too. Sounds good, so it must work. Anyone complains and just say it is risk assessment applied under a regulatory regime for the protection of children. How can that be bad?

  10. Paul 2 Anti Soy Boy PA

    I think we are missing the point this is a prime example how the registry gives false security to the public and it Causes More Offending not less . Instead of focusing on how to screen employees they are falling back on the reg that they think will eliminate the problem instead it will open up opportunity from people not on the reg. Anyone that has committed a SO against a child has no business working or working out where they can be alone with a strange child. Them checking the reg is legit but they can’t use this as a failsafe because that only covers 10% of the risk and that 10% comes from SVPs and SOs still in denial. This is a great example why the reg should be only used for SO that have been deemed dangerous by a board, DR and Judge and re evaluated on a 5yr bases not 25yrs. If treatment providers had more input those of us that do the right thing wouldn’t even be on a reg and the public wouldn’t be at a greater risk from the reg.

    • Anon

      Sorry but I fail to see how banning someone with a previous conviction from working in contact with children serves any good unless there is a present risk.
      For example, take someone that has a previous conviction from 20 years ago for a statutory offense against a complicit but barely underage mate. They technically have an offense against a “child”. Maybe they married that person and have a family. Maybe they were simply a situational offender that never imagined themselves in that position and wouldn’t ever find themselves in that position again due to advanced age and wisdom. Should they forever be barred from working around children when they never preyed on a child to begin with, present zero risk of doing so, and would statistically never recidivate? There are likely hundreds of thousands of people in this very situation that by your statement could never coach their kids soccer team or chaperone a class field trip. Why? Because of some ancient offense where a law was violated, but there was no true victim and zero likelihood something like it would ever happen again? Determinations of this type should be risk based, not broad brushed.
      I fully agree that there needs to be discretion, but I disagree that any person with any covered offense should never be allowed alone with a strange child.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *