Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scottk_61
I am in the Tampa area, and the cost to us is entirely out of our pocket.... This also included all of us having to have it done last year.
|
And as a result, how many Umpires were found to be molesters and felons? It really is a scare response to perhaps some incident involving one bad apple out of thousands of hard working Umpires. If we follow this logic, then people who work in stores where teenagers also work should all have background checks. All employees of movie theaters, football and baseball stadiums, gas stations, supermarkets, etc., should have BIs because they work with or have close proximity to teenagers. This is bad policy based upon a scare response to an isolated incidence.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scottk_61
The background check is good for five years...
|
o.k., Again, this supports the "it's bad policy" argument. It will not catch the person who, two days after the BI check, goes out and molests five children, a sixty year old, and five cats. For those who say that this policy is worth it to catch the one out of 1000, then your policy should be
weekly BI checks with access to all state databases. Ugh!
I am supprised that the Umps down there seemed to take this so easily. We should each be suspicious of any
further erosion of our rights to privacy. The best check on bad Umpire behavior is the coaches, parents and kids.
No Umpire should be alone with a child on a field or gymnasium. If that is the case, where is the coach or parent. When my girls were playing elite travel SB, the coaches always had a buddy rule: no player could go anywhere without another player (i.e. bathroom or snack stand) and they had to check in and out with the team manager or one of the coaches. This was true for indoor winter practices too.
'Nuff said.