Background investigation release form

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by chuck chopper

This is an ASA thing

It would appear by his responses that Mike Rowe, Delaware ASA UIC doesn't know about it. As the Georgia State Player Rep, I haven't heard about it. Seems to me that we would know if that was mandated by ASA. And, just heard today that the 2007 ASA rulebooks were still at the printers, so I doubt there has been any major umpire mailings from the ASA National Office, yet.

My suspicion, at least until I know differently (National UIC Clinic on Feb 8 to Feb 11), is that this is a local or State issued form, not a National mandate. But, I will also ask my Regional UIC.

[Little Jimmy]

For what it's worth, the packet I received from the newly consolidated Maryland/DC ASA contains 2 forms dealing with background checks. One has the ASA Softball logo on the top saying that ASA may perform a criminal background check if I sign the form. It says ASA will obtain records through a third party. I'm also asked to send along a photo copy of my drivers license.

Another page says that a company called Comprehensive Information Services, Inc. will be performing this process.

I was told by those who run my organization that they do not want us to sign this form. They want to see what may become of the situation.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Chuck, I'm still waiting for you to answer the question in the first response by Greymule. I need to know what association you got this packet from, then if the request came from the National Office of that association. Then, I might formulate how I feel.

Since we don't know that, we obviously don't know what "Regional or National" has directed to do with those who decline. Or, at least I don't.

[CecilOne]

Now that we know it involved Washington and Baltimore, we can understand someone being nervous. Did JF or ML ever play softball?

[mcrowder]

I will agree with anyone who says that actual background checks are a waste of money, and also agree that if anyone really wants to know, they can perform a background check on just about anyone.

HOWEVER...

I do believe that the mere act of ASKING an umpire/coach/administrator to sign a form that ALLOWS someone to run what they could run on their own anyway can be a deterrent to someone who truly is an offender. You think someone who has already been guilty of acts that one would expect to find on a background check might be a little reluctant to sign the form? You betcha. If a nationwide request for umpires/coaches to allow background checks eliminates just a single perpetrator from getting into a position of authority over young kids, it's worth it.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

You think someone who has already been guilty of acts that one would expect to find on a background check might be a little reluctant to sign the form? You betcha. If a nationwide request for umpires/coaches to allow background checks eliminates just a single perpetrator from getting into a position of authority over young kids, it's worth it.

Given my earlier defense of Sen. McCarthy, my reply to this may surprise some. I find this reasoning justifying a specific loss of liberty to be one of the most dangerous tendancies of our modern American outlook.

Individual liberty is sacrosanct. Compromizing on liberty to protect "just one" innocent leads directly to totalitarianism. Why do you think the burden is so high on the state to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Why do you think there are provisions that ban double jeopardy, restrict police searches, restrict police interrogation, provide for the right to an attorney?

Further, the notion that one should volunteer information to the state because one has "nothing to hide" is, again, on the direct path to totalitarianism. One should be free to require the state to live up to its burden of just cause before information can be demanded or searches performed.

I realize that softball sanctioning organizations are not "the state." I was commenting on the general justification / rationalization.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Individual liberty is sacrosanct. Compromizing on liberty to protect "just one" innocent leads directly to totalitarianism. Why do you think the burden is so high on the state to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Why do you think there are provisions that ban double jeopardy, restrict police searches, restrict police interrogation, provide for the right to an attorney?

Further, the notion that one should volunteer information to the state because one has "nothing to hide" is, again, on the direct path to totalitarianism. One should be free to require the state to live up to its burden of just cause before information can be demanded or searches performed.

ditto, ditto, ditto ! ! !

[greymule]

It's hard to believe, but the D.A. in the Duke Lacrosse Frameup case actually said, of the three defendants, "If they aren't guilty, why do they need lawyers?"

(Could be because of people like you, Mr. Nifong.)

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Given my earlier defense of Sen. McCarthy, my reply to this may surprise some. I find this reasoning justifying a specific loss of liberty to be one of the most dangerous tendancies of our modern American outlook.

Individual liberty is sacrosanct. Compromizing on liberty to protect "just one" innocent leads directly to totalitarianism. Why do you think the burden is so high on the state to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Why do you think there are provisions that ban double jeopardy, restrict police searches, restrict police interrogation, provide for the right to an attorney?

Further, the notion that one should volunteer information to the state because one has "nothing to hide" is, again, on the direct path to totalitarianism. One should be free to require the state to live up to its burden of just cause before information can be demanded or searches performed.

I realize that softball sanctioning organizations are not "the state." I was commenting on the general justification / rationalization.

You seem to have missed some of my point, so I'll reiterate.

First - the background checks that you all seem to feel are horrible invasions of privacy can be performed easily, quickly, and WITHOUT your consent, should someone choose to do one.

So, that said, the sanctioning body asking you to fill out a form that allows them to do something they can already do is most certainly not infringing on your liberty.

And it then follows - since the mere asking of your consent for something they don't need your consent for in the first place does not infringe on your liberty at all, the side benefit of possibly chasing away a true offender is a positive that has no negative.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

You seem to have missed some of my point, so I'll reiterate.

No, I didn't miss your point. I was commenting on the rationalization, which I quoted in my response. I was commenting on these two things:

1) Only people who have something to hide should refuse to disclose information or permit searches, or the corollary, that if you refuse to disclose information or permit searches you must be hiding something.

I reject that notion categorically. Maybe all I am doing is defending my liberty.

2) Loss of liberty is worth it if it protects "just one" innocent. No, it isn't, since the loss of liberty leads eventually to the repression of many innocents.

You'll note above in this thread I pointed out that much of the information needed to "invade our privacy" is publically available in commercial databases. Commercial databases are the property of the business owner, not the property of the individual the data is about. I'm talking about credit reports and the financial records and other random data that back those up.

The other common source of data you (or someone) listed has always been public data - criminal records. It is just only recently with the computerization of these data and the interstate cooperation in the wake of 9-11 that combines these data across jurisdictional boundaries that this massive amout of data could be searched cost effectively.

So, background checks are relatively easy and cheap to do due to the combination of commercial databases and the computerization of criminal databases.

All of that has absolutely nothing to do with the rationalization I was commenting on.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

- the background checks that you all seem to feel are horrible invasions of privacy can be performed easily, quickly, and WITHOUT your consent, should someone choose to do one.

And that is exactly what is wrong, wrong, wrong.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

I will agree with anyone who says that actual background checks are a waste of money, and also agree that if anyone really wants to know, they can perform a background check on just about anyone.

HOWEVER...

I do believe that the mere act of ASKING an umpire/coach/administrator to sign a form that ALLOWS someone to run what they could run on their own anyway can be a deterrent to someone who truly is an offender. You think someone who has already been guilty of acts that one would expect to find on a background check might be a little reluctant to sign the form? You betcha. If a nationwide request for umpires/coaches to allow background checks eliminates just a single perpetrator from getting into a position of authority over young kids, it's worth it.

Maybe, ONLY if that was the only way, and it isn't.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by chuck chopper

With a recent package I received in the mail, there is a background release form. I have to assume this is a national directive & not regional.
Are you assigners getting flack from your Umps. What have you been told to do by National or Regional brass with the Umps that don't want to sign it.

Back to the original issue. I followed through, and received this response from THE highest umpire position in ASA.

The ASA is not doing mandatory background checks at this time – it may happen in the future – but not now. There are some Associations who are doing so, but this is at the Association level only.

Respectfully,

Bottom line, it is a Maryland initiative, not regional, not national.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Back to the original issue. I followed through, and received this response from THE highest umpire position in ASA.

Bottom line, it is a Maryland initiative, not regional, not national.

Not even all Maryland.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Bottom line, it is a Maryland initiative, not regional, not national.

The only problem is the individual initiating this carries a lot of weight, figuratively and literally, around the ASA national office. Also, Rodagonda made quite a speech at the convention about ASA getting into background checks for coaches and "others", so I can see where the bread crumbs may lead.

I wouldn't doubt if someone raises this question next weekend. I will promise anyone going, that I will NOT address this issue unless raised by another.