The Official Forum - Background investigation release form

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)

- - Background investigation release form (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/31033-background-investigation-release-form.html)

From CNN yesterday:

"A man prosecutors said was one of the nation's most active child molesters was sentenced Monday to 150 years in prison for abusing two 12-year-old boys.

"Dean Arthur Schwartzmiller, 64, who also had been convicted of sexual assaults in several states over three decades, was sentenced to the maximum term on 11 felony counts of child molestation and one misdemeanor charge of child pornography possession.

". . . prosecutor Steve Fein showed jurors a map of the 'places and decades where the defendant has molested young boys.' It included an estimated 100 accusers dating to 1969 in eight U.S. states, Mexico and Brazil.

"He didn't register as a sex offender so he did not appear in the 'Megan's Law' databases in California or other states, police said."

So a BI wouldn't have caught this guy.

But at least it will screen out the 35-year-old umpire who at age 15 pinched a girl's rear end.

PS. "convicted of sexual assaults in several states over three decades" ??

Why wasn't this guy locked up and the key thrown away long ago?

Back to the beginning

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

the individual initiating this carries a lot of weight, figuratively and literally

Got a chuckle out of that. We are all carrying more, literally, but Jack may have us there. I believe he is on the Friday morning agenda, making opening remarks from the Umpire Committee, so it may come up real early.

See you Thursday night at the Hospitality, if not earlier at registration. I'm flying standby, so not sure when I will actually arrive, although early looks most promising.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

See you Thursday night at the Hospitality, if not earlier at registration. I'm flying standby, so not sure when I will actually arrive, although early looks most promising.

Yep, I'm sure we'll see each other at some point on Thursday.

Remember, 2005 was the nicest so far, and it still was quite chilly. Dress warm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Yep, I'm sure we'll see each other at some point on Thursday.

Remember, 2005 was the nicest so far, and it still was quite chilly. Dress warm.

See you all in Hospitality... I'll be the one with the beer in my hand. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by SRW

See you all in Hospitality... I'll be the one with the beer in my hand. :D

That should narrow it down! :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SRW

See you all in Hospitality... I'll be the one with the beer in my hand. :D

I just hope that people don't get us confused, based on that description. :D :D :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I just hope that people don't get us confused, based on that description. :D :D :D

Perhaps I had better carry two beers with me to differentiate myself from the rest of you...Perhaps I should just stick to wearing my Region 15 polo shirt... perhaps both! :D

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles...00010000000001

Just a slight turn. For those who think I exaggerate when voicing a concern about those in authority having the common sense and ability to use that laws and powers entrusted to them.

Sad part is, the first court agreed with the police officer. Great country we live in as every Tom, Dick and TopoGiggio judge thinks they have the authority to reinterpret the constitution as they believe it should be based on their preferences in life.

I e-mailed the Region Chief on this topic and asked him if he knew this was happening in my area, and what he thought of it.
.
As I expected there is no response AT ALL !. There is a clinic on 2/24 in Bowie and I have to assume the topic will be discussed by the Brass who invented it.

I just received word from one of the Deputy UIC's in my area. Seems "they" have reconsidered this whole idea after receiving a ton of flack. They are dropping the Background investigation idea.

Well, it seem that BI's, though more and more common, in some instances aren't being done well. Read this

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcrowder

You change the meaning of my quote by snipping out, "In some cases." No offense, but that's incredibly underhanded. (Made worse by the fact that my post was last on a page and very possibly not even read by those just tuning in to the current page.) I absolutely do not mean that to be true in all cases. I mean it to be true in SOME case, and in the particular case of this thread.

Let me ask you, then ...

Who is usurping your rights by making you sign a form that allows an organization that you are choosing to work for in a capacity which puts you in a position of authority over children to perform a background check on you? In what way are your rights usurped? Especially considering that they can do what they ask anyway without your permission should they choose to do so.

It would be a different argument if this information was not already public, but I think I'd STILL land on the side of protecting the rights of the children and trying to keep potentially harmful people from being placed in positions of authority over them. To me, your right to privacy is superceded by the league's responsibility to the children the moment that you decide you want to be placed in a position of authority over them. If your privacy is more important to you than your ability to be placed into authoritative positions, you surely have the right to not work. Your rights are most certainly not being usurped in this case.

Just now getting back to reading the Background Investigation thread, so I am not going to rehash what apparently has been so eloquently covered in my absence. I didn't mean, in anyway, to be underhanded in my quoting of you. If I inadvertently was, I apologize. Those statements just stood out to me. As for who is usurping my rights if I sign a form, well, me, of course. I know that they can do these without my permission, which I feel should not be allowed in and of itself. This is the price that many feel we should pay in a post 9/11, paranoid ridden world. I just happen to not agree.