Background investigation release form
 

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.

What governing authority is this?

I've made my opinion known before, the minute ASA asks me for this is the minute I leave ASA.

You guys don't think it's a good idea to check the backgrounds of adults involved with children?

Our State requires fingerprint and background checks for all school officials. A HS basketball official in a neighboring county was just arrested for following a player around the school before the game asking to see her feet!

I think a background check to keep people like that out of the ASA is a small price for me to pay and a great idea. It's unfortunately a sign of the times.

WOW! That surprises me Mike. I've never read any of your posts on this issue and I'd be curious to know your reasoning. Do you think it's a violation of privacy? Do you think it's a small price to pay to keep a preditor from having access to kids? I may not like it - I submit to a background check every year for Little League - but I'd do it for HS or ASA.

That isn't what I said, but now that you asked.

• BI, especially the low-level which are conducted, discover very little. It will only catch those with a standing criminal background record.
• An umpire should not be involved with the players at any point. They are there to officiate a softball game, not to interact with a child.

School organizations are not the same. Their activities are conducted with the school complete liable in loco parentis. ASA is not, nor should they want to be. Odds are your basketball official would have done whatever it was he was doing. For that matter, without the full story, I don't know if he did anything illegal.

I disagree. Having worked in the high-value secure transportation business and an auditor and USN high-level communications prior to that, I have constantly witnessed people who you think should never get passed a poly or BI are standing next to you, doing a job which involves high security and trust.

Keeping them out of ASA or any other organization will not stop these type of people. If a game official, and you will find one example almost anywhere in the country (out of how many sports officials?), commits illegal acts toward a minor, my question is where is that minor's team, coaches, parents, friends, league administrators and directors? There are many volunteer parents that help with the teams. Will all of them be investigated? After all, do they not come in constant contact with children other than their own and carry the weight of authority?

Let's step to the other side of the issue. Who determines what is inappropriate and what is not? Think about it. In a certain part of the country, a businessman/woman responds to a certain act, "Come on, honey, you can do better then that" it is completely acceptable, and in some societal communities, expected! Bring that same scenario to a big-city, up-tight suburban community and those individuals are terminated, shunned by former "friends" and can completely lose their lifestyle just because they were acting in a manner which is considered not only acceptable, but friendly.

Again, under who's societal laws will the line be drawn? Who makes the determination of who is good and who is bad? Hasn't this country learned from Sen. Joe McCarthy that people cannot be trusted to be honorable, even-handed and fair when it comes to highly sensitive and devisive issues?

And once this information is collected, who will police it's use? Do you have enough faith in people, especially those who volunteer for such a task, that it will held in strict confidence and not used beyond a predescribed limit? If you do, let's talk about Arlen Specter's (didn't he work with Sen. McCarthy?) magic bullet theory, RICO laws only applying to racketeering and organized crime, the CIA not running black ops out of Laos and Cambodia and a bridge in Brooklyn.

Cynical? Yep, things like this and the resulting abuse of percieved authority have caused me to be that way :)

IMO, I believe this is another Chicken Little reaction that is nothing more than a non-productive, feel-good invasion and insinuation of our community.

That said, I have changed my strategy. If this is ever presented, instead of walking away, I will fight this however I may. I'm sure there will be a loss of friendship and trust, but I just don't believe in living our lives in such a manner to quell the fears of others who choose to lack the ability to take responsibility for their charge.

JMHO,

Mike

A HS basketball official in a neighboring county was just arrested for following a player around the school before the game asking to see her feet!

Weird behavior, no doubt some sort of sexual disorientation. The girl may very well have been lucky to escape danger. Who knows? But what did they charge this official with?

Between games last year, a girl about 10 years old tried to retrieve some softballs that had been caught in tangled netting in the backstop. As I stood near the plate, I watched her climb about 12 feet up, when she realized she wouldn't be able to reach the balls, and tried to descend. However, partly because she was wearing "heelys," she found going down harder than going up and became a little anxious. So I got under her, directed her down, and sort of caught her as she let go and fell a little ways. Amazingly, I was not arrested (but the thought definitely crossed my mind).

I wish I had an answer to background checks. Here in NJ, Megan Kanka was raped and murdered by a convicted child molester whom the state had housed in a suburban neighborhood full of kids—without informing anybody. So New Jersey passed laws to make people feel good and make politicians look tough on perverts. The result has been that a few guys are on a list, the vast majority of dangerous pedophiles are not on it, and a college student who "streaked" past the homecoming bonfire technically violated the new law (there were children under 10 present or something) and has been branded a "sex offender" for life. So when he graduates and applies for that nice job, he comes up on the list.

Princeton University used to have its co-ed "nude olympics" every year at the first snowfall. Maybe what stopped it was fear of being labeled a sex offender.

In the early 1950s, we discovered that Communist spies working on the atom bomb had supplied the Soviet Union with key information. Nobody had done a background check. What happened as a result is well known.

If ASA or NCAA told me I had to submit to a background check before I could umpire another youth game, I'd resist and try to get other officials to do the same, but in the end, neither I nor I suspect many other officials can afford to walk away.

A few years ago I helped form a youth softball league. I was the group’s UIC. As part of the process all the people involved submitted to a background check by a state agency. Only one designated person in the group received the information. By law it could not be shared with anyone else. There was something in my background that turned the person’s head but it was not a cause for dismissing me from the group. To this day I have no idea what it was but I do know that whatever it was it was not sex related. After this I have never submitted to this process again and never will.

I certainly understand background checks for certain officers of a group and for those who are entrusted with the safety and well being of youth players. As an umpire or as a UIC only, I would never be in that position except to apply and enforce safety rules. My credit history, work history, school history, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with my umpiring and wouldn’t reveal any kind of predisposition to any kind of sexual aberration. Background checks for a previous pedophile would at best prevent a repeat offense. Only due diligence can prevent a new offense.

I was a youngster at the time of Senator McCarthy. I remember almost everyone thinking that there was at least one communist in every classroom, in every store, in every family, in every public gathering, etc. I was even led to believe that President Eisenhower was possibly a communist. Those feelings lasted well after Senator McCarthy left the senate.

If a school or organization required a background check of umpires I would not fight it. I just wouldn’t umpire for them. Fighting that kind of thinking and mind set is a lost cause. The supplemental income I get from umpiring would be missed but not worth the sacrifice.

There are and have been secure societies: Cuba, Russia, Germany. Would anyone umpire in them?

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither" - Benjamin Franklin

This is the part of this discussion I like best. Problems are not solved by leaving/ignoring them.
Before I get off on a rant about privacy, I'll close.

Unfortunately, it is government that will be doing the background checks. Government will invariably miss many of the dangerous people and flag many innocent ones. Government just had Catherine Stevens, wife of U.S. Senator Ted Stevens, on its "no-fly" list. Oops, they meant the former Cat Stevens, who became a Moslem years ago. (And why would he be on the list, anyway?)

Let's not assign the checking of umpires' backgrounds to the same people who make up the no-fly list, and who arrest aged WW2 vets because the Civil War rifle over the fireplace technically fits the definition of "assault weapon." What's an umpire going to do anyway, molest a kid on the field? Does an umpire by virtue of his official position have any greater chance than anybody else in the park to commit a crime against a child?

Afterthought: It is almost certain that the governor of New Jersey is going to commute the death sentence of every murderer on death row. This includes the man who raped and murdered Megan Kanka. I would agree that, should that guy be released at some point in the future (not impossible in this state), he should not be allowed to umpire a kids' game.

CLBuffalo: As something of a student of the McCarthy era, I know of no actual accusation put forth that Eisenhower was or had been a Communist. The John Birch Society did say, however, that Eisenhower was "an unwitting tool of the Communist Party." And don't you have a right to see that report that had "turned somebody's head"? Incidentally, do you know that Hollywood once maintained a "blacklist" of anti-Communists?

PS. Arlen Specter did not have any ties to Senator Joseph McCarthy. Robert F. Kennedy acted as assistant counsel to Roy Cohn for McCarthy's senate committee.

My wife usually suggests child molesters be turned over to the parents, in a locked room armed with machetes. :cool:

BTW, let's not let the revelations from the released files of the KGB which show that McCarthy was correct about significant infiltration of US institutions by the KGB (and its predecessors, including the MGB) get in the way of a continuation of scapegoating him as evil incarnate.

As a youngster this was told to me by other youngsters and adults. I had no reason to think they were lying to me so I believed them, at least until I got older and learned to take things with a grain of salt.

No I didn't know there was a blacklist of anti-communists. I wonder what they were banned from doing.

BTW, let's not let the revelations from the released files of the KGB which show that McCarthy was correct about significant infiltration of US institutions by the KGB (and its predecessors, including the MGB) get in the way of a continuation of scapegoating him as evil incarnate.

You make a good point, Dakota. The released files are quite sobering. We now know that agents of the Soviet Union were indeed helping craft U.S. foreign policy, and that some of the people made out to be martyrs turned out to be traitors after all.

History certainly contains its ironies. In the 1946 Wisconsin Republican senate primary, McCarthy narrowly won the nomination from sitting four-term senator Robert La Follette. The margin of victory was provided by substantial help from Communists.

When I asked this question last week, frankly I was surprised that no one else was "pieved" enough to already starta thread. Looks like many of us don't like the invasion, and where does the info ultimately go ?. Others are concerned about the kids. I think it stinks of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.
.
My 2nd question is what has Regional or National told you assigners to do with Umps that won't agree to a background investigation. Most assigners don't have enough Umps to cover all the games as it is.

We still want to know which governing body, as greymule asked.

I think it stinks of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

It sure does. They'd start with convicted child molesters, but how long would it be before an umpire who is discovered to be a member of the National Rifle Association, or who writes a letter to the local newspaper in support of the Second Amendment, is put on the "no-ump" list? Some airhead administrator will cite his school's "zero tolerance" policy for guns, impressionable kids, etc.

My 9-12 school in Connecticut actually had a shooting team (if anybody in 2007 America can imagine that). But strangely, no teachers, administrators, students, townspeople, or anyone else was ever shot.

This is an ASA thing

We started with a discussion of whether background checks for umpires are appropriate. The fact is that today 2 out of every 10 children under 13 are molested and many of these predators are repeat offenders. Every organization which provides paid or volunteer adults for child activities has an obligation for safety. That should include facilities, equipment, and today protection against predators.

Your concerns about abuse of government power 60 years ago, or who is on a no-fly list are out of touch with technology. Here is what any individual or employer can get on the internet, without your permission or knowledge, for less than $50 and in less than 4 hours:

personal background checks - personal information search
o legal name
o public records search
o other names associated and/or linked with the subject (aka's)
o date of birth
o current and previous addresses with dates of occupancy
o current and previous phone listings
o social security number, place and date of issuance
o other social security numbers associated with subject
o other names associated with subject's social security number
o possible relatives
o other individuals who have used subject's addresses
o neighboring phone listings for subject's addresses
• criminal records search
o criminal convictions
o felony and misdemeanor convictions
o sexual offenses
o public court records search
• bankruptcies search
o chapter 7, 9, 11, 12, 13 schedule 341/trusteeship
• liens search
o federal tax lien
o state tax lien
o county tax lien
o state tax warrant
• judgments search
o small claims judgment
o civil special judgment
o deficiency judgments
o foreclosures
o forcible entry/detainer
o civil new filing
o civil dismissal
o vacated/appealed judgment
o abstract of judgment
• ucc filings search
• real property records search
o real property ownership
o parcel numbers and legal descriptions
o assessed land, improved and market values
o recent sales prices and dates
o deed transfers, including quit claims and grants
o lenders and loan amount information
• business records search
o business affiliations
• licenses search
o professional licenses
o dea controlled substances licenses
o faa pilot license, class and rating search
• vehicle & driving license records search
o drivers license search information
o other licensed drivers at subject's address
o vehicle registrations, place and date of issuance
o vehicles registered at subject's address
• watercraft registration search
• faa aircraft registration search

Every time you enter a building, use your credit card, go on the internet, use your ezpass, or make a call it’s recorded or taped. Get used to it.

Sleep well!

Define significant? Also, please note how many persons were falsely accused for the sake of furthering a witch hunt. Also, please note that simply being a member of a group does not mean you should be considered guilty by association which was one of the tools used to "infiltrate" these pinko, commie *******s.

Really? RICO laws are relatively recent and have been abused since effected. Again, who plays God? You? Me? The local minister.

What happens when someone finds you or any one of us had a incident with alcohol in our youth 30+ years ago and some putz thinks, "this guy has an alcohol problem, no way he gets near the complex where my child plays"?

Don't tell me it doesn't happen. As a UIC, I have been dealing with these types for a few years now and the absurdity is beyond belief.

I am absolutely tired and disgusted with people who believe they are superior in being because they have a child to protect. Yes, the same child they routinely leave with the sitter or at the day care so they life is not interrupted. BTW, check the coaches, umpires, etc, but who checks the parents? Is there a more trusted individual associated with youth players than the parents? Who checks them to make sure there is no inappropriate action in their background? For that matter, who checks the older players? How are we to know there is no inappropriate interactions between the 16U player and the 14U player?

Mike

Here is the point:
This information is available today to anyone.
An Association has an obligation to provide for safety.
Being an Umpire is not anyone's right, if you don't want a background check don't join
AND yes, a parent has the right to protect their child from a known sex offender.

I wasn't talking about mere membership, but KGB files listing their operatives within US government and other institutions. The mere members were sometimes referred to by the Soviets as "useful idiots."

I'm not advocating rampant infringement of our civil rights. I was only pointing out that McCarthy was correct in his assessment of the problem. His methods left a lot be be desired, but the pervasive view that all of his targets were innocent victims is just not true.

Besides, as the post a couple of replies above shows, we have more to fear from commercial databases than criminal ones as far as protection of our privacy is concerned. There is no constitutional protection for us as individuals against a business selling, printing, distributing, or otherwise making known its commercial records.

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.

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.

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.

Initial reply from my Regional UIC, member of the NUS.

Hard for me to believe it is a mandate of the National Office with this response. The use of the ASA logo is not restricted to the National Office; the local associations are authorized users.

My opinion, it is a local issue, that needs to be addressed on a local level.

I think it was Mike who stated we dont get involved or inter react with the kids and to a large extent he is correct .
With an injury we stand aside .
We may talk to a player one on one but this is in front of players and parents .
Off the diamond we are like Joe public and they dont need a background check to get into a ground .
Now a background check into priests , thats another story or do we trust them as they are men of god .
Statistacally there are more molestations by priests than umpires and the same goes for close family members who are more likely to molest relations .
This is Political correctness gone mad and its not just in the good old USA it occurs in New Zealand as well

Feel good senseless measure with little to no impact equal to the hassle.

If ASA implemented I would simply do it.. i've been through a million back ground checks and I'd do one for this... no big deal. ASA does a bunch of things I dont like... but I enjoy umpiring.

Tom,

You throw 100 pieces of gum against a wall, some are going to stick.

Sort of like even a blind squirrel will find an acorn every now and then. How many people lost their families, friends, jobs and lifestyles to catch a few "idiots"?

The government knows who is working for them. And many knew how to use the "idiots". Disinformation isn't just broadcast, there needs to be a believable source.

Nonetheless, I still don't believe this is a good move by an organization that, until the institution of this knee-jerk reaction, had no culpability in this discussion.

I don't need permission to take your name and run it against the sex offenders database.

I don't give a crap about your credit rating, or even if you have 50 parking tickets outstanding.

But there are numerous reported cases of umpires who have perpetrated any number of offenses from getting too close to the catcher, to adbuction, rape and murder.

I don't think we need to protect the guilty.

Tony, I don't disagree with any of your statements, but I think they are off the point. Universal background checks on game officials in any sport are (in my opinion) generically a waste of time, resources, and misguided.

The fact that any umpire ever created even one offense is true, but the risk is essentially minute. At no time is a game official in unsupervised contact with a game participant; the odds of catching a random offender are staggering, roughly similar to the odds that any two random people will meet in the universe. Clearly, other than the perception of needing to do something/anything to protect our youth, any rational person would undestand that the greater risk and more liklihood of a problem would occur when a child is left one-on-one with someone.

Obviously, many agencies are mandated background checks on head coaches; fewer mandate all assistand coaches. Practically no one checks the parents who simply help the team from time to time; and I venture to guess that absolutely NO ONE checks all the parents and assorted family members who might hang out with team, offering to help drive, taking the child "home", giving them a ride to "practice", or even slipping away from the crowd at a tournament ("I'll walk with you to the concession stand", or bathroom, or to go get your .......). All of these are clearly greater risks than the softball umpire on the softball field with 17 (or more) other ball players, 6 or more coaches, and unknown number of parents and assorted family members, all watching for an alleged misstep by the umpire.

My personal opinion is that umpires should all get background checks as a universal program AFTER there is mandated background checks of all coaches, parents, and family members of all participants. Add a couple hundred dollars fees to all participant registrations; then see how many of the general public outcry for universal background checks on the game officials. The irony is that the travel teams, who pay thousands in fees, don't care; it is the public agencies that run recreation programs, and have limited per player fees, that seem to think that they can minimize their exposure by mandating these checks on the most minimal risks.

But there are numerous reported cases of umpires who have perpetrated any number of offenses from getting too close to the catcher, to abduction, rape and murder.

I remember one murder case (from, I think, Court TV) where the killer had umpired the girl's games. So it was indeed as an umpire that he came into first contact with the girl. However, all his actual offenses took place away from the field. The first thing out of line was that he (a man in his mid 20s) started to send gifts to the teenage girl. Still, it is not clear that a background check would have revealed anything.

I never heard of any instance of an umpire committing an offense by getting too close to the catcher, but I guess in a country of close to 300 million people, something like that is bound to happen. However, would a background check have revealed anything about this guy? And what were some of the cases of abduction/rape/murder?

(I'm so sexist. I always assume it's a guy. Although throughout history there have been many cases of "black widows" who poisoned a string of husbands for money, and of Munchhausen's syndrome babysitters who smothered the children in their care or mothers who fed their kids weed killer to get sympathy from doctors and neighbors, there has never been a true case of a compulsive sexual killer, like Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy, who was female. Of course, women have committed other kinds of sexual offenses against minors.)

In our local high school a few years ago, a girl tried to bench press more than she could handle. The gym was full of people. When the girl realized she couldn't handle the weight, she cried out in distress. A male gym teacher ran over to her and kept the bar from crushing her neck.

The girl's parents soon sued the gym teacher and the school district. You see, as the gym teacher positioned himself to secure the weight, his crotch got close to the girl's face or brushed against it or something.

The coach was near retirement anyway, so the school gave him a buy-out package. A couple of years later, the courts found for the coach/school, and no money was awarded.

In re-reading my post, I omitted my point. I am agreeing with the nonsense about universal background checks.

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

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.

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.

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

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.)

I was raised in a family of military men and law enforcement officials. These men were law abiding, straight laced conservatives. So i am about 15. My brother and I get taken to the police station for having in our possesion a very,very small amount of a naturally growing weed. No pun attended. Our dad shows up with an attorney. He believed in system-the whole system-which included the rights of the accused.

He grounded us for 30 days and we got to redo the landscape for our whole extended family. He reminded us, on numerous occasions, that constitutional protections ended when he sent that mortage check in to pay for our house. LOL

naturally growing weed

I bet you guys were planning to make dandelion wine, right? Naughty, naughty!

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.

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.

OK. It sounded to my like your comments were a rebuttal to mine. Now it sounds like they weren't. I actually don't disagree with either of your numbered statements above. I just don't think being asked to sign a form that allows a background check is a loss of liberty, since I've already lost that bit of privacy already. If one wants to rail against the already existing "services" around which have already served to limit our liberty, I will probably be right there with them. I just don't agree that being asked to sign a form that allows a group to do something they can already do infringes on my existing rights at all.

Regarding "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 never said that, and I don't agree with it. I'll assume now that you were refuting something someone else said, or that you incorrectly inferred that notion from what I did say.

Regarding "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." Again, I agree with you. Where we obviously differ is the assumption that being asked to allow a background check is or is not a loss of liberty. In today's world, it is not. It may be a liberty or more accurately a privacy that we have already lost. We may even both agree that we should fight to get it back ... but the requirement that we allow a sanctioning body to do what they already can do is absolutely not a loss of existing liberty.

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

Look! At that thing way over there! It's my point. You missed it entirely.

You may be right that it's WRONG WRONG WRONG. I'm not arguing that.

But it is true. And it has nothing to do with signing a form for a background check. If I knew extremely minimal information about you, I could run a background check on you at minimal cost. I would not have to get a signed piece of paper from you, and I would not be breaking any laws. If you think it is a horrible thing that I can do this, then by all means do what you can to fix the situation, but it is what it is.

So ... asking you for your permission is truly a moot point. There is no loss of liberty by asking for your permission - I can do it anyway.

In fact, the more I think about this... an association that was running checks for the right reasons would be smarter to simply ask, voluntarily, for permission to run a background check. And then, to save money, don't bother running the checks on anyone who gave permission, and ONLY run them on those that didn't. As long as no one knew that was your policy, it would work.

All that aside, though... all I'm saying is that since they can get your info anyway, asking for it is not a hinderance to you, and it's entirely possible that the mere act of ASKING permission will chase away someone who really DOES have no business working as an authority figure over children.

1) And that is exactly what is wrong, wrong, wrong

2) Not saying you are wrong, but what you describe is

3) Invading privacy is wrong, hindrance or not, especially without permission. The permission does make a difference.

Criminal Records are public record and have nothing to do with a "right to privacy"

http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/reg_sexoffend.html

The link above is for the New Jersey sex offender registry. It gives names and mugshots of 2,173 sex offenders in New Jersey, as well as 41 fugitives. I do not know exactly what criteria get somebody listed, and obviously not every offender is known.

The lists also includes names of people who are incarcerated. However, it does not contain the name of Jesse Timmendequas, who is on death row at the moment. (It was his crime that prompted the politicians to pass Megan's law.) However, I see that a Paul Timmendequas made the list. Since that name is hardly common, I suspect it's a relative.

I looked through a lot of mugshots, but I did not recognize any umpires.

In a strange coincidence, considering what we've been talking about, on Saturday night there was a home invasion a few miles south of me, near the College of New Jersey. Three guys broke into a house, beat up and robbed a 58-year-old wheelchair-bound Vietnam vet, and forced him to call his wife and another woman and have them come home, where the three "sexually attacked" (newspaper's term) the women. When the criminals left, they took one of the women with them and ended up throwing her out of the car onto the street adjacent to the park where I do 30-40 games a summer. (Nobody has yet been apprehended.)

Update: The paper this morning says the police have caught one of the perps. He's a 16-year-old member of the Bloods. The veteran is to be released soon from the hospital after treatment for a "savage beating about the head and face."

Not a big fan of Megan's Law, either. It is intrusive, is a complete slap in the face of any correctional system's existing mantra of rehabilitation and, worst of all, make no allowance for exceptions.

Another government-supported, Gestapo-like tactic to placate the unknowing masses. I'll see if I can find it, but there was a blurb in the USAToday a couple months ago where a 12yo boy was convicted on a sex-crime charge because he grabbed a girl of similar age's rear end.

After the conviction, it was noted that, by law, this 12yo was required to register as a sex offender.

HELLO...Hello...hello? IS THERE ANYBODY IN THERE?

make no allowance for exceptions

Government uses a club, not a scalpel. Jeffrey Dahmer? Sex offender. Twelve-year-old who grabs a girl's rear end? Sex offender.

Guy caught with a trunk full of smuggled fully automatic weapons? Firearms violator. Guy has a trigger guard a quarter inch too narrow on the shotgun grandpa gave him 20 years ago? Firearms violator.

Incidentally, if that 12-year-old kid has to register as a sex offender, then so should more than half the male population of the United States, including a significant portion of the Congress and more than one former President.

... and the entire male population of Italy :rolleyes:

Incidentally, (to mcrowder and others who take the position that signing the form is harmless since it is not actually required to gain access to the same information) there is a big difference (as a matter of principle) between me giving someone permission to discover personal information and them doing it anyway. There is a big difference (as a matter of principle) between something being legal and something being right. There is a big difference (as a matter of principle) between something being declared constitutional by a specific set of 9 members of the black-robed priesthood and something being actually allowed under a plain reading of the constitution. Defending our liberty is not a one-time event but a continuing battle.

--Thomas Jefferson

Obviously we are well beyond the single step Mr. Jefferson feared.

Jefferson owned slaves didn't he?

Yes, but not one of them failed a background check.

When one resorts to character attacks, one obviously has no response to the actual issue at hand or is conceding the debate on the issues. Most modern politicians are very good at this kind of "debate" and the Clinton Administration raised it to a high art form.

Jefferson owned slaves didn't he?

Yes. There was slavery on the North American continent when Jefferson lived. There was also slavery everywhere else in the world except Europe, which didn't need it since it had a feudal system that accomplished the same thing. Slavery still exists in, among other places, Africa and the Arab world. So it turns out that America actually was among the very least offenders when it came to slavery.

Though the founders of the country had neither the political nor the military power to abolish slavery, Jefferson helped create a Constitution that was instrumental in ending it.

While we're bashing Jefferson, let's remember that he

a. did nothing to advance the cause of gay rights
b. nominated no women, blacks, or Latinos either to his cabinet or to the U.S. Supreme Court
c. did nothing to protect the rain forest or reduce carbon dioxide emissions
d. favored the death penalty
e. saw nothing wrong with prayer in school
f. created no government agency to protect workers from environmental hazards on the job
g. is not on record for ever having supported any labor union
h. believed in God
i. helped found a nation that has become the envy of the world, and crafted the principles that have produced wealth and liberty beyond anything that anyone had dreamed of in his lifetime

Yeah. What a rat.

Tom,

Perhaps I was being too subtle and that’s what caused you to miss the point. Jefferson, revered and quoted earlier as the person who helped define these great concepts of freedom and privacy in our Constitution, lived in a time when it was perfectly acceptable for him to own slaves. (It’s not character assignation if it’s true). Obviously a despicable and abhorrent concept by today’s standards and clearly interpreted as Unconstitutional. The point is times change, and the interpretation of the Constitution changes based on societies values at the time.

Technology has made it possible to access all kinds of public information today that wasn’t even dreamed of 20 years ago. THAT DOESN’T LESSON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PEOPLE WHO ACCESSS THIS INFORMATION TO DO THE RIGHT THING! But to say no one should have access to that data is like saying we should ban certain books, or not have security cameras, or not xray people’s private luggage. You have the freedom of speech, but it doesn’t give you the right to scream fire in a crowded theatre. You have the right of privacy, but it doesn’t supersede the publics’ right to security or the protection of a child.

It is a character attack if it is used to attack the points being made by attacking the person. Truth of the charge has nothing to do with it. We are supposed to accept, by your charge, that since Jefferson owned slaves and that since slavery is viewed as abhorent and is now unconstitutional that his thoughts on liberty have no merit? What complete drivel. And why is it when I disagree it is assumed that I "missed the point". I got the point. I disagreed with the point.
In the case of slavery, the interpretation of the constitution was not changed. It was amended. Would that people today would have the courage and integrity to actually attempt to amend the constitution if they think parts of it are outdated. Instead, they use the courts to change it by judicial fiat. It is a violation (not an interpretation), of the constitution, IMO, for the "commerce clause" to be used as the open door for damn near anything the Congress wants to do.Yes, it does (or it should). This "for the children" as the excuse to dispose of individual liberty is the argument of scalawags and power mongers (or perhaps merely the timid). My right to privacy can (or should) only be invaded with just cause and proper warrants. The ridiculing of the "right to privacy" by some conservatives as not being in the constitution is something I strongly disagree with. For sure, the words are not there, but it is impossible for many of the other rights to exist without it.

Talk about missing the point. NO, that's not what we are supposed to accept. We are supposed to accept that the notion of liberty THEN and the notion of liberty NOW can be and are COMPLETELY different things.

Because you missed the point.

At least you include IMO in there. Yes, this is your opinion. Doesn't make it gospel. Many will disagree with your assertion here.

Good for you. I applaud it, being a liberal myself. But we don't live in the same world we did 200 years ago, 50 years ago, or even 8 years ago. We liberal minded can close our eyes to reality and insist that ANY infringement of rights, even for the public good, is bad. Or we can be realists and see that in SOME cases (and as an aside, I DO believe that the government has overstepped here in several cases ... just not this one), the giving up of certain privacies IS helpful to the overall protections of our way of life.

I'm all for protecting a person's right to privacy, right up to the line where that right infringes on the safety or rights of others, especially those unable to protect themselves. How can we, in good conscience, invite children to participate in an organization, and tell them to respect authority, without at least doing the very minimum in ensuring that those in authority deserve to have it and are not likely to abuse it?

Yes, the world changes. But the principles laid out in the Constitution do not change—only how they are defined in each age. In Jefferson's day, the lopping off of ears was not considered cruel and unusual punishment. Today, it would be. But we still honor the principle.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury trial for lawsuits involving more than $20. The figure has changed, but the principle has not.

With computer databases and electronic communication, we have to figure out how to apply the valid principles of 200 years ago to the modern world. But we should still honor those principles.

But we should not let anyone turn the principles on their head. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" does not mean "the right of the government to keep and bear arms," though you can find some high school government textbooks that say that very thing.

And "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" should not be interpreted to include "unless the government doesn't like the verdict."

Whenever you hear, "Even if it prevents just one instance of . . ." or "Even if it saves just one child . . ." or "Even if it makes us just a little bit safer . . ."—

BEWARE!

And oh! How could I have forgotten? Jefferson also ate meat!

wrt:
"There is a big difference (as a matter of principle) between something being legal and something being right. There is a big difference (as a matter of principle) between something being declared constitutional by a specific set of 9 members of the black-robed priesthood and something being actually allowed under a plain reading of the constitution. Defending our liberty is not a one-time event but a continuing battle."

There is an even bigger difference between what is possible and what is right, with legal possibly somewhere in between. Some seem to propose that just being possible makes something acceptable.

Privacy is not a liberal concept, but a conservative one, required for liberty and governed by the Fourth Amendment, among other legitimate legislations.

No, it isn't.

I disagreed because I missed the point??? So, it I only understood, then I would agree?? What arrogance.

The whole topic is about various opinions.
Well, that explains the arrogant view that if I only understood, I would agree, and since I disagree I must have missed the point.True, and if anything, history since the 18th century has proven Jefferson correct about the trends of government to the concentration of power and the resulting loss of libertySo, I take from this that you have no use for search warrants. After all, we could better help protect the innocents if the police would, at their whim, inspect the privacy of the pervert's homes.Show me where there is a problem here with umpires and I might START to listen. Until then, it is yet another useless feel-good action that accomplishes nothing except infringe on the liberty of the innocent.

Couldn't find the one I thought I saw, but this one is just as bad.

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2006/10/a...mark_foley.php

Good points have been raised about who is asking for us Umpires to sign the authorization form. The letter in various places says this is coming from the ASA.
If this is truely not coming from the ASA but some regional person who is not speaking for the Entire ASA then I think we have a "Commissioner gone wild" thing going on

New Jersey is run by idiots.

But we knew that already, didn't we?

This is exactly how those who would usurp our rights want us to think.

I will refrain from rehashing the rest, but I must disagree here (maybe I'm just missing your point! :) ).

I am not saying you missed the point because you disagreed. I am saying that you are disagreeing with something that was not the point. There's a difference. If you were saying that my POINT was wrong ... that would be simply disagreeing with my point. You keep saying you disagree with something that was entirely NOT the point ... leading me to say you missed the point.

A: "The sky appears to be blue."
B: "No, it is only the refraction of light rays making it look blue. The light is white."
A: "You missed my point - I didn't say the light wasn't white, I said the sky appears to be blue."
B: "How arrogant to say I missed the point just because I disagreed."
A: "Still not my point."

We could go in circles all day - but if you'll look above, each time where you disagreed (both to my point and the Jefferson thing), you were not disagreeing with the poster's point - you were disagreeing with something else entirely. Disagreeing doesn't mean you missed the point... missing the point means you missed the point.

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.

With one of your earlier posts, I was not addressing your point at all, but rather the rationalization that led to your conclusion. I said that pretty clearly.

With Jefferson, the poster merely stated the he owned slaves. From that I assumed he was intending to attack his character or his expertise or his right to comment on liberty since he kept people in slavery. I countered that this, to me, indicated the the poster could not address the issues of loss of liberty in modern American society at all and instead chose to try to have Jefferson's views discounted through attack on Jefferson as a man.

The poster then said he was not attacking him since what he said was true, but was claiming that the interpretation of the constitution had changed regarding slavery, and I pointed out that the interpretation had not changed, but rather that the consitution had been amended. And. besides, whether on not the charge was true had nothing to do with the fact that it was personal attack rather than a couter to his views.

So, do you actually belive search warrants are an impediment to the protection of the innocent?

I agree with parts of what you said..., and indicated so very early on when I pointed out that I was well aware that a softball sanctioning organization is not the state.

I disagree with the rationalization that this implies and strongly disagree that the rights of the presumed guilty are superceded by the rights of the presumed innocent.

The rights of the children playing softball do not trump my rights as a citizen. Of course, since the ASA is not the state (as I said before), I can choose to not sign the form and live with whatever the consequences are.

Again, my dispute with what you are saying is the rationale you are using, since it is a very small half-step to use that same rationale where it is the state that is snooping and not a softball league. This rationale that "if it saves just one" then the loss of liberty is acceptable is disturbing in the extreme, to me. I trust that since you beleive this way that you have no problem whatsoever with the phone call monitoring program the Bush adminsitration put into place, since that would protect many more than "just one child."

Be REAL careful... this is where the 3rd party organizations get to fill in details about info that they might be missing. Often when asking for your SSN (don't give it) or DL or picture, they might not have such a complete detail about you. Once they have it, it then is added to the PUBLIC database for these companies. Therefore, you become an easy source of information supply. There is NO reason that a third party needs to be involved. The state and federal gov't has the certified records and that is where the info should be obtained, if at all.

Don't give out personal data... once out it can NEVER be retrieved. There are other ways for the assoc. to get the certified data!

Just a thought.:o

List wth Pics
 

Here is a site that you put in your address and zip code and it will show all the sex offenders within 2 miles of your home or work. Shows there picture, lists their sex crimes, and gives their home and work addresses. It also shows how close they are to schools in the area:

http://www.familywatchdog.us/

Fair enough.

I see your point. But I'm drawing a line in a different place. I am not saying the rights of the presumed guilty (although in many cases we're not talking about PRESUMED guilty, but CONFIRMED guilty ... but that's a separate argument) are superceded by the rights of the presumed innocent. I'm drawing the line between the rights of the general populus vs the rights of those unable to defend themselves (children, in this case).

Fair enough, but for the sake of the argument, let's say this WAS the government making this requirement. Not that all adults must submit to background checks ... but that all adults who are being placed in positions of authority over children must submit to background checks. See, there's the crux. The group of people whose rights you are saying are being trumped are people who are being placed in a position where we teach our children to listen to them and trust them. That trust can be misplaced if we do not ensure that those that are being trusted CAN be trusted. And again ... even if this was the government doing this, you, Joe Citizen, could simply refuse to sign the form and not participating in being an authority figure over children. Again - your rights not being trumped unless you want to be placed in these trusted positions.

Again, I see your point, and agree with much of it. (Can I have my liberal card back yet?) I do NOT believe the spying on of adults by the Bush administration was (or is) warranted. But to me this and the original topic are NOT equivalent. It would be more equivalent if, for example, the government made you sign a form allowing your phone to be tapped if you were going to be given government secrets, for example. And no ... I'd have no problem with that policy in that case.

It's not really the rationale of "it saves just one" that leads me to my opinions on the BG check thing. It's the rationale of doing the due diligence to ensure that we are not putting people in positions of trust that should not be trusted with that position. I think it's a vastly bigger leap going from BG checks of umpires to phone tapping of the general public.

How in the world do you get paid without offerering up your SSN?!?!?!

In cash! ;)

As I indicated earlier, I MIGHT be convinced of this IF it could be demonstrated that an umpire with a questionable background placed any child at risk by umpiring a softball game. The umpire is not in a position of authority over children in general, only in the conduct of the game, where Mom and Dad and coach and grandpa are watching. It is a problem that does not exist trying to be "solved" in a heavy-handed way.Here is where you and I have the strongest disagreement. It is not the rights of the populus that I am concerned with (if the populus has any rights at all in the same sense), it is the rights of the individual being trampled because someone is afraid. And, since I already hear similar rationale being used for much broader actions by the government, I don't see the leap / gap as very large at all.

I agree with this as far as it goes. I disagree with how you got there, as noted above.

Clarification
 

My error... I meant: do not give out Personal Data (SSN, Driver's Lic) to a third party computer info exchange system. Of course one must do so to get mortgage, employer, etc. for legitimate purposes. But that PD should not be given to 3rd party public data storage and retrieval companies so they can publish to the world.:eek:

IMHO;)

Okay, let's go in another direction. Many of us have been umpiring for years (40 for me), many which included youth ball.

Never a problem. Now, after all these years, here come people who most likely were not involved five years ago, let alone a decade or two, bringing my integrity into question. Seems to me it's more like these people are entering my world, not me moving into their's.

Did you ever have someone move into your nice town/neighborhood and after six months start filing complaints and suing people because THEY don't care for where you have parked your boat for the last 20 years, thinks the compost pile you have kept for your neighbor's use the past 10 years smells too bad, is upset that the 100 year oak tree blocks out too my sun from their backyard, etc.?

And one more thing. Who is going to pay for something like this? Do you think the national office is going to do this out of their pocket? Will those not opposed to this feel the same when they ask you to also pay the fee?

Over the past 24 hrs I have talked to many local people about this. It is generally felt that we Umpires will just say no to this request. It also appears its just a local thing coming from a new Regional Commish. now assigned to Md. This will not change a thing for the regular games we do all year long. However the Assigners are going to get real grief from the Brass they answer to. Then perhaps? when its time for State championship games the brass will tell the assigner don't use any Umps that wouldn't sign the waiver. Who does that hurt?-only the assigner. There is a clinic Feb 24th and I'm sure this topic will be discussed.

Now this, as I see it would be my main beef with an investigation. Aside from the fact that I've got a few youthful stuff that a serious check might turn up - and I wouldn't be real fond of seeing them made "public".

Like Mike said, I too have umpired for close to 40 years without any issues along these lines. Now, relative newcomers want me to submit to something to make them feel good. I see it as a waste of time, effort, and money.

Actually, a conversation with this not-so-new state commissioner was what caused me to initiate this post.

BTW, if that is the prerequisite to JO states, I may have to tell the JO commissioner to get his own umpires as I will not have enough to service the tournament.:(

Im kind of mixed honestly...

For my job I was put through an extensive background check, but I have access to a great deal of personnal and confidential information and public trust.

For umpiring in ASA I think I could skate through for an entire career on the name John Smith and never so much as be asked to provide proof of identity.

Sure, most of us never come in contact with the players on a personnal level, but I personnally know of a 17 y/o umpire that bedded a girl during a travel ball tourney. Most of us dont think that way.. but what about those that may.. like that boy? If we sought it out.. it could happen. We stay in the same hotels over the weekend and we are in fact around them.

Do we need a full back ground check? I don't think so.. but if you are a habitual sexual predator fresh out of prison, you could go to ASA, take a clinic, register with the local Association and make a good summer living off of the tournies and never even provide your real name (that could be checked on the sex offender registries).

So... somewhere in the middle. maybe is where the ASA needs to be.

Like it or not, it is 2007, we are in a position of authority over children and young adults on some level... and you just never know.

I dont know how much it would help either.. and I am mixed. But those are a few thoughts.

And a BI on the 17yo would have prevented this? How old was the girl, 17/18? Not a thing would have been discovered by a BI on the 17 yo, so, thank you for helping make my case.

Nothing would have prevented it, but the argument was that we didnt need it because we dont come into contact with the players - that is obviously not the case. If a umpire wants to come in contact with a player, especially travel tournaments - the opportunity is most certainly there, so it's not a valid argument against BI (which I dont support btw, a waste of time and money).

I'm somewhere on this, but a full B.I. is not where I am. It's too much.

Agreed - that kid is not who the BI is supposed to get. It's supposed to go after those that are previous preditors. Those that are in the system that might be using ASA or LL or even HS to find his prey. I still think it's a good idea . . .

Why?

Fear of the unknown?

Fear of the one remote possibility so that saving "just one" is worth it?

I'm still waiting for an example of a real, existing problem this would have prevented.

I don't think this is wasted as a valid argument. Nothing is going to stop a predator. Okay, we don't give him/her an ASA uniform. Is that still going to stop the person from staying at the same motel, hanging around the ball fields, volunteering to work the grill (BTW, are they being checked? They've got goodies to offer), or making contact away from the field? The answer is a resounding no.

Perhaps, but perhaps not. Put an ASA uniform on them, though, and they immediately gain familiarity, approachability, and in some cases trust. Believe me ... right wrong or indifferent, if I were to see a player I recognized walking home from school one day, and offered a ride (I will NOT do this - opens to many bad possibilities ... but if I did...), I guarantee 90% of the girls that recognized me out of uniform would accept the offer. The uniform, and/or the familiarity that comes with working games in a local area DOES remove the "stranger" aspect.

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
 

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.

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.

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.

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

That should narrow it down! :rolleyes:

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