Background Checks
 

Okay, this was beat up quite a bit in a previous post. My question concerns the cost of these background checks (hence, a different post). For those associations/organizations whose officials are having background checks done on them, who is paying? My concern is, if schools/leagues start mandating these background checks, then do I as an official have to pay for this check, or should the schools/leagues pay (or at least share the cost)?

Remember, this post just covers the cost of these checks. Nothing about legal/illegal, privacy invasions, etc. I think that was WELL discussed in the earlier post. :D

Thanks!

Serg

Here in the Atlanta area, one agency passed a resolution requiring all officials in the youth programs to undergo background checks. The several organizations serving their softball programs advised that 1) this would seriously curtail the available pool of umpires, because we anticipated a substantial rate of refusal, 2) this would make "borrowing" umpires from other associations an impossibility, so they should anticipate times without coverage with that policy, 3) the umpires who would grant permission would not pay for their decision to require this. The best part of the "resolution" was that this agency ran the fields, but had independent youth associations who ran the leagues, so they were mandating this requirement (and expense) to others to implement.

Since that time, the youth association I contracted with disbanded, so I have no first hand knowledge of any further action. I do work (and so do others in my association) at youth tournaments held by that agency, and none of us have been asked to agree to background checks. I suspect that means the other umpire association that handles the contract directly with that agency either refused, or made it so difficult and costly to the agency that it reconsidered its position. In this case, they may have been in a position of having to run programs and tournaments without ANY umpires, because the umpires were NOT going to pay.

A BGC is NOT required by our local ASA yet, but is required of every official in NY State to officiate school (Section) games. This one time cost is $100 (3 years ago)and is paid by the official.

We have had a few ASA and PONY tournaments who requested only umpires from Section, but I'm not sure that was a BGC issue.

I am surprised that other Florida HS umpires haven't chimed in on this subject.

In 2005, Florida passed the Jessica Lunsford Act. (She was kidnapped and murdered by a sexual predator a few years ago.) One of the consequences is that HS officials are required to have background checks and have special photo IDs with them when they arrive at any school.

In the Panhandle, the Lunsford clearance costs $105.00 and the clearance is good for five years. In almost every case, the officials foot the bill. FHSAA will refund $34.00 for first year offcials.

A few years ago, I joined a local high school as a volunteer assistant baseball coach. I had to get clearance from the local law enforcement agency (sheriff's department). The fee, including fingerprinting, was a whopping $10.00.

Bob

Here in SW FL we all registered and were fingerprinted at a cost
of (I thnk) $60, which was picked up by FHSAA and our local school board.
That was in the fall of 2005 and for football we were issued an ID tag of sorts. No one ever asked me for my ID at any time. When softball season 2006 rolled around, I was good to go as I had registered for football.
When football season last year (2006) came returning officials did not have to do anything, and the same for this 2007 softball season. I don't recall anyone saying anything about an expiration date for our registration.

Did your association dues go up to offset the cost?

Our local association is looking into doing this, but trying to get as much info as possible before doing it. Have heard that some schools will mandate this in their new contracts, but not all schools are still on board with this yet. But can see this coming in the very near future for all schools.

Thanks everybody for all the info.

Serg

This is the area where I personally have the issue with this whole idea. I don't have an issue with having a background check done, I have nothing to hide. I understand the point that this does not ensure everyone is good as several others have pointed out in the last thread on this topic. I also understand everyones right to freedom, I just feel that if it does keep one incident from happening then it is worth it. Again just my feeling, this is the USA so everyone has a right to their own opinion.

More to this post my issue with this is the cost of these checks. I have a real issue paying for this myself. I have nothing to hide but this I feel is a guilty until proven innocent and I have to pay to prove I am innocent then I have an issue with it. And personally I don't think there is an organization out there that has an overage in $$ that they can afford to pay for this, whether it is $10 or $100 an official without raising association/registration fees. Which in turn means I am still paying for it!!!!!

I am in the Tampa area, and the cost to us is entirely out of our pocket.
Different counties have dealt differently with this issue.
Our association (local) keeps its dues very low and thus we have no money to help out with the cost.
the state association (FHSAA) does give a rebate on first year officials on the normal registration fees. This also included all of us having to have it done last year.
The background check is good for five years as best I can remember, so the cost isn't so bad.
However, every county in the state charges a different rate, and some counties tried to make you have the check done in each county you worked in.
Not a problem for most of our umps as we have 27 or 28 public high schools thus you dont need to cross county lines unless you want to.
this has supposedly been straightened out but time will tell.

Y'all know where I stand on this, but be assured, if someone wants to do a BI on me, they can pay for it.

Even though it's not supposed to be in this topic, I just can't let this go without expressing my disgust and denial of anything that further erodes freedom or privacy.

If I believed it ok, or was willing to accept it, payment would be a factor only as a matter of principle that whoever wants it should pay, as long as it was a fair reimbursement of cost.

The Polcy Argument for and Against
 

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.

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!

:confused: 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.

:eek: 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.

We had not one umpire rejected from this policy.
I agree that this is bad policy, we didn't take it lying down.
We went to our elected representitives, the media and other associations.
It didn't do any good to voice our concerns.
Actually, we initiated a round table discussions with our representitives, and though we got favorable reactions the momentum was overwhelming.
Most of the different sports associations in this area had someone present and we were listened to.
One local representitive to our state house has introduced a change to the law but with no luck.
Incidentily, we had 0%, none, nada response or help from the Democrats in this area that we contacted.........hmmmm..........wonder why?

I see that some politicians are now considering enacting laws governing the weight of fashion models. You see, our astute legislators are aware that a model who's too skinny is a poor role model and will cause kids to starve themselves and lose self-esteem and become drug addicts, etc.

Maybe we umpires (even if we pass the background check) will be next on the "their-weight-is-a-bad-example-for-kids" agenda. I know I could lose some weight, as could quite number of guys I work with.

I even know one ump who the social engineers would say is too thin. In fact, he's about 75 now and has been a perfectly healthy skinny all his life. He was also a fine athlete. However, his body mass index is below 18, which is the cutoff someone suggested for models.

Say, Serg, how's this working out so far? :D

Background check irony......

The Mrs. runs a child day care business from our home. She had to have a criminal background check, as well as myself because I live here. I can understand that, and because at times I help out with the childcare really have no problems with that. Cost was about $25.00 for her, $8.00 for me (I wasn't required to have the fingerprinting.

When the three daughters turned 18, they also had to have the background checks done which seemed a bit nitpicky. At 17 years, 364 days they were OK, but one day later, possible criminals! Cost there was about $8.00 each also.

Here is where the laws get flaky...

If there is ever a repairman in or around the house, she is required to also have a criminal background check on them! I work from home also and should have checks on my customers. If the mailman, or UPS delivers a package, there should be a check for them as well. (They could "expose themselves to the children through the window" was the state inspectors response!). Even at $8.00 a pop, that could get to be expensive.

By the way, she is not required to send these checks to any agency, just have them on file.

So anyway, that is the cost for those. Can't see why it should cost anymore than that, after all, we are trying to protect the kids, right?

No, we are trying to pretend we are trying to protect the kids.

Y'all know where I stand here... but if you, as a group, refused to have BI's initiated, then all you had to do to stand up for your rights was to NOT sign off on it. What are they going to do if NO umpire is available for them because of this policy?

What is sad is that in reality we know that a child molester
and/or kidnapper simply has to stalk a child and abduct them
at a vulnerable moment, as getting off a school bus or merely
riding their bikes to a store.
Unless Mom and Dad are able to watch their kids 24/7 or hire
personal bodyguards for them, no child is 100% safe.
These checks for sport's officials amounts to spitting in the wind;
good intentions, but with unexpected ramifications for recruiting and
retention of sport's officials.

If you don't have it done, you don't work in the whole state.
This is a state law.
Teachers have it, etc.
As a side note, their is an extensive list of who doesn't have to have it that makes no sense to me but then again, I am not a politician

Comparing any activity associated with El-Hi to private organizations is apples and oranges.

Schools are required by law to act in loco parentis during any period in which a minor is partaking in an activity associated with that institution whether in class, on a field trip or participating in a sporting or school-sponsored event.

It is not the same for private organization outside of the purview of the school. In this world it is the child's parent/guardian who is responsible for selecting the organization, officers of that organization, the coaches involved in that organization and the welfare of their child during a period in which there is an association with that organization.

Wasn't there an issue recently with LL where the media made a big deal about the past of one of the coaches and the parents of the children, aware of the situation, supported THEIR coach?

Seems to me, that is just as much an issue as anything else on this topic. At what point does an organization have in dictating to parents who may or may not be responsible for their children?