Driver's License? Why?
 

Got an email from mylocal commissioner, saying that the new UIC here in NY was asking for our addresses, date of birth.......and our driver's license number. Our commissioner flat out stated that it was up to us whether we wanted to disclose that, and that he personally was only giving out his DOB.

Why the heck would the UIC need our license #???? Is this a new ASA directive, or is this something he is doing himself? And quite frankly, is this legal?? I mean, its not like we drive an ASA owned vehicle or anything...

Hopefully someone here can help, thanks!

Criminal background checks.

As JEL noted, this piece of information is used by the agency running the criminal background checks.

Your local commissioner isn't doing you any favors with his advice, in my opinion. I don't believe disclosing your DL# puts you in any more danger of identity theft; surely not as much as asking for your Social Security #, which would also be used for the criminal background check.

Here's the bottom line. If you refuse to give your DL#, the odds increase that the background check will be unable to separate your identity from another with the same name that may have committed a crime, and you will be considered unfit. It will then be your burden to prove that the check is incorrect; and your fault, not theirs, since you initially refused to give them enough information to try to keep that from happening.

If you have a pretty unique name, you may not have an issue. If your local phone book or a white pages search lists multiple people with the same or similar name, you are really risking the hassle of proving it wasn't you.

This isn't ASA and if your commissioner didn't demand it, it isn't NYASA either.

The others are probably correct, it is for a DI. Something which I will not worry about as no level of softball will have the opportunity to run one with my permission.

The Houston area required a photo copy of the driver's license and our SSN. I do not have a problem with the background check, although with identity theft being a sincere concern, I would hope that ASA is using a trustworthy and reputable company to run the checks. It it what they do with the information after it is ran that concerns me. I just hope that the paperwork will be disposed of properly and not thrown in a trash can for some crook to get a hold of.

This is an ASA Requirement
 

Here in Houston we are requiring JO umpires to provide a copy of the front and back of their DL and their SSN for complete background checks. I'm sure ASA can provide the forms for you.

To be clear, based on my information:

The agency running the criminal background checks is LexisNexis, aka Choicepoint. It is the largest and most reputable in USA (to my understanding) in the business of running background checks for private agencies and industry. I have allowed that to be performed on me the last two years, as a Georgia ASA Staff member.

There is, again, to to my knowledge, NO paperwork generated, that needs to be disposed of. If you pass, green light; if you fail, red light. If there is any grey area (like there is someone else that has the same name with a felony, but they can't be sure it isn't YOU), yellow light. Your local association (Commisioner/UIC) gets no paperwork which requires any action or disposal; just notice of red or yellow lights. You, as an individual given red or yellow, are given a contact at Choicepoint to work with to resolve anything you believe to be inaccurate or incorrect.

If you are required to provide photocopies, it isn't a Choicepoint requirement; we don't require that here. It sounds more like someone in your local association wants to be sure there aren't any typo's in the applications.

I have no problem with BIs when necessary and appropriate. I had a TS clearance in the USN. When I checked out, they made the mistake of giving me my FBI/DIS/NIS reports about myself. Found out some things I couldn't have gotten myself. :rolleyes:

I'm in the business of transporting high-value items from coin & cash to America's Cup and Van Halen to the Phillie Phanatic.

Those are valid reasons for BIs. Umpiring softball games is not.

Of course it's appropriate!
 

You're dealing with young girls and in some cases young boys. Would you want your daughter to be out on a field with a predator?

Not in my opinion. I am not spending time with the girls or boys. I am in the middle of a wide open ball field officiating a sporting event. And no, I'm not going to engage them in conversation or anything else off the field and I really don't are what the Chicken Littles think.

I am not touching under any circumstance. Nor am I talking to them other than to effect my duties as an umpire. And, BTW, I'm being observed by those responsible for the player's well-being and, as has been demonstrated in the past, more than willing to call the police in a heartbeat.

And it really doesn't make any difference, BI's only catch those who have already been caught.

I'm going to agree with Irish here.

1) It is impossible for a predator to do anything to a child in a large ballpark full of people.

2) Studies show that the most likely person to abuse a child is someone that they already know, like a close family member or a coach.

3) The background check is only going to red flag someone that has already been in trouble. There are still predators out there that will not be flagged by these checks.

4) This creates the problem of "false positive" results that has already been discussed in this thread. I have a fairly unique name, but would shudder if I was John Smith under this type of system.

5) I don't care how reputable the company or what the supposed protocol is for how the results are distributed, but I shudder to think of what could happen to my personal information in the hands of some faceless corporation or even in the chain of command of my local UICs.

It has happened in the past.

And the difference between this and, say, him just showing up as a spectator?

Mind you, I'm not opposed to background checks. I just don't think they're the cure-all that the "Feel Gooders" think that they are.

Lexis-Nexis is a database, not a company running the background checks. I am sure that a private security company is doing that for ASA. Some paperwork would be required to transfer that information to the company. I am not overly concerned about it, although personal information should be reasonably guarded these days. Name and DOB should get that done. In ten years of law enforcement I have not had any problems identifying people by name and DOB. Name and DOB backed up with a valid state ID, such as a driver’s license would leave no doubt of whom you are. Your SS card is a requirement for a DL and thus previously verified by a state agency. I am not comfortable with anyone having my social security number, although I agree with the background checks. I do not want work with an umpire or have my daughter play on the field where the umpire is not of good moral character. Someone mentioned that crimes are usually committed by someone the victim knows and I agree with that, although getting to know someone could be a result of a casual encounter, such as a softball game.

Unless he killed her at the ballpark, while in uniform, I'm not really sure what point this is supposed to make.

Are you implying that all persons, prior to entering any ballpark, should have a background check? Fans, coaches, players, scorekeepers, concession personnel, grounds keepers, etc. ?

And yet, on my SSC it clearly states that it is not to be used for identification. Go figure. :rolleyes:

There are communities in this country that believe firearms are unnecessary and immoral. How would that wash in Texas? ;)

Just a point on how vague "moral" character is in definition

Exactly.

What about umps with past DUIs? Should they be barred from working? Just youth events?

Not implying anything, just an example of how a background check MAY have prevented this tragic event. Who really knows.


At the local youth league, we kept a book at the complex of mug shots of RSOs that was provided to us. There was a couple of occasions when we reported when we saw one of them at the complex. Granted it was a small town and park.

Yep, and checking every single person that walks through the gate might prevent something as well. Think any parent or park worker might have something hidden in their past?

I'm not a Republican, but their rationale on gun laws (or lack thereof) seems apropos here: A motivated crazy person is going to do something crazy, regardless of the laws or protections in place to stop them.

Stranger (i.e. non parental/guardian or caretaker) assault of child is extremely uncommon.

While I do agree with this, doesn't it really depends on how motivated that crazy person is. . .

Would you really consider an umpire to be an acquaintance?

I would not, unless that umpire happens to have a prior relationship with that child outside of softball.

What those statistics are really alluding to is the potential for the offender to be alone with the child, and I hardly think that is very likely at the ballpark.

I guess it is possible that the predator could first contact the child in their capacity as an umpire and then attempt to pursue the relationship outside of the ballpark, but as previously noted, the very same could be said of virtually anyone in the child's life, in any arena.

If everybody in China jumped up at the same time would it affect the path of the Earth and cause it to collide with an astroid in 1500 years? Hey, it could happen!:D

Look, no law or BI or poly or psyche eval will prevent someone from doing something they intend or have a compulsion to do whatever it is. It will give non-thinking people a warm, fuzzy feeling, and occasionally will come across someone not smart enough to avoid detection, but will not prevent most of the trouble our "society" encounters.

Same could be said about umpire testing.:D

I have no problem with the background investigations. I just hope they don't find that I did steal that gum from Johnnie Rummel in the sixth grade!

The investigations are being done (IMO) for LIABILTY rather than SAFETY.

I think this article is relevant in some ways to the discussion, at least in terms of adding some perspective.

Felon Protection - Wisconsin in favor of criminals in the work place | Reason | Find Articles at BNET

If everybody in China jumped up at the same time would it affect the path of the Earth and cause it to collide with an astroid in 1500 years? Hey, it could happen!

I see you're aware of this burgeoning problem. Others can Google "anthropogenic global orbit change" to learn more. It doesn't involve jumping specifically, but the fact that the population imbalance between East and West is growing, constantly making the Eastern Hemisphere heavier, could well threaten mankind's future—and soon—unless governments take action.

I don't see why this is necessarily a bad thing.

If I were to get in trouble for, say, tax evasion, should this have an impact on my ability to work as an auto mechanic, or even an umpire?

I don't see why this is necessarily a bad thing.

If I were to get in trouble for, say, tax evasion, should this have an impact on my ability to work as an auto mechanic, or even an umpire?

Tax evasion? I would probably say no, it should not affect your right to work as a mechanic or umpire. And I know some umpires who in their late teens/early twenties committed serious crimes (a couple did some time) but have for decades since been productive, law-abiding citizens. So I'd reserve judgment even for a guy who 30 years ago committed a holdup.

But a guy who rapes and murders a 9-year-old girl is different. Such a crime is not just a mistake, or bad judgment, or youthful stupidity. There's strong evidence to the effect that such people are never "cured." Government should not force anyone to hire such a person. And I'm not hiring him ever, under any circumstances, even to shovel s**t.

And for the 14 yo boy caught fooling around with a 13 yo girl? That is the problem with the stupid law. Morons enact crap without thinking and many fall in love with the politically influential "mandatory" effects of a law and all of a sudden you are committing children to an RSO for something complete absurd.

I agree, but apparently the courts believe otherwise.

You answered yourself.

I suspect that, as an authority figure, an umpire would be more trusted by a potential victim than a random person at the park.

"And for the 14 yo boy caught fooling around with a 13 yo girl? That is the problem with the stupid law. Morons enact crap without thinking and many fall in love with the politically influential "mandatory" effects of a law and all of a sudden you are committing children to an RSO for something completely absurd."

Absolutely right. "Mandatory" sentences were an overreaction to horror stories about soft judges handing out light sentences to obviously dangerous criminals. The result, however, is that some clown who "streaks" through a fraternity party gets labeled a sex offender for life, and a kindergartner who gives his cute classmate a peck on the cheek is sent to psychological counseling. Well, as Mr. Bumble observed, "The law is an a$$."

In the Wisconsin case, I would ask why a guy who raped and murdered a little girl was released after 13 years—or at all.

Better check. That could already be posted on Johnnie's Facebook homepage.:D

And who is more trusted than another parent? And are they required to go through the same scrutiny?:rolleyes:

Would be nice...

Unfortunately, our league has some experience with this problem. I'm not coming from left field here.

Another parent in most any league is probably a stranger to most of the kids in the league. They're only familiar with the ones they see regularly. An umpire in uniform is much more likely to be trusted. Not as much as the kid's coach, but more than an unknown parent from another team - especially a team in a different grouping.

Two things I've experienced and on the matter, just had a conversation with the president of a local youth softball org. in my area. It is not unusual for parents to have their daughters chauffered to and from games by other parents. And you definition of stranger may vary here, but these people know each other. There may be an outsider get involved in a program every now and then, but I doubt they would be included in the circle of "trusted" parents. And as previously stated, an umpire should be umpiring, not conversing with young girls.

Then again, did we have this problem growing up? If so, we didn't hear about it often. How was it as children we left the house at 8am and did not return home until 5pm and no one was issuing Amber alerts for us?

Another thing may be that we had the luxury of better parenting (yeah, I know not everyone did) where we were constantly reminded not to talk to strangers, not to accept anything or go anywhere with a stranger and never get into a car with a stranger AND WE BELIEVED THEM.

Of course, back then any dirtbag who messed with a kid didn't have the opportunity to safely sit in the back of a police car demanding a lawyer. Well, not until the police were called because someone inthe neighborhood beat them to a pulp. Not a big fan of vigilanty justice, especially today when people are more ready to believe the worse of someone, but "back in the day" (and I hate that expression) folks had an idea of what was real before reacting. Probably because an adult was given the benefit of doubt at first.

"I just hope they don't find that I did steal that gum from Johnnie Rummel in the sixth grade!"

Nothing to worry about. Johnnie Rummel is on the terrorist watch list.

Which one? There seem to be dozens of 'em nowadays! :eek:

And apparently, they are equally ignored.

Your tax dollars at work......:cool: