The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)
-   -   More background check incidents.... (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/97708-more-background-check-incidents.html)

Andy Tue Apr 08, 2014 01:58pm

More background check incidents....
 
'We're not out on an island by ourselves,' says USSSA state director on umpire background checks | AL.com

RKBUmp Tue Apr 08, 2014 02:18pm

And as you and I are aware, even background checks dont always work.

Adam Tue Apr 08, 2014 02:18pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RKBUmp (Post 930992)
And as you and I are aware, even background checks dont always work.

But they make people feel better. :/

azbigdawg Tue Apr 08, 2014 02:58pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RKBUmp (Post 930992)
And as you and I are aware, even background checks dont always work.

surely you jest.....

Rich Ives Tue Apr 08, 2014 03:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by azbigdawg (Post 931002)
surely you jest.....

Surely you jest.

We've had two incidents in our area. Neither person had a prior that would have shown up on a background check.

MD Longhorn Tue Apr 08, 2014 03:27pm

I'm not a fan of BC's in general, especially if the umpire is forced to pay.

However, I do believe that the mere fact that they ask for a BC will at least chase away the prior offenders who know they will come up negative on a BC.

This - "ASA (Amateur Softball Association) is the only group I know" performing background checks of game officials." however - is simply not true. USAV (that's volleyball) also performs background checks, and does a more thorough one than the traditional BC.

RKBUmp Tue Apr 08, 2014 03:33pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Ives (Post 931003)
Surely you jest.

We've had two incidents in our area. Neither person had a prior that would have shown up on a background check.

azbigdawg is joking, he knows exactly what Im talking about. We had one make it through a background check and he had several priors that should have shown up.

azbigdawg Tue Apr 08, 2014 03:38pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RKBUmp (Post 931006)
azbigdawg is joking, he knows exactly what Im talking about. We had one make it through a background check and he had several priors that should have shown up.

There needs to be a sarcasm font.

Hows the coaching?

RKBUmp Tue Apr 08, 2014 03:42pm

Today is my last day for a couple of weeks. Headed to Texas for some work.

azbigdawg Tue Apr 08, 2014 03:49pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RKBUmp (Post 931008)
Today is my last day for a couple of weeks. Headed to Texas for some work.

Any hair left?

Did you know that coaches are not allowed to touch the ball between innings?

Skahtboi Tue Apr 08, 2014 07:19pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by azbigdawg (Post 931007)
There needs to be a sarcasm font.

Hows the coaching?

There is an indicator. It looks like this: :rolleyes:

EsqUmp Wed Apr 09, 2014 06:30am

Gee, you think maybe this guy joined USSSA knowing damn well they don't check? Maybe there's a reason he didn't join an association that did...

Who would think that a convicted sex offender might go somewhere where we may not get checked?

DUH!

Manny A Wed Apr 09, 2014 07:40am

Quote:

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 931005)
I'm not a fan of BC's in general, especially if the umpire is forced to pay.

However, I do believe that the mere fact that they ask for a BC will at least chase away the prior offenders who know they will come up negative on a BC.

This - "ASA (Amateur Softball Association) is the only group I know" performing background checks of game officials." however - is simply not true. USAV (that's volleyball) also performs background checks, and does a more thorough one than the traditional BC.

Little League also requires background checks of all personnel who will have repetitive contact with children, to include umpires. The checks can be as simple as checking the Department of Justice's Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website at United States Department of Justice National Sex Offender Public Website. The Registry allows free checks.

I just did a check for the umpire in the OP article. He is listed on the NSOPW database.

MDUmp Wed Apr 09, 2014 08:03am

Quote:

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 931005)
This - "ASA (Amateur Softball Association) is the only group I know" performing background checks of game officials." however - is simply not true. USAV (that's volleyball) also performs background checks, and does a more thorough one than the traditional BC.

So, you're saying David Gregory knows about USAV? He said ASA was the only group HE knows doing it.

In other words, your statement is simply not true. Unless you know David Gregory and know what he knows.

MD Longhorn Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:14am

Quote:

Originally Posted by MDUmp (Post 931068)
So, you're saying David Gregory knows about USAV? He said ASA was the only group HE knows doing it.

In other words, your statement is simply not true. Unless you know David Gregory and know what he knows.

Fair enough.

HugoTafurst Wed Apr 09, 2014 11:19am

Quote:

Originally Posted by azbigdawg (Post 931009)
Any hair left?

Did you know that coaches are not allowed to touch the ball between innings?

What if it itches?

IRISHMAFIA Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:59pm

Background checks are a waste of time and money, provide a false sense of security and catch only those that have already been caught, but even that is not a guarantee. I will never agree to one.

There is absolutely ZERO advantage to performing BI on umpires as an umpire should NEVER be alone with a player. And no check is going to stop anyone who wants to be.

I would guess some putz may come up with, "but if it prevents one....". GMAFB. Where are the parents, coaches and other team adults?

You can do all the checks you want, it will provide no additional protection to the player.

BTW, the above goes for the coaches also and that gets proven about three to four times a year in my area. Willing to bet it is the same everywhere.

Big Slick Wed Apr 09, 2014 01:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 931106)
Background checks are a waste of time and money, provide a false sense of security and catch only those that have already been caught . .

I very much agree with Irish with everything he said. Except when the time comes, I will begrudgingly submit to a BC; heck, my employment is contingent on undergoing child abuse training (because 3 or 4 people were asleep at the wheel - the article mentions what I'm referring to).

An unfortunate by-product for ASA or other softball organizations demanding these for umpires is those umpires who only work adult slow pitch. Why would they need to submit to BC's?

I mean, if we wanted to determine someone character a priori, wouldn't we ask them how much umpiring money they reported on their taxes? :D
(Tis the season, many happy returns)

Manny A Wed Apr 09, 2014 01:33pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 931106)
I would guess some putz may come up with, "but if it prevents one....". GMAFB.

Label me a putz then. I do believe that an adult who is listed on a sex offender website would be deterred from getting involved in a youth activity where the leadership of that activity checks those databases.

IRISHMAFIA Wed Apr 09, 2014 02:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 931114)
Label me a putz then. I do believe that an adult who is listed on a sex offender website would be deterred from getting involved in a youth activity where the leadership of that activity checks those databases.

Yeah. If that were true, those who get exposed by a BI would never place themselves in the position to be exposed. Yet, we routinely hear how they constantly aren't exposed whether subjected to a BI or not.

Besides, SO web sites are in conflict with the constitution that those in this country hold high, yet continue to ignore and alter to satisfy their own power-hungry agenda :)

Andy Wed Apr 09, 2014 02:28pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Slick (Post 931113)
I very much agree with Irish with everything he said. Except when the time comes, I will begrudgingly submit to a BC; heck, my employment is contingent on undergoing child abuse training (because 3 or 4 people were asleep at the wheel - the article mentions what I'm referring to).

An unfortunate by-product for ASA or other softball organizations demanding these for umpires is those umpires who only work adult slow pitch. Why would they need to submit to BC's?

I mean, if we wanted to determine someone character a priori, wouldn't we ask them how much umpiring money they reported on their taxes? :D
(Tis the season, many happy returns)

At this point in time, each ASA local association has the option to require background checks on their umpires or not. In my association, if an umpire indicates to us that s/he only works adult slowpitch, we do not require a background check.

However, I have recently learned that any umpire that is assigned to work this year at Hall of Fame Stadium in OKC at any level is required to undergo a background check. This is a directive from the National Office.

MD Longhorn Wed Apr 09, 2014 03:44pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 931120)
Yeah. If that were true, those who get exposed by a BI would never place themselves in the position to be exposed.

That ALONE is the sole positive from running BC's.

Insane Blue Wed Apr 09, 2014 03:46pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 931139)
That ALONE is the sole positive from running BC's.

^^^^ winner winner winner^^^^^

IRISHMAFIA Wed Apr 09, 2014 06:37pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 931139)
That ALONE is the sole positive from running BC's.

Try reading the entire post. People ARE getting the BI in spite of their previous conviction and still ending up on the field.

BIs are as ineffective as polygraphs. And I'm in the business which requires security way beyond the bonding. I've also had multiple police agencies so far up my business, it is unbelievable. But they all prove zip. I've seen people pass a security check valued at over $2K and end up arrested for dealing drugs, bank robbery, embezzlement and even murder.

Like I said, it is a chicken little, feel good reaction fueled by ignorance. The provide nothing.

Manny A Thu Apr 10, 2014 07:29am

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 931175)
Try reading the entire post. People ARE getting the BI in spite of their previous conviction and still ending up on the field.

How often does that really happen? And if it does, shame on those who allow it. They aren't doing their due diligence to check the results of those BIs.

As I mentioned before, the sex offender in the OP story is listed in NSOPW. He joins the local USSSA umpire association. The secretary or assignor or member-at-large of that association could have easily taken the names of the association members and done a quick search with NSOPW. This criminal's name pops up. The association's president contacts him and tells him his services are no longer desired. How hard is that?

The system would work if the people responsible would make it work. Now, obviously miscreants who haven't been caught yet will slip through. And I cannot vouch for how well services like First Advantage or USSearch discover sex offender info on people. But if the info is already out there and all it takes is a little digging, then responsible people should do it, and do it correctly.

bsnalex Thu Apr 10, 2014 08:49am

Background checks are worthless as nothing will show up on a police report until the person is caught. The best you can do without spending the exorbitant costs of several hundred background checks is check the names against S.O.R's.

If there was a way to do some sort of proactive psychoanalytical work on a candidate before they start work, but that's just silly.

Tru_in_Blu Thu Apr 10, 2014 09:35am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsnalex (Post 931237)
If there was a way to do some sort of proactive psychoanalytical work on a candidate before they start work, but that's just silly.

From one of ours: "Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker

By definition, aren't we all crazy for officiating? :rolleyes:

Dakota Thu Apr 10, 2014 12:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu (Post 931243)
From one of ours: ...-- Bob Uecker ...

One of our what? ;)

IRISHMAFIA Thu Apr 10, 2014 12:47pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 931227)
How often does that really happen? And if it does, shame on those who allow it. They aren't doing their due diligence to check the results of those BIs.

As I mentioned before, the sex offender in the OP story is listed in NSOPW. He joins the local USSSA umpire association. The secretary or assignor or member-at-large of that association could have easily taken the names of the association members and done a quick search with NSOPW. This criminal's name pops up. The association's president contacts him and tells him his services are no longer desired. How hard is that?

The system would work if the people responsible would make it work. Now, obviously miscreants who haven't been caught yet will slip through. And I cannot vouch for how well services like First Advantage or USSearch discover sex offender info on people. But if the info is already out there and all it takes is a little digging, then responsible people should do it, and do it correctly.

It is SOCIALISM at its finest. There are thousands of people on variable sex offender lists that have no good reason for being on there other than they did something against the law that because of the moronic "zero tolerance" mantra the Socialists demand they are inappropriately registered. This guys was not even a felony. I'm not even sure if there was jail time, haven't had that much time to dedicate to this.

You can live in your fantasyland, I'll live in the real world. Hell, a class a misdemeanor issue would probably really bring down the real estate market in the DC area

EsqUmp Fri Apr 11, 2014 06:40am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsnalex (Post 931237)
Background checks are worthless as nothing will show up on a police report until the person is caught.

WOW. Now that's insightful. I hear that it is also worthless to read a newspaper before it is printed. I guess I should stop reading the newspaper. I also have difficultly watching tv shows before they air. Perhaps I should return my tv.

IRISHMAFIA Fri Apr 11, 2014 07:35am

Quote:

Originally Posted by EsqUmp (Post 931394)
WOW. Now that's insightful. I hear that it is also worthless to read a newspaper before it is printed. I guess I should stop reading the newspaper. I also have difficultly watching tv shows before they air. Perhaps I should return my tv.

Really? The best you can come up with? Yeah, our legal system is in great hands.

His statement is not inaccurate. Did you ever try thinking that in the UK, the response to a BI is referred to as a police report?

EsqUmp Sat Apr 12, 2014 08:09am

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 931399)
Really? The best you can come up with? Yeah, our legal system is in great hands.

His statement is not inaccurate. Did you ever try thinking that in the UK, the response to a BI is referred to as a police report?

Well genius, how the hell is someone going to come up with a criminal conviction if they haven't been convicted? It doesn't mean that the person hasn't committed an illegal act, of course. But it is beyond stupid to say that the background check will only show a conviction if the person was convicted. It doesn't take a Rhode's scholar to figure that one out.

At least if they do have a criminal conviction, it should come up.

Adam Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:00pm

I'd much rather see safeguards put in place that actually prevent unknown adults from having unsupervised access to children. Officiating HS sports should never give us that access, whether we have background checks or not. Aside from the false sense of securit, my real concerns are two-fold:
1. Who has access to all this information, and how is it stored?
2. Who decides what background items would disqualify one from officiating?

CO has implemented a background check. We need to provide an arrest record and account for the disposition of any arrests that show up.
We have to pay the CBI $7 every three years for this.

EsqUmp Sun Apr 13, 2014 07:27am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 931559)
I'd much rather see safeguards put in place that actually prevent unknown adults from having unsupervised access to children. Officiating HS sports should never give us that access, whether we have background checks or not. Aside from the false sense of securit, my real concerns are two-fold:
1. Who has access to all this information, and how is it stored?
2. Who decides what background items would disqualify one from officiating?

CO has implemented a background check. We need to provide an arrest record and account for the disposition of any arrests that show up.
We have to pay the CBI $7 every three years for this.

In NY the officials are fingerprinted. That way they can't use a fake identity, social security, etc. to get around their criminal convictions. If they have a fingerprintable offense on file, it will come up. The fingerprinting is done though the NYS Dept of Education, which has access to all prints in DCJS (Department of Criminal Justice Services). Should someone be arrested, the NYS DOE gets notification from DCJS automatically.

PATRICK Sun Apr 13, 2014 07:50am

Quote:

Originally Posted by EsqUmp (Post 931603)
In NY the officials are fingerprinted. That way they can't use a fake identity, social security, etc. to get around their criminal convictions. If they have a fingerprintable offense on file, it will come up. The fingerprinting is done though the NYS Dept of Education, which has access to all prints in DCJS (Department of Criminal Justice Services). Should someone be arrested, the NYS DOE gets notification from DCJS automatically.

And the DoE charges $91.50 and BOSCES charges another $25 service charge to do it!

PATRICK Sun Apr 13, 2014 07:54am

Plus as sports officials, we have NO unsupervised access to the children.

IRISHMAFIA Sun Apr 13, 2014 09:02am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 931559)
I'd much rather see safeguards put in place that actually prevent unknown adults from having unsupervised access to children.

Adam, that is what is known as parenting and there is where the problem starts. If the parents would act as parents and give proper regard to their children and their lives, many of these issues would be non-existent.

EsqUmp Sun Apr 13, 2014 05:01pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PATRICK (Post 931610)
Plus as sports officials, we have NO unsupervised access to the children.

Yup. We have to kick back a varsity fee for a lifetime of year-round officiating.

PATRICK Sun Apr 13, 2014 06:22pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by EsqUmp (Post 931640)
Yup. We have to kick back a varsity fee for a lifetime of year-round officiating.

That's BS! There's no way in hell that it costs $91.50 for them to run an electronic BC, and it certainly isn't going to cost $25 for a BOSCES employee to fingerprint me. That'll take 3 minutes! Plus, I needed an appointment before lunch. Granted I made it for a day I'm doing a college game out that way, but now I have to leave work an hour earlier.

It's highway robbery! And the excuse that it's only one game fee is BS too. As a new umpire, I have to start at the lower level with the lower fee.

Charge me what it cost to perform these services. Don't use it as a revenue generator.

I had to have one in Pa, as I cooked in a daycare last year, and it only cost $35 total!

Manny A Mon Apr 14, 2014 07:55am

Quote:

Originally Posted by PATRICK (Post 931610)
Plus as sports officials, we have NO unsupervised access to the children.

I disagree. There's always the chance that your partner is a minor. I've worked a few ASA games with kids that were under 18.

Also, I've been at the park recovering from my game, and I've seen plenty of individual kids sitting and waiting for a parent or older sibling to come pick them up. It floors me that a coach wouldn't wait with that kid until the parent or sibling shows up. Unlike some random stranger, it's not inconceivable for an umpire, who has already displayed a sense of authority in that kid's mind while working the game, to convince the kid to hop in the car for a ride home. I will take my time recovering and stick around until the kid's ride comes through.

HugoTafurst Mon Apr 14, 2014 09:55am

I remember when I was in high school and cut class, the vice principal told me that the offense would go on my permanent record....
I wonder if they caught that on my background check.

chapmaja Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:47am

Best Background checks / safety
 
In my opinion, the organization with the best background check policy and safety policy is USA Swimming. Each coach and official is required to pass a level two background check every 2 years, plus take athlete protection training online course.

At practices it is up to the host club to handle access to locker rooms and the pool deck. At meets (when possible, not always possible at outdoor meets), the host club is required to allow only three groups of people on deck. First is officials who have passed their background check. Second is coaches who have passed their background check. Third is volunteers who are not required to be background checked, but must be registered with meet management. Each person who is on deck is required to wear a deck credential. Failure to have a credential can result in you being removed from the deck and additional punishment through USA Swimming. In addition, USA Swimming limits the use of photographic devices on the pool deck. People caught with a camera out behind the starting blocks can and should be removed from the pool deck.

Nothing is perfect for preventing assaults on children, because much of the time the situation does not involve officials, but coaches who get much less public time with athletes.

CecilOne Tue Apr 22, 2014 08:54am

Received this today:
"ALL UMPIRES who wish to umpire ANY ASA games in the state of ... snip ... are required to have a background check starting this year. It is not an option.

If you refuse to have a background check, you must notify me no later than Friday April 25th. This will allow me to refund your dues and to remove your name from the ASA registration that goes to the National Office. ... snip ...

There was a big article about a convicted sex offender in Alabama working a youth USSSA game. Had a background check been performed, this individual would not have been assigned any youth games.

Again, this is not up for debate. If I do not hear from you, then I will assume you are okay with the background check and you will be assigned league games and work tournaments etc. If you attended a state or regional clinic then you would also be eligible for state, regional, and national tournaments. If you are NOT OKAY with it, then you must notify me no later than April 25th so you can be removed from registration and therefore, not work any ASA games. Your dues will be refunded to you.

Whether you agree with it or not, this is the society we now live in and it is what it is.

I thank you all for your cooperation and look forward to a great season.
"

AtlUmpSteve Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:00am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CecilOne (Post 932399)
Received this today:
"ALL UMPIRES who wish to umpire ANY ASA games in the state of ... snip ... are required to have a background check starting this year. It is not an option.

If you refuse to have a background check, you must notify me no later than Friday April 25th. This will allow me to refund your dues and to remove your name from the ASA registration that goes to the National Office. ... snip ...

There was a big article about a convicted sex offender in Alabama working a youth USSSA game. Had a background check been performed, this individual would not have been assigned any youth games.

Again, this is not up for debate. If I do not hear from you, then I will assume you are okay with the background check and you will be assigned league games and work tournaments etc. If you attended a state or regional clinic then you would also be eligible for state, regional, and national tournaments. If you are NOT OKAY with it, then you must notify me no later than April 25th so you can be removed from registration and therefore, not work any ASA games. Your dues will be refunded to you.

Whether you agree with it or not, this is the society we now live in and it is what it is.

I thank you all for your cooperation and look forward to a great season.
"

Background checks have been available at a reasonable price (about $5 each) to ASA Associations for several years; and some, but not all, have mandated it for their umpires. And some have also done their staff and tournament directors.

At the latest ASA Board of Directors meeting (March 29) following the Alabama news report hitting the news wires, it is now mandated for 2015 for all associations; umpires and RegisterASA team and league administrators. Your Commissioner is just getting ahead of the curve; it has been done here in Georgia ASA for 3-4 years.

Certainly agree it is a "feel-good" solution with no real effect; other than being able to say you have done everything reasonably possible to limit exposure and/or liability.

Andy Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:33am

I have also been told that any ASA umpire that works any games at Hall of Fame Stadium in OKC must pass a background check starting this year.

This includes all Adult FP and SP play.

In my association, we identify umpires as to the games they work. If they only work adult SP, we do not submit them to a background check.

We do have to stay on top of this, as the umpire could decide halfway through the season that they wish to work youth FP, but it hasn't been an issue so far.

IRISHMAFIA Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:33am

Thank God we live in a free and democratic......er, never mind.

Here is the original e-mail from OKC:

From: John Miller [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 11:59 AM
To: John Miller
Cc: YZ - Department Heads; zz - RegisterASA Staff
Subject: ASA Mandatory Background Check Policy For 2015 Season



Good Morning Council Members,

I hope you all enjoyed Easter yesterday. This is the last email for actions taken by the ASA Board of Directors at their March 29 board meeting.

ASA has in place a background check screening process to help keep our youth players safe from those that seek to harm them. Over the last five years ASA has run more than 300,000 background check reports in an effort to keep those that would want to harm our youth players out of our program.

There are state/metro associations that require their umpires and administrators to pass a background check in order to umpire or serve as a team or league administrators so these associations are setting the standard.

During the March 29 board meeting the ASA Board of Directors established a national policy for background checking council members, umpires and RegisterASA team/league administrators. This policy would take affect starting with the 2015 season.

Council members, umpires working Junior Olympic Championship play and all RegisterASA administrators shall pass an ASA background check.

Now that the state/metro associations have the choice of starting their Junior Olympic season on either September 1 or January 1 those starting on September 1 and using RegisterASA would have to have their RegisterASA admins pass a background check before being able to register their individuals for a team or league. Those same September 1 state/metro associations that would schedule JO championship qualifiers after September 1 would need to background check those umpires that would be working JO championship play.

Only an ASA background check report will be allowed to verify that a council member, umpire or RegisterASA admin has passed a background check. This must be done in case ASA has to prove that a council member, umpire or RegisterASA admin has passed a background check in any litigation brought before ASA. The background check reports will have to be run annually.

As any new policy is put into place there will be many questions. Please direct those questions to me and I will get them answered for you.

Multiple Sports Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:49pm

Can anyone answer this ????
 
In your state, if you are working SP only are you required to have a BG check. In my state they are requiring everyone regardless of fast ( youth ) or just slow ( adult )......it makes no sense unless they are looking for issues non child related......

chapmaja Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:55pm

Maybe it is time for one organization to oversee all background checks for all umpires/coaches/volunteers working with youth sports.

Doing multiple sports for multiple organizations, I have to have a background check run for each different organization. It does get a bit tiresome, and costly.

Add in the fact that I work in education, and am required to be fingerprinted for work purposes and have regular background checks run as well.

Maybe one organization handling all background checks would just make things so much easier.

Dakota Wed Apr 23, 2014 09:59am

Quote:

Originally Posted by chapmaja (Post 932455)
...Add in the fact that I work in education, and am required to be fingerprinted for work purposes and have regular background checks run as well. ...

It seems every other week there is another teacher in the news for a sexual offense with a student.

So, how well is that fingerprinting and background checking working out for the education establishment?

Clearly, (well, clearly to ME), this is all about liability limitation for the organizations themselves and very little about protecting anyone from anything.

CecilOne Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:15pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by chapmaja (Post 932455)
Maybe one organization handling all background checks would just make things so much easier.

NO NO NO. Please think about the effect of centralizing personal information.

CecilOne Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:16pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 932476)
Clearly, (well, clearly to ME), this is all about liability limitation for the organizations themselves and very little about protecting anyone from anything.

And ASA even says so.
"This must be done in case ASA has to prove that a council member, umpire or RegisterASA admin has passed a background check in any litigation brought before ASA. "

IRISHMAFIA Wed Apr 23, 2014 07:07pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CecilOne (Post 932493)
And ASA even says so.
"This must be done in case ASA has to prove that a council member, umpire or RegisterASA admin has passed a background check in any litigation brought before ASA. "

And when someone is certified by a sanctioning body through a BI, does that now make them liable since apparently their system failed? ;)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:24am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1