Jump to content

LL background checks


Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 3270 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

The big hub bub in my association right now is the LL background check.

 

Our association serves 5-6 LL organizations. Each one want us to submit the same background check form to them. 

 

The problem is having our personal information in that many different places and that they do their checks differently. Some only plug your name in the state police public information and national sex offender registry. Others do a full blown background check through a third party. 

 

Some have brought up the multiple LL & PONY embezzlement and other similar crimes which have made news in our area and the lack of secure handling of our private information. 

 

Our association is going to go to bat that they will conduct 1 background check on all umpires and the individual leagues will have to accept it.

 

If you have encountered similar, what have you done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our State HS association (PIAA) requires background checks for all officials who became an official after February of 2007.  The background check is the same as that required of teachers (State Police, FBI, fingerprinting, and a PA Child Abuse check).  Our summer ball association has moved to a similar method (sans FBI and fingerprinting).

 

I am not sure if the LL's we work for accept these clearances or if we must complete the First Advantage check as well.  I will check.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll give you the LL president perspective. I don't have access to other leagues' results from their background checks. Furthermore, the District Administrator can't speak for a local league, which may have different standards. The hypothetical alternative to each league running their own check is for you authorize some Little League to share background data with neighboring leagues, which feels to me like less control than you have now.

It has to be somebody's ass if it goes bad, and that ass is the president.

Good umpires are hard to find, so you have that bit of leverage. But you put those leagues in an awkward spot if you say, "Trust me with those children, but I don't trust you with my social security number."

I redact the SSN on the physical paper form after I approve an umpire. I think you're right to insist on that if you want.

Little League supplies a background check service through First Advantage that's included with the charter cost. It's a fair question as to why anyone would use another service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would imagine that if security of personal information is a concern, your association could conduct your own checks through First Advantage.  If you contact them they may provide a discount when you explain the reason for the check.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am the Safety Officer of our LL association and I do the background checks as well.  After I am done with each background registration, I blackout the SSN number on the physical paper, but the last four digits are kept in the First Advantage data base.  I do not exchange personal information on individuals that work different associations other than passed.  I do not state anuthing if they failed.  It is up to the individual on the registration to notify other associations if they failed.  They do get a letter in the mail explaining why.  I just say that you need to contact that individual if you need further information.   

 

I need to protect my LL association as well as myself on this sensitive issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another aspect is that different leagues will have different criteria. 

 

ANY child related item will cause a ban.

 

BUT some league may ban you for anything at any time and and another think that a PI from 30 years ago is no big deal. Or anything in between.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good umpires are hard to find, so you have that bit of leverage. But you put those leagues in an awkward spot if you say, "Trust me with those children, but I don't trust you with my social security number."

 

I'm in Warren's association, and I'm one of those that currently refuses to give my SSN to LL.

 

It's all well and fine that you state it that way, but if you REALLY want to quote it accurately, it's:  "Trust me with those children, when I'm surrounded by dozens of adult witnesses for a whopping 1-2 hours at a pop, but I don't trust you to safely handle my SSN with the respect and privacy it deserves."

 

FTFY.

 

Look, a Privacy Act statement may not be applicable, since this isn't a government form (and I don't know all the ins and outs of the Privacy Act), but I would think LL would have the decency to address it SOMEhow.  If LL is worried about people being all molest-y, then it's the coaches and other volunteers they have to worry about, not a hired gun like me.

 

And personally, for my job, I'm already investigated every five or so years, polygraphed about the same amount or more, AND I have random drug screenings that could happen at any time.  And other assorted losses of the rights everyone else takes for granted.  By God, LL and its ESPN-driven profit machine isn't going to do it to me, as well.  Not until I see some law that requires it, and even THEN, I'll probably just say "f--k it, I don't need LL games that bad."

 

While I don't disbelieve you when you say you redact the number, I will suggest that you are in the minority, and would bet that most that WILL handle that data don't have clue one about securing it or doing a decent destruction job on it.  I just don't want yet MORE paperwork out there that combines my name, SSN, and address - that's the perfect storm of Identity Theft right there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If LL is worried about people being all molest-y, then it's the coaches and other volunteers they have to worry about, not a hired gun like me.

That's a fair point. Umpires are in view.

Not until I see some law that requires it, and even THEN, I'll probably just say "f--k it, I don't need LL games that bad." and would bet that most that WILL handle that data don't have clue one about securing it or doing a decent destruction job on it.  I just don't want yet MORE paperwork out there that combines my name, SSN, and address - that's the perfect storm of Identity Theft right there

There's no law. LL insurance covers misconduct by the volunteers, which is cheaper because there's a process around vetting those volunteers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Good umpires are hard to find, so you have that bit of leverage. But you put those leagues in an awkward spot if you say, "Trust me with those children, but I don't trust you with my social security number."

 

Trust me with those children, when I'm surrounded by dozens of adult witnesses for a whopping 1-2 hours at a pop,

 

 

We had a situation with an umpire in our league. He's now in jail.  It's about getting known, gaining trust from the players, and using that to gain access, not about just being in public view for two hours.

 

Why do you think a LL officer is less trustworthy than anyone else you have to submit info to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Good umpires are hard to find, so you have that bit of leverage. But you put those leagues in an awkward spot if you say, "Trust me with those children, but I don't trust you with my social security number."

 

Trust me with those children, when I'm surrounded by dozens of adult witnesses for a whopping 1-2 hours at a pop,

 

 

We had a situation with an umpire in our league. He's now in jail.  It's about getting known, gaining trust from the players, and using that to gain access, not about just being in public view for two hours.

 

Why do you think a LL officer is less trustworthy than anyone else you have to submit info to?

 

For a list:

  a) The other people require the information for reasons backed by law

  2) The other people have laws/regulations for the safekeeping of that data, to include punishment when they inevitably mishandle/misuse it

  red) We are - and I can't emphasize this enough - hired guns.  We're not at any one site/league/level enough times to gain trust.  (This, in fact, is an argument for not having the volunteer umpire regime - so you don't have one guy around a place too long.)

  z) This is a business transaction between me and the LL that's paying me;  I don't have to provide personal data for most other ordinary business.

  lamp) the sheer number of times local organizations - to be fair, not just LL - give people positions that are misused.  Theft of money and/or identity being a common problem.

 

For laughs, I looked through my database of games.  (Yeah, I have a database of games ... I'm an IT guy.  Everybody does it.... Shut up!)  In a five year period before I moved to Japan, I worked 409 games.  We have a big association, so not as many games as others.  The most games at any one kid-ball level I had - which included Pony, LL and AAU - was 33 games at the Pony level of Pony.  And that was spread out over a half-dozen more different leagues in the area.  So, if more leagues hired associations, instead of a pool of volunteers, you'd have less chances for a guy to find 'an in' with the kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good umpires are hard to find, so you have that bit of leverage. But you put those leagues in an awkward spot if you say, "Trust me with those children, but I don't trust you with my social security number."

 

Trust me with those children, when I'm surrounded by dozens of adult witnesses for a whopping 1-2 hours at a pop,

 

We had a situation with an umpire in our league. He's now in jail.  It's about getting known, gaining trust from the players, and using that to gain access, not about just being in public view for two hours.

 

Why do you think a LL officer is less trustworthy than anyone else you have to submit info to?

 

For a list:

  a) The other people require the information for reasons backed by law

  2) The other people have laws/regulations for the safekeeping of that data, to include punishment when they inevitably mishandle/misuse it

  red) We are - and I can't emphasize this enough - hired guns.  We're not at any one site/league/level enough times to gain trust.  (This, in fact, is an argument for not having the volunteer umpire regime - so you don't have one guy around a place too long.)

  z) This is a business transaction between me and the LL that's paying me;  I don't have to provide personal data for most other ordinary business.

  lamp) the sheer number of times local organizations - to be fair, not just LL - give people positions that are misused.  Theft of money and/or identity being a common problem.

So would you give a W9 to a league that requires it for you to be paid? The business transaction is that of the business and and independent contractor. A W9 is required. Are you one of those guys that think if you don't get a 1099misc that the money you made is not taxable? It is but hardly ever pursued.

 

For laughs, I looked through my database of games.  (Yeah, I have a database of games ... I'm an IT guy.  Everybody does it.... Shut up!)  In a five year period before I moved to Japan, I worked 409 games.  We have a big association, so not as many games as others.  The most games at any one kid-ball level I had - which included Pony, LL and AAU - was 33 games at the Pony level of Pony.  And that was spread out over a half-dozen more different leagues in the area.  So, if more leagues hired associations, instead of a pool of volunteers, you'd have less chances for a guy to find 'an in' with the kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, I've worked LL and have never had a background check. Here's the mamma bear answer, and I definitely was a mamma bear: Do I want to make sure the umpires aren't child molesters? Yes, and that information is available to everyone in the general public. Do I care if they smacked around their own kid? Nope Do I care if they robbed a bank? Nope Do I care if this guy has had 15 DUI's? Nope If LL is a national organization that wants background checks. Why don't they set the standard, have the checks done, and the results (yes he passed/no he didn't pass) would be available through a central office. I understand there are costs associated, but it would be a stable cost field and the central office could charge appropriate fees to the local LL's for the results. SSN checks are notoriously erroneous, if LL wanted to do quality background checks, they'd be going with the fingerprint test. Everyone would feel safer. The way they are doing it (as described above) is fubar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a guy in our area who sold some marijuana close to a school when he was 18 years old.

Because of this, he is prohibited from umpiring youth baseball in our area because this came back on his background check from several years ago. I think the guy should not serve a life sentence for a dumb mistake he made at 18. (Since we all were perfect as kids...ya right)

While I'm not an officer, and I don't like sex offenders, I don't feel like the official has any more access to a player than any random person entering the facility or field complex. In fact, I'd argue that the random person probably have more access since they're not at the field wearing plate or base gear as an identifier.

The litigious nature of our country has caused this to happened, yet I don't feel there's any data to suggest that things are safer now than they were prior to background checks. It just makes people feel better because they like the words "background check" which I maintain is a false sense of safety and security.

In our local school district, if a parent wants to volunteer in their child's school they must pay for and fund a background check. I actually commend this move because at least it's consistent across the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a guy in our area who sold some marijuana close to a school when he was 18 years old.

Because of this, he is prohibited from umpiring youth baseball in our area because this came back on his background check from several years ago. I think the guy should not serve a life sentence for a dumb mistake he made at 18. (Since we all were perfect as kids...ya right)

While I'm not an officer, and I don't like sex offenders, I don't feel like the official has any more access to a player than any random person entering the facility or field complex. In fact, I'd argue that the random person probably have more access since they're not at the field wearing plate or base gear as an identifier.

The litigious nature of our country has caused this to happened, yet I don't feel there's any data to suggest that things are safer now than they were prior to background checks. It just makes people feel better because they like the words "background check" which I maintain is a false sense of safety and security.

In our local school district, if a parent wants to volunteer in their child's school they must pay for and fund a background check. I actually commend this move because at least it's consistent across the board.

 

Go back and read my post (#11).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Good umpires are hard to find, so you have that bit of leverage. But you put those leagues in an awkward spot if you say, "Trust me with those children, but I don't trust you with my social security number."

 

Trust me with those children, when I'm surrounded by dozens of adult witnesses for a whopping 1-2 hours at a pop,

 

 

We had a situation with an umpire in our league. He's now in jail.  It's about getting known, gaining trust from the players, and using that to gain access, not about just being in public view for two hours.

 

Why do you think a LL officer is less trustworthy than anyone else you have to submit info to?

 

For a list:

  a) The other people require the information for reasons backed by law

  2) The other people have laws/regulations for the safekeeping of that data, to include punishment when they inevitably mishandle/misuse it

  red) We are - and I can't emphasize this enough - hired guns.  We're not at any one site/league/level enough times to gain trust.  (This, in fact, is an argument for not having the volunteer umpire regime - so you don't have one guy around a place too long.)

  z) This is a business transaction between me and the LL that's paying me;  I don't have to provide personal data for most other ordinary business.

  lamp) the sheer number of times local organizations - to be fair, not just LL - give people positions that are misused.  Theft of money and/or identity being a common problem.

 

For laughs, I looked through my database of games.  (Yeah, I have a database of games ... I'm an IT guy.  Everybody does it.... Shut up!)  In a five year period before I moved to Japan, I worked 409 games.  We have a big association, so not as many games as others.  The most games at any one kid-ball level I had - which included Pony, LL and AAU - was 33 games at the Pony level of Pony.  And that was spread out over a half-dozen more different leagues in the area.  So, if more leagues hired associations, instead of a pool of volunteers, you'd have less chances for a guy to find 'an in' with the kids.

 

 

You didn't answer my question. Why do you think a league official is untrustworthy? Just because someone was somewhere? Everyone is bad because someone was bad? Sorry - not buying that as a valid point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Good umpires are hard to find, so you have that bit of leverage. But you put those leagues in an awkward spot if you say, "Trust me with those children, but I don't trust you with my social security number."

 

Trust me with those children, when I'm surrounded by dozens of adult witnesses for a whopping 1-2 hours at a pop,

 

 

We had a situation with an umpire in our league. He's now in jail.  It's about getting known, gaining trust from the players, and using that to gain access, not about just being in public view for two hours.

 

Why do you think a LL officer is less trustworthy than anyone else you have to submit info to?

 

For a list:

  a) The other people require the information for reasons backed by law

  2) The other people have laws/regulations for the safekeeping of that data, to include punishment when they inevitably mishandle/misuse it

  red) We are - and I can't emphasize this enough - hired guns.  We're not at any one site/league/level enough times to gain trust.  (This, in fact, is an argument for not having the volunteer umpire regime - so you don't have one guy around a place too long.)

  z) This is a business transaction between me and the LL that's paying me;  I don't have to provide personal data for most other ordinary business.

  lamp) the sheer number of times local organizations - to be fair, not just LL - give people positions that are misused.  Theft of money and/or identity being a common problem.

 

For laughs, I looked through my database of games.  (Yeah, I have a database of games ... I'm an IT guy.  Everybody does it.... Shut up!)  In a five year period before I moved to Japan, I worked 409 games.  We have a big association, so not as many games as others.  The most games at any one kid-ball level I had - which included Pony, LL and AAU - was 33 games at the Pony level of Pony.  And that was spread out over a half-dozen more different leagues in the area.  So, if more leagues hired associations, instead of a pool of volunteers, you'd have less chances for a guy to find 'an in' with the kids.

 

 

You didn't answer my question. Why do you think a league official is untrustworthy? Just because someone was somewhere? Everyone is bad because someone was bad? Sorry - not buying that as a valid point.

 

 

As smart as I see you to be on this site, and you didn't follow my point?  Okay:

 

You asked me "Why do you think a LL officer is less trustworthy than anyone else you have to submit info to?"  Response 2) was "The other people have laws/regulations for the safekeeping of that data, to include punishment when they inevitably mishandle/misuse it."  Meaning:  while other, legitimate collectors of that data have rules/regs/laws for handling this information, there's really nothing in place (other than perhaps generic state law) directing LL officials on how to handle that private information, and there's nothing in place to punish them if/when they release/reveal it somewhere they shouldn't, intentionally or otherwise.

 

There's no job for them to lose because - say it with me - we believe in the power of the volunteer!  THEY have no financial dog in the hunt, because it's not THEIR data/identity to lose.  And there aren't really any legal ramifications, since LL isn't a gov't entity, and no prosecutor would go after what he felt would be a dog of a case, even if a law could be found applicable.  That still wouldn't change the fact that my - or someone else's - information ended up abused.

 

I know you believe in LL, but it's not even a LL thing for me.  If any youth org did this, I'd be as irritated.  In my world, this is called "Security Theater," so Mom and Dad can feel better about dropping their kid at the LL facility on a Saturday, and leaving them there for hours on end.  (Not to mention that even a background check only uncovers the guy that was CAUGHT at some point.)  It only provides the illusion of safety.

 

It's ironic that you would throw the "everyone is bad because someone was bad" statement at me, when this background check IS EXACTLY THE SAME THING.  Just because SOME kid was molested SOMEwhere, everyone's gotta run through a background check. Others want to drink the Kool-Aid, they can.  Not me.  If running a name through the Virginia State Police site for sex offenders isn't good enough - which is a) free, b) even includes a picture with the name (to help mitigate misidentifcation somewhat), and c) doesn't need SSNs to play - then I'm not sure what is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also bristle at the LL security theater.

Our LL checks everyone that has any contact w/ the players.  Board, managers, coaches, volunteer umpires, paid umpires, one-time umpires.  Maybe even the parents that dress the field between games.

No one performs a background check on the people from the bus stop that wander in to use our easily accessed bathrooms any old time at all.

 

Security theater indeed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Good umpires are hard to find, so you have that bit of leverage. But you put those leagues in an awkward spot if you say, "Trust me with those children, but I don't trust you with my social security number."

 

Trust me with those children, when I'm surrounded by dozens of adult witnesses for a whopping 1-2 hours at a pop,

 

 

We had a situation with an umpire in our league. He's now in jail.  It's about getting known, gaining trust from the players, and using that to gain access, not about just being in public view for two hours.

 

Why do you think a LL officer is less trustworthy than anyone else you have to submit info to?

 

For a list:

  a) The other people require the information for reasons backed by law

  2) The other people have laws/regulations for the safekeeping of that data, to include punishment when they inevitably mishandle/misuse it

  red) We are - and I can't emphasize this enough - hired guns.  We're not at any one site/league/level enough times to gain trust.  (This, in fact, is an argument for not having the volunteer umpire regime - so you don't have one guy around a place too long.)

  z) This is a business transaction between me and the LL that's paying me;  I don't have to provide personal data for most other ordinary business.

  lamp) the sheer number of times local organizations - to be fair, not just LL - give people positions that are misused.  Theft of money and/or identity being a common problem.

 

For laughs, I looked through my database of games.  (Yeah, I have a database of games ... I'm an IT guy.  Everybody does it.... Shut up!)  In a five year period before I moved to Japan, I worked 409 games.  We have a big association, so not as many games as others.  The most games at any one kid-ball level I had - which included Pony, LL and AAU - was 33 games at the Pony level of Pony.  And that was spread out over a half-dozen more different leagues in the area.  So, if more leagues hired associations, instead of a pool of volunteers, you'd have less chances for a guy to find 'an in' with the kids.

 

 

You didn't answer my question. Why do you think a league official is untrustworthy? Just because someone was somewhere? Everyone is bad because someone was bad? Sorry - not buying that as a valid point.

 

 

As smart as I see you to be on this site, and you didn't follow my point?  Okay:

 

You asked me "Why do you think a LL officer is less trustworthy than anyone else you have to submit info to?"  Response 2) was "The other people have laws/regulations for the safekeeping of that data, to include punishment when they inevitably mishandle/misuse it."  Meaning:  while other, legitimate collectors of that data have rules/regs/laws for handling this information, there's really nothing in place (other than perhaps generic state law) directing LL officials on how to handle that private information, and there's nothing in place to punish them if/when they release/reveal it somewhere they shouldn't, intentionally or otherwise.

 

There's no job for them to lose because - say it with me - we believe in the power of the volunteer!  THEY have no financial dog in the hunt, because it's not THEIR data/identity to lose.  And there aren't really any legal ramifications, since LL isn't a gov't entity, and no prosecutor would go after what he felt would be a dog of a case, even if a law could be found applicable.  That still wouldn't change the fact that my - or someone else's - information ended up abused.

 

I know you believe in LL, but it's not even a LL thing for me.  If any youth org did this, I'd be as irritated.  In my world, this is called "Security Theater," so Mom and Dad can feel better about dropping their kid at the LL facility on a Saturday, and leaving them there for hours on end.  (Not to mention that even a background check only uncovers the guy that was CAUGHT at some point.)  It only provides the illusion of safety.

 

It's ironic that you would throw the "everyone is bad because someone was bad" statement at me, when this background check IS EXACTLY THE SAME THING.  Just because SOME kid was molested SOMEwhere, everyone's gotta run through a background check. Others want to drink the Kool-Aid, they can.  Not me.  If running a name through the Virginia State Police site for sex offenders isn't good enough - which is a) free, b) even includes a picture with the name (to help mitigate misidentifcation somewhat), and c) doesn't need SSNs to play - then I'm not sure what is.

 

 

Laws don't create trust. They just punish violations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And the point is?  "This one time, something bad happened.  So we'll put in place a bunch of stuff to protect our ass...ets.

 

My point has, and will continue to be, there are ways to perform checks on people without requesting their socials.  I don't trust The League of Volunteers to protect that information, and am just not going to give that to them.  I can live without their work.

 

I mean, I'm a little surprised that the coaches and other folks there aren't irritated at the scrutiny.  Mommy and Daddy for each kid aren't checked - and they're in the BEST position to be molest-y - who else has a faster track to gaining trust than one of the other parents at the ballpark?

 

Sorry, but if I don't provide SSNs to business that need it, unless they have a proper requirement, LL isn't getting it without a fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laws don't create trust. They just punish violations.

 

 

So, you're helping my position more than your own.  Let's re-phrase:

 

Background checks don't provide any actual protection to real children.  They just save Little League, Inc., coffers from lawsuits.

 

 

And for me, having the laws allows me to trust more that my data will be handled correctly, more than if there were no sanctions in place.

 

But apparently this is what you want me to say:  I don't trust Little League officials with my personal data, because they don't even know baseball all that well, going by what I see at the leagues around here, never mind how to handle and protect personal data.  They probably don't have the brains to keep the data under lock and key, mostly because they lack the skills to manipulate a lock properly.  It's an actual miracle they can make it to and from the ballpark from their homes on a regular basis.

 

Is that more what you want me to say?  Whether it's true or not, you continue to push on the trust issue.  So, no.  No, I don't trust them, and I've said the why more than once.  I'll go you one better:

 

Substitute "Pony baseball" or "USSSA" or "Nations" or any other sanctioning body.  This isn't someone's actual pay-the-bills job, and it's not their data, so they're going to half-ass it at some point.  If you want your data treated that way, Godspeed.  Unless and until they need it for something like a 1099 because they've paid me enough to activate that rule/law for IRS purposes, they have no reason to have my number.  I don't know how to say that any more clearly.  If you trust people that much more, again, Godspeed to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The only two baseball local molesters I've heard about have both been umpires. Got the trust of kids and parents. Neither would have been thwarted by a background check, as neither had been suspected, much less charged with anything. One was a county judge.

 

The background check does work as a deflector, as it keeps guys with a record from even bothering to apply. It doesn't so much catch these kooks, rather it keeps them away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...