[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

I'm not sure, Dan. I know that our background check in Oregon is state-level only, and we don't have to get a different one for each county in which we work, so we're not paying nearly as much. We also only pay for one per year, regardless of how many sports we work, so if a person works two or three sports, it only adds $15 or $20 to whatever fees the association charges for membership. If we had to add $60 or more to our membership fees, it would be a substantial raise in cost, and a detriment to good reffing in Portland. And if anyone else had to foot this bill, it would be a huge detriment to high school sports in Portland. I think Scott has a point that the Florida legislature is shooting a sparrow with a howitzer.

I'm not sure what you're not sure of, so let's try & narrow it down:

- Did I say many of us found the process, in practice, to be no big deal? I think I did.

- Did you say you found the process, in practice, to be no big deal? I think you did.

- Are you saying that requiring a 1 time expense of $60 is too much to pay to ensure the safety of kids? I hope not.

As for Florida requiring county by county checks...maybe some really bright Floridian will discover there are these things called "computers" which can be attached with "wires" so they can "share information" from county to county.

Amazing, I know, but true.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Wow, feeling curmudgeonly today, Dan?

I think Scott's point is that it won't be just $60, it will be substantially higher, and that no one quite knows how high. and that there will be many refs who won't pay it. and that schools won't want to absorb the increased cost for refs, since this bill gives them a number of other background check costs.

I think Scott's point is that this bill was an over-reaction and is going to cause problems for Florida refs. I think we can afford to notice the problem, and wonder if our states will over-react, too. Got no sympathy at all for that, Dan?