New officials vote?

[JRutledge]

All the associations I belong, full members (meaning paid members) vote. So if you are new and you pay, you have the same privileges of anyone else that is a member. Now some associations give brand new officials to the association a year to come to the meetings and participate as a member, but you cannot vote.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

In Portland, new officials generally do not vote.

We have a 4 class sequence for new officials that is typically completed over 4 years. The newest officials in "Class 1" and "Class 2" (probationary) do not vote. Those in "Class 3" and "Class 4" (associate) do as well as all "Regular" members. When it comes to tourney voting, only "Regular" members vote.

The idea is that truly new officials wouldn't really know much about anything.

Officials joining the association with some amount of experience can skip one ore more of the classes and, if sufficiently experienced, be put directly into Class 4 (with immediate voting rights). THose are given the ability to apply for "Regular" membership quickly so that they can also qualify for varsity games...we don't want to keep good officials working a JV schedule.

Returning officials, after a short absence, can resume where they left off. Longer absences are treated like transfers and must go back into the classes, at least for a brief time.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

...we don't want to keep good officials working a JV schedule.

We did (stupidly) in the past, requiring officials (with no IAABO experience) to complete four years (cadet plus three additional years) of working only subvarsity games, followed by three years of working a mixture of subvarsity, and varsity games (only if your colleagues rated you high enough). A good official, even a very good official, didn't see a full schedule of varsity games until after their seventh year.

We were losing too many good officials who became frustrated, and impatient, with the system. Now we have a system where officials are observed by trained observation team members (who are excused from paying annual dues) who determine varsity, or subvarsity, status (with a little input from partner evaluations). There is no longer a minimum number of years of experience before one can move up, it's only based on how good an official is, as God intended.

[Nevadaref]

It sounds as if several areas don't run their associations as a collective of individuals officials, but rather as labor unions. Independent contractors who are part of associations are all equal. In Labor Unions, seniority is often used to classify members and reward those who have belonged longer. Often pay grade differs with years of service.

In my opinion, the labor union model is poor and unfair. Officiating should be about skill and merit. The only reasonable reason for preventing new members from voting is that it prevents a quick sea-change as it slows down a take-over by a bunch of new guys who probably don't know enough to run the organization yet.
I don't mind some restrictions on first or second year officials, but then these people should also pay less in dues, if they aren't given full privileges (perhaps they can't vote in elections or aren't eligible for playoff assignments, etc.)

Otherwise, my take is that everyone who pays the same dues and meets the same requirements (attend meetings, pass exam, etc.), needs to be treated as an equal member.

[Multiple Sports]

Based on the people who answered, I think that this more of an IAABO issue ( Terrapin Fan & Billy Mac ). When I was an IAABO guy, my board didn't let applicants / cadets vote in board matters til they completed their
applicant status and were full members. Didn't understand why that was done, it just was.

Been out of IAABO for a while but it seems like that is still the case....

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It sounds as if several areas don't run their associations as a collective of individuals officials, but rather as labor unions. Independent contractors who are part of associations are all equal. In Labor Unions, seniority is often used to classify members and reward those who have belonged longer. Often pay grade differs with years of service.

In my opinion, the labor union model is poor and unfair. Officiating should be about skill and merit. The only reasonable reason for preventing new members from voting is that it prevents a quick sea-change as it slows down a take-over by a bunch of new guys who probably don't know enough to run the organization yet.
I don't mind some restrictions on first or second year officials, but then these people should also pay less in dues, if they aren't given full privileges (perhaps they can't vote in elections or aren't eligible for playoff assignments, etc.)

Otherwise, my take is that everyone who pays the same dues and meets the same requirements (attend meetings, pass exam, etc.), needs to be treated as an equal member.

In that case, perhaps they should be charged for the extra free training they get as newer members.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

... meets the same requirements (attend meetings, pass exam, etc.), needs to be treated as an equal member.

Here in my little corner of Connecticut, cadets are not required to attend any meetings (only encouraged to attend regular member meetings, they're not even required to attend any rule, or mechanics, training meetings, they can just show up to take the exams), and only take the new applicants test which is a lot easier than the annual IAABO Refresher Exam that regular members are required to take. Also, they have not paid full dues for the year, they only pay (nonrefundable applicants registration fee, don't pass rules, or mechanics, exam, no refund) enough to cover the cost of the IAABO Handbook (NFHS Rulebook, NFHS Casebook, IAABO Mechanics Manual), and some other training materials (and IAABO insurance). Successful applicants (cadets) do attend our end of the season banquet, which "eats up" a very large portion (about $40.00) of our member annual dues ($125.00, that cadets don't pay), so members are subsidizing the cadet meals.

Comparing regular members to cadets isn't like comparing apples to oranges, but more like comparing McIntosh apples to Granny Smith apples. One's red, the other's green, but they're both apples.

[SNIPERBBB]

First years don't have to come to the local meetings in Ohio. You don't see them come to our meetings unless the guy running the class (our current secretary) has them come as part of the class.

[Terrapins Fan]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Here in my little corner of Connecticut, cadets are not required to attend any meetings (only encouraged to attend regular member meetings, they're not even required to attend any rule, or mechanics, training meetings, they can just show up to take the exams), and only take the new applicants test which is a lot easier than the annual IAABO Refresher Exam that regular members are required to take. Also, they have not paid full dues for the year, they only pay (nonrefundable applicants registration fee, don't pass rules, or mechanics, exam, no refund) enough to cover the cost of the IAABO Handbook (NFHS Rulebook, NFHS Casebook, IAABO Mechanics Manual), and some other training materials (and IAABO insurance). Successful applicants (cadets) do attend our end of the season banquet, which "eats up" a very large portion (about $40.00) of our member annual dues ($125.00, that cadets don't pay), so members are subsidizing the cadet meals.

Comparing regular members to cadets isn't like comparing apples to oranges, but more like comparing McIntosh apples to Granny Smith apples. One's red, the other's green, but they're both apples.

This is where we have been for years. And now there is a portion of the membership that wants to change this. I'm not certain that it's a good idea.