Rich's area - Is it time to drop the 3-man officiating crew?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

If there was an officiating presence in the CIAC, officials might be able to persuade the others that 3 person is necessary for risk minimization and safe play in basketball, and we would start seeing more consistent use of 3-person

Officials do have a presence on the CIAC, the CIAC Officials’ Association: Mission Statement: The CIAC Officials’ Association exists to work in concert with school administrators, athletic directors, coaches and the CIAC to advance the best interest of high school athletics, serve the betterment of all member officials and their respective organizations, promote ethical standards, sportsmanship, professionalism, and high quality officiating.

The problem is that the CIAC, as a branch of the Connecticut Association of Schools, is run by principals, and principals listen to coaches, both individually, and collectively (The Connecticut High School Coaches Association), and the most successful and influential basketball coaches don't want three person, and since that keeps costs down, the principals see no need to go three person.

If the coaches wanted it, it wouldn't happen right away (finances), but it would eventually happen, but as of now, they don't want it.

[ilyazhito]

The question is, does CIAC listen to its officials association. If not, I'd say that officials might need to play hardball for the next set of contracts. Since all HS basketball in CT is IAABO, CIAC coaches won't be able to use non-IAABO boards to hold down costs if IAABO boards refuse to provide service without 3-person games.

If not an immediate mandate of all 3 person, at least say to schools "We will provide 3-person crews to you on at least (5) home dates for each gender (5 boys dates and 5 girls dates). You choose the dates. If you don't choose the dates, we will." This is how FL implemented 3-person.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I'd say that officials might need to play hardball for the next set of contracts.

No fee negotiations, our annual fee increase is the same as the average annual increase in teacher's salaries across the entire state. No more annual negotiations in smoke filled back rooms.

Three man is non issue for most coaches, and, thus, for most principals, and frankly, officials aren't ready to break out their pitchforks and torches regarding such.

[ilyazhito]

In WI, I'd say keep 3-man, and for CT, and any other retrograde 2-man places, negotiate (or strike, if negotiations don't work) for 3 man. Schools would rather have 3-man than 0-man .

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

(or strike)

Off topic. Over the years we have occasionally discussed not working games for certain schools (payment issues, safety issues, security issues, fan control, unsporting issues, etc.) but have been told by attorneys that this would break our contract with the CIAC, and put us in serious legal jeopardy.

[LRZ]

The legal issue would be: who breached the contract first? Did CIAC breach first by not meeting its contractual obligations to provide safety and security, payment, etc.?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by LRZ

The legal issue would be: who breached the contract first? Did CIAC breach first by not meeting its contractual obligations to provide safety and security, payment, etc.?

The most common problem is timely payment. We complain to the CIAC, they put pressure on the school, it gets better for a year, or so, and then the problem resurfaces. Rinse and repeat.

I once received a check in July after I made several complaints to both the school and my assigner, for a game worked in January. I can almost guarantee that if I didn't squeak the wheel, I would never have received payment for that game.

Almost all of our payment issues come from one school system (several high schools). Pay vouchers move from school site directors, to a system wide athletic director, to city hall, where the check is processed and mailed. Too many middlemen, too much of a paper trail. If this one school system moved to Arbiter Pay, most of our payment problems would be resolved.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Off topic. Over the years we have occasionally discussed not working games for certain schools (payment issues, safety issues, security issues, fan control, unsporting issues, etc.) but have been told by attorneys that this would break our contract with the CIAC, and put us in serious legal jeopardy.

That's one thing I like about the assigning structure here. We are all ICs and associations have no official role in assigning games. If we want to come together and not accept games in a particular conference, we can do that without any issues.

Now, there will be officials who will crawl over our backs to take those slots and the conferemce will nees to decide if the quality of those people are OK with them long-term.

At some point we need to stop with the "for the kids" bullshit and ask ourselves if the lack of increases we have accepted would've been acceptable to teachers, principals, and superintendents. In my area some conferences have raised pay about 10% over 20 years. How many teachers, principals, and superintendents would accept that cause it's "for the kids?"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich

... ask ourselves if the lack of increases we have accepted would've been acceptable to teachers, principals, and superintendents. In my area some conferences have raised pay about 10% over 20 years. How many teachers, principals, and superintendents would accept that ...

Problem solved in Connecticut (Varsity Fee: $97.17; Sub Varsity Fee: $63.05).

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No fee negotiations, our annual fee increase is the same as the average annual increase in teacher's salaries across the entire state. No more annual negotiations in smoke filled back rooms.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Off topic. Over the years we have occasionally discussed not working games for certain schools (payment issues, safety issues, security issues, fan control, unsporting issues, etc.) but have been told by attorneys that this would break our contract with the CIAC, and put us in serious legal jeopardy.

It is clear your area does not have a true Independent Contractor relationship. If you did they cannot make any official work any game they do not wish to work.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is clear your area does not have a true Independent Contractor relationship. If you did they cannot make any official work any game they do not wish to work.

I was speaking collectively, "We're (my board) not assigning officials to your school (school system) if your don't start paying us in a more timely manner", but I still see your point.

While I fully agree with you regarding my independent contractor status, we can still block out specific sites, schools, teams, genders, and levels, on Arbiter (with some limitations), and also blanket gender "block" with an email to our assigner. We can also block out any dates and times that we do not want to be available (although we're later fined if we don't block and we're assigned and don't accept).

While I'm fairly certain that many Forum members are actually true independent contractors, I'm also pretty sure that some just toss the word around willy-nilly without fully understanding all the labor and tax implications. I once spent considerable time on IRS websites and labor websites trying to figure out exactly what it means to be an independent contractor, and unless one is a tax attorney, or a labor attorney, the qualifications are often difficult to understand, especially since the laws often vary state by state.