Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 892047)

...
It's $3 people...and not even every year. Now, if your state is charging a lot more than that, perhaps the real issue isn't who is paying but why they're charging so much or doing it so frequently (people that are ok one day are rarely not ok the next...there is no need to do them yearly).

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 892047)

Employee vs. independent contractor. We're a vendor to the school...actually several schools. Not really that much different than a plumber or other repair person. That makes it more upon us to meet the requirements of the job. If we were employees, then I'd expect them to pay for it. When I hire a vendor (it could even be a company with employees), I expect their certifications to tell me all I need to know about them and I shouldn't be expected to do a background check on their employees. I expect them to have already done so. That is what is happening here...the schools are contracting out the job of officiating and expect to hire an outside service (each of you are a company of one) to provide that can just show up and work, having met all the necessary qualifications.

Would you rather fill out background forms for each and every school (and take a pay cut from each one as they would have to do to cover the cost of it) or pay $3 extra as part of your certification that provides all of the schools with a guarantee that if they stick with certified officials, they're getting officials who have had a background check.

It's $3 people...and not even every year. Now, if your state is charging a lot more than that, perhaps the real issue isn't who is paying but why they're charging so much or doing it so frequently (people that are ok one day are rarely not ok the next...there is no need to do them yearly).

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 892009)

I'm fine with background checks. I understand why the state wants to eliminate some people and also wants to limit liability. Unlike Nevada, I am willing to subject myself to such a check. I just want to know why officials end up bearing the costs of such things and it isn't passed through to the schools.

To me, it's the same answer to one of my favorite jokes: Because they can.

(There's part of me that wonders why officials need to pay anything to officiate games. Why do we? Same answer - "Because they can.")

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes (Post 892055)

Ultimately, it is the schools that will bear these costs. If they force you to pay for a background, you simply reciprocate by raising the game fees you charge them to work their games.

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 892061)

Here in Connecticut we went to background checks about four years ago. Those who were already officiating at that time were grandfathered in. Those who were new to officiating were charged, and are charged, a fee. I'm not sure what the fee was, or is.

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 892075)

Grandfathered in? As in no background check was done?

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 892052)

My concern has little to do with the cost, to be honest. I'm far more concerned with who has access to that information, even the personal information that is non-disqualifying.

Further, I'm concerned with the reasoning. I'm just not sold on its value.

Frequency and cost are separate issues, IMO.

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes (Post 892055)

Ultimately, it is the schools that will bear these costs. If they force you to pay for a background, you simply reciprocate by raising the game fees you charge them to work their games.

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 892074)

If only it worked that way.

It doesn't.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 892080)

So, the information you provide to sign up and be certified is also used for the background check and you're worried about that? Or are you worried about what your background check might show?

There is nothing I provide for the background check that isn't already required to just work. Seems like you should really have a problem signing up to be an official if that is the case.

If you're worried about what someone might find about about you (that is probably in a public record somewhere) I'm wondering what you're hiding.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 892051)

Well, someone has already posted that it cost him $30. Whether that's annual, or 1-time, he didn't state.

Originally Posted by rockyroad (Post 892106)

So not wanting to share personal information means he is "hiding" something? What a stupid thing to say...

Ever been a victim of Identity Theft because some organization wasn't careful enough with your personal information? Obviously not...

Originally Posted by Andy (Post 892107)

Our game fees for all sports with the exception of volleyball went up $5.00 per game this year, but we are still among the lowest in the nation.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 892110)

He already shared all the same info with the same people to sign up as an official. What else is he sharing? That specific risk isn't increased because of a background check.