Any creepy referees in Denver area?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

...
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).

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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).

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.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by Rich

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.")

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.

[BillyMac]

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

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.

If only it worked that way.

It doesn't.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

Grandfathered in? As in no background check was done?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

Grandfathered in? As in no background check was done?

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The state interscholastic sports governing body paid for all the background checks for "existing" officials.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

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.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

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

If only it worked that way.

It doesn't.

Everything is negotiable. Officiating is a business. If you're willing to just sit there and take what they're offering, then that's your perogative. But if a school wants to start taking money out of my pocket, I can choose to stop providing the service, or raise my fees to cover my costs. If you get other officials to stand with you, it can work that way.

[tomegun]

I think many of the posts are accurate.

Unfortunately, we live in a society where protecting our personal information is important. I would like to think my local association is an organization I can trust. If not, and my information was used in a negative way the association would become the "Tomegun Officiating Association"...

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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...

[Andy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

For HS sports in Arizona, we pay a registration fee to the State Association of $75 for the first sport and $40 for each additional sport.

In addition, we are required (as of the 2012-13 school year) to obtain a fingerprint clearance card from the State, just like teachers. The cost of the fingerprints and background check are approx $80, but it is valid for six years.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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...

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Andy

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.

I think about 45 states are among the lowest in the nation!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

It is about what comes up on a background check. It's more than felonies that show up, much of which I wouldn't want made public. Who sees the report? How long do they store it? Where is it stored? How is it protected?