Any creepy referees in Denver area?

[Rich]

Wisconsin is raising licensing fees next year so that all 9000 officials can pay for their own background checks. What cost me $50 this year will cost me $80 next year. I'm not necessarily opposed to background checks but at the same time wonder how effective they are.

To be fair, I'll more than break even because the game rates for playoff contests are going up next season, as well. The increase is going to hit the subvarsity guys and those guys who don't work the postseason the hardest as it will look like a pure money-grab to them.

[Nevadaref]

As the officials are independent contractors, not employees of the state office or school district, background checks are not proper. I'm not giving my personal information to these people who are not my employer. Furthermore, I have no control over how they safeguard this information.
Over the past two years I convinced our state office that they have no need for our SS#. I'm certainly not going to backtrack now.
Lastly, the issue of who pays for it is huge. If the school people want the background check, then they would need to come up with the funds for it.

In the past five years, I've seen several reports of teachers having misconduct issues with students and they are employees and have background checks. So they aren't effective anyway.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

...Lastly, the issue of who pays for it is huge. If the school people want the background check, then they would need to come up with the funds for it.
....

I'm sure we have an official in Oregon who disagrees with this sentiment. He believes officials should absorb all costs associated the privilege of officiating basketball games.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm sure we have an official in Oregon who disagrees with this sentiment. He believes officials should absorb all costs associated the privilege of officiating basketball games.

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.")

[Raymond]

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.")

I'm still trying to figure why officials have to pay so much for camps.

One thing I liked about Ed Rush (PAC-12, not current NBA ref) is that he didn't believe officials should have to pay to try out for a conference. Pay for teaching camps, yes, try-out camps, no. He said part of the reason coordinators get paid by conferences is to find officials to work.

It's crazy. Conference supervisor gets paid by the host to provide 3 officials/game for X amount of games. Then 40-80 officials pay the supervisor $300-$600 to participate in the camp.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm still trying to figure why officials have to pay so much for camps.

One thing I liked about Ed Rush (PAC-12, not current NBA ref) is that he didn't believe officials should have to pay to try out for a conference. Pay for teaching camps, yes, try-out camps, no. He said part of the reason coordinators get paid by conferences is to find officials to work.

It's crazy. Conference supervisor gets paid by the host to provide 3 officials/game for X amount of games. Then 40-80 officials pay the supervisor $300-$600 to participate in the camp.

I think Ed Rush is absolutely right. It's trickled down to the HS level, too. I worked a junior college game with a HS assignor a while back (it may have even been a season ago) and he mentioned I did a good job and that he could use me for some games. When I followed up, he told me he had a camp in the summer he wanted me to come to before he'd assign me.

Really? For 2 or 3 HS dates? You can't get a feel for my work WORKING WITH ME for 40 clock minutes of basketball?

I have already paid for 3 camps this summer and I feel that camps are an important way for me to fine tune my game -- but I won't be adding a fourth.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm still trying to figure why officials have to pay so much for camps... Pay for teaching camps, yes, try-out camps, no. He said part of the reason coordinators get paid by conferences is to find officials to work.

It's definitely a way for the coordinators to make money, but it's a double-edged sword as far as charging vs not charging for a try-out camp.

If it's paid anyone can go if they pony up the dough — if it is free, then there has to be some sort of selection process. Otherwise you'd have tons of people showing up for free that otherwise wouldn't (and shouldn't) be there. Plus, it adds a layer of politics to it —*moreso than there already is.

So, I agree with you, since I think the process is too expensive for those wanting to move up, but I'm not sure that making the camps free solves the problem rather than simply trading one set of problems out for another.

[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 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?

[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.

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm sure we have an official in Oregon who disagrees with this sentiment. He believes officials should absorb all costs associated the privilege of officiating basketball games.

Yes, Oregon does charge us. It is something like $3 every 2-3 years...they don't require one every year.

And it isn't a privilege, it is a job requirement. Many jobs have requirements...degrees, licenses, certifications, dues, etc. And then, you get a level of pay that is associated with meeting the requirements. Cut out some requirements and you get a lower pay.

From the state's Athletic Officials Handbook...

54. Officials – Background Checks
A. All officials who wish to be certified by the OSAA shall submit to a criminal conviction history screening that will determine whether they have engaged in any Prohibited Conduct. Any denial of certification as a result of this screening may be waived or modified by the OSAA Executive Board in individual cases if it determines in its sole discretion that there exist circumstances justifying such a waiver or modification.
B. Cost of this background check shall be included in the cost of certification for the official. (Revised Fall 2006)

And who pays is really irrelevant, becasue, in the end end, it is all the same. The schools are just going to look at the total bill when they consider how much they can afford for officials. They don't really care whether that money is going to game fees, travel, or a background check. If they cover the background check, they're going to fight for lower game fees or travel. It really doesn't change anything.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes, Oregon does charge us. It is something like $3 every 2-3 years...they don't require one every year.

And it isn't a privilege, it is a job requirement. Many jobs have requirements...degrees, licenses, certifications, dues, etc. And then, you get a level of pay that is associated with meeting the requirements. Cut out some requirements and you get a lower pay.

From the state's Athletic Officials Handbook...


And who pays is really irrelevant, becasue, in the end end, it is all the same. The schools are just going to look at the total bill when they consider how much they can afford for officials. They don't really care whether that money is going to game fees, travel, or a background check. If they cover the background check, they're going to fight for lower game fees or travel. It really doesn't change anything.

Are coaches required to directly pay for their background checks? Teachers?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Are coaches required to directly pay for their background checks? Teachers?

I googled random states - all of them I checked (I stopped after 7, as a good statistician would) do require background checks for teachers (which includes coaches) and 6 of the 7 had the school paying.