Any creepy referees in Denver area?

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

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).

[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.

[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 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

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.

[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.

[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...

[Adam]

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.

You completely misread what I wrote. I have no felonies or even misdemeanor convictions. But frankly, I don't want the entire world knowing about my traffic offenses. While they aren't an issue for officiating, they would show up on a background check.

Other things that may show up: credit history, past tax issues, divorce filings, custody filings, etc. None of those things are disqualifying events, so they aren't the public's business: yet I know for a fact they will show up on a background check.

So, again, how comprehensive is a background check going to be? Who reviews it to determine whether I have any disqualifying events? How long does that get stored? Who has access to it while it's stored? How secure is that storage?

Frankly, assuming someone has something to hide simply because they want to safeguard personal information is a bit Orwellian.

[Nevadaref]

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.

Given that the official is an independent contractor, there is no employer who is entitled to conduct a background check. In my area, the officials are also not employees of the local association, so even the association can't do them.
So this is not akin to a plumbing company being hired by the schools to perform work. Yet even if it were, the different companies could decide on their own whether to conduct checks and the schools could then select which company to do business with. Since there is only one association in my area, there is no competitor. Thus the schools can either deal with us or go find officials on their own. They have opted to contract with the association, and since the business is done through a contract, all the officials group has to do is not agree to put a background check provision in the contract.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

Yes...at least I had to pay for both. When they instituted the checks for teachers, I had already had 12 years in the District. They deducted the cost from my check. When I got back into coaching football, I had to pay the $75 dollar fee myself.

Interestingly, it was $75 for the check to be a coach, but only $54 for the check to get a concealed weapons permit.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

I think you have an employee vs contractor issue here. As independent contractors the burden to pay for a background check probably legally falls on us — versus as an employee it would fall on the school / district.

Edited to add...

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Employee vs. independent contractor. We're a vendor to the school...actually several schools.

^^^ Yeah. This.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Brad

I think you have an employee vs contractor issue here. As independent contractors the burden to pay for a background check probably legally falls on us — versus as an employee it would fall on the school / district.

Edited to add...



^^^ Yeah. This.

Actually, I work as a teacher. I had to pay for my own background checks.