By Carl Smith
What are the best ways to keep officials from turning back assignments? That issue, and it’s a major one for associations, has multiple facets. It starts with a solid policy set by the board, detailing steps to be taken with an official who is deemed problematic.
Some officials just aren’t good planners. Others think it’s OK to give last-minute notice because they forgot something. A lot of potential problems concern the relational aspect of the assigner and the officials. The board must back the assigner and help him or her do the job, and at the same time focus on what is best for the association and how best to fulfill contracts. The individual officials need to be treated fairly, but not expect any “special” treatment.
What are the actual problems incurred by officials turning back assignments, for whatever reason? Of course, it’s more work for the assigner. It also sets a bad example for other officials, especially new ones. It usually shows selfishness or poor planning on the part of the official, at the very least. It can also involve a lack of integrity on the part of some, and that is the more serious problem that needs to be addressed as soon as it’s noticed. If you get an official turning in games they’ve already accepted, so they can work for another officiating entity for more pay, that issue needs to be addressed promptly.
Here are a couple suggestions on how to handle those situations:
If you get the “poor planners,” assigners should have the latitude to adjust their schedule. Try assigning them lower level games, late games or no games, and see if they get the point. If you feel they’re just disorganized but a good official and a good person, maybe a little extra effort to help them is warranted. Consider it training.
If it’s an integrity issue, that can’t be overlooked. Your advisory board needs to get involved. Our local board has a Disciplinary/Grievance Committee. We don’t have much need for it most times, but in certain situations, you need to use that tool to remedy the situation.
Our committee is made up of a board member (chair), and several officials of different levels. A report is filed by the assigner, detailing the offense. The committee investigates and recommends a course of action. The board then acts on it. Because of the “litigation happy” society we live in, all steps need to be documented.
There are a couple other ways to look at it, depending on the situation. If it’s a newer official being led astray (by “money officials” I call them, only interested in quantity of games and money earned, not the quality of their work), then maybe it can become an education issue. On an individual basis, the assigner can talk to that official and let the official know that’s not a good idea, and it will affect his or her future schedule. If the official likes working with your association, usually the official will apologize and you can move on.
In a rare case, you’ll get an official who is just a problem, no matter what you do. If calls and emails don’t seem to have a positive effect, then the board should handle it. You don’t want to have a situation where the official thinks the assigner has it in for them. That can be a major perception issue and is completely non-productive.
Our association covers scheduling in our early-season classroom sessions and general membership meetings. We try not to assume the new officials know how to schedule properly. It’s all included in our training. We’ve had a pretty low number of repeat offenders over the years, which is a lot easier on the assigner and the board.
The assigner bears the brunt of the burden in those situations. They are responsible to make sure games are covered by qualified officials. The integrity of the assigner must be above reproach. Assigners must be fair and assign games based on the official’s qualifications. Often it is a tough exercise, and not for the faint at heart. Assigners must have a realistic and impartial assessment of all officials.
These assessments include, but are not limited to:
- Are they dependable, on time, at the right place and seldom cause a problem?
- Do they have a job that’s flexible and allows them to fill in on a last-minute cancellation?
- Do they enjoy working with newer officials as a trainer or mentor?
- Are they involved in governing their own association, providing feedback for improvement of the association and the officials involved?
Or, on the flip side:
- Do they have a difficult time making it to assignments on time?
- Are you receiving complaints from leagues/schools about that official?
- Do they “whine” about their schedule?
- Do they talk to other officials about their perceived “poor” schedule, and try to undermine the process?
Those are all items to be taken into consideration for assigning games. If those parameters are discussed with the membership up front, as part of your ongoing training, most of the officials will respect that and try to work within the framework set up. Most officials are solid citizens and like to know what’s required of them and what they need to do to move up.
If an official is a member of that very small “select” group of officials deemed to be “problem children,” don’t waste a lot of time on them. Concentrate on the officials who really want to improve and be the best officials they’re capable of being.
Carl Smith, Anchorage, Alaska, is the treasurer and assigner for the Anchorage Sports Officials Association.
Loading ...
