PROPOSED POLICY AMENDMENTS
Amendment No. 1
Amendment of the Policy and Procedure Manual
May be amended or repealed by a simple majority vote of the active members in good standing present at any business meeting of the DFOA duly called and regularly held, notice of such proposed changes having been presented in writing to the active members at least thirty (30) days before such meeting. No proxies will be accepted. Voting may also be by electronic means on the Internet using a system that can track individual votes to prevent multiple votes from an individual. If this method is used, a majority of the membership must participate and a majority of those voting will determine the outcome. Internet voting will be open for a minimum of five days.
Amendment No 2
Meeting Attendance Requirement. Each member of the DFOA must attend five (5) meetings throughout the season in addition to attending a Master Clinic at least once in the last two (2) years to become playoff eligible. A member must attend at least three (3) meetings per season,
and must have attended the Master Clinic once in the last two (2) years,to remain varsity eligible. First-year officials must attend three (3) DFOA meetings during a current season to progress to a second-year official; if not, the official will remain in a “rookie” status. No exceptions are allowed for meeting attendance. Working a “zero week” scrimmage will count toward one (1) DFOA meeting credit. Studying for the NFHS test with crew mates will count as one (1) DFOA meeting credit.
Amendment No 3
Evaluations and the resulting ratings will be used for future game assignments and playoff considerations. Because of the importance of these ratings in an official’s selection for important games and post season assignments, they should not and cannot be taken lightly. The evaluation system will involve two areas of evaluations: Crew Chief Evaluations and Director Evaluations. Evaluation scores and comments will be made available to the evaluated official throughout the season. The evaluations will be used as a primary category to determine if an individual is eligible for post season games. These evaluations in addition to the list of restrictions listed under Playoff Assignment Considerations will determine who will be nominated for playoff assignments.
Crew Chief Evaluations
He/she will provide a separate evaluation of each of his varsity members for a game in which he observed rather than participated. The evaluation will be provided in the form provided by the directors prior to the beginning of the season. If possible, the evaluation process will be available on the association web site. If not, they will be submitted to the director assigned the duty of Evaluations at the next scheduled general meeting. They can also be submitted via mail to the Evaluations director. No game fee or mileage will be given, although a stipend as determined by the Area Directors at the beginning of each season
of $10 may be provided requested by to those evaluating a game. Requests forTotal stipends shall not exceed $100 in any given year.
Amendment No 4
Play-off Assignment Considerations
Qualifications for playoffs:
Have officiated a minimum of
ten (10) eight (8) varsity games during the year.
Be a member in good standing.
Have paid all of their annual organizational financial responsibilities on time.
Have an acceptable attendance record as prescribed in the meeting attendance requirements.
Have documented proof (check stub, assignor note) of officiating three (3) lower level high school football games.
Any official declining a playoff game will not be eligible for another post season game for the reminder of the current playoff season and the following year.
The Master Clinic requirement of one in two years was historically a requirement for playoffs at the end of that regular season. The way this requirement was placed into the Policies has created difficulties within our duties as Area Directors and also has had an impact on the Assignors. Many veteran officials I have spoken to were unaware of the requirement until it impacted them or a fellow official. I do not want this to appear that I or we as Area Directors are “lowering the bar” of our Officials Association but this requirement doesn’t fit well with our membership cycle and seasonal flow. Such as - an official that accepted a full schedule and unfortunately missed the Master Clinic a second time or may have been unaware of the requirement assuming they were only going to lose playoff assignment but as a result DFOA loses a good official for the season and it creates a difficult void to fill for the Assignors.
When I became an Area Director two years ago and read the Policy and Procedures for the first time I was very surprised by this requirement so I believe other officials when they tell me they were unaware of it.
I still believe the Master Clinic as a requirement for Playoffs is a good one. I also believe if you are committed to working high school football you should make it a priority to attend the Master Clinic and go above and beyond the minimum requirements.
If the Membership votes down this Amendment and leaves it as a requirement - I as an Area Director will enforce it accordingly. But be aware that our members that reside on the fringe of our Association could theoretically work a varsity schedule in a neighboring association after we take away their schedule in the metro area because this is not a statewide requirement for varsity eligibility
I support the reduction of the number of games required for playoffs because the DFOA needs all good officials available on week 10 for the playoff game workload. I feel that eight games is almost one per week and most of the other areas around the state only work one night each week. In my opinion eight games shows the commitment necessary to high school football and gives the Area Directors more options during the first couple rounds of playoffs to put the right officials on the field. It should also be noted that eight games does not guarantee a playoff game.
Amendment 2, which removes the requirement of attendance at a master clinic to be varsity eligible.
I believe that the master clinic can be of benefit, and requiring attendance every other year should not be considered a burden. I also believe that it should continue as a prerequisite as long as it is a requirement for playoff eligibility. I don’t understand what is the objection to the master clinic, unless it is simply laziness on the part of some individuals. I agree that it could be better, but I think it has been better the past two years, and I am sure that the state officers would listen if suggestions to make it better were offered. We should strive to make ourselves better officials in every way, and I believe the master clinic has something to offer everyone.
Amendment 4, which lowers the minimum number of games from 10 to 8 to be playoff eligible.
On the surface it would appear that this was proposed by a college official who could not meet the 10-meeting requirement, or could have but simply failed to do so – don’t know if that is true or not. In any case, I don’t think that the standard should be lowered. Is someone who officiates 8 games just as qualified to work playoffs as someone who officiates 10 games? I’ll let you answer that for yourself, but in my opinion the answer is “no”. I think if you are qualified in every other way, the more games you officiate makes you more qualified to work in the playoffs. Instead of lowering the standards, we should raise them; at a minimum, I think they should remain the same.
In summary, I don’t feel that we should lower our standards simply to placate a very small percentage of members of our association. The desire to officiate high school football should include not only knowledge of the rules and mechanics, but the desire to improve and participate in clinics and meetings.
As one of the original authors of these policy and procedures I wanted to give some history and my thoughts on the proposed amendments. In the future I would like to see the name of the individual that proposes new amendments and all comments on amendments and meeting summary posted on the website.
Vote no on Amendment number 1 - Amendment one was originally written because of the distrust with past area director and to give the membership control over their votes. This is a membership based organization and voting should be held during one of the monthly meeting where members of the DFOA count the votes, not by area director.
Vote no on Amendment number 2 – Ignorance of policy and procedure manual is the reason this amendment has been submitted. The state rule has always been you need to make at least one master clinic every two years to be playoff eligible. Why would the DFOA minimize this educational meeting and not make the same rule apply to remain varsity eligible.
Vote no on amendment number 3 – This policy was written to stop the area directors from raiding the DFOA funds to pay exorbitant fees for evaluating games. It was not uncommon for members to submit $800 to $1000 invoices for evaluating. They way the amendment is written the area directors could pay $100 for one evaluation.
Vote no on amendment number 4 – 10 games was decided as the minimum games needed to work to be play-off eligible. That works out to one game for 10 weeks. The DFOA needs experienced high school officials working in the playoffs and by working less than 10 that does not show experience or commitment to the DFOA. Saying I cant get 10 games is not realistic there are plenty of games out there as seen by how many second and third year officials that are getting 10 to 15 games.
As our association grows, it will become more and more imperative that move forward in the most efficient manner possible. This is not a question of trusting your AD's, rather its a question of ensuring that we continue to involve as many officials as possible as we make critical decisions.
DFOA along with CHSAA gives all officials more than enough opportunities to make this simple requirement. I do not support but encourage us to work harder to educate that masses on key requirements.
Contrary to what has been said, this amendment was not proposed by a college official, of which I am one. Rather, this has been driven by the 30 to 40 officials, both new and veterans who through no fault of their own, are close to making the required 10 games. Although DFOA has worked hard to be better partners with the assignors, at the end of the day, neither DFOA, our Crew Chiefs, or officials have enough say on the # of varsity games they will get. As an association, our goal should not be how to eliminate or minimize playoff eligible officials, but rather it should be about how to we get the best and most officials an opportunity to work beyond the regular season. This being said, I fully support this amendment.