"When during a game, Roberto Alomar of the Baltimore Orioles spit in the face of umpire John Hirshbeck, America was outraged. In the two years since that incident, the pace of assaults against sports officials has quickened, especially at the recreational and youth levels.
     Today the health of our games is being attacked by the cancer of bad behavior, much of it occurring in full view of our young people who participate in organized sports. We must do something to send a clear signal that such behavior will not be tolerated and we need to do so for two reasons.
     First, the men, women, boys and girls who give their time and energy to officiate not only deserve our collective respect, they must have complete confidence that they will be able to carry out their responsibilities in a safe environment. Without this confidence, we will lose the "best and brightest" in our field.
     Second, as a society we need to act on our belief that respect for authority, whether you agree with it or not, is critical to living, working and playing together. Sports needs to be a beacon, highlighting positive accomplishments and the need for sportsmanship and fair play.
     While education of the public about these vital matters continues to be important, recent events point out the need for strong sanctions against those who engage in bad behavior at sporting events."
     -Barry Mano, NASO President

     Sadly, there has been a disturbing increase in the number of reported assaults and lawsuits against the men and women who officiate our games today. Many of these people either volunteer their time or officiate for minimal pay. In most cases, attacks occur from overzealous fans, players or coaches who have lost perspective of what the games are about and have emotionally decided to "take matters into their own hands." Often times, no security exists and officials are placed in a dangerous situation because they must maintain a calm demeanor that protects the integrity of the sport, the organization that utilizes their services and the profession itself. Vulnerable may be an understatement.
     At many youth, recreational and high school events no security measures are provided at all. It is at these events where officials are most vulnerable. It is at these events where emotions can become so intense that physical attacks include using bats, chairs, tire irons and even guns.
     Sports officials are conditioned to take the verbal abuse. Most officials will "tune out" the aggressively verbal fan. In all cases, such behavior by players and coaches can be handled through the rules of the game. However, physical abuse crosses the line. When someone charges an official with an intent to cause bodily harm, then prosecution must be a recourse. Otherwise, you are declaring open season on all sports officials.
     If the behavior of those who cross the line goes unpunished, then the number of officials working such events will continue to decline. Many officials now wonder if it is worth it. We believe the answer is still "Yes" because sports needs the impartiality of the official. Our community youth programs and high schools need officials to ensure that events are conducted safely and fair.

LIMITED LIABILITY

     Limited-liability is another complex legal issue facing sports officials today. In  today's litigious society, it is important to learn and understand how courts either protect or distance themselves from our colleagues in each state.
     On the federal level, Congress in 1997 passed legislation designed to protect volunteers of nonprofit organizations from legal liability in the performance of services for a nonprofit organization. The law removes volunteers from liability caused by an act or omission of the volunteer on behalf of the organization.  The law does not protect volunteers if the act or omission was caused by willful or criminal misconduct, gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or a flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of the individual harmed. Further, it does not remove the organization from legal liability in negligence lawsuits.
     The Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 preempts any inconsistent state law on this matter. However, states may provide additional protection from liability relating to volunteers. States can also require nonprofit organizations to adhere to risk management procedures, including formal training of volunteers. Further, states can add provisions that would limit applicability of the law.
     A nonprofit organization is defined as "any organization described in Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; or, any not-for-profit organization organized primarily for charitable, civic, educational, religious, welfare, or health purposes." The Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives noted that this definition applies to volunteers working on behalf of trade and professional associations exempt from taxes under IRS Section 501 (c)(6), such as sports officials associations.
     The law defines "volunteer" as an individual performing services for a nonprofit organization who does not receive "compensation" (other than reasonable reimbursement or allowance for expenses actually incurred) or anything of value in lieu of compensation, in excess of $500 per year. The definition applies to a volunteer director, officer, trustee or someone in direct line of service.
     While most NASO members are officials working for pay at some level, those working as volunteers fall under this liability protection legislation. It is critical to note that once you are paid for services, you are no longer a volunteer and this law is not applicable to your circumstances. For that reason, NASO continues to support limited-liability legislation for paid sports officials that is similar to the federal legislation at the state level.

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS

     
     While NASO has taken no formal position on this issue, it is acknowledged that it is a great concern of many officials. This issue was covered extensively in the January, 1998 issue of Referee magazine. "The Fight For Independence," authored by David Knopf takes an in-depth look at the efforts in California to resolve the issue.
     Many states have yet to resolve the issue of amateur sports officials' employment status. Though it is fairly safe to assume yourself to be an independent contractor if you live in any of those states, there is no binding legal precedence for your status.
     The argument for federal legislation classifying amateur sports officials as independent contractors is persuasive to many. Proponents emphasize that we are not talking about officials of professional sports contests, rather we are talking about the many people who work on a per game basis with organizations sponsoring events ranging from third grade CYO softball to the NCAA basketball finals.
     Under federal law every employer must pay social security taxes, deduct employee taxes, and pay unemployment taxes. However, employers retaining the services of independent contractors do not have to pay these taxes as independent contractors are not employees for federal tax purposes.
     There are compelling reasons to classify amateur sports officials as independent contractors according to proponents. Amateur sports officials have no daily nexus with the schools, leagues, teams and sports governing bodies whose games they officiate. Amateur sports officials believe they are and have always conducted themselves as independent contractors. They buy their own equipment, form associations in order to train themselves, insure themselves, work for multiple employers - they even work for multiple sports governing bodies - and their only interaction with a paying client is to perform a special service which requires their special skill.
     Even though amateur sports officials are required to wear special uniforms, meet criteria set out by sports governing bodies and comply with the conduct codes set in their rule books none of the schools, governing bodies or other entities which employ them may assume control of the means by which an amateur sports official conducts his or her work of enforcing compliance with the rules of a game. Further, even though an amateur sports official frequently receives his or her work/game assignments from the assigning association, he or she is free to select when, where and how often he or she will work. There are certainly no situations where anyone has the right to fire an amateur sports official. It is of particular importance that the officials believe themselves to be independent contractors.
     Further, proponents claim the law is on the side of the amateur sports officials. While there is no federal law on the employment status of amateur sports officials for tax purposes, federal courts have considered the above facts to be a strong indicia of independent contractor status in other industries. Additionally, eight state courts have published opinions on this issue. All have held amateur sports officials to be independent contractors for employment tax purposes. There are no published opinions holding an amateur sports officials to be an employee of a team, league, sports officials association or sports governing body.
     Unfortunately, state tax agencies in states lacking a published opinion as well as the IRS have taken aggressive steps to assess employment taxes against the schools, teams, leagues, officials associations and sports governing bodies which pay amateur sports officials. This leads to extensive and expensive litigation. Often, smaller organizations cannot afford this litigation and simply settle - losing money even though the law favors them.
     In California, the state Employment Development Department (EDD) assessed more than $200,000 in back employment taxes against a governing body responsible for running high school sports in the northern part of the state. The EDD also went after small (less than 30 members) sports officials associations and even a men's senior baseball league. These organizations all paid sports officials as independent contractors rather than paying them as employees and withholding their worker's compensation and unemployment taxes.
     Proponents state that, "if ever there were an area of law where it is clear that the tax agencies are wrong it is this one." Each dollar spent fighting this issue is a dollar that should be spent conducting sports contests and creating participation opportunities. The implications could be devastating to the officiating community otherwise. For example, if school systems begin to consider all officials as employees, the schools could become financially burdened with back taxes and employee benefits, ultimately leading to less money being acquisitioned for scholastic sports programs. The net effect would be fewer games played. This would also lead to reduced opportunities to officiate. It's entirely possible that recreational and church leagues would be unable to employ officials who might become forced to work on a volunteer basis if they want to work at all.
     On the other hand, if amateur officials are determined to be employees they would be able to unionize and fight for benefits. They would be covered for worker's compensation and would be safer from liability in the event of a lawsuit.