RADIUS TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT SCHEDULE (UIL)

[TexDoc]

Is this the current 1204 mileage reimbursement schedule, or is this proposed for 2017?

MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT.
(1) Officials shall be paid travel reimbursement according to the RADIUS TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT
SCHEDULE.
SUBJECT TO THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED BELOW, OFFICIALS SHALL BE PAID A FLAT RATE
BASED ON THE RADIUS (ONE-WAY DISTANCE) FROM THE GEOGRAPHIC CENTER POINT, AS
DETERMINED BY THE UIL, OF A LOCAL CHAPTER’S SERVICE AREA TO THE SITE OF THE
CONTEST AS FOLLOWS:
30 MILE RADIUS- $18
50 MILE RADIUS- $30
70 MILE RADIUS- $42
90 MILE RADIUS- $54
110 MILE RADIUS- $66
130 MILE RADIUS- $78
150 MILE RADIUS- $90
(A) The UIL will determine the online mapping service to be used in making distance and other
determinations for the metro RADIUS travel reimbursement plan.
(B) Portal to portal REIMBURSEMENT-
(i) WHEN THE SITE OF A CONTEST IS OUTSIDE THE 150 MILE RADIUS FROM
THE CENTER POINT OF THE LOCAL CHAPTER PROVIDING OFFICIALS FOR THE
CONTEST, officials shall be reimbursed FOR ROUND TRIP MILEAGE
FROM THE OFFICIALS HOME ADDRESS TO THE SITE OF THE CONTEST.
(ii) SCHOOLS SHALL REIMBURSE one car at the state rate (SEE BELOW), two cars at
75% of the state rate, or three cars at 60% of the state rate. A MAXIMIUM OF THREE
CARS SHALL BE PAID.
(iii) A $30 riders fee will only be paid to officials WHO DO NOT DRIVE WHEN TWO OR
FEWER CARS ARE PAID.
Consult the UIL website or the sport specific coaches manual for more details.
(2) Officials shall be paid based on the state mileage reimbursement rate in effect on August 1 of the current
school year.
(3) By prior agreement between officials and school authorities, airfare may be substituted for automobile
mileage fee.

[TexDoc]

Concerning this table below, is this to be paid to each official? 

30 MILE RADIUS- $18
50 MILE RADIUS- $30
70 MILE RADIUS- $42
90 MILE RADIUS- $54
110 MILE RADIUS- $66
130 MILE RADIUS- $78
150 MILE RADIUS- $90

[mishatx]

That's the way it reads to me.

[hefnerjm]

Any clarification if this is current or proposed for 2017?
I think our map will need a lot more rings.

[TexDoc]

I was told it was proposed for this year but didn't pass.  It shown in two places on our chapter web site, so it should be removed since it is not valid.

[copedaddy]

Current milage reimbursement schedule can be found on page 155 of the 2016 Constitution and
Contest Rules of the UIL. It is the 30/$15 and 40/$18. And yes it is wrong in both the SA book and website. I brouhgt this up with some board members and just got an "oh well".
I guess that everyone (TASO, UIL and Chapters) feel that some confusion is better than no confusion at all.

[copedaddy]

My bad, looking at wrong version. It is on page 120 of the 2016/17 version.

[JasonTX]

I know every chapter is different and this proposal has had lots of discussion by a lot of the smaller chapters.  The majority of our members live outside of the 50-70 mile ring.  We are traveling towards the center and not away from it.  So by going into the center those guys would only get $18 whereas if someone lives in the center and traveled out to the 50 mile ring they would get $30.  In a lot of cases we have guys who live on the outer edge of the ring and travel clear across to the opposite side of the ring.  If this passes we will lose members.

[ETXZebra]

I live 60+ miles south from the center of our chapter area. Most of my games are 40-80 miles north of the center. I'll get totally ripped off with this plan as will many of our members. The rural chapters in the state need to make a stand against this.

[texref (TX)]

I live 60+ miles south from the center of our chapter area. Most of my games are 40-80 miles north of the center. I'll get totally ripped off with this plan as will many of our members. The rural chapters in the state need to make a stand against this.
[/quote

That is the reason this proposal did not pass. It was extremely unfair to the officials. In the Panhandle, if an official traveled from Perryton to call a game in in Canyon, the official would have received $18.00 for a 240 mile trip.

[blindref757]

They rejected this last year right before baseball season.  The UIL sent out some surveys to chapter leaders and as a result, they listened and rescinded the mileage proposal.  I was under the impression that chapters who had been using the metro plan were going to continue doing so.

[TexDoc]

I'm fine with the current pay schedule, metro plan.  I live 50 miles to the east of the center of our metro area and work a lot of games in our metro are, so I get $15 per game.  Those times I have to travel to schools outside the 40 mile ring, I typically drive with one other official and we wing up charging two mileages since we don't pass through the metro area on our way to those games typically.  It balances out over the course of the season. 

A really big issue is that there aren't a whole lot of guys that have vehicles that can hold 5 or more people.  That leaves us little choice but to take two vehicles.  It costs the schools a little more, but if they want our services, that's the cost.  They should know that by now and work it into their budgets.

[Coby]

Lets go over (AGAIN) what is local controlled in a HS Football game and what is State controlled:

Local Control:  Ticket Taker Pay, Police Pay, EMT Pay, Grounds Keeper Pay, Concession Worker Pay, Trainer Pay, Coach Pay, AD Pay.

State Control:  Referee Pay

If the districts are under such hard financial restraints why does the UIL not control the pay rate for all of these other people?  We are skilled labor and need to be treated as such.  They do not negotiate and strong arm prices for Helmets or electricians but we let them treat us like crap.

Supply and Demand does not lie and the ugly truth (lack of officials) is about to rear its ugly head.

[DallasLJ]

Lets go over (AGAIN) what is local controlled in a HS Football game and what is State controlled:

Local Control:  Ticket Taker Pay, Police Pay, EMT Pay, Grounds Keeper Pay, Concession Worker Pay, Trainer Pay, Coach Pay, AD Pay.

State Control:  Referee Pay

If the districts are under such hard financial restraints why does the UIL not control the pay rate for all of these other people?  We are skilled labor and need to be treated as such.  They do not negotiate and strong arm prices for Helmets or electricians but we let them treat us like crap.

Supply and Demand does not lie and the ugly truth (lack of officials) is about to rear its ugly head.

  Let me make sure I understand you "free market position" Coby.  Are you advocating that the Houston Chapter set a price for every game it deploys and official for and San Antonio can set a rate and Dallas etc etc etc and the schools in your coverage area can take it or leave it?  That is if Houston ISD will not pay the prevailing rice that the Houston chapter sets -- then other chapters (East Texas for example) could offer to cover those games for a lesser fee.

  Or

  Are you really advocating that within the Houston Chapter that each crew is able to establish is own billing rate for a game.  So you would go into your Houston Draft having declared that your 7 man crew will only work games if the schools agree to pay a minimum of $1,500, and Houston Ref#2 lists his crew price at $700 a game and then let the schools have at it; and over time you may have to adjust your price point relative to your peers within your own chapter.

[TexDoc]

The greatest problem with the "free market" approach is this, have you ever met a coach who give any thought at all to his budget?  If it comes to winning (using the chapter he thinks is best or will help him win) compared to who costs the least, guess which he goes with, even at 4X the cost?    I've never met a coach who gives a flying fart about how much money he spends.

[Coby]

Both Really:

Ideally what should happen in my opinion is in February each chapter send out a questionnaire to the athletic directors and say, "What is your pay rate for subvarsity games, what is your pay rate for JrHi games".  District A may say they are going to pay $75 per subvarsity game and $60 per Jr Hi game.  District G may say they are going to pay $50 per subvarsity and $50 per jr hi.  Whatever is best for their local area and how they value athletics. Then we as a chapter compile the pay rates and make that information available to the independent contractors in the area (TASO officials).  Just like with coaches salaries and stipends if District A pays more then District B then that is a decision they make.


A reverse auction system would also work for Varsity games.  As I have said before it will happen in the next 20 years due to a complete lack of officials.  If Temple is playing Copperas Cove and they want a top notch crew and do not believe there is one in their area they can both agree too.  I see a scenario where they bid $3500 for a 7 person crew, 3 Chain Officials, and 2 Clock Operators Out of SA, Dallas, Houston, wherever to call their game.  If DeSoto is playing Allen in a non district match up or Katy is playing North Shore they will want to lock up a best crew available and there needs to be a mechanism in place for them to do that.

[Coby]

The greatest problem with the "free market" approach is this, have you ever met a coach who give any thought at all to his budget?  If it comes to winning (using the chapter he thinks is best or will help him win) compared to who costs the least, guess which he goes with, even at 4X the cost?    I've never met a coach who gives a flying fart about how much money he spends.

Great that is all local control decisions.  If the district wants a free spending coach then they can have one.  That is their local control decision.  Just like paying cops $40 an hour or ticket takers $10.50 an hour.  All LOCAL DECISIONS.  If a school wants to pay officials $100 a JV game that is their local decision.  It has nothing to do with the State/UIL.

[Joe Stack]

We don't have to have all chapters set their own rate nor do we have to have any auction system. We just need to get UIL out of setting OUR rates. If TASO did it, that would be fine with me. However, I'd like each local chapter to be able to set their own subvarsity rates and remove any provision that covering varsity games automatically includes covering subvarsity. Now, some chapters may balk at covering SV when they don't cover V games of certain schools, but that's completely up to their discretion. There may be instances where a chapter who doesn't cover schools that are well inside their "area" would pick up SV assignments so their members don't have to travel very far.

Add to that a "network" or "sub-chapter" system that chapter members can join without dues -- or with reduced dues. These sub-chapters can allow a group of officials who don't want to pay dual chapter dues but are willing to cover games in a region that might be covered by 2 or more chapters to do so. For example, take an area of the Red River between, say, Gainesville and Paris. I know at least 3 chapters cover that area, but a TASO member in Sherman can easily get to games in Gainesville or Paris about as easily as they can get to Frisco -- where many of them now work. They can certainly get to all points in between a lot easier.

Coby's right: we can't keep doing things the way we've always been doing. I don't necessarily agree with his solution (just like he may not like mine), but those who are defending the status quo aren't getting the message.

[Coby]

We don't have to have all chapters set their own rate nor do we have to have any auction system. We just need to get UIL out of setting OUR rates. If TASO did it, that would be fine with me. However, I'd like each local chapter to be able to set their own subvarsity rates and remove any provision that covering varsity games automatically includes covering subvarsity. Now, some chapters may balk at covering SV when they don't cover V games of certain schools, but that's completely up to their discretion. There may be instances where a chapter who doesn't cover schools that are well inside their "area" would pick up SV assignments so their members don't have to travel very far.

Add to that a "network" or "sub-chapter" system that chapter members can join without dues -- or with reduced dues. These sub-chapters can allow a group of officials who don't want to pay dual chapter dues but are willing to cover games in a region that might be covered by 2 or more chapters to do so. For example, take an area of the Red River between, say, Gainesville and Paris. I know at least 3 chapters cover that area, but a TASO member in Sherman can easily get to games in Gainesville or Paris about as easily as they can get to Frisco -- where many of them now work. They can certainly get to all points in between a lot easier.

Coby's right: we can't keep doing things the way we've always been doing. I don't necessarily agree with his solution (just like he may not like mine), but those who are defending the status quo aren't getting the message.

Very well said.  I have no idea what the specifics are for SV coverage in the smaller chapters.  It does make sense to work together to cover subvarsity.... I am also sick of us doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.  For instance saying, " we just need to recruit more people, go to YMCA's and local gyms and pass out flyers".  It is the same message every time.  The person in charge of it just thinks they are better then his previous 15 predecessors on recruiting people and this time it is going to work.  I dont know if raising the subvarsity pay is going to increase the retention and recruitment rates of officials.  I do know that it is one of the FEW variables we have not adjusted to look at the results of a change.

[backjudge85]

There seems to be some misconception here about WHO sets the rates.  From being part of the process, it certainly isn't the UIL.  It is the Legislative Council made up of 32 school superintendents from Class 6A to Class 1A from each region of the state.  They take input from the Standing Committee on Athletics (part of the Legislative Council) and from the Sports Officials Committee.  So, Coby, in a sense it is still LOCAL Control to an extent.  NO WHERE in this great state is a school district going to pay $100 for a SV game, however they may pay a flat fee of 70.00 per game (travel already included in that number).  The only non-misconception here is that we are independent contractors and as officials, you can make a choice as to where you will or will not work or travel too.  I have been to the last 8 Legislative Council Meetings.  They meet in June and October.  Except for Mike Fitch, I have yet to see another football official there.  I have seen the Baseball Past President at several but that is it.  This past meeting this weekend, there was a member of the TASO Basketball BOD there.  It was good to see them.

A proposal is being worked up that for the time being looks to be fairly equitable for all.  It is still being vetted but could very well be presented to the council next June and for sure by next October.  A survey is being sent out to every superintendent in the state for their input.  The problem isnt in the metro areas (Houston, DFW, San Antonio, and Austin), or at least not as bad as it is for the schools east and west of the I-35 corridor.  That is what they are trying to work out and come to fair compensation plan with.  Until then, you have a choice.  We all do.  For those of us that have been around for a while, we werent in it to get rich and yes I know the argument, we didnt get in it to lose money either.  I get that.  However, let the process work and let's see what comes from it.  Then at the end of the day, you can decide whether you want to continue in this fine avocation or hang up your uniform.

[TexDoc]

Flat fee concept will not work for my particular area.  We have several 6A/5A schools on the Mexico border that are 300+ miles round trip.  We have smaller schools that are almost as far.  I scratched all of these before our picks because I'm another hour away, to the east, so the travel time for me is just unreasonable for a regular season game.  At the picks, I got picked for one of the border school games and they didn't catch it until they went to enter the game, and by then, all of the picks for that round were done.  That's an internal problem, but one that needs to be caught. 

Getting back to the flat fee, to include mileage, we will have a whole slew of guys scratching those schools if they go this route.  There is nothing wrong with the current process for us, metro / non-metro outside 40 miles.  When I work the border schools, I get paid from my house to the game site, not from the center of my metro area.  That's the way it should work.

Talking about the Legislative Council setting the rules, they essentially are a rubber stamp for the UIL.  Also, those sups do not want their expenses for athletics to go up any more, they have to find funds to pay  head coaches $125K+.  I really don't ever want to hear schools complaining about having to pay officials a fair rate and mileage when their coaching staffs have doubled and pay is so incredibly high for coaches.  There is a clear conflict of interest in sups setting the pay for officials. 

[JasonTX]

Around my neck of the woods I often hear, "We'd pay you guys more if the UIL would let us."   

[TXPanhandle]

Going to go ahead and chime in here. It's my understanding a proposal was submitted where schools pay a flat fee per official (significantly more amount) that includes mileage reimbursement. Have not heard the results of that proposal from the legislative council. However, if not passed, the discussion has already taken place to notify a specific list of schools in our coverage area we will no longer provide them officials starting next season. That list is comprised of schools where officials make around or less than minimum wage to cover, including travel time. It comes out to about 7 schools.  If/when this occurs it alleviates our shortage of officials by cutting back on 4-5 games per week and ability to send more qualified officials each week and possibly not sending rookies.  I feel bad for those schools that will be affected but it is what it is at this point.

[Coby]

There seems to be some misconception here about WHO sets the rates.  From being part of the process, it certainly isn't the UIL.  It is the Legislative Council made up of 32 school superintendents from Class 6A to Class 1A from each region of the state.  They take input from the Standing Committee on Athletics (part of the Legislative Council) and from the Sports Officials Committee.  So, Coby, in a sense it is still LOCAL Control to an extent.  NO WHERE in this great state is a school district going to pay $100 for a SV game, however they may pay a flat fee of 70.00 per game (travel already included in that number).  The only non-misconception here is that we are independent contractors and as officials, you can make a choice as to where you will or will not work or travel too.  I have been to the last 8 Legislative Council Meetings.  They meet in June and October.  Except for Mike Fitch, I have yet to see another football official there.  I have seen the Baseball Past President at several but that is it.  This past meeting this weekend, there was a member of the TASO Basketball BOD there.  It was good to see them.

A proposal is being worked up that for the time being looks to be fairly equitable for all.  It is still being vetted but could very well be presented to the council next June and for sure by next October.  A survey is being sent out to every superintendent in the state for their input.  The problem isnt in the metro areas (Houston, DFW, San Antonio, and Austin), or at least not as bad as it is for the schools east and west of the I-35 corridor.  That is what they are trying to work out and come to fair compensation plan with.  Until then, you have a choice.  We all do.  For those of us that have been around for a while, we werent in it to get rich and yes I know the argument, we didnt get in it to lose money either.  I get that.  However, let the process work and let's see what comes from it.  Then at the end of the day, you can decide whether you want to continue in this fine avocation or hang up your uniform.

Does the Legislative Council set the compensation rates for Cops/ticket takers/team Dr's/EMT's/Coaches/AD's?  The answer is No.  The only thing involving football they set the pay for is officials.  This in and of itself should upset every TASO member out there.  Why is our avocation the only one where the free market economy not come into play?  For the most part the police officers on duty are getting extra compensation to be there.  If the school districts value their contribution then they will pay the same rate as the skating rink in town that has a cop on duty as well.  If not then they will not have coverage and deal with the fallout if something happens.  Their choice.

I am not saying that a free market system is the answer to the referee shortage.  What I am saying is that we have tried adjusting every other variable out there.  Let's try the pay route and see if that helps the problem.

At some point TASO has to realize that what we are doing is not working so we need to stop doing the things we have been doing if we want different results.  Just like the cops/Dr's/ and coaches want Market compensation for their avocation that is what we want as well.  This can only be done at the local level.

[Joe Stack]

it certainly isn't the UIL.  It is the Legislative Council made up of 32 school superintendents from Class 6A to Class 1A from each region of the state.

This is a distinction without a real difference. Perhaps the language and references I and others used was lazy and imprecise, but is it really inaccurate? Even if so, it certainly isn't dishonest nor is it meant to be that way. I'm more than willing to concede any fact I was mistaken on, but such a concession doesn't move the needle anywhere.

In terms of "you can take it or leave it," I think we all know that. I have chosen to serve on boards without compensation when I'm in a profession that can bill out hundreds of dollars an hour and collect a substantial portion of that. Not to mention that I have another hobby that I could spend 25 or more hours a week on and feel good about. I've proven to myself, if no one else, that I'm not in this for the money. But that in and of itself doesn't fix the problem. Our service is weakening because quality officials are leaving, including those leaving over pay issues. And the kicker is that the people that are actually paying the bill are (mostly) more than willing to pony up.

Other than that, I agree with every word Coby wrote.

Incidentally, what would happen if a chapter voted not to accept games unless school districts met their pay demands -- and stood by that?