AWSA Driver Background check?

[Razorskier1]

I'd like a background check on OB please . . . and MS while we're at it!

[Ilivetoski]

There is WAY to much red tape in a sport that needs as little restrictons as we can have to keep the sport going! Cmon AWSA lighten up if you want us to survive!

[MattP]

@razorskier1 I think @OB would pass one, he passes them for the federal government all the time... as for @MS yeah right he will never pass

[jcamp]

It would be good to know what is driving the increase in tournament regulations. Is it insurance company driven as these possible driver background checks seem to be? Or is it the desire to make sure that nobody cheats the system, that scores are relative across sites, regions, etc., etc? I don't see how much can be done if it is the former, but something could be done about the latter if members as a group say they don't care about that a whole lot.

[MattP]

@OB well i'm glad you did not kill me!

[dave2ball]

I have been in the sport for many years and I have never seen an official drink while an event is going on. Now I have never ask for a breathalyzer but for the most part I believe everybody takes driving very seriously given the consequences. To have a volunteer pay for a background on him/herself is stupid. Maybe it is time to have the 3 event division move on to be it's own governing body. Or here is a thought how about the INT league? They know how to have fun at there tournaments. If all the drivers told USA to pound salt and refuse to do a background check what are they going to do???? An AWSA event needs drivers Who holds the power? If this goes through the drivers need to band together and say no.

[Steven_Haines]

Mueller has the right idea! We need to get in front of as many people as we can!

[Mateo_Vargas]

Occupy Polk City? Sounds fun.

[Razorskier1]

I don't know if I can do Occupy justice -- I'd need to spend a few weeks without a shower and buy some weed if I expect to fit in ;-)

[Razorskier1]

@OB I will never ask again!

[Dusty]

Geez. If true- This was the reason I communicated to AWSA that I will not continue my coach rating (I know, no big loss.) Here are my thoughts about this rule change. There needs to be some real thought about unintended consequences- like MORE officials getting fed up and leaving the sport.

 

Rant follows.

 

1) Who's going to do the checks? Local agencies? If not, I can guarantee AWSA they will not be receiving current best criminal records checks. ONLY law enforcement agencies can access the files in NCIC (National Criminal Information Center) run by DOJ and FBI.

2) Some of that information in NCIC is ambiguous, and incorrect. Have any readers here ever been temporarily denied purchasing a firearm, via an NICS "hit"? I have, and I'm a cop.

3) What will be a disqualifying 'conviction'? It is possible to have rights restored, and records cleared/purged for some offenses. Someone convicted of trespass for example? Any convicted cow tippers out there?... Can the AWSA actually say that someone like that may not be a competent driver? Where is the relevancy? (Oops- My bad, I used AWSA rules and relevancy in the same paragraph. Sorry)

4) I've been a cop for nearly 26 years. My agency insures I don't have a criminal record. So i need to pay them to tell AWSA I'm not going to steal the tournament boat or what? Really. Law enforcement has a lot of better things to do than run criminal records checks on rated drivers. I am certain there will be a WTF or two uttered.

5) The BOD needs a dose of real. To me this is another knee-jerk, misconceived, irrelevant, indeed asinine, (proposed) rule change.

6) Lastly- I have a suspicion this may actually be driven indirectly,by the IOC. They are apparently behind the coach criminal check issues. If so- again, the tail is wagging the dog.

 

I received an e-mail not long ago prompting me to renew my membership. I need to pay them $80 a year to come up with this stuff?

To the BOD- I do understand the carrot and stick approach- can we please try not so much stick?

 

End of rant for now.

 

Dusty

 

 

[ForrestGump]

Wait..... Are you saying rated coaches are being required to be background checked now?

[Kelvin]

I heard that last night from one of my ski partners that is a Level 3 Instructor.

[ForrestGump]

This is getting ridiculous.

[Bulldog]

Sounds like a lot of BS for nothing.

[Dusty]

So far as I know, the background checks for coaches is a done deal. I wrote an e-mail to headquarters expressing my thoughts and intentions on the issue and received a response. I wish I still had it, but essentially, USAWS is the governing body for waterskiing in the U.S. IWSF or whatever recognizes the organization. IWSF and others around the world are still attempting to get the IOC to adopt waterskiing as an Olympic sport. IOC has the rule, re: coaches because of (a?) molestation incident(s) somewhere.

So- what IOC wants, IWSF wants, thus USAWS wants. Whatever we each think about waterskiing as an Olympic sport- there are folks out there trying to do this on our behalf and WE are paying them to do it. There is money involved. I am not privy to all the mechanations behind the scenes, but I am convinced some people are not trying to do this for purely selfless reasons. In the meantime, our organization is steering us along somewhere we may not all want to go- and we are enabling them by funding it, because right now USAWS has a de facto monopoly on how 3-event happens.

[Jody_Seal]

We have a winner! "Give That Man A Cigar"!

[Chef23]

If it is a CORI check that isn't a big deal. I have had to do it to coach lacrosse and hockey. It is obviously more work on already overwhelmed volunteers that run tournaments but a CORI check isn't that big an issue.

 

That said I can't possibly see water skiing ever being adopted in the Olympics. I think it would be really cool but I don't think it is going to happen.

[MattP]

Background checks for coaches is totally understandable. I get one done for the High/Middle School team I coach for. I do not think it is required for USRowing (could be I can find out) but our club still covers themselves for insurance purposes. ( Rowing is Governed by IOC it is an olympic sport) They do pay for the background checks though. Come to think of it I have never had to pay for the 3 or 4 background checks I have had done over the past few years.

 

I can understand why having the coaches or driver pay for them could be a little upsetting but they are expensive. So lets say USAWS does pay for them for both coaches and drivers. How much would they have to raise dues to cover the cost? Would everyone be ok with paying the increased due rate? There is enough grumbling over this already. Or if a driver does not want to pay for it should we consider that he truly does not have a passion for the sport and only drives because he does the bare minimum to keep his rating? If he loves driving will he still fork over the $40 to get this done if he is not hiding something.

 

All coaches should be Background checked, AED, CPR and swim safety, backboard certified, have driving certifications, ect. More certifications the better, you can never be over prepared for an accident. It comes with the territory. At some sites it is just the coach in the boat let alone the only other person on site. I worked at a ski school this summer and I am glad I had this training. I do not think I would have been as comfortable pulling skiers who I did not know if I did not know what to do if they skied the wrong direction and something went bad during a drop, even though I know how to drive a boat. USAWS should have incentives for those that get these certifications. Cheaper dues, lower insurance rates, promotion by the governing body for your school ect.

 

On a side note just be glad USAWS is not requiring everyone who work at a tournament to be background checked (all judges, officials, scorers)!! I do not see why they don't they have more interaction with the skier than the drivers do.

[ForrestGump]

Matt, It doesn't matter to me if USAWS pays for it or not, they're not getting my automobile driving record. I haven't had a ticket since 1991. Not "haven't got one on my record because I took defensive driving and got it wiped off." But haven't gotten a ticket in 21 years. Here's the key, though....... USAWS doesn't freaking pay me. It would be different if they were paying me a salary, like my company does. I provide a certified copy of my driving record to my company, but in turn they fork over a 6 figure salary. And if you or anyone here wants to say I have something to hide or don't have a passion for this then you can kiss my ass. It's that simple. LIke I said....I won't drive and I will no longer bring a boat if this goes through. And if a tournament doesn't want me to ski because I won't do either of those things, then so be it. I can find plenty of tournaments to go to regardless.

[elr]

AWSA has at least secondary liability for the actions of its drivers or coaches . . . Heck I can't even take my son to a Boy Scout outing without having background checks and training. Background checks and training will be a fact of life for USAWS or a smaller sanctioning organization (e.g. AWSA spin off). They are not doing it because it pleases them - they are doing it because thats what it takes to exist as a sanctioning body these days.

[ForrestGump]

Bob, that's fine and I accept that. That is the crux of it right there, though. Rather than improve safety through educating and improving the quality of its drivers, the sanctioning body chooses the easy way out to simply mitigate its liability. That is a disservice to its skiers.

[Dusty]

Q.) If AWSA has a secondary liability, how come we are having to sign so many "hold harmless" waivers in order to ski? (Seems to me AWSA is trying pretty hard to not be liable.)

I suggest that this records check is not going to be a one time thing- It will be yearly at a minimum... and again, what are disqualifying offenses?

AWSA makes an official rating process at least look like they have conducted due diligence with regard to basis of knowledge, skills etc. On the surface, this issue kind of looks like an "it's on you dude" distancing- or some other hidden agenda. In a sport run by volunteers, there appears to be a functional abyss between the sanctioning body's understanding of what we do and how it gets done. If it's a paid position, I'd say they could mandate control, standards, and best practices for EMPLOYEES. Then the choice is whether you wish to enter a 'contract' with them.

They control they really have is there is no 'other game in town'. In criminal law they call it names like "coercion" or maybe "extortion".

I have found that when someone smiles, takes my money, gives me really nasty medicine and tells me "it'll be good for me"- my money is still gone, the taste is still there and usually the jury is still out re: how good it is for me.

[elr]

@ShaneH -- Not Bob - but you can bet there will be more training when the underwriters require it.

 

@Dusty -- Heirs are not parties to waivers. You are correct record checks and training will be recurring, disqualifying events will be determined by underwriters. The relevant thing is that tournament participants pay money to ski in sanctioned tournaments, not the fact that volunteers conduct the tournaments. Yes the "medicine" the underwriters are mandating is bitter but it is the current reality and is going to be part of the cost we pay. I for one am happy that we are still able to play.

[ForrestGump]

Sorry, I thought elr was Bob Mahew.

 

If we have to start letting regulators and underwriters dictate this, then this sport is on its way into the crapper. Because then it will be less about providing a safe and quality experience for our members and more about reducing the liability/risk to the sanctioning body who most of us can give a flip about.

 

I'm on my companies internal risk assessment team as a practice manager. Almost always an auditor will identify an issue and then give us the ability to provide solutions. They want to see us proactively thinking about these things, especially when it comes to safety issues because then there is buyin from the business. There are dozens of ways to lessen the risk and increase safety to our competitors, yet we are not and have not pursued those. I will be frank and say that is a failure of the sanctioning body leadership.

 

 

[ForrestGump]

Also, like most things with this sanctioning body, we the membership find out about this after its been decided. Is there any wonder that we feel like we have little representation?

 

A close parallel to this happened at my company two years ago. Our insurance carrier came to our executive team and said we'd had a string of expensive claims due to car accidents. Our exes sent it to the risk team. In the end, we decided that since our 700 technicians in company vans had probably had no training behind the wheel other than drivers ed when they were 15 that we needed to do something. Our risk team proposed back to the carrier that we would contract a company to do a driving course, which not only retaught the basic driving skills, but also evasive driving tactics. We would have everyone through it in two years, with retraining every five. One time cost was $200k, with average annual costs of $50k. The insurance underwriters agreed. That decision and investment saved us a $900k increase in our umbrella premium.

 

Fwiw..... After the first 12 months, our claims dropped 12%. I'm told were down another 21% in the last twelve months.

[jedgell]

I was planning on getting my drivers rating this year, but for what? So I get to pay more money every year so I get the privilege of volunteering? I might still do it, only because I want to able to help out at tournaments if needed.

[lottawatta]

FYI: As I read the board meeting minutes and risk management proposal, in order to drive, not only for a tournament, but for a covered practice, you will need to;

a. be in a USCG complaint vessel with proper equipment and registration,

b. have a valid motor vehicle operator's license issued by your state of residence,

c. have passed a background screen administered by USAWS's insurance company, who, AT THEIR SOLE DISCRETION, can deceide whther you are are too risky based on your driving record (who has two accidents on their record regardless of fault?),

d. have a driver's rating of trained driver or above,

e. have a valid watercraft license in the state of residence - which in Ohio is required of you are born on or after 1/1/1982,

 

This is another huge hurdle for bringing new skiers into the tournament scene. Many, many club skiers are going to be excluded in covered prctices as a result of this. How many wives who pull their husbands in the evening are trained drivers? How many collegiate waterski programs or ski clubs rely on having the "covered practice" status for insurance to ski on a leased waterway?

 

[lottawatta]

This is right out of the board packet as published on USAWS website

 

USA WATER SKI

RISK MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL

December 24, 2011

1. Drivers Rating Requirements. In addition to meeting all other applicable requirements,

e.g., USA Water Ski membership, drivers shall meet the following requirements:

A. All boat drivers (towboats, pick up boats and other watercraft) in USA Water Ski

"covered practices" and sanctioned events shall comply with, and meet all requirements, for

boater's training and/or licensing under state law applicable in the driver's state of residence;

B. Additionally, all towboat drivers (drivers towing event participants) at USA

Water Ski "covered practices" and sanctioned events shall:

i. hold a current USA Water Ski trained driver's rating or Sport Division

driver's rating (a "Rated Driver"); or,

ii. be accompanied (in the boat) and under the direct supervision of a Rated

Driver as a part of a driver's training or instructional program.

2. Driver Screening. In addition to meeting all other applicable requirements:

A. Rated Drivers shall:

i. have a current and valid motor vehicle operator's license at all

times while they hold a USA-WS driver's rating (or, in the case of a Rated Driver

who does not currently hold a motor vehicle operator's license, demonstrate that

the reason that he/she does not currently hold this license is not due to the fact thathis/her motor vehicle operator's license privileges have been suspended or

revoked); and,

ii. undergo a motor vehicle (motor vehicle operator's license) records

review following the adoption of this requirement, and thereafter in connection

with any new driver's rating application and at least every two (2) years thereafter

in order to maintain their driver's rating (except in the case of NWSRA event

drivers who do not hold an ongoing USA-WS driver's rating, in which case the

NWSRA event driver shall provide proof of a current motor vehicle operator's

license prior to driving the event) and every two years thereafter; and,

iii. meet minimum "safe driving" standards established by USA Water

Ski at all times while they hold a USA-WS's driver's rating.

B. Any USA-WS Driver's Rating shall be immediately and automatically deemed

revoked upon the failure to meet these requirements;

C. Rated Drivers shall immediately report to USA Water Ski any suspension or loss

of their motor vehicle operator's license.

[ForrestGump]

Bob Crowley at USAWaterski told me today via email that their goal is to disqualify anyone with a suspend license or a DUI/DWI. I then asked him how they can make the parallel between those two things and accidents in sanctioned events/tournaments/practice? Because I'm not seeing it. How many times have you seen a rated driver with a beer or drink in his hand during a tournament? I've yet to see it. There's no gain here. Rather than disqualify drivers based on their actual driving ability and knowledge, they are disqualifying just to say they're doing something. Which is absurd. With improved safety comes mitigation of risk. With mitigation of risk, you rarely get improved safety. I did my best to make what I feel are some very valid points to Bob and Brandon Wolf. Bob said he would send that to their Risk Management Team.

[ForrestGump]

I won't post Bob Crowley's emails. But I want to quote one passage..........

 

"The behavior of an individual who has had a motor vehicle drivers license suspended or of a driver who has a DUI on his recent record shows a pattern of poor judgment."

 

I can't disagree with that statement. But, how much actual judgement do you need to drive a ski boat? LOL. What it comes down to is liability and not safety. And that is a shame. I'm thinking Chad Scott would have rather had good driver with a DUI on his record at Nationals 2 years ago over the driver he got.

[Jody_Seal]

Talking to one of the southern region directors today. I was told that AWSA was not counseled or allowed in on this policy but was told by USAWS that this is mandated.

Also was told that USAWS is skating on thin Ice with this and that Legal repercussions could be in order. Just passing on what I was told.

[lottawatta]

According to the comments section in the board packet, it looks like there will be no standard in what constitutes a risky driver. Nor will there be any input allowed by usaws, the decision will be up to the insurance company.

[jcamp]

I for one didn't find the new proposals all that onerous and will gladly pay an increased membership fee (if Global marine doesn't cover it as the comments suggest they might) to cover the drivers' record checks. I actually am surprised to learn that up until now, someone COULD have had multiple DUIs or suspended licenses (hell, vehicular manslaughter even) and still be able to pull tournaments because there was no checking at all.

 

Would any of you let your kids be pulled by someone like that?

 

 

[jcamp]

Or maybe it's better to put it this way ... Let's think about the unimaginable and say for argument's sake that your kid is skiing in a tournament and gets badly hurt because of something stupid the driver does. After the fact you find out that the guy has been arrested three times for reckless driving and spent six months in county jail for a DUI. How pissed are you at AWSA then? And how hard would it be to find a lawyer to make a pretty compelling case that AWSA was negligent?

[ForrestGump]

Jcamp, so you wouldn't be pissed at the awsa if a driver with a spotless motorvehicle record hit your child in the water and you then found out this person is known for poor boat handling? Because we have that going on right freaking now in our drivers ranks. That is a far more likely scenario.

 

This entire thing is about liability and not safety. When dale earnhardt was killed, NASCAR did something about it. They ushered in soft walls, the HANS device, and a new safer car. They didn't start background checking the guys installing the seat belts.

[jcamp]

From an administrative point of view, show me a boat handling test that can be conducted for $15 and I'm pretty sure the insurance companies pushing this thing would get off our backs. Not may jury members would know what is or isn't a good ski tournament driver. Most would know that a guy with three DUIs is a danger. Not AWSA's fault that that's the world we live in.

[ForrestGump]

Yeah I don't get the registration deal, OB. Half of the tournament boats are never registered.

[Dirt]

I just read an article today where one of the insurance companies is basing homeowners policy rates on driving records. It must be some kind of trend in response to a misguided study.

We already have judges/safety/skiers, etc... who can tell if a driver can't handle a boat or appears intoxicated.

I bet the next step will be drug/alcohol testing.

[501Brandon]

This is going to hurt our club this year as I personally have been trying to get all the arrangements taken care of in order to host a few grass roots events and a few public invite evenings to try and create an interest at the local level. Noone in our club is currently rated in anything so I guess we are pretty well S.O.L. in all this as it appears the hoops we were already jumping thru are now moving targets... Its very discouraging that we want to try an do whats right by our sport and it is at the point that its not worth the trouble and time to get whats required. Bums me out as I was looking forward to some events!

[elr]

Safety and liability are inextricably linked - thats why NASCAR made the improvements after Dale Earnhardt's accident. I am appalled that up to now there has been no background checking of drivers - the only more relevant thing [and far more onerous and expensive] wrt driver impairment to do is set up the equivalent of "flight rules" and random testing. We should figure out a way to test/train/disqualify on our own for safety issues so that insurance costs go down - that would be a benefit to our sport.

[lottawatta]

@ob My comments above about registration apply to Ohio as, technically, you have to register in ohio even on private lakes.

@jcamp I DO find this onerous as half the members of my ski club do not ski tournaments. I make them join USAWS as active members and make them adhere to the boat insurance guidelines in order to give me the fuzzy feeling of SOME slight coverage, were an accident to happen during skiing on my lake.

 

If I ask my non-tournament skiing members to enroll in a USCG class, get an ohio boat operator's license, register their boat which is normally only used on my private lake, take a trained driver clinic, and get a motor vehicle background check they may decide private lake membership just got too expensive. I already set minimums on liability coverage on their boat owner's policy, make them name me as additional insured, join USAWS, and pay yearly dues. Around my area, half (or more) of the membership in ski clubs is made up of skiers who don't ski tournaments. These people are already questioning why they need USAWS and they ONLY reason they will tell you is because the lake owner requires it for insurance purposes. If my lake owner's policy is through USAWS, I need to have the practices sanctioned as "covered practices". They can't be covered practices without all these additional requirements. These additional requirements on drivers just eliminated half of the membership of my club including the two guys I ski with the most. Thanks USAWS.

[ForrestGump]

Yes, safety and liability are linked. But they are NOT mutually inclusive of each other. Reducing liability does not increase safety, while increasing safety almost always reduces liability. That is my issue with this. A drivers license record check is a feelgood measure and does little,if nothing, to improve safety. All it does is give the impression of increased safety or lower risk.

[Horton]

I should know this but what exactly is USA Water Ski "covered practices"

 

Who does this really impact out side of a AWSA tounament weekend?

[lottawatta]

Covered practice = sanctioned practice. Most lake owners around here rely on some coverage from USAWS for regular practice. Here is what clubs had to do last year in order to realize the coverage USAWS membership provides:

 

IMPORTANT PLEASE READ - NEW CLUB PRACTICE/EXHIBITION SANCTION REQUIREMENTS: Your USA Water Ski club affiliation makes your club eligible to host and sanction tournaments, practices, clinics and exhibitions/ski shows and related activities through USA Water Ski. As part of sanctioning, USA Water Ski provides General Liability and Participant Accident coverage. USA Water Ski is pleased to announce the release of a new online Practice and Exhibition sanctioning program. The program streamlines the Practice and Exhibition sanctioning process for USA Water Ski-affiliated clubs by giving them the ability to apply for Practice and Exhibition sanctions online, and immediately receive an approval via e-mail with their sanction number. It also allows clubs to maintain their Practice and Exhibition sanctions by adding new dates, locations and officials. Beginning in 2011, clubs will be required to formally sanction ALL club practices and exhibitions through USA Water Ski and adhere to the sanctioning requirements for insurance coverage to be in place for these events. NEW for 2011!

 

[lottawatta]

This impacts the everyday skier. If one of my members brought a guest to my lake, who may or may not have been there before, but has been active in tournaments before, and that guest ran into the back of the turn island, in order for me to have any coverage (as lake owner) from USAWS affiliated club policy, then the practice has to be sanctioned. Last year we sanctioned practice every day from sun up to sun down during ski season.

[lottawatta]

Let me clarify my position. I am not anti safety. I can even see the need to further or better qualify a tournament driver. But to do it by a BMV background check is not a solution to the perceived problem. Further restrictions on the average skier, and serious course skier who may seldom or never ski tournaments, but may belong to a private club, does nothing but discourage participation. I have no problem submitting to a background check to keep my driver's rating. I do have a problem with losing members to my ski club because someone sitting behind a desk at some insurance company decides they are a risk to the organization based on whatever criteria they decide to impose.

[elr]

@ShaneH - I and apparentely the underwriters don't think "driving records are a feel good measure that has little or nothing to do with safety."

 

From the National Institute for Health - "Drunk driving recidivism rates are high: approximately one-third of drivers arrested or convicted of DWI each year are repeat offenders. A 1994 study

published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that drivers involved in alcohol-related fatal crashes were eight times more likely to have had DWI convictions in the previous 5 years than drivers randomly selected from the general population of licensed drivers."

 

I will probably never will understand your position on this as it controverts data. Like it or not underwriters and regulations will drive what we have to do. The best thing USAWS can do is act on it own wrt safety issues as you suggested and lower loss rates so insurance remains available and potentially less expensive.

[ForrestGump]

And what on earth does that have to do with driving a ski boat in a sanctioned event? How many drivers are drinking while pulling a skier? What you're implying is that if a person had a dwi, then must have a higher risk of drinking while driving in a sanctioned event. I call bs on that. In addition, I say you nor anyone else can back that up with any sort of data.

[Horton]

I know who most of you are but would you take a moment and add a signature line to your posts?