Who gets the Panda for Board Selection?

[skidawg]

https://us.v-cdn.net/5017617/uploads/editor/mr/d4hx0hv8005z.png

 

 

[skidawg]

 

[lpskier]

USOC requires 33 1/3 % athlete representation on all boards and committees. The athletes selected their own slate of representatives. Apparently it was difficult to get volunteers and it was fortunate we were able to get four good athletes willing to take the job.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@skidawg did you volunteer to be an athlete representative or board member?

[skidawg]

https://www.ballofspray.com/forum#/discussion/22472/nate-smith-article-washington-post/p1

[skidawg]

Nope

[mfjaegersr]

Allowing Mr Smith to be a Board member seems ill-advised at the very least; it’s pretty f’ing disrespectful to his victims, and certainly not reflective of the values of an organization I want to be a part of.

 

Character matters. Why is that so hard for some of you?!

[The_MS]

WTF

[MichaelGoodman]

@mfjaegersr well said.

[sunperch]

Will they live stream the board meetings? I would like to watch a board meeting with Lauren Morgan and Nate Smith attending.

[jayski]

Dr. Jim for chair of technical committee!!!

[lpskier]

Without commenting on any individual selection, the AWSA is REQUIRED to increase athlete representation to a third of the board, so we had to add four athletes, period. USOC defines “athletes,” so it’s not you and me. The athletes were asked to select their additional representatives, just like each region selects its own representatives. They did. As far as I know, the athletes in charge cast a wide net looking for four volunteers. With a lot of work, they got four. Not six, not five, four.

 

Those being the facts, what’s your complaint and/or solution?

[elr]

I must have missed the notification that athlete board members were being recruited . . .

[lpskier]

I don’t know what methodology was used.

[amyrooker]

I’m sure he must have been selected for the intimate knowledge of Safe Sport compliance that he will bring to the board

[Geppetto]

@lpskier

Have you carefully read the Washington Post article?

[oldjeep]

I hope that someone is really getting their April fool's joke going early.

[Ali]

Maybe USOC should have rules which prevent offenders being eligible? If you have taken the SafeSport course which I urge everyone to do, you know what reasons could be in play here.

 

I am pretty disgusted.

[ScottScott]

Here we go again.....

[lpskier]

@Geppetto Yes. But I am explaining the process; you want to discuss an individual. That’s not my topic.

[Jody_Seal]

Having sat on a couple national committees over the years and a one time director it was my experience that for the most part elite athlete participion in these positions has been dismal. Not withstanding a couple standout athletes Freddy Kruger, lori Covington and a couple others took their participion as elite representatives on these boards and committees seriously. Problem was they or those that did take it seriously were spred very thin on these boards and committee's. Have sat in many a important meeting where these elite athletes were no show. Even have had to postpone critical votes due to lack of participation by these athletes.

Our association with the USOC is not going to end well nor is the intended direction and out come going to be what this sport needs or deserves.

As far as filling positions on these boards they needed to find a few more warm body's. One of their picks just so happens to have had previous sanctions applied to them. Should those past sanctions have deterred that appointment?

Our organization is rather hypocritical !

[Geppetto]

@lpskier

You asked what my complaint is? Are you kidding? We put someone on the board who is currently on probation for a safe sport violation and who apparently escaped a lifetime ban because of legal technicalities and expensive lawyers.

 

I am considering burning my membership card and spending time with people who have some integrity.

[amyrooker]

Someone who has been sanctioned for any reason should absolutely not be able to serve on the board. How can someone serve impartially on a board that has had to enforce sanctions against them?

 

It’s extremely difficult for victims of sexual violence to report, and even more difficult for us to receive justice, because we know that stuff like this will happen even if your abuser isn’t an elite athlete. It’s not just Nate, their are more known abusive people in our sport, including at the upper echelons. I know, because one of them assaulted me. Even if you tell people or officaly report, your abuser will still just be allowed to hold a position of power over you. No matter the extent of his participation or influence on the board, the decision to appoint Nate is gross negligence.

 

Also, anyone who is so quick to defend Nate needs to stop telling on themselves. If you’re so concerned with a reckoning in our sport to hold people accountable for their actions, maybe stop to consider why?

[Jody_Seal]

@amyrooker

Sorry Amy i guess you missed my sarcasm. I and many agree whole hardheartedly with your post.

That is the problem in this sport is that many times personnel are inputted into leadership roles that have no business being their. this Athlete in question has no business being in a leadership role within this organization period!!

[amyrooker]

@Jody_Seal thank you for clarifying! It’s still early for me and this place is a minefield - hard to know who is on your side sometimes. Thank you for agreeing

[elr]

I think if you want to get more volunteers for athlete board member positions the USOC requirement for Athletes as Board Members should be adopted in its broadest form (athletes who are actively engaged in amateur athletic competition) rather than the "Elite Athlete" requirements of the USAWSWS bylaws. The "elite athlete" definition is far to restrictive.

 

"[uSOC] Athletes as Board Members

 

Athletes are key stakeholders to the NGB. The Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act requires that at least twenty percent of an NGB’s board is comprised of athletes who are actively engaged in amateur athletic competition or who have represented the United States in an international amateur athletic competition in within the preceding ten (10) years."

 

"[uSAWSWS bylaws paragraph VI.D.3]

 

 

3 For purposes of these Bylaws, “elite athletes” are defined as athletes selected by the Athlete Advisory Council to represent the athletes on the boards and committees of USA-WSWS and Sport Disciplines. At the time of election, “elite athletes” shall have demonstrated their qualifications as athletes by:

(a) Representing the United States in international water ski competition, either as Team members or as individual qualifiers, within the preceding ten (10) years. Such international competitions shall include, but not be limited to, World Championships, Pan American Championships, Pan American Games, World Trophy and Operation Gold events; OR

(b) Demonstrating within the two (2) preceding years, that they actively engaged in amateur athletic competition by finishing in the top half of the Sport Disciplines: (i) National Championships “Open Age” Division; (ii) Elite Team Trials; or (iii) finishing in the top half of the Open Age Division Ranking List; AND

© Meeting these qualifications by competing in “open age” classifications, not from age-restricted classifications such as “juniors”, ‘’seniors”, or “veterans”. Should a Sport Discipline not have an “open age” classification, qualification for this requirement shall be determined by the Athlete Advisory Council and approved by the USA-WSWS Board.

 

 

[lpskier]

Absent the elite athlete language, we wouldn’t have to worry at all about athlete participation as well over a third of the AWSA “non athlete” board members are current tournament skiers. Contrast this with, say, bobsledding, where the board (last I knew) is largely made up of former athletes that no longer slide but want to remain involved in the sport.

[Geppetto]

@elr @lpskier

 

No one gives a shit about what organizational mechanism allowed this to happen. The fact remains that we have someone who is on probation for a safe sport violation on the board.

[elr]

@Geppetto - I guess suggestions as to how to prevent this from happening again aren't what you are after.

[lpskier]

@Geppetto YOU May want to discuss persons. I explained process. Don’t crap on me because YOU don’t like the result. If YOU want to do something about it, first join USAWSWS (your profile doesn’t give a membership number or last name, or for that matter any information that makes you identifiable) so I assume you aren’t a member. Then run for the board from your region and win, or get on the right committee, and then do something about it. It’s easy to sit on the sidelines and throw rocks anonymously. “Either you’re part of the solution or you’re part of the problem.”

 

Oh, and if you aren’t a member, then I guess “we” don’t have a problem.

[Clydesdale]

No profile? Hmmm. Scot Chipman?

[Horton]

I am pretty sure Paul aka @Geppetto is a real person but it is WAY past time to move this conversation into the Rules/Politics/Issues section.

[ForrestGump]

@lpskier You're trying to rationalize this with process mumbo jumbo. We should let teachers convicted of sexual offenses teach school again, right? We do need teachers, after all. That's what you're saying here. You were defending Nate 2 years ago in an off handed way. Now you're doing it again by saying "But we need representation.". That's complete bullsh$t.

 

I wonder how long it takes that columnist to get an email or call about this.

[mfjaegersr]

“We know the guy’s a DeBague *but* - we needed a fourth...”

 

Thats ok for a golf foursome.

[liquid d]

Guys, what lpskier is saying is that's how our own rules work. Nate is done with sanctions, suspensions/etc. There is nothing in our bylaws/rules that forbid it. If you want it changed, run for an office, attend meetings, or make a proposal to amend the rules/bylaws. It could be that the 1/3 rule could go away,or it could be added requirement is to have "never been sanctioned/etc". Don't get pissed, get active and change the organization you want to have.

 

[ForrestGump]

Bullshit. I'm just going to say it. The Board does not have to accept anyone. "Ehhhhhh!!!! Vote again. He's not going to be a member." Done.

 

[Jody_Seal]

@liquid d for Florida federation president?

I'll tell Monica you will do it!

[Kelvin]

No one wanted the 1/3 rule in the first place. It was forced down our throats by the USOC.

[lpskier]

@ForrestGump Shane, I am not looking to argue with you or anyone else. I thought that explaining the process behind expanding elite athlete representation on the AWSA board would be informative and helpful. Apparently, that’s not the case.

[skidawg]

The simple fact that anyone with safe sport sanctions could even be considered by usaski is a joke...one reason why my daughter wont compete anymore...USAC takes this to the extreme of serious...this is one more reason skiing shrinks yearly.

[The_MS]

I think it shows that safe sport is a total waste of money spent

[jcamp]

@The_MS if it wasn't for SafeSport, I doubt many of us would have found out about the allegations against him. So at a minimum, hopefully it's prevented future victims.

[wawaskr]

I believe a name change is in order - APWSA

[The_MS]

@jcamp so does it matter if there are no implications? I guess it may help parents make decisions but if the organization pays safe sport for a service, what good is it if we don’t have proper follow up to problem people.

[jcamp]

@The_MS I agree with everything you are saying and I'm with you on this issue. Just saying that some good has come out of our affiliation with Safe Sport (like this entire discussion).

[skidawg]

In USAC if safe sport allegations are made and reputable...the board follows up and keeps the predators away from future issues. They don’t elect them to board positions

[Jody_Seal]

USAC? Sprint cars? Safe sport?? Questionable!

[skidawg]

USACycyling

[Drago]

 

My understanding is the reason SafeSport was relatively powerless is the backdating of the events. I don't know the answer to this, but I would like to pose a question:

Is it possible that Nate has/had a real problem, is asking for help, has shown remorse, and is making an effort to change, make amends, and give back to "us" (waterskiing), brought on after his "outing" by SafeSport or "growing up"?

I realize another option is, "whew, got out of that one", and it's business as usual.

As a father, not knowing the answer, I wouldn't have my kids hang around at the lake with him, but I don't really care if he decides gate video review protocol in a Zoom meeting.