2021 is my last year of USAWS

[ForrestGump]

To be a USAC/BMX coach, I had to get background checked, get Red Cross cert, and do SS

To be a USAC BMX Track Operator I had to be background checked

To be a USAC official, I had to learn the rule book and take a test

To be a USA BMX official/Scorer, I had to learn the rule book and show up

To be a USAC racer, I had to do nothing but pay my yearly fee

 

So whatever the generic cya language is, that's what I had to do. I don't have to renew my coaches license until next year and 2021 was my last year as a track operator. So unless there have been changes since I submitted last year, that's how it was.

[klindy]

@Jody_Seal Mr Robbins is the COB of the USAWSWS Board. Mr Archambeau is the President of USAWSWS. That is the over arching organization which has 9 sport divisions under it. That’s the organization that has made the decision that all members need SS training. That’s the organization that has a mission statement and a vision for the sport. That’s the organization that you, me and all the other folks who join are members of.

 

I am the COB of AWSA. AWSA is a sport division of USAWSWS. We have a purpose (to follow the mission and vision of USAWSWS) with a specific focus on traditional 3-event waterskiing. We set rules and manage the 3event tournaments. We are the biggest sport division of USAWSWS with Show skiing second and collegiate #3. We have a voice on the USAWSWS board but we are not the USAWSWS board alone.

 

@JackQ 25% (3,500 out of 13,700) member of USAWSWS are under the age of 18. Many are show skiers. You are correct that 25% of skiers at AWSA tournaments are typically not under 18. Some tournaments have 100% participants who are under 18 by definition.

 

@Jody_Seal so as far as AWSA is concerned, we are learning how these changes/mandates/regulations came to be and how they effect us just the same as you are. I can tell you that you are not the only one who has concerns and want answers. Once you start unpacking all the details, things are a bit more clear and understandable. The laws aren’t going away, but minimizing the impact while maximizing the intention of the laws is the challenge.

[Jody_Seal]

@klindy

You sir did not answer my question!!

How did you get selected to your position as well as how did Mr. Archambeau and Robin's get to theirs??? What is the process???

[rfa]

Last night I was curious about @ForrestGump comment and looked up the USA Cycling policy (that "trust but verify" thing...). While the wording @lpskier quoted above seems to apply to all "adults", when you check "Applicability", it seems "everyone and their brother" is required to do the SS, but NOT athletes who just show up to compete. So, I think @ForrestGump is correct. But the broader policy gives us more to think about.

 

For example, the MAAPP (the policy that tells you what is and is NOT allowed) is applicable to all members including athletes.

 

"The MAAPP applies to Applicable Adults and their interactions with minor athletes in conjunction with USA Cycling activities.

A. Mandatory Components

This policy shall apply to:

• Adult members at a Facility or Event;

• Adult members who have regular contact with amateur athletes who are minors;

• Any adult authorized by USAC to have regular contact with or authority over an amateur athlete who is a minor; and

• Adult staff and board members of USAC

(Collectively “Applicable Adult” for the purposes of this policy.)

 

So, we end up with "behavior" requirements for everyone. Those " SS Trained" are inherently aware of the policies. Those "untrained" will be asked to read/sign these requirements upon (or prior to) arrival at the event. Certainly, for the athlete-only participant, reading the material and signing the release forms is cheaper and less time consuming (and less informative) than the SS course...and if that gives the necessary liability protection to the LOC and supporting organization...all good.

 

How this translates to the suggestion that we move to "unsanctioned" events, or hook up with WWA for example, I have no idea. But, long term from a liability protection perspective, I doubt it works. It's pretty simple insurance risk/premium analyses, isn't it?

 

A good organization has two goals. 1. As a good "human being" it wants ZERO "criminal activity" on its site; 2. As a smart "human being" it wants liability protection for its site.

 

In the real world liability protection does not ensure ZERO incidents (if it did it would be quite cheap). The liability protection policy dictates the minimum requirements imposed on the organization. And the premium.

 

So, I fail to see how WWA (I know nothing about them, just using the name as an example since it was mentioned previously), provides a "safe harbor" against SS requirements. I am sure they also want ZERO incidents. But I suppose "their" Insurers live in the same world we do and probably also are aware about the $380M settlement yesterday and the $500M previously on MSU...and that's just on the Nassar litigation.

 

I am not a lawyer nor in the insurance business. Please tell me how they are able/willing to provide more "favorable" protection for less compliance/mitigation requirements.

 

"Yes, your Honor, we covered this group in our policy. Yes, they approached us because they did not want to do SS Training"...(as I said, not a lawyer, so maybe it's too farfetched)

 

 

 

[buechsr]

@Jody_Seal

 

https://www.teamusa.org/usa-water-ski/about-us/governance-documents

 

click bylaws. Start at the bottom of page 8.

 

then, click policies and procedures, and start page 7.

 

I don't have link for AWSA bylaws for board governance, but one could fairly assume that it works like essentially every other board. I didn't look into old stuff (minutes) but one could presume that Bob ascended to his post by being elected as AWSA representative for USAWS BOD, and was elected President.

 

As for @klindy, he can respond for himself, but would assume he became a board member through normal process, and was voted COB.

[Jody_Seal]

@rfa

WWA is not a NGB nor would they claim to be if three event competitions were sanctioned through that organization.

You want rankings and world records then you might want to continue with the NGB for watersking.

Now if hypothetically they contract to receive usocpc funding then they would be a NGB body and would be held to some level of the same sport mandates.

 

 

 

 

[Jody_Seal]

USAWS no longer has the meaning it once was! They might as well embrace a name change!

UNITED SOCIALIST ASSOCIATION FOR WATERSKIING!

[rfa]

@Jody_Seal, thank you. I understand.

As I said, I know nothing about WWA and used the name only for an example of my larger point. That the Insurance companies will ultimately determine how/what they will insure...and they are quite aware of SS.

 

As for myself, I am not good enough to care about the level of (or any) sanctioning. I ski a handful of tournaments because they are awesome weekends with many friends. It would be ok with me if they were all F class...

[MISkier]

@The_MS, regarding your Visa # for the background check, you can buy a prepaid credit/debit card (often at the grocery store) for use on websites. I do it all the time and rarely use my real credit card on a site. I generally only load the card with the amount of my planned purchase or only keep a small reserve loaded on the card - and they often have max limits that can be loaded, anyway. In this manner, my real credit card exposure is limited.

 

As for Social Security number, that is another matter. It does give me pause, even with the multitude of data breaches that have affected me over the years (mortgage companies, etc.). I can't count the number of times I was signed up for free credit monitoring, etc. after enduring one of those. The amount of personal information I had to provide for a DoD check a few years ago was staggering and previous background checks for State work were similar. Still, I am not really excited about handing out more info to retain a judge rating. The MVR (which is different than the background check) wasn't appealing, either, but I did it. The security and reputation of the background check vendor will be the key to any compliance on my part.

[The_MS]

I will never enter it, ever

[klindy]

That’s correct. There are some minimum requirements such as being a director for a certain amount of time but generally there is a nomination process. You can be nominated by someone and agree or nominate yourself. You can also be nominated from the floor at the meeting where the election takes place (regular board meeting). The directors of the board vote on officers - COB, President, VP, Treasurer and Secretary.

[Jody_Seal]

@klindy

So in essence general membership has no say in the designation of the top board USAWS?

They are only picked by the ruling authority of the sport division? Again not from a general membership vote?

 

[klindy]

@Jody_Seal the general membership votes on who’s on the regional council. The general membership votes for directors. Again the directors vote for officers.

[klindy]

@MISkier @The_MS the background check info goes directly to the third party company that does background checks - NCSI. None of the data is stored by USAWSWS.

 

@The_MS ever buy anything from Amazon, Netflix or even Wiley’s? You’ve entered your credit card number there. I’ve been told that NCSI will also allow you to not enter the SS number or CC number and will call for that information if the member desires.

[The_MS]

@klindy of course I buy on line. I have never had @perfski ask for my Soc Sec number. I also have Visa backing up my purchases and bank that also backs them.

You can’t possibly stick up for the fact that a 3rd party is gaining access to someone’s Soc Sec number, and for what? To count buoys?

 

 

 

[MISkier]

@klindy, I would actually prefer not to supply my SSN at all. USAWSWS already has my address and birthdate. I would think a background check company of any competence should be able to investigate with just that information.

[klindy]

I haven’t filled out any form at this point so I don’t know if that’s possible or not. I’ll find out.

[ToddL]

Had a discussion with some NCWSA members recently. They are very worried. They thrive on growing the sport by introducing water sports enthusiast to 3EV competition. They already struggle with convincing a college student to "try" the sport via paying for an active membership. Additional training requirements will only further limit follow-through to achieve participation and membership, and thus growth.

 

Additionally, a recent collegiate tournament was nearly scrubbed due to lack of officials. Background checks to count buoys will surely discourage voluntary pursuit of official ratings within the college aged skiers. This is not just someone's opinion. This is the talk that is spreading throughout the NCWSA. Some have already stated they will stop working towards theirs given the current context.

[ToddL]

Assuming that the BMX/US Cycling model can't be adopted by USAWS (still not proven), then if I were in charge, this is what I would promote as the right thing to do to ease into this for 2022:

 

Membership - required to watch a free SS awareness video - cost of single video production/purchase covered by USAWS by diverting funds from the $600k/yr benefit from USOC involvement. Why wouldn't this suffice?

 

Officials -

Assistant/trained - no additional requirement (they already watched the membership video)

Regular - no additional requirement (they already watched the membership video)

Safety - required SS training - puts one fully trained person at every event

Senior/Pan Am - comply with BG check and SS training due to significance level of competition and potential for influence

Coaches - continue with existing SS training and BG check requirements

 

Senior/Pan Am officials would have the option of downgrading their rating if they opposed the requirements, but would also acknowledge the loss of working certain levels of sanctioned events as a result.

 

Edit for Bruce: BGC does nothing. I was just suggesting an interim state assuming USAWS still believes that all this is necessary.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@ToddL so what exactly is gained by the background check? How does this prevent any type of child abuse/risk situation short of a known sex offender? And known sex offenders are already publicly known.

 

I have yet to hear any logical reason that "officials" of any level need to have their background investigated. The "have authority over" or in "regular contact with" minors argument is very weak, IMO.

[Dirt]

@klindy thank you for sharing the information you have.

[ToddL]

@Bruce_Butterfield - I agree. It does nothing. However, if this freight train is gonna run over this sport, then it should at least be focused in areas where "they" think it matters. I am not saying this is what I want. I am saying if this goes forward, it shouldn't be drinking from a damn firehose of mandates aimed at everyone's mouth.

 

Recall, that the assumption is stated above.

[jcamp]

@Jody_Seal just when I start to think that maybe you have an idea worth looking into, you go and post some all caps crazy bullshit and I remember that there is no way I'm following you anywhere.

 

Some advice: Unhinged, baseless rants hurts your cause more than you realize.

[ForrestGump]

The background check is pure and utter bull$hit. It does absolutely nothing. I get it in BMX where a coach has to be present at a track for any sanctioned clinics. But in waterski? Does USAWS even have a coaches program?

[rfa]

Looks like the background check applies to a lot of people in USCycling

"Application

The following groups of individuals, 18 years of age and older, must have background checks completed prior to the commencement of the applicable role, issuance of a license and/or membership, training, event, or competition:

 

USA Cycling Staff*

USA Cycling Directors*

USA Cycling Volunteers* that USA Cycling formally authorizes, approves or appoints:

to serve in a position of authority over athletes, or

to have regular contact with athletes.

USA Cycling licensed Coaches

USA Cycling licensed Officials

USA Cycling-issued UCI Support Licensees including:

Managers

Sports Directors/Associate Sports Directors

Soigneurs/Trainers

Team Doctors and Paramedics

Coaches

Any other UCI Support License holder a team authorizes, approves or appoints:

to serve in a position of authority over athletes, or

to have regular contact with athletes.

Collegiate Conference Directors*

Local Associations

Presidents

Any other individual the Local Association formally authorizes, approves or appoints:

to serve in a position of authority over athletes, or

to have regular contact with athletes.

Contractors USA Cycling formally authorizes, approves or appoints:

to serve in a position of authority over athletes, or

to have regular contact with athletes.

All athletes who are selected by USA Cycling to participate on national or international teams, or who are selected by USA Cycling to participate in any national or international event. For purposes of clarity, this does not include adult recreational participants.*

All athletes who are selected by USA Cycling to train at any Olympic & Paralympic Training Center, USOPC High Performance Training Center, or USA Cycling Training Site.*

Other individuals who have regular contact with athletes as determined by USA Cycling, in its discretion."

[LeonL]

As far the BG investigator calling to get CC and SSN, so it's now presumed OK to give out that info to someone else who CALLS me?

[Jody_Seal]

Exactly!

I get a social security statement every month in the mail! It says in very big letters on the envelope do not give your social security information to any third party!

[jayski]

3% surcharge on all transactions and $50 to sanction 'practice' now...super cool

[ForrestGump]

Looks like USAC made some changes since I reupped last time for road racing. For 2022 to be a referee or judge you have to be SS and BG checked for a road race. And if you are a motor driver driving chase or neutral rollout you have to have a drivers background check done(which is not new and I agree with). But that still doesn't apply to BMX under USA Cycling, where the only one required to have SS and BG checked is a licensed coach and the track operator. None of the other volunteers do(like corner marshals, scorer, timer, starter, etc). Nor does the person actually running/promoting the race.

[lpskier]

@jayski Yes, but you can sanction a practice that starts 1/1/22 and ends 12/31/22, and so long as you have a safety and at least a trained driver, you are covered on the USAWSWS liability policy. Pretty cheap insurance if you ask me.

[The_MS]

So where do the dues that you pay for annual club membership go? Why do clubs have to pay a yearly fee to be a club if you have to pay to be insured? Are the clubs not insured after they pay yearly dues? All the members being USAWS members should make the fee redundant.

[jayski]

@lpskier I get that it is a "small" fee, suppose you can say the 3% surcharge on that $50 is a "small" fee, and the $30 for a background check PLUS the 3% surcharge is a small fee, plus 3% on EVERYTHING now...but wait I already pay a "club fee" and as @The_MS just stated show me the value for the monies spent as a club...Insurance is easy to obtain, everyone is making it out to be a big deal but it is really not, pretty easy to get coverage...

 

small fee

+small fee

+reg fee

+reg fee

+small surcharge on all

+new mandate

+new requirement

+shift of liability

------------------

= FK THIS

 

 

[Jody_Seal]

Going on the government dole when there are thousands of homeless veterans that could use that inderect government funding that usopc provides to WATERSKIING! A sport where the demographics are upper class as well as upper middle class. I have seen some in the sport spend as much as $10k on a bar tab.

Shame on those that have decided watersking needed government money when a new ski boat cost$100k. Shame on the leaders of usaws to take money for watersking when there are legitimate Olympic clubs, sports that could use that money to develop an inner city program.

Some people spend $100k or more a year to waterski.

A pox on you as well as lumps of coal in your stocking

 

[ral]

@Jody_Seal , so you state that USAWS is socialist and at the same time steals from the poor to give to the rich?

 

I get you are not happy with the waterski governing bodies, but if someone in the sport wants to spend cleanly earned 10k in a bar tab, or build a lake, what is the big issue?

 

After dedicated training instead of going to parties like her classmates, my oldest daughter got a training grant from our federation (from a much poorer country than the USA). I do not see why I should not take it, although I can afford to pay her sets.

[Stevie Boy]

Not all water skiers are blessed, with a ever expanding bank account, yes the people who have shed loads, can afford to buy one, two, three boats and place them in different locations, I think this is where the sport has lost it's way, when you talk about making it accessible, the truth is you can't, it costs money and it is getting more expensive all the time.

[lpskier]

@jayski What is the Canadian federation doing? I know that SS is a USA thing, but the issues are the same and the insurance carriers must have the same concerns.

[jayski]

@lpskier last I was aware it SS was mandated to be taken by board members and coach's, optional for everyone else, Canada has never had MVR's for drivers, just had to get your Coast guard boating licence (which is super irrelevant to our sport) and no one of any level has been mandated to get background checks... ever...

[Jody_Seal]

@ral

I think more conflicted on the immoral vs the application.

First it is immoral for this sport waterskiing to apply or even bring government funding into an organization filled with millionaires.

The second conflict is where and what a sport has to do to to receive the government funds.

 

Since hurricane Michael many of our communities youth sports programs are still not back up and running. The money's granted to watersking could have gone too repairing these programs. And these programs are legitimate Olympic sports.

Or the government money could have gone to homeless US veterans. But no give government monies to a millionaires sport!

 

Then the application. Take the government money you are subject to truly over reaching and inequitable policy's. the hoops and socialistic policys required to get these government monies are over reaching and really should not be applicable.

 

So yes I am guilty @ral , however you must make your own mind up as to whether or not you utilize your governments funding. I am sure there is a legitimate Olympic soccer club in Santiago that could use the monies allotted to your daughter who by your country's standards could be considered a millionaire.

 

 

 

[unksskis]

It’s not even Jan 1st, and already been deactivated. And they want my demographic information now? Yet another “surprise”…

 

[teammalibu]

At Cedar Ridge over half of our senior officials do not ski any more due to age and other issues, they keep their ratings to help support our tournaments! They have all told me they will no longer do so due to all the BS. We will be scrambling for officials if we decide to continue with sanctioned tournaments!

After 35 years this ship is sinking fast!!

[The_MS]

I also got my renewal notice and they offered me to upgrade test for Pan Am judge.

I wish I could say how great it would be to just show up at event and not have to judge due to not doing a Background check but looks like I will also for go the SS training. It’s been fun but not anymore

[Jody_Seal]

If you respond to them and are not rejoining, please thank Melanie for all her years of effort and work ethic she put forth for AWSA .

 

[LeonL]

Like @jayski said. Nickle and Dime here and there. It's pretty obvious, despite the influx of money from USOPC (or whatever its called) USAWS is hurting for our 3% on every transaction. And what's up with the $50 practice sanction fee that used to be free. However our club is no longer affiliated with USAWS after 20+ years and multiple tournaments each year.

[ski6jones]

Nice that management is getting a jump start on the new year by deactivating people before their own Jan 1 deadline. Not that it really matters, just more poor communication and optics. Par for the course apparently.

[ral]

@Jody_Seal , I believe you have conflicting points of views. Your last phrase is what I hear from the left in latin america.

 

Do you also think that it is immoral for a top level waterski whose family can afford tuition to accept a scolarship at e.g. ULL?

 

BTW soccer, as a sport, cares very little about the olympics. And, as stated many times in this forum, the Olympic games are only one part of the Olympic movement.

[LeonL]

@ski6jones I can't say about everyone, but several years back, they stopped the December 31 expirations and went with a rolling 12 months. My notice (received yesterday) said my membership is expiring in 30 days

[ski6jones]

@LeonL I expire in Mar 2023. Deactivation appears to be related to SS. Stupid me re-uped for 2 years. Requested a refund of one year due to change in terms causing me to be ineligible to participate. They have a no refund "POLICY". Apparently that's the only policy that is impossible to change.

[Wish]

If SS was not part of the original terms and conditions, I’d think they would be breaking the 2 yr commitment not you. Unless it said no refund for any reason ...like death.

[klindy]

@LeonL @ski6jones the new membership software looks at several different databases that make up your membership. Switching off the old system and turning on the new one will likely connect to a few places it didn’t look before. You are correct that it will say “inactive” or “pending” depending on the status of one or more of the parts of your membership. One of the reasons it’s being turned on now is because the tournament season is inactive during December. You’ll have plenty of time to get whatever ends up as a part of membership completed.

[klindy]

@Jody_Seal do you take the standard deduction on your income taxes? Should USAWSWS change the corp status away from a 501c3 corp so donations are not tax deductions? Should we abolish the scholarship program since apparently everyone is a millionaire?

 

The government funds literally thousands of programs because it’s been determined it’s in the best public interest to support them. I certainly don’t agree with all the funding and I would like to see more assistance in other areas. But in this case, the USOPC is charged with and funded to support amateur sports programs exactly like USAWSWS. Be happy that some of your hard earned tax dollars are funneled back into something you (used to) support.