2021 is my last year of USAWS

[Dirt]

@lpskier I won’t ski behind your new drivers. They won’t have any idea what they are doing and I don’t want to get hurt.

Sounds like there is going to be a new organization soon anyway. Sad but it looks like the new reality.

[skierjp]

Here in Central Florida one of the first things a skier looks for is the driver. I’ve seen skiers pull their entry and or not ski all their rounds after learning who the driver is. In my opinion if you don’t have any 41s or at least deep 41s you shouldn’t be driving Open or high end Record tournaments. Most LOC’s do a awesome job at putting the right driver in the seat for the right division. Kind of funny, many sites won’t post who the driver is until the event starts.

I think I’m a little off topic? but if officials start stepping away…,

This whole judges background check is crazy. I’m sitting in the drivers seat and the judge is sitting beside me, why a background check on him and not me? Same goes for the tower judge. What about safety? He could actually have to touch a minor if they are injured!!!! I’m not totally against the background check but the Social Security number is a “ NO GO”.

I already have my driving record checked as a Senior Driver what more do they want? I still don’t understand what my driving record has to do with driving a boat. Now if I was sited for a BUI that may be different.

[LeonL]

@ski6jones me too. Situation brought up no answers as to "appealed to and rejected by"? @lpskier , kind of a harsh stance there John. My feelings are that those who feel oppressed by all this are not age stratified.

[lpskier]

@skierjp I think that is a fair statement, although there are a lot of Florida (and elsewhere) Senior Drivers that skiers don’t like. Maybe me included.

 

@Dirt I’m sorry you feel that way, but we can agree to disagree. Jody, Chad, Tommy, etc. were all rookies once. Somebody gave them a chance and look what they became. There are lots of great drivers that aren’t even assistants. How many pros have a “name” senior driver as their ski partner? Does that hurt their skiing? It is difficult to bring new drivers along, particularly in Florida, because there are too few class C tournaments and a small handful drive the records. New blood can’t get a chance because there is no room.

 

@JackQ I think your situation is unique. Jville is sort of stuck in the middle of nowhere tournament skiing-wise and you need to bring your officials in from a distance. That certainly makes it harder and if you lose your “old reliables,” you could be in trouble. But if you need a judge, scorer, safety, Pan Am or driver, hit me up. I’ll come up and I’ll bring an equally useful friend.

 

[lpskier]

@LeonL I believe the answer is USOCPC.

[Dirt]

@lpskier thanks for clarifying. I am not too familiar with Florida tournaments. We have outstanding drivers in our area. The new ones are mentored by the more experienced.

It sounded like you were bashing the ones who have dedicated their lives to the sport.

[Mastercrafter]

Maybe this has been stated but I'm new to all this, especially tournaments, and it's unclear to me.

 

Last summer I sat in a tower a few times with a judge to learn the ropes. With the right paperwork, which of course was not available on site and I kept forgetting to bring, this puts me on the way to assistant judge? Is that right?

 

It appears assistant judges need BG checks along with regular and senior judges. Does lowly 'ol me with no ratings need a BG check to sit in a tower with a regular judge? I'd hope not.

[LeonL]

Puts you on the way to be an assistant, yes once you get that block signed off. I suppose anyone can sit in a tower with a rated judge, apparently said rated judge must be BG checked.

[scoke]

Hey guys! Nate Boudreaux just emailed me!!

 

Did he email you too?

 

 

[The_MS]

@scoke I just got it and responded with my decision to quit. I also thanked Melanie for all the time and effort she has put in over the years

[unksskis]

There needs to be a differentiation between SafeSport, and the new judge requirements. Unfortunately there is no option around SafeSport. However further requirements for already dwindling judges is not good. Tournaments already run thin on judges, and this will only increase the amount of “ski and leave” participants. What incentive is there to be a judge anymore? This will burn out those who already work too hard to make tournaments run.

[A_B]

@Scoke yep, and I sent an email noting my lack of $upport for the mandate.

[ScarletArrow]

I'm not commenting on the rightness or wrongness of the SS or BGC issue, my angle is organizational leadership - specifically communication (or lack thereof).

 

In short, where has Nate been?

 

USAWS appears to have seriously miscalculated the pushback on these issues, and now they are in reaction mode.

 

Perhaps BOS is its own echo chamber (20% of the people seem to drive 80% of the comments on this thread) and doesn't represent the majority within the organization - time will tell.

 

If this was ratified in March (as the email states), why are we just now getting detailed communication about the "why" today? Surely they knew about this in Jan '21 or Q4 of '20... why not be proactive and educate members about what is coming?

 

USAWS needs to serve its membership constituents, and the easiest way to do that is to communicate. Yet when the most meaningful piece of communication comes from an EVP on a message board (10+ pages back on this thread) and reads like a press release or from the very patient and insightful @klindy , something is seriously wrong.

 

USAWS posture seems to be, "Don't blame us. Our hands our tied. This is/was inevitable. Every other NGB is doing this. It's essential for our insurability and thus, our survival."

 

However, USAWS may have created its own extinction event - re: people are now asking about the value behind the extra bureaucracy but also the value behind the organization itself.

 

"What does USAWS really do? What real value is there?" The answer, it seems, is "not much" unless you are planning on skiing Regionals, Nationals or some other record tournament.

 

"Why is USAWS part of the USOPC?" The answer, it seems, is "insurance and elite athlete promotion".

 

None of this inspires.

 

Nate has his work cut out for him. I'm sure he is a smart and capable fellow, but this stuff (customers not knowing your value) doesn't fly in a capital market. My advice, clarify the organization's value proposition, find a way to reduce bureaucracy and communicate with membership more frequently.

 

The membership is fractured and he should be communicating at least 2x a month until Nationals. Don't use mandates from government and insurance companies as an excuse for poor communication.

 

My perceptions of the organization's purpose, value and association with the USOPC may be totally off, and it that is so, then it's up to Nate to correct it.

[Dirt]

Why can’t the organization make a ten minute video and then attach another liability waiver to tournaments where we acknowledge we are now mandatory reporters?

From what I read in the “why” email that would be all that is required. Our judges don’t have alone time with minors.

[ski6jones]

Everyone swears up and down that breaking from USOPC won't change anything. However they are apparently the organization that is insisting on the BGC for judges. So as a minimum an organization NOT affiliated with USOPC would be free to implement what the new organization thought was appropriate in order to comply with the Safesport act. (That's a law now so for the moment assume something needs to be done to comply.)

 

When reading the benefits of being associated with USOPC I didn't find anything that mattered one iota to me. My guess is a maximum of 5-10% of tournament skiers derive any benefit at all from that relationship. Let those that care stay. I'd like to do something else.

 

And then there's the one size fits all solution for the disciplines. We're getting a solution that is appropriate for Show Skiing because their solution would MORE THAN meet 3-event needs. They say the details of compliance will be implemented in the signup/sanctioning system so WHY can't each discipline have a solution that is most appropriate for them?

 

Lots of people saying we can't do this, and that won't help. I'm not buying it.

[ToddL]

The highest sker-interaction role at a tournament is not even a rated official. Dock starters are just random volunteers. Oh snap! Now will USAWS require that every spectator must have a BGC?

Lol. There is no "reasonable" solution to this slippery slope.

[LeonL]

@ToddL I think that you just broached an Oops! for officialdom. What are "they" gonna do now? Obviously the most skier interaction on site with a quasi official is dock starter.

[scoke]

Scarlet Arrow for the win.

 

He starts his post at the 0:59 mark:

 

[dave2ball]

I believe that USA WATERSKI thought we would just lay over and take it. They were and are wrong. Now they are on defense and reactive not proactive. This whole SS BGC will take a toll on skiing, just how bad is unknown.

This may be a good thing is the long run. New organizations may emerge and challenge USA WATER SKI forcing them to actually work for us in our best interest.

[lpskier]

May we officially call it “SafeSportGate?”

[randy meny]

Time to start a new organization, who is in.

[ETskier]

Seems to me today's email from our ED is just a rehash, same old, same old. Nothing is going to change at the meetings in January.

 

[ToddL]

from Nate's letter: "mandatory reporting and prevention training for adult members who have regular contact with minor athletes"

Regular contact means routine or on-going participation in activities directly with minors.

Regular contact means ongoing interactions during a 12-month period wherein an Adult Participant is in a role of direct and active engagement with any Minor Athlete. This includes coaches, and team managers, staff, physicians and trainers.

source: https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/regular-contact

 

What I see above are roles whereby the person is in extended, direct personal contact or frequently recurring contact. The roles appear to be associated with adult positions assigned to manage or lead groups of youth by the designation of that role.

 

Again, from Nate's letter: "The definition of regular contact is debatable but typically covers coaches, instructors, officials, leadership boards and national team members."

 

I think no one debates the appropriateness of coaches, instructors, and team leaders of youth teams. However, officials is where the debate starts. There is nothing that I see in the law that states that ALL officials in a sport where sometimes youth may participate must be BGC-ed. This is the part where USA-WSWS needs to regroup.

 

Nate's letter then cites California and Show Skiing as reasons to force this on the entirety of the sport divisions. Those are irrelevant to the bulk of our states and divisions. It is clear to me that USA-WSWS feels ill-equipped to handle local municipality or unrelated sport divisions separately.

 

Both Nate and my regional EVP have asked for ideas and help. I have not yet responded, because I don't get any sense that they see anything as negotiable, flexible, or up for modification.

 

I do have a poorly developed idea. So, consider this a rough draft. We have Assistant, Regular, Senior, and Emeritus official levels. We have functional designations (driver, judge, safety, scorer, etc.). We have a database which tracks our ratings.

 

Simply add "-B" to those who voluntarily submit to the BGC.

 

Thus, the database would contains two flavors for all existing designations. An assistant judge would be "AJ" while another with BGC would be AJ-B. When the LOC sanctions an event, the LOC can decide to allow under 18 or not to participate. If they chose to allow under 18, then they must secure "-B" officials for their event. Events with no competitors under 18 have no risk for USA-WSWS and therefore could still occur in compliance with the law using normal officials with no BGCs.

 

Clearly, this would have a potential to reduce the number of youth-allowed sanctioned events. Also, the demand for "-B" officials might exceed the supply. The solution is simple, the parents of all youth skiers should be required to have at minimal an assistant official rating with BGC. Then, the parents can work the events in which their children participate. Many already do, so that would not be a big change in truth.

 

[ToddL]

One more comment about coaches and BGCs. Are all coaches at all ski schools L1 or higher certified? Are all "pro" coaches L1's? I am sure some are, but many are not. One very popular ski school is primarily staffed by international collegiate skiers. I significantly doubt those "coaches" are L1 certified and have been BGCed.

 

I have taken lessons from several pro skiers in recent years. Yet, none of their names appear on the official USA-WSWS directory as instructors. Maybe this is a bigger risk to truly protecting our youth than forcing all officials to do BGCs.

 

Current list of instructors attached for your review.

[ForrestGump]

In BMX or Road Cycling, if you coach a clinic or you accept money for coaching, you have to become a USA Cycling certified coach.

 

Any pro skier should be required to become a certified USAWS coach with a certain time frame. Give them 6 months and then don't pass scores to the rankings until they do.

 

[jedgell]

@ToddL. While I disagree with the requirement for background checks, other than coaches, can’t get behind your proposal. Will be way too easy for people not to get the background check and then we’re just eliminating youths from skiing tournaments. How about the tournament organizers disclose whether or not the officials have got the background check and let the youth’s parents decide if their kids can ski. Parents can sign a waiver that they accept the responsibility, crazy thought. I know this isn’t feasible either, the whole BG check is just ridiculous.

Also as a father of two young boys that attends tournaments with them it’s not easy , and usually not possible, to judge while I’m there. Keeping an eye on a 5 and 7 yr old, around water doesn’t allow for any free time. Also, when they’re skiing I’m having to help them get set up.

Don’t have an answer, other than to get rid of the BG check requirements.

[ToddL]

@jedgell - you can't have your cake (youth sports) and eat it (no BGC), too. Pick one. Also, which would you choose: allowing adults to continue in the sport or running off adults for the sake of the youth? Unless we divide and conquer, I fear both halves will suffer. The BGC part is a huge pill to swallow. The Safe Sport training is debatable, but not truly a deal breaker as long as it remains included in the value of one's membership fee. Do you send your kids to ski schools or paid for coaching? Did you ask to see their BGCs?

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@ToddL the problem is you are trying to apply logic to a logic free problem. The burearucrats at USOPC read the same definitions for "authority over" and "regular contact" where a normal person would say those don't apply to judges and they just say "No" you still have to do BG checks. Simply because they can exercise their authority. It's what burearucracies do. It just boils down to that.

[ski6jones]

@ToddL in your post you made a very good case for why SS training is not required by law for all in our discipline. The BGC is not called for at all, other than USOPC says we must. Can you show me in the Safesport act where BGC are required? The solution you suggest would need to be tracked by "the system" so why can't "the system" rather track and implement rules that suit our discipline? I'd also hate to see us implement a plan that potentially excludes young skiers. We are already making it harder for new tournament skiers to participate.

[ski6jones]

@ToddL you say that Nate and your (my) EVP asked for suggestions but you haven't responded as you don't think THEY see any of this as negotiable. THAT is a huge problem. At this point we are just pissing in the wind, probably have been for the last 40 pages. I guess we'll see how this shakes out in the spring. Apparently the lines have been drawn.

[jedgell]

@ToddL No issue with BG checks for coaches or anyone working at ski school where they’re working with kids.

No one has been able to make a legitimate case for why a judge should have a BG check. Can you explain how sitting in a tower or boat puts a judge in a position to do something to kids? Makes no sense and I believe that is the main issue with most members here.

Anyway I’m out of this discussion, as it sounds like the decisions have been made. Guess we’ll find out what the ramifications are.

 

[ToddL]

@jedgell - I guess you missed most of my prior posts on this topic. I totally agree with you. There is no sense in this. As I stated, leadership put up a challenge of "give us ideas for a solution". So, knowing where they are starting and were the rest of us are, I made a middle-ground suggestion. They are clearly unwilling to back completely off this BGC bandwagon. The best we can hope for is to steer it away from the edge of the cliff it is stampeding toward.

[skierjp]

Why do I even need a background check? I have a background check for my job, for my TSA Precheck and my Concealed Carry Permit plus I’m pretty sure for my Private Pilots license. TSA and CCP both require fingerprinting. I also have a MVR to be a driver which you have to pay for ( I have a Class A, CDL)! It would seem like with these credentials another background check is pointless. I’m not against background checks as you can see but I’m not giving out my SSN. As I said before, my wife’s SSN was compromised at a local hospital which allowed someone to file her tax return that ended up being a real PIA and now every year we have to go through a special process.

Why would USAWS go through all this trouble with someone that can show them a TSA Precheck or a CCA?

[lpskier]

Let me ask: Is it the background check, or is it $30, or is it that you have to give your Social Security number and credit card information to some entity you don’t know, raising fears of identity theft? These are different problems with different potential solutions.

[lpskier]

@ToddL One problem with your proposal that parents of junior skiers become judges is that doing so creates an inherent conflict of interest. Parents can’t judge their own kids.

[sunperch]

@lpskier Yes to all of the above AND to the heavy handed mandate from "those in authority", all designed to CYA the USAWS organization with minimal real benefits to any members. The worst part of the mandates is the liability being shifted to the LOCs.

[lpskier]

@sunperch The liability shift (if it exists, and it may not) is a different issue. And “yes to all of the above” doesn’t really help solve the problem. For those in this discussion who have some ability to help ameliorate the problem, we really need to know what the issue is that bugs officials about background checks. Are you really against background checks for anyone? What if you climbed up in the tower and there was a guy there you’d never seen before, and he introduces himself: “Hi’ I’m Larry…”

[skierjp]

If judges need a background check then all the other officials should have to be checked. The question is what are they looking for? I'm not afraid of someone in the tower that I don't know.

[ski6jones]

@lpskier wouldn't it make more sense for the organization to make their case for why BGC for judges make sense in 3-event skiing? From what i could find the stated goal is to "promote a safe and nurturing environment". A worthwhile goal but not very specific. Specially how will BGC for judges help achieve this goal?

 

I've sat in towers with people I didn't know and somehow survived. Maybe I was lucky.

[lpskier]

Spoiler alert: My reference to “Larry” was Larry Nasser

 

@skierjp I agree that a BGC for judges only makes little sense, although the USOCPC rationale is that judges can influence scores and therefore can exert undue influence over competitors and therefore help obtain sexual favors from those in the junior divisions. I’m not sure if this is true, but I can attest that it hasn’t worked for me in the (adult) women's divisions!

[ski6jones]

All you'd need to do to keep Larry Nassar off the tower is check the sex offender registry.

[The_MS]

Just because someone is running a ski school does not mean that they are associated with USAWS. You could have a ski center anywhere and not have to be a member to run it.

@lpskier I am against the checks, the payment and giving up my CC, Soc Sec info.

I am also against the training as it is useless. It will do nothing and has done nothing to protect anybody. It’s all about the money lobby. Congress set this $hit up so you know it’s a boondoggle.

We have 40 homes at our place and a very small % are USAWS members. If our HOA reads any of the wording of the requirements, I would guess they will not want to take on any responsibility of hosting an event. Why should people who live here and don’t even ski put them selves at risk for a law suit?

[Golfguy]

What @sunperch is saying is that the problem isn't any one of the new requirements, but an aggregate of all of them. And all of the other sport spoiling rules levied in the past. AWSA or something new could be separated from USAWS, shaken off, and reinstated as the USA tournament centric org. Let's throw some tea in the harbor.

 

[skierjp]

@lpskier as a driver I could weave the boat all over the place in a C tournament for favors?

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@lpskier its the background check. My issue is that the BG check will NOT make any kids safer, NOT improve any "nurturing and safe environment", and NOT reduce any risk of sexual crimes. In short, it will not solve or improve ANY known problem.

 

The BG check will cause current judges to drop their ratings and reduce the number of new judges willing to assist. In other words, a significant downside to the requirement which is NOT in the best interest of the organization despite Nate's claim

 

On top of that, its plain insulting to individuals and does put that individual at risk of identity theft for no benefit.

 

The current explaination is that the BG checks are due to updated USOPC policies requiring BG checks for "game officials". Again this is a logic free mandate from a bureacracy with no reason to negotiate or change their position. They are in charge and everyone must comply.

 

https://awsasouthcentral.com/single-post/response-from-nate

 

Your question about the guy named "Larry" getting on a tower is a perfect example of the stupidity of BG check. With the current rules, Larry can still ski and hang around, just not get on the tower. So 'splain to me how a judges BG check will reduce any risk to kids or the LOC with Larry hanging around?

 

In real tournament, Larry would be watched like a hawk and most likely asked to leave by the LOC (if it was my tournament it would not be an "ask"). Things like that are more effectively handled locally and not by some global bureaucratic mandate from on high.

[dave2ball]

@lpskier i can only speak for my self but @skierjp makes a great point as far as TSA concealed weapons permits. All must have fingerprints along with there BGC. If a person has a professional license such as a state paramedic,EMT doctor RN they have been fingerprinted and have had a criminal BGC. weather it has been one week ago or 20 years ago and they still carry a professional license the BGC should be waived. I am not a judge I don’t have to be BGC but I will not in now way shape or form give out my SS number for waterskiing. There is no rational reason for a BGC to judge a skier doesn’t make sense. I’m not opposed to a background check I don’t trust some random 3 rd party company we know nothing about having my SS number.

[ToddL]

@Bruce_Butterfield - that link mentions a virtual "Town Hall" with the insurance broker to explain "why". Every town hall event I have attended allows for comments and questions by the attendees. This seems like the perfect opportunity to bring exactly your points and many more directly to the insurance entities since USA-WSWS has placed much of the blame directly upon them.

[lpskier]

@The_MS Sadly, we know we’ve lost you and that you have resigned (or not renewed) your membership, so your opinion is no longer relevant.

 

If background checks were required for all officials but they were free, how would people who are actually current officials feel about them?

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@lpskier if background checks were free, it would not change my comments above.

[The_MS]

@lpskier I am still able to compete for another 13 hours. Happy New Year