2021 is my last year of USAWS

[ToddL]

@lpskier - John, if you think the opinions of departing members don't matter, then I would never want you working for any corporation's marketing division. Such an inwardly-focused, siloed perspective is the death of organizations.

[markn]

Still a member until midnight so I can still post and still with @The_MS as I was at the beginning of this thread way back in April. They have had plenty of time to correct the situation.....crickets. To USAWS I say, thanks for the memories and bye-bye......

[lpskier]

@ToddL I guess my point was poorly made. Badly made. We know Mark’s opinion and we know he feels strongly enough to drop out, as I recall because of the safe sport training requirement. That issue may or may not be resolved to Mark’s liking. I know there are discussions on that topic among USAWSWS and AWSA leadership

 

The background check issue may be able to be repaired/tweaked/fixed so that some of the things we ALL find objectionable can be ameliorated. As an AWSA board member with perhaps some influence, I am trying to determine what might be able to be done. If USAWSWS is offered options other than “get rid of it in its entirety or I quit,” there is a chance we can make progress. But we have to have some ideas other than “get rid of it” because background checks for some people may become a fact of life.

 

 

[dave2ball]

@lpskier from reading the posts I believe that USAWSWS really cared about this issue Nate would of put out some sort of statement possibly saying we here you and we will try to change this. Instead all we here are crickets and reactive actions taken. Toning proactive. If everyone who has commented on this thread does what they claim and that is to drop out or allow there ratings to drop or go inactive the tournaments everywhere will have issues. Even here in Orlando. Any believe this is a huge over reach and it has nothing to do with stopping inappropriate actions at tournaments.

If you need email then please request them. That way you can drop multiple pages of push back on this subject. Otherwise the board members may not give this a fair hearing.

[ToddL]

Here are the recipients that I used for my message to leadership. All of their email addresses are readily available in public documents on the websites. Alternatively, you can direct message me and I can provide the list with the consolidated emails.

 

Nathan Boudreaux , USA-WSWS Executive Director

Dale Stevens , Vice President

Doug Robbins, AWSA-Director, BOD Chairperson

Tim Cullen, USA-WSWS Past President

Keith Lindemulder, AWSA-Chairman/EVP

Kate Knafla, ASWA-VP

Brad Corbin, AWSA-EVP, West

Robert Howerton, AWSA-EVP, South Central

Dennis Downes, AWSA-EVP, MidWest

Karen Melnik, AWSA-EVP, East

Robert Harris, AWSA-EVP, South

Bylaws Chair Email

Ethics Chair Email

International Activities Chair Email

Judicial Chair Email

 

https://teamusa.org/-/media/USA_Waterski/Disciplines/3-Event-Water-Skiing/AWSACommittees.pdf

https://usawaterski.org/graphics/downloads/USAWSCommittees.pdf

https://usawaterski.org/graphics/downloads/USAWSBOD.pdf

 

 

[sunperch]

@lpskier Let me try to be more specific. 1. I object to the background check for all judges because I do not think that it will do anything to protect kids at tournaments. I have been at a tournament where a stranger was seen following around a young girl, we called the police. The BGC would not keep the #1 OM skier from being on a tower despite his questionable at best history with young female skiers. 2. No, I do not want to pay for an unnecessary BGC. I have had multiple for my job, but my job pays for them. They are required in my healthcare job but that job pays me for my work. 3. I do not want to give my SSN or my credit card number to an unknown entity, an unnecessary risk of identity theft. All of the big corporate training classes repeat to never give your SSN to a 3rd party.

 

I want to hear what others think, hard to have a conversation when you try to censor differing opinions by telling @The_MS to shut up.

 

I do think that loosing talented drivers, regardless of age, due to the mandates that have been stipulated by USAWS-WS is just bad for the sport. A bad driver has much more influence on my score than a judge in a tower.

[ToddL]

+1 for what @sunperch wrote.

[MISkier]

@lpskier, the issue for me is the SSN. I can work around the credit card, as I already do for other websites I do not trust. The background check should must not require that FTI piece of information.

 

I frequently see the point made here that many do not believe the SafeSport training or the background check will protect the kids or other potential victims. I believe it is not about that and never was, so those looking for some relationship between the training/BGC and successful prevention are wasting their time. It is about having an argument in court that the organization was not negligent or complicit in any incident leading to criminal charges or civil litigation. The insurance companies, et. al., are trying to avoid another MSU or USA Gymnastics settlement.

 

As for the SafeSport training, I completed the first course a couple of years ago, when AWSA had it listed as "recommended" training. I've done one refresher and my membership will be valid after 1/1/2022 until my next refresher is due at the end of February. I did not feel particularly oppressed when I completed the previous trainings and will likely complete the refresher. The background check is another matter.

 

I currently hold enough ratings to serve in every Chief Official capacity for a class C tournament, until my judge rating is suspended. I'm not sure if I will let some or all of the other ratings lapse.

 

I do have a question related to the rating suspension. If I already have enough credits to renew at the expiration of the current rating effective period and my judge rating becomes suspended for an extended period of time, would I be able to simply complete the background check later for re-activation - assuming the SSN requirement is subsequently dropped? That is, how easy will it be to reinstate judges to their original levels if an amicable solution eventually emerges? Completing all the requirements of the initial judge application and upgrades again is a non-starter for me. At a minimum, AWSA should be considering special re-instatement options after assessing the impact of attrition and, hopefully, adjusting their approach.

[skierjp]

@MISkier I was wondering the same thing about what happens to our official status if suspended. I bet it's downgraded. This will be their strangle hold.

[A_B]

I received a reply to my email to Nate. He is basically saying that it was all about insurance for sexual abuse.

 

Once again, the American legal system fails miserably on holding a governing body accountable for no negligent act, and now all government bodies must react.

 

This is one of the watershed cases that is creating a liability mindset at USAWSA;

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/water-polo-players-14-million-sex-abuse-settlement-78133052

 

In my opinion, the mandate for all skiers to take the training is way beyond the case logic of "coach abuse" from the case above. No skier or even a judge or driver at a tournament is an authority figure like a paid coach of a team or camp. This is where my common sense test issues a FAIL for this new requirement. It is way beyond where common sense would say paid coaches, Ski Camp owners, etc.. should be enough to show the organization is taking measures to help prevent an event.

 

Why don't we all wear diapers just in case we shard in our underwear?

Why don't we require all drivers to wear the kill switch lanyard?

And a million other things that are "risky".....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ToddL]

Maybe it is time for a new poll to get a true pulse of the BOS community. Before we create the actual poll, let's fine tune the answer choices. Here's a first draft. Let me know if something is missing.

 

Describe your position on 2022 membership renewal:

I'm done. There is nothing I think they will do that will bring me back.

I will not renew. but I might come back if things change to make more sense.

I will likely not renew. I fear they will not undo this enough to change my mind.

I want to renew, but have concerns and will wait to see if things get better.

I will likely renew. If there are more requirements coming, then I will stop.

I will likely renew. I don't like this, but I will still comply.

I will likely renew, but will drop my officials ratings and just become a consumer.

I will renew. I love competitive skiing so much that I will comply.

[ski6jones]

@ToddL good idea. I think fewer options would be better. Maybe something like this?

 

1) Won't do SS.

2) Will do SS but not BGC.

3) Will participate under current rules.

 

Another useful poll would be how many sites won't host tournaments this year that did previously, say at least once in the last 2-3 years.

[ToddL]

@ski6jones - I understand the allure of simplicity. However, there are a few more situations than this. Also, the SS training is a bit of a non-negotiable item. The BGC topic is very negotiable, and there are many levels of rejection and acceptance. One can easily consolidate the draft suggestions into for vs against it. The granularity provides much more insight. I wish we could do a multi-select style of poll where respondents could check all that apply. That would even be more insightful responses.

 

[ski6jones]

Understand. For me I would need to choose between 4 options in your poll that apply in varying degrees. Which of those 4 I chose would be somewhat arbitrary because they are all somewhat true.

[Mateo_Vargas]

Collegiate skiing will leave before AWSA does.

[Stevie Boy]

When a long standing member of a organization, who has contributed so much walks away.

Something Is Wrong ! Somebody within that organization should be taking notice, it is not a good thing, easy to bury your head in the sand, but somebody needs to own it and somebody needs to be working on a solution.

All organizations become bogged down with unnecessary junk and dead wood, that's when it needs to be restructured, taken back to the bare skeleton and put back together, with the minimum amount of junk and dead wood.

[A_B]

Larry Nassar Olympic Team Doctor and the Girls Water Polo Coach cases show how bad people in a position of power can be. An Olympic Team Physician could exert control by keeping someone out of the lineup for "medical" reasons, just as a coach can keep a player on the bench or off the team.

 

There must only be a handful of positions like this in all of water skiing.

 

But our Insurance Broker can only come up with a policy to cover the governing body if we inflict BGC and SS training on ALL members..... Hard to imagine this is the legal and insurance world we live in. A shotgun kills a fly, can't argue with the result, but come on..

[ToddL]

I am working on a Google forms survey. I will provide the link when it is ready.

[ToddL]

Someone whom I regard as quite fair, kind, smart, and level-headed suggested that a reasonable solution would be to make the membership education an awareness training that is very crisp and concise with an overview taking less than 10 minutes to watch. Then, apply the current more in depth training to a new role called SafeSport Officer which would be required at all sanctioned events. Possibly that role can be combined with the existing Safety Director rating. Thus, the organization would have full awareness, and baseline education, but the events would have in depth oversight by trained individuals. This doesn't solve the BGC debate, but it does "right-size" compromise the SS debate.

[Edit: SS Officer - seems not terribly popular. OK, then all officials?]

 

Further: There are 4 audiences of SS training. Each has a different need and a right-sized education.

 

Some scope of Official(s) - the current program content: how to spot a predator, insuring safe situations/contexts, reporting. etc.

Adult Members - awareness of the USA-WSWS approach, expectations of a "safe" competitor

Parents of youth competitors - voluntary content: awareness of USA-WSWS approach, how to spot a predator, insuring safe situations/contexts, reporting

Youth - voluntary content offered to parents to share with their children if they choose: being safe, situations to avoid, who to contact for help

[dave2ball]

@ToddL sorry but I disagree with you placing all the SS role on safety directors. It is not there responsibility to be the SS POLICE. there is no ideal solution but as much as I disagree that this SS will not do what it is intended to prevent you can’t just hold all one safety official responsible.

[ForrestGump]

SafeSport Officer. This sounds a lot like what would happen in Russia or China.

[ToddL]

@dave2ball - I understand your rejection of that responsibility. Other than "everyone" and "no one", what officials' role(s) are responsible?

 

What are your thoughts on the separate training content/audiences?

[ToddL]

@ForrestGump - haha!

[dave2ball]

@ToddL the officials don’t have a role in SS other the taking the class. have the competitors and officials take the SS class. And then done. You can’t have one person or group be the SS police at tournaments. Coaching and ski schools a different story. The more mandatory training and responsibility they place of officials and now you bring in personal liabilities on top of that the sport will be done.

 

[skierjp]

A reply from Nate yesterday, but my opinion is this will never work, they have a hard time finding officials for Nationals as it is. I’m sure most of us have received the email before Nationals pleading for held..,

From Nate below

Please know that only a select few people will need background checks. We are making some headway regarding background checks for judges and that will be discussed at the January board meeting. We received a clarification recently that only USA-WSWS “approved or assigned” judges would be subject to the USOPC background screen requirement for officials. That would mean only Nationals judges would be required to have a background check (local and regional judges would be exempt).

[ski6jones]

If we're making suggestions about what changes to make, how about these? SS only, the BGC appears to be another animal.

 

1. Acknowledgment - Think waiver, but for SS. Includes links to all the relevant material and training. Tick the box and agree to follow the rules. Anytime you see a waiver you also see the SS acknowledgment.

2. SS training for any named official in a sanction; Chiefs, Asst Chiefs, Appointed, LOC representative, tournament director, etc.

3. Regular and above officials as part of the rating.

4. Coaches and anyone active in youth sport (JD, etc).

 

The system can track all of this just like it does current rating. Don't meet the requirements then you can't work, ski, whatever.

 

This seems reasonable and appropriate for the 3-event discipline and meets the stated objectives of the Safesport act.

 

 

[Dirt]

@Mateo_Vargas yes and good luck getting insurance for them.

[Mateo_Vargas]

@Dirt i'm sure an insurance alternate exists for lake owners to host an event. How did INT do it back in the day? I don't think many lakes use USAWS insurance for practice anymore.

[Wish]

Maybe somewhere in this thread it says what the background check is looking for specifically. Don’t remember reading it but what exactly produces a red flag and what exactly will happen to that skier/judge/official/coach or whoever is being targeted??

[LeonL]

@ski6jones I already did such poll. Maybe I'll bump it up for reconsideration

[skierjp]

@Wish I ask Nate. Here is his reply… the first response was about using other things such as TSA or Concealed Carry. The second paragraph is when I ask what they are looking for. Didn’t really answer.

 

Other background checks or TSA or whatever are not reciprocal unfortunately. Many of these screens look for different things. The USOPC criteria is attached – this is the criteria we must follow as well.

 

 

 

People can also appeal a failed background screen – we’ve had two of those already – one for a Team USA member and another for a coach. Both failed the screen for minor missteps years ago and the hearing panel upheld their appeal allowing them to participate. The background screen is a tool to bring attention to a “possible issue” before it presents itself. Don’t think there is a way around the social security number. USA-WSWS is not keeping any of this data – it’s all encrypted and used by NCSI to process the identify verification as part of the background screen.

[NameUnavailable]

@Mateo_Vargas Our POA has a general liability policy, but I am not sure you can get specific coverage for he loop hole they have created with this....

[dave2ball]

Beautiful from the response from @skierjp per Nate if someone reports a miscommunication, jealousy or slight bump in the wrong place as people walk by may get you blackballed to judge. Sweet. So are we going to ski by appointment at tournaments now? Sweet. No more excuses for missing your ride.

[lpskier]

https://www.sportsengine.com/corp/products/ncsi

 

From their website:

 

3.4 Security of Information Provided to NCSI. You can submit your personal and billing information to www.ncsisafe.com with confidence. We have partnered with PayPal, a leading payment gateway to accept credit cards payments safely and securely for our registrants and customers. The PayPal manages the complex routing of sensitive customer information through the credit card processing networks. The company adheres to strict industry standards for payment processing, including 256-bit Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) technology for secure Internet Protocol (IP) transactions; Industry standard encryption hardware and software methods and security protocols to protect customer information; and compliance with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS).

[dave2ball]

@lpskier while I appreciate you efforts to put the link for the company who will do BGCs that does not mean they can’t get hacked or somebody’s SS number won’t get compromised. It still doesn’t settle the pushback by most members due to the fact a BGC will not do what USA WATERSKI wants to accomplish there for really no need for it. If we pull away from the USOC and leave this government BS mandate the membership may just say ok. Let ski now. Yes I know the SS mandate will still apply but that may be more tolerable for most.

[skierjp]

Billing isn’t the issue.Submitting the SSN is. Nate also said that you could put all 0’s in and someone would call you for the number… don’t really understand this. So I don’t enter my SSN but someone else does from a phone call. It’s still being entered on line. The hospital entered my wife’s SSN not her and it was compromised.

[Golfguy]

Pay Pal, ? My Pay Pal account was hacked and someone was making purchases all across the country. At least drop the BGC, please.

[A_B]

We can’t get people to agree on 1/4, 1/2, or 1, on buoy count, now we will have SS and BGC police making calls around the country.

 

For the record, BGC does not prevent or predict bad behavior from someone who has not yet chosen to act out in the past. But that is just common sense so it may not apply.

[dave2ball]

@skierjp as usual the USA WATERSKI Board don't see or hear what the members are saying. Weather you put your SS number in online over there site or over the phone which is even scarier. The persons SS number is still in there system.

[Wish]

So if I’m getting this correct the “red flags” are those set by another entity all together?? And not defined by the board?? Well that’s convenient. So as USOPC changes their red flag criteria it will apply to us?? Obviously these “red flags” must be broad and vague to cut across many sports. Ripe for misinterpretation or abuse on a “possible issue” . Am I missing something? And again, what happens to the skier,coach,judge.....if they are flagged?? Banned for life”. Who decides the sentance? Who exactly is on the appeals board?. Maybe they take action on some of the protesters here for “possible issue” deep in their past. Over reaction.?.maybe. But it’s certainly not making me want to jump back into tournaments. Already know one senior diver/coach that’s out.

[skibackwards]

Someone tell me after the January meeting that the BGC is eliminated for judges at local tournaments. At that time I will renew my membership.

[A_B]

@Wish will these "Boards" review if you are a Panda recipient???

[Than_Bogan]

I suppose it was too much to hope for that this thread would die when 2021 came to an end.

 

(Yeah, useless snarky comment, but I know I wasn't the only one with that thought!)

[A_B]

@Than_Bogan kind of like train wrecks...

[Bruce_Butterfield]

Below is the disqualifying BG criteria I received from USAWS, which is the flowdown from USOPC:

 

SCHEDULE A-1

CRIMINAL CRITERION OFFENSE

 

A reportable record or disclosure that contains a disposition or resolution of a criminal

proceeding, other than an adjudication of not guilty, for any of the below criminal

offenses will be flagged as a Red-Light, meaning it does not meet the initial screening

criteria established by the USOPC, and the individual will be subject to the Client’s

policies and procedures to determine eligibility:

 

1) CRL-1. Any felony; and

a) Defined as all crimes punishable by greater than one year in jail or prison, regardless

of how characterized by jurisdiction. If range, alternate sentencing, or indeterminate

sentencing with an outer range greater than one year.

 

Any misdemeanor involving:

 

2) CRL-2. All sexual crimes, criminal offenses of a sexual nature to include but not limited

to; rape, child molestation, sexual battery, lewd conduct, possession and distribution of

child pornography, possession and distribution of obscene material, prostitution,

indecent exposure, public indecency, and any sex offender registrant;

3) CRL-3. Any drug related offenses;

4) CRL-4. Harm to a minor or vulnerable person, including, but not limited to, offenses

such as child abandonment, child endangerment/neglect/abuse, contributing to the

delinquency of a minor, and DUI with a minor;

5) CRL-5. Violence against a person, force, or threat of force (including crimes involving a

deadly weapon and domestic violence);

6) CRL-6. Stalking, harassment, blackmail, violation of a protection order, and/or threats;

7) CRL-7. Destruction of property, including arson, vandalism, and criminal mischief; and

8) CRL-8. Animal abuse, cruelty, or neglect.

 

It is still not clear how far back the BG check goes, i.e. 3 years, 7 years or forever. There are also appeal procedures available.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@Than_Bogan

this thread will die when we all submit to whatever our overlords want to force on us.

[elr]

A SSN is NOT required for a criminal background check. With $19.95 (22.95 for International) and a name and address you can get: Nationwide Criminal; Bankruptcies, Liens, and Judgement; U.S. Sex Offender; FBI/Marshals list; and, Terrorist Search/OFAC [applycheck.com]. Add $20 to the annual renewal cost and consent for criminal background check to the membership/renewal application and run everybody.

[Jody_Seal]

Again @Than_Bogan you know the thred is here you know how to not push the button to read it.

Pretty sure there is lots of other very useful dialog on other threads that might interest you.

 

Still shame on those that think usopc moneys warrants this direction in the sport. Not a good healthy economic decision for the

organization for sure.

Especially when the organization is supposed to be a waterways advocacy group.

Hmm how does that work? Take government moneys and then go and try and protect against government closing water ways.....

 

USAWS= United socialist association for waterskiing

 

[kurt]

Jordan Peterson interesting take, does it apply here?

Actually not that interesting most of us already know this is happening.

[Dirt]

@Than_Bogan I fear what will die is awsa/ usaws if this bs is upheld. I have only talked to one person who did all this. She did it to ski on a team. Who will do it to ski in a C tournament or judge? Not me.