2021 is my last year of USAWS

[bigtex2011]

Oh dear.

[Broussard]

@skierjp

I’m still confused on why BG checks would be required for Nationals but not regular tournaments? What if they can’t find judges to hold Nationals? According to policy, to be invited to Nationals as a judge you need to be a 3 Event Senior. Might be slim pickings!

 

The issue is that USA Water Ski & Wake Sports owns the rights to the US Water Ski National Championships and it is technically their event which LOCs agree to organize. Your entry fees actually go to USAWS and then a portion is paid out to the LOC and AWSA.

 

All other tournaments are simply sanctioned by USAWS but the event belongs to the LOCs.

[jayski]

@bigtex2011 DUUUUUDE!!! 12 step program!!?? C'mon neither of us has the patience, focus, or desire for 12 steps, we need like a 2 or 3 step program at the most, some days that'll be too much...my 80hd won't handle 12 steps

[The_MS]

It’s only 12 steps to Rascals

[thager]

Sheesh....12 steps of my life I'll NEVER get back!!!

[teammalibu]

@thager

please tell me you are not checking BOS at 4:30 am when you get up to pee!!

[teammalibu]

@jayski

be careful where you step!

[Keith_Menard]

Pro-tip...don't put the make a donation button so close to the Safe Sport certification completed button.

 

There isn't much more frustrating than answering all the pretest questions correctly, sitting through a video, then playing simon says with the buttons, only to THEN ANSWER THE SAME QUESTIONS CORRECTLY AGAIN!

 

USA Waterski owes me a bourbon...and not one of those crappy ones that @ Horton drinks...a good one!

[thager]

@teammalibu

Ok, I won't tell you.

[Spruce]

I honestly think that SafeSport training may be a pain for some to do, but it's free, and it's to ensure the safety of the youths in the sport. All in all, in the long run it will probably do more good than harm, and isn't something that should make you quit the tournaments..

[ghutch]

@Keith_Menard

exactly! And its not earth shattering news about what to look out for either. Just give me the cliff notes and be done with it.

[Jody_Seal]

So at @Spruce so doing the government indoctrination called safe sport will ensure the safety of the youth athletes?! This ensures it right??? Hmmm!!!

 

 

Why the background check then?

 

I wonder if congress has any oversight on to where usopc funds get allocated? Time to write my congressman.

 

 

No one as of yet has shown me where to get my usopc benefits.

 

 

[Spruce]

@Jody_Seal I feel as if a background check should be required if they are looking after the protection of minors. I don't see why the background check is a problem, especially when you don't have to do much for the background check to be performed, it's mostly on their end.

[The_MS]

WOW. Why stop at USAWS members. I say background checks for all citizens and if you fail you have to wear an ankle monitor and cannot go out in public.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@Spruce I've asked this before but not received an answer: "What offence could show up in a BG check that would make a person a risk to a minor when that person is judging? If there is such an offence, how is that person less of a risk to the minors when he/she is still on site, competing and hanging around, just not able to judge?"

 

I have not heard a single rational explaination of exactly how BG checks for judges will improve protection of minors or reduce liability in any way.

 

Keep in mind that sex offenders are already a matter of public record.

[skierjp]

The deal breaker for me is the requirement for my SSN.

[bigtex2011]

@Bruce_Butterfield I think it's been hashed over pretty well that some don't fear the background ck and some really fear the background cks.

 

i thought the reason on one of the other 47 pages was it was a liability/insurance issue.

 

If i were you a would be scared :smiley:

 

Can you imagine if someone stole @The_MS 's identity. Two @The_MS 's out there.

 

One that likes kids and domestic beer and the other that hates kids and drinks IPA's

 

One that's happy, one that's sad

 

Please dont steal his identity. I don't think we're ready for that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The_MS]

@bigtex2011 Kids are OK

 

(After a few IPAs)

[bigtex2011]

haha

[Spruce]

@Bruce_Butterfield Yeah, I may have blanked out there on my reasoning. My bad. You are correct with the public records for people who have offended, that didn't seem to cross my mind. I do then however agree with background checks for any coach or higher up at a tourny. Not that we would have to worry all to much since a lot of them are well known in said niche, but y'know. I do apologize for my blanking in reasoning earlier today, was eating lunch. :# <3

 

[ForrestGump]

Bruce, you have not heard a rational reason because there is no rational reason. This somewhat reminds me of JP Seers skit on life jackets. Which is technically aimed at masks, but applies here too. lol.

 

[MDB1056]

This thread has been completely off the rails for months. The title alone gave hope that it would have died on 1/1/22 yet it persists. I’m sure I’ll get flamed for these comments but a reality check here is long overdue. My apologies in advance as some of this is likely redundant with others comments.

 

1. It would have been a colossal leadership failure and sign of weakness for USAWS to ask for membership input on items such as SS & background checks or any such items. Why? Because of just what this thread shows. It would have been an immediate rats nest of unending debate. Leadership in any organization is expected to make policy decisions.

 

2. Joining any organization as a “member” does not make you a stockholder, a board member, nor convey any vote in management of that organization. As a “member” you are agreeing to the terms of the organization which you chose to join. Period. You can of course choose to terminate your membership at your discretion but again membership alone conveys no say in management of the organization. There is no expectation for any organization to ask for membership input regarding policy decisions.

 

3. Requirements for SS and background checks are not rule changes. These are policy decisions. Organizations like USAWS implementing these and similar items are doing so out of requirement. Not choice. Yes, these are requirements of organizations dealing with public events that are imposed now by insurance, risk management, and legal partner organizations that are required in order to obtain the necessary minimum protections to put on the events. Period. As such any discussion on USAWS reversing course on these items is a waste of time.

 

4. Things like SS and background checks by definition are viewed as public safety measures, meaning they are grounded in good purpose contributing to the protection and safety of the public. As such all the ridiculous debate on the true effectiveness at the person level etc. is just that. Ridiculous. From the public’s viewpoint these programs by definition are positive as they are meant to help protect. Period. I have never seen any initiatives which are viewed as for the purpose of protecting the public (especially youth) rolled back or removed, in any sport or organization. Quite the contrary. The public outcry is for more protections not less.

 

It’s disappointing that this membership doesn’t understand these viewpoints regardless of whether you agree with them or not. I’m sure some do but again 47 pages confirms many do not. The causes for these are the same as why they are now commonplace, namely behaviors in society. Passionate membership in wonderful and essential to the future of any organization, but realistic views are equally essential for channeling that passion.

 

It’s disappointing to say the least to see such debate about a few extra dollars and maybe 90 minutes for the SS requirement by those who spend many thousands each year for the pure personal pleasure of skiing. And please don’t play the it’s just one more thing argument. SS is a housekeeping item. And additional push back on background checks? Really? It’s an unsupportable position to argue that background checks are a bad thing, as again by definition they serve as an additional filter for personal and public safety. And as to who they should be run on, if you work an event - that’s you, regardless of your role since you are on site and in contact with all the skiers. Personally I could care less if someone runs a check on me weekly.

 

To those here who’s frustration with the current system is too great I hope you enjoy your new found freedom, less stressful life, and much greater wealth after quitting. To the discussion of mass exodus and establishing a new organization, free enterprise is one of the things that makes this country great. From my chair attempting to further fragment and already minuscule sport can only be viewed as further damaging a landscape which has already been shrinking for quite a while.

 

Bottom line, these issues high level are not at all unique to USAWS or this sport, but rather are commonplace in corporate America everywhere. This is why it’s essential to take a 100,000 ft. view and not the myopic perspective of an emotionally charged membership. I hope folks don’t retort here by saying I’m not even a USAWS AWSA member etc. as that only makes my point again. Yes I turned in my card long ago as my tourney days are long over, but still love this sport as much as anyone. I fully support the line I’ve seen here many times…….. just go ski. Life’s too short.

 

Kudos to @JeffSurdej for some good grounding comments in here. He's taken a lot of flak.

 

[ForrestGump]

I for one don't give a sh$t if my driver or judge in a waterski tournament once got arrested for burglary of a building at 21yo. WTF cares.

[The_MS]

After reading @MDB1056 post , I am more convinced that society has SARS. Self-absorbed reflex syndrome

It says “From the public’s viewpoint”in there somewhere. Was there a nation wide questioner that I somehow missed? From what I hear, we are sick and tired of being sick and tired about all this WOKE crap being pushed by a small minority (a very loud constant, media backed, bunch of flys buzzing around your head loud minority) and all they bring with it. The government can’t find its way out of a paper bag.

[jcamp]

"We are sick and tired of being sick and tired about all this WOKE crap being pushed by a small minority (a very loud constant, media backed, bunch of flys buzzing around your head loud minority) and all they bring with it. The government can’t find its way out of a paper bag."

 

Thank you @The_MS for clarifying why this whole thread has been such BS and why I'm not going to mourn people like you leaving the sport if that's what you decide. Throughout this whole issue you've wanted, no NEEDED, to make this about something that it's not. You want to make some sort of statement against politics, wokeness, little-d democracy, or as @Jody_Seal has ranted about endlessly, the COMMUNIST ELITE NOBODY LIKED MY IDEAS SO THEY MUST BE CORRUPT ARGH!!!!. Admit it, you are old (I'm not that far behind but age is more of an attitude), you don't want to change and the world is moving on and it just kills you so you want to sh!t on everything on your way out the door and make everyone as miserable as you are. Well, from the looks of this thread, you've succeeded. Congrats. I guess.

 

If you want to talk about the big issues of the day, go back to facebook, Newsmax, Fox or whatever crap that tells you want you want to hear about yourself. The rest of us have to live in the real world.

 

These new rules are, and always have been, about a sports organization trying to adapt to modern times, both because there is a moral imperative to do so (protecting kids) and because of financial realities (insurance, USOC, etc.).

 

Just shut up and ski, right?

 

[ALPJr]

And I thought that I wouldn’t post in this thread this winter but here goes… There’s already over 100 tourneys sanctioned in the West and about the normal amount for early January in the other regions. Good news so far is that doesn’t look like many people or places are opting out of the tourney scene.

[The_MS]

@jcamp

@ALPJr this thread is like crack. You just keep coming back

 

 

 

[Jody_Seal]

@jcamp

Well said Comrade.

I guess you will be right there with the youngsters. Funny I actually pulled away from 30 years of leadership within the organization about 3 years ago. On my way out I did my best to recommend or get behind young people that had a desire to take my place as well as others. Counsel, director, committees. But sadly as the last few years gone by I see that many of these young have been replaced with again old people.

I would be willing bet that the average age if the leadership in awsa is well into the 60s..

Funny some of the biggest divisions are again the old people in this sport.

@jcamp not sure what you have contributed to the sport but you will probably never do or accomplish what I and a few others in the sport have done again for the sport.

Aren't you the goof ball that told us fuel prices would not go up and that it would not impact the sport?? Yea your the one!

You and @MDB1056 might want to get a tissue and wipe the brown surdej off your noses.

Yes socialism has been introduced to the organization.

And to the person the said membership has no buisness for input or direction why do we have state counsel, regional officers and committees? These are mostly elected by who???? Yea I got it membership...

 

 

 

 

[jcamp]

@Jody_Seal I won't get into a pissing match with you about my contributions to the sport, but I believe I've pitched in here and there.

 

More importantly, instead of just whining in an online forum, I plan to keep contributing when and how I can, beginning with attending (and voting at) my region's council meeting this weekend. Anybody who feels strongly about this issue or any other can do the same.

[JackQ]

@ALPJr, That is quite different than Florida. There are only 6 tournaments (4sites) that have tournaments listed, and the season starts in 10 weeks (late March).

[MillerTime38]

So when they run a background check on Nate are they going to still let him ski being a women hitter and sending in appropriate sexual messages to young girls? If so, what’s the point of background checks? As @Bruce_Butterfield pointed out what exactly are they looking for in these background checks? What would disqualify someone from being a judge or driver or dock starter? Nobody has attempted to answer that question so sounds like they are just doing this to check a box just like the SS training.

 

They are requiring all these things from skiers that have done nothing wrong while they still let the guy that brought all this negative attention to our sport compete. Things that make you go hmmmmm??

 

[ForrestGump]

Whether you agree with someone or not, being glad that any longstanding member of the community might be leaving is just childish.

[ToddL]

@MDB1056 (who isn't an active member due to retiring from competition)

 

1. Seeking input of those you serve is a basic sign of strength of leadership. It also ensures that decisions are founded in applicable context and more likely to be widely supported by the majority of membership due to their involvement in the decision-making process. This thread is a result of the perception of lacking involvement. This thread's passionate discussion is entirely based on that reality.

 

2. An organization is by its very definition a collection of members. The members are the organization. Without a membership, there is nothing to organize.

 

3. The policy requirement coming out of the law and out of Safe Sport did NOT specify which roles in which contexts equate to interactions with minors. Those decisions were suggested by consultants and insurance representatives. The leadership realized that our structure does not easily separate youth from adult competition unlike other sports. The easy button was to simply cast a wider net of applicability which exceeded the actual requirements. This is the point of this thread. The other valid criticism is the right-sizing of the programs for the specific audiences. SS allows for many solutions. It does not specify the specific solution proposed by our leadership.

 

4. These things like BGC and SS are viewed as making an impact by policy-makers. The reality is that these things only superficially help. More so, these things provide a liability deflection for those who force or implement them. When liability is more important that actual safety, there is misdirected focus.

 

I think your summary had missed the above finer details of the concern.

 

[Dirt]

@jcamp and @MDB1056 I completely disagree.

Adding all this red tape to ski will not save one child. This whole thing is a stupid overreach. Many members will quit. I hope they get an attorney to file a class action to get their pro-rated dues back.

It may be welcome news if you were not very competitive. You will have a much higher ranking next year. There may be a lot less competition.

[ktm300]

Well, at least we now know who the totalitarians are...just shut up and accept the progress...

"Ideas so good they're mandatory"

[thager]

Where's the teleprompter? I can't see the teleprompter....

 

[ski6jones]

This threads title tells you what it's about. If you don't agree or think it's misguided then why are you still reading AND posting? Why do you even care this discussion continues?

 

I care because I think the solution we've been handed is a lazy one-size-fits-all solution that will further degrade our ability to attract new skiers.

 

That's why I'm still here. To make noise and see if there is any way to right this wrong.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@MDB1056 Wow! I will try to be objective in disagreeing with your points:

 

“1. It would have been a colossal leadership failure and sign of weakness for USAWS to ask for membership input on items such as SS & background checks or any such items. Why? Because of just what this thread shows. It would have been an immediate rats nest of unending debate. Leadership in any organization is expected to make policy decisions.”

 

I couldn’t disagree more. If USAWS had engaged its membership sooner, they may have thought through some of the unintended consequences we are looking at now. They might have considered a few basic things such as the following:

- Does it really make sense to mandate that 60, 70, and 80yo members take SS training?

- If we mandate universal training and lose 10-20% of the membership, is that in the “best interest of the organization”?

- If we mandate BG checks for all judges, what happens when 70% of our judges simply drop their ratings?

If USAWS had engaged membership and attempted to explain the “Why” sooner it would have had the membership at least understanding, if not agreeing with, some of the activities instead of the current scenario of “WTF are those idiots at HQ doing?????”

 

“2. Joining any organization as a “member” does not make you a stockholder, a board member, nor convey any vote in management of that organization. As a “member” you are agreeing to the terms of the organization which you chose to join. Period. You can of course choose to terminate your membership at your discretion but again membership alone conveys no say in management of the organization. There is no expectation for any organization to ask for membership input regarding policy decisions.”

 

A “member” is a stakeholder in today’s vernacular, and most definitely has a vested interest in the organization. If an organization is not taking input from its members and not acting in the best interest of its members, it is NOT an effective organization. Witness the large number of members who are leaving, not just MS.

 

3. Requirements for SS and background checks are not rule changes. These are policy decisions. Organizations like USAWS implementing these and similar items are doing so out of requirement. Not choice. Yes, these are requirements of organizations dealing with public events that are imposed now by insurance, risk management, and legal partner organizations that are required in order to obtain the necessary minimum protections to put on the events. Period. As such any discussion on USAWS reversing course on these items is a waste of time.”

 

“requirement” from whom? It’s the bureaucracy between USOPC and USAWSWS that went from the somewhat reasonable laws passed by congress and generated these new “requirements”. All these requirements are negotiable with insurance companies and legal entities. If they mean the death of the organization, doesn’t that defeat the purpose of the organization?

 

“4. Things like SS and background checks by definition are viewed as public safety measures, meaning they are grounded in good purpose contributing to the protection and safety of the public. As such all the ridiculous debate on the true effectiveness at the person level etc. is just that. Ridiculous. From the public’s viewpoint these programs by definition are positive as they are meant to help protect. Period. I have never seen any initiatives which are viewed as for the purpose of protecting the public (especially youth) rolled back or removed, in any sport or organization. Quite the contrary. The public outcry is for more protections not less.”

 

“viewed as public safety measures, meaning they are grounded in good purpose” meaning they are well intended, but in reality they are ineffective at best and more likely severely detrimental. There is HUGE list of “grounded in good purpose” requirements that are just dumber than dirt.

Its not the few extra dollars or 90 minutes of time, its that almost everyone knows these “requirements’ will have ZERO effect on what they intend. So…just stand by for the next set of “requirements” that will solve the problem, lather, rinse, repeat. That’s what really has most people PO’d. If the few extra dollars, 90 minutes of time and BG checks actually had a positive effect, none of this would be an issue.

 

Bottom line is that many more people will see less and less value in USAWS and make the choice to “just go ski” and screw tournaments, USAWS, AWSA. Just like you did when you quit skiing tournaments. And this already miniscule sport will go away completely - that's what many of us are trying to prevent.

 

 

 

@MillerTime38 you highlight just one more fallacy on the BG checks. Unless there were charges filed against Mr. Smith (I don’t know if any actually were), none of his activities would show up on the BG check. Yeah he got a SS violation and probation, but he’s “served his time” and is now good to go. Let’s not beat that dead horse anymore :D

 

[ForrestGump]

@ALPJr Just looked at the schedule for each region. Yes, Western has a sh$t ton scheduled. Southern has 8 total. Eastern has 4 total. South Central has a big ass goose egg. None.

[lpskier]

There is nothing surprising about a “lack” of sanctioned tournaments as of January 6. We (LaPoint Ski Park) are having a tournament April 2-3, but we aren’t sanctioned yet. Nor is it surprising that the East (presently carpeted in snow) has no sanctioned tournaments as of January. If there are no sanctions as of June 1, then that’s news.

[MillerTime38]

@Bruce_Butterfield I hear ya not wanting to beat a dead horse but think about it, we need background checks to protect our kids from sexual predators but we will knowingly allow a sexual predator to compete in the sport. WTF!! No thanks! when we return from our overseas tour our family will still enjoy waterskiing but it will purely be as a recreational activity

[dave2ball]

@MillerTime38

If you are only a sexual predator when you get convicted of that crime. You will have certain guidelines placed on you and your actions. Then placed in a national data base. You quote “ We will knowingly allow a sexual predator to compete in the sport “ by whose standards? SS? The Law? who makes and sets these standards? Just because Mr Smith had action placed against him does not make him a sexual predator in the eyes of the law. Is that that is we are posing about. Finding convicted predators? So background checks should reveal a predator.

Depending on how the rule statute is written by SS anyone can be placed in this group just by saying hello or high five to a minor if brought to/ reported to SS. All officials have very little interaction minor skiers.

 

[ToddL]

The very fact that the BOS Best Of post list has contained comments from this thread for the past 90 days shows USAWS that this topic is one of the most important topics to affect our sport in a very long time. As I said in a previous post, this time is a pivotal time in our sport. Where it goes and how this plays out may sustain it or it may the the final nail in a coffin that is already nearing completion.

[ALPJr]

Meh, could be wintertime. Hoping the 2022 Vapor boot thread sets a new record come summer :)

[Jody_Seal]

Sexual predation near me.

 

 

Wait! Did I just do a back ground check???

Free on line!

None of my ski friends in the area are on that list

[Jody_Seal]

 

[ForrestGump]

@ALPJr You're the one who brought up the number of sanctioned tournaments in the West as as an indicator that there is no issue. You can't say that and then tell me that the lack of tournaments elsewhere is not an indicator.

[MDB1056]

I appreciate the comments as always.

 

If you join Planet Fitness - yes they are interested in member feedback on possible gym amenities, but they are not going to ask for member input on decisions necessary to run the company (i.e., keep the doors open), even if those decisions may impact members in terms of costs or access. Is Exxon-Mobile going to engage it’s 70,000 employees in making decisions about HR policies which may include something like mandating sex discrimination and diversity training for all employees? Of course not. Those are policy decisions which will be evaluated and made exclusively at the senior leadership level. Employees can choose to leave if they don't like the requirements. No different here than USAWS (the company) implementing the policy that requires SS & BGC.

 

@Bruce_Butterfield - With all due respect it’s a stretch to call a “member” a stakeholder. There’s no investment or equity stake in the organization, only your membership dues. Any volunteer time is just that. Volunteered. As a member you are entitled to have the organization you joined operate as presented per your membership agreement but that’s about it. A members’ main course of action is to stay or leave. The organization (company) is not precluded from implementing changes necessary (or required) to run the business. Members of course still retain the right to stay or leave if they do not like changes to the organization, but that’s it. So again the reality is that simply being a member in an organization does not confer any level of involvement in management decisions.

 

To the SS and BGC item, I’m not seeing any argument that by definition these are viewed as public safety measures. Any debate on their effectiveness or lack thereof doesn’t negate their definition. Results vs intent on something like this are not quantifiable, but that doesn’t mean they are universally worthless. These are also now business requirements imposed on USAWS (and other organizations) that host public events in order to obtain the necessary risk management protections to keep the lights on. Period. Said another way, these are now part of the costs of doing business. As such continuing to debate this serves no purpose.

 

Do we complain about seat belt laws, drunk driving laws, speed limits, etc? Again no argument about these being universally accepted public safety measures, but do you have numbers on how effective they are?

 

If these small items (SS & BGC) cause such pain for the membership then yes everyone should exercise their rights and quit. But to blame USAWS for these, and to be upset for not consulting membership in advance is wrong. USAWS didn’t ask for these. The reality as stated earlier is that these items exist because of is the problems that exist in society overall today.

 

Bottom line this isn’t a wrong which is going to be righted . My bet is that USAWS will still be there next year, and the year after............

 

[JackQ]

@MDB1056 I do not think equating being a member of LA fitness not a sport that many of are “members” compete in and are officials of. Not a good analogy in any way.

[The_MS]