2021 is my last year of USAWS

[Not_The_Pug]

So everyone knows, the West is the only region that requires tournaments be set up as of 12/31. So would need to compare to prior years to see if any changes.

 

[ALPJr]

i’ve only skied the East and West regions. East seems to adds tourneys through about May and then a few may pop up through the summer. Been ~50, 55 per season last few years.

 

[The_MS]

you have broken your New Years resolution 3 times now. You have to stop opening this thread.

 

[ForrestGump]

I think you are comparing apples to oranges when comparing a for profit company like Planet Fitness to a Not For Profit entity such as USAWS.

 

[ktm300]

 

Please note that this act was sponsored by Republican John Thune, passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by Donald J. Trump. So much for thinking there is a dime's difference between the two heads of the swamp creature. It isn't us against one another; it's us against the creature. When I say "us" I mean me, my kinfolk and a few good friends...everybody else is suspect :)The Act's jurisdiction extends to "national" governing bodies. Unless we wish to split into separate regional governing bodies, USWSA and/or AWSA are subject to the Act. My advice would be to stop voting for virtue signaling do gooders who think government is the f***ing answer to all problems real and imagined. Apparently, no amount of government is too much for good ol 'Mericans.Well, Uh.....back to skiing. We could simply allow the Regions to move forward as separate entities. Can call "Nationals" "Sumpin Else" and thereby avoid being subject to Safe Sport. No national body; no jurisdiction. Cool with me. My guess is that most will suck it up and ski on. Maybe me too...ain't sure yet.My eastern European friend tells me that the reason that socialism will win in America is that Americans don't know how to suffer. "Will give up their freedom for a loaf of bread..." I talk a good game, but would whimper if I had to give up my heated seats...maybe I could toughen up a bit...you know for freedom man...I am working on it; no shit.One thing that does seem pretty clear is that USWSA didn't unleash this crap on us, "we" voted for it. Well, I'm not sure what it's going to be like in banned land, but I have my helmet on...and I make up for any lack of fighting skills with enthusiasm... PROTECTING YOUNG VICTIMS FROM

 

SEXUAL ABUSE AND SAFE SPORT

 

AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2017

 

(a) In General.--The United States Center for Safe Sport shall--           ``(1) serve as the independent national safe sport        organization and be recognized worldwide as the independent        national safe sport organization for the United States;           ``(2) exercise jurisdiction over the corporation, each        

national governing body

, and each paralympic sports organization        with regard to safeguarding amateur athletes against abuse,        including emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, in sports; [[Page 132 STAT. 321]]            ``(3) maintain an office for education and outreach that        shall develop training, oversight practices, policies, and        procedures to prevent the abuse, including emotional, physical,        and sexual abuse, of amateur athletes participating in amateur        athletic activities through national governing bodies and        paralympic sports organizations;           ``(4) maintain an office for response and resolution that        shall establish mechanisms that allow for the reporting,        investigation, and resolution, pursuant to subsection ©, of        alleged sexual abuse in violation of the Center's policies and        procedures; and           ``(5) ensure that the mechanisms under paragraph (4) provide        fair notice and an opportunity to be heard and protect the        privacy and safety of complainants.

 

[ALPJr]

I told myself I wouldn’t post in the IPA thread for a month too. So much for self discipline :)

 

[MDB1056]

While there

are indeed

a number of differences, I'm struggling to see them as relevant to the items here. I work almost exclusively with non profits both large and small in various parts of the country. As a result I have a very good understanding of their structures and cultures. The main message here is that these items are now core requirements of the organization (USAWS) in order to continue to provide its services. Really hope everyone gets past the frustration, which is understood, and stays in. The extremely small size of the sport is already of continuing concern.

 

[rfa]

, now it all makes sense why Jodi Seal, et. al. have been so upset with all that "socialist" stuff...John Thune, Donald J, and the Republican congress. Had I known, my ski would already be on SIA...how will I unlearn the SS training? lol

 

[The_MS]

It was a co sponsored bill, but yes they are all part of the swamp. We need a solid 3rd party to arrive

 

[Wish]

 

 

[Dirt]

we are not ExxonMobil nor are we employees of USAWS

 

[MDB1056]

- regardless of whether a member of an organization or an employee of a company, that alone does not entitle you to be part of the decision making process.

 

[Horton]

Ok I have let this thread go too far. Honestly I have just not read it. I really do not want to but I am going to clamp down on moderation. I understand that there is a lot of passion about these topics but the conversation has become toxic. I do not want to censor this forum but it is time to get back to talking about water skiing. Posts that make clear references to non-waterski politics will be deleted.

 

Posts that are unfriendly or unprofessional will be deleted.

 

Don’t be a dick.

 

I have also moved this thread into a semi-limited section of the forum. If some of you guys go over the line you just lose access to this section.

 

 

[ski6jones]

take that thought to the limit. Employees of Exxon have no expectation the corporation exists for any reason other than making a profit.What do members of USAWS expect? The word "members" implies ownership where "employee" does not. What business is USAWS in if not to promote waterskiing? And who are they doing that for if not the members? If the members don't feel well served then why would they continue supporting the organization? Would USAWS even be viable without their members? The answer is a resounding no.While what you say may be true, they are not obligated to get membership approval, it may ultimately be in their best interest to consider the membership they serve.They don't have oil like Exxon does. They have ONLY members.

 

[lpskier]

Hey, I hear Safe Sport is requiring all NGB members to be vaccinated! Seriously, here is what they will look for in a background check, according to the SS manual available on the USA Water Ski web site:“Disqualifiers include the following:A person should be disqualified and prohibited from serving as a volunteer if the person has been found guilty of the following crimes. Guilty means that a person was found guilty following a trial, entered a guilty plea, entered a no contest plea accompanied by a court finding of guilty, regardless of whether there was an adjudication of guilt (conviction) or a withholding of guilt. This recommendation does not apply if criminal charges resulted in acquittal, Nolle Prosse, or dismissal.SEX OFFENSES• All Sex Offenses – Regardless of the amount of time since offense.Examples include: child molestation, rape, sexual assault, sexual battery, sodomy, prostitution, solicitation, indecent exposure, child pornography, possession and distribution of obscene material, public indecency and any sex offender registrant, or any offense involving harm to a minor or vulnerable person including but not limited to child abandonment, child endangerment/neglect/abuse, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and DUI with a minor.FELONIES• All Felony Violence – Regardless of the amount of time since offense.Examples include: murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, kidnapping, robbery, aggravated Burglary, etc.  SafeSport Handbook – January 202221• All Felony offenses other than violence or sex within the past 10 years.Examples include: drug offenses, theft, embezzlement, fraud, child endangerment,etc.MISDEMEANORS• All misdemeanor violence offenses within the past 7 yearsExamples include: simple assault, battery, domestic violence, hit & run, stalking,harassment, blackmail or threats. (Including crimes involving firearms)• Animal Abuse, cruelty, or neglect.• Destruction of Property including arson, vandalism, and criminal mischief.• Multiple misdemeanor drug & alcohol offenses within the past 7 years.Examples include: driving under the influence, simple drug possession, drunk anddisorderly, public intoxication, possession of drug paraphernalia, etc.• Any other misdemeanor within the past 5 years that would be considered a potential danger to children or is directly related to the functions of that volunteer. Examples include contributing to the delinquency of a minor, providing alcohol to aminor, theft – if person is handling monies, etc.”

 

[Inboardfix]

@Lpskier thank you for posting the BGC's objectives. I've followed this thread and believe the majority of the posters wouldn't let the SS requirement keep them from renewing their membership. They/we aren't happy about it but it isn't a deal breaker. What is a deal breaker is the BGC requiring a SSN. If the BGC is not negotiable I suggest you lobby for using a company which doesn't require a SSN. These mandates are going to result in lost memberships. However, if the SSN requirement is removed I believe the loss will be mitigated significanty. Eliminate that requirement and re-imburse all fees associated w/BGC (which I believe is already being done) and AWSA will be minimally impacted by these mandates. "Minimally" is relative to keeping the mandates as they are now. Any loss of long term contributing members is significant, despite what some earlier posters have insinuated.

 

[ForrestGump]

And I'll ask again. why does someone getting a DWI 5 years ago or getting convicted of petty theft mean jack all to being able to count buoys?

 

[The_MS]

and why would a victim of abuse get less money in a lawsuit just because everyone is SS trained?

 

[lpskier]

FYI, the likely outcome of this business is as follows: All tournament-skiing adult members have to take Safe Sport. Sorry, but that is the bottom line. If you are a member but you don’t ski tournaments (but let’s say you do ski sanctioned practice for insurance purposes) and you don’t seriously interact with minors while skiing, you won’t have to take SS.

 

All appointed and assigned judges at Nationals will have to have a background check. USAWSWS will pay the fee. I don’t believe that this will apply to the extra judges pressed into service at Nationals, as those judges are neither appointed nor assigned. If you don’t want a background check, don’t get appointed or assigned at Nationals. Since background checks aren’t likely to be required for any other officials at this point, we can collectively take a deep breath and drop the subject. (Note: This isn’t final final, but it looks like this will be the outcome. We’ll know for sure by the end of the month.)

 

If AWSA breaks away from USAWSWS, or a new group is formed, the following will occur:

 

A. The new entity will not be (i.e. is ineligible to be) recognized by IWWF;. IWWF is apparently chartered by the International Olympic Committee and will only recognize NGB’s that are first recognized by the Olympic Committee of the applicable country. If the new group isn’t affiliated with USOPC, it won’t be recognized by IWWF; and B. The new entity will be required by law to implement SS. I have discussed these matters with the USAWSWS board chairman, the USAWSWS general counsel, and attended the Eastern Region Winter meeting. Safe Sport is now part of the fabric of organized sports. That is just the way it is. There is little to no room for negotiation. As my dad would say, “Like it or lump it.”There you have it.

 

[lpskier]

Good question. Please ask the Safe Sport people that question and report back. They impose the requirement, so they must know the answer. The BGC issue is a Safe Sport idea, not a USAWSWS idea.

its not a question of how much; it’s a question of whether there is any recovery at all. The issue is whether USAWSWS was negligent. If USAWSWS did everything it reasonably could do to protect a minor from abuse, then it may have no liability for a claim in the first place.

 

[jayski]

https://www.wrldwtrski.com/

 

 

[The_MS]

unless the LOC makes a mistake and fails to adhere to all of the MAAP requirements, then they will stick it to them. Maybe in the end the LOC defends the case successfully but how many LOCs can afford legal console?

 

[ski6jones]

thanks for the update on Managements current thinking.For me,3a - I couldn't care less.3b - Implement SS doesn't necessarily mean what USAWS has implemented. Removing affiliation with orgs having "Olympic" in the name allows the new org to implement reasonable solutions to SS that are appropriate for 3-event skiing.Despite the apparent finality of your points they are only strictly valid in the context of USAWS, USOPC, IWWF, etc.

 

[bigtex2011]

Is it the same person you know that has a petty theft and a DWI. Or is this 2 different felons you hang out with?

 

[lpskier]

From what I am told by several reliable sources with firsthand information, there is no negotiating with Safe Sport. It’s a “one size fits all” approach. USAWSWS implemented what SS required them to implement.

The LOC should be covered under the insurance policy provided via the sanction.

The World Water Ski League looks fun. It appears, however, to be a business, not a member organization. No insurance mentioned on their website I get it that some people don’t care about being affiliated with IWWF. That is really beside the point. Go start a new member organization that is 100% free of IWWF and USOPC. Guess what? You still have to comply with SS. So a new membership organization not a work-around. If you want to pay the World Water Ski League fees for your tournament fix, it appears that SS may not yet be an issue.

 

[ToddL]

- interesting. The meat of that site (how to do it) is found here:

https://www.wrldwtrski.com/suggestions

It appears that for a "membership" fee of $30, ANY skier can provide his or her skiing scores into one of the 3 divisions based upon the context of the performance. Thus, a skier could provide their scores from a friendly home site "competition", from a USA-WSWS sanctioned event, or from a non-sanctioned event that meets one of the three league event requirements. The league specifications also allow for a variety of boat speed control scenarios.

 

[klindy]

thanks for posting the primary current status of SS and BGCs. And thanks to Doug, the chairman of USAWSWS for pulling those details together and distributing them to the 5 EVPs for discussion at the mid-winter regional meetings. The details demonstrate a major difference from where this massive thread started and has migrated too. For example, SS is only for those who compete at a USAWSWS sanctioned event. So if you’re a member and don’t compete but need/want membership for club or other purposes, you don’t need to take the training. That literally means that more than half of AWSA members don’t need to take the training. Likewise the background checks will be only for Appointed and Assigned judges at the Nationals. This is the “least common denominator” that fits across all sport divisions at USAWSWS and is a HUGE difference from “all officials” which was anticipated initially. Again affecting far fewer people and much easier to implement. As I reread this thread that seems to mitigate or eliminate most of the concerns found in the thread. True it doesn’t solve all the concerns and I can’t see a scenario where all concerns are solved. But it shows significant progress and a willingness to both listen to the members and actively work with SS and the insurance carriers to find solutions.

yoo said you couldn’t care less about “3a” of

specifically about IWWF events. First it’s important to realize those are NOT only open events but include everything from U14 to the Senior Worlds and PanAm events. Even beyond US team members there are typically a lot of independent skiers who also participate. Granted that still may be a small percentage of overall membership but it effects far more than just a “handful” of Open skiers. Second, you have a very competitive daughter who can be directly affected depending on your own families personal decisions. Point is, that group of skiers is constantly changing based on priorities and personal ambitions. Finally, as

points out, the law includes implementing SS and SS is pretty much a one size fits all. SS is a specific program not a generic term for some “training initiative”. Clearly there’s some confusion and ‘flexibility’ (my word) around what is a covered judge or official and those are the margins where there has been a lot of focus. But SS is solely designed to protect the youth in all amateur sports. So there have been some adjustments to the program itself as well as the organizations which are required to implement it. I’d agree that waterskiing can probably develop a much more effective and focused program that works for us. But it may not be sufficient to comply with the law and/or insurance underwriters. And that hurdle is very high. Ignoring the problem isn’t a solution either. Arguing that there isn’t a problem to solve is equally risky as far as operating the organization goes. If anyone wants further information or has questions, please let me know.

 

[klindy]

I should also mention that song OLR to setup and register tournaments online is a lot of help too. A lot of effort has gone into fully integrating OLR with the membership system and sanctioning process. So besides making it super simple for the scorers to get all the appropriate data info WSTIMS to run the tournament, the system will check to see if the skiers is an active member and that the membership will be active at the time of the tournament. It will verify SS training. BGC (where needed), etc. It will also be able to send the required MAAP notification by email to each registered skier and, most importantly, be able to be used as a record of compliance. The LOC should only have to post a printed copy of the MAAP requirements onsite for anyone who didn’t receive it or registered the day of the tournament. OLR is a huge benefit to those who organize and manage a tournament and this is another extension of its usefulness.

 

[ski6jones]

I think you have me confused with someone else. I don't have a daughter that skis competitively.

 

[jayski]

"The World Water Ski League looks fun. It appears, however, to be a business, not a member organization. No insurance mentioned on their website"A) Not a businessB) For the skiers, flexible, easy, no bureaucracy, freedom, fun, and yes no "membership" (how terrible)C) Can provide direction for those that need insurance, but don't fool people by making it sound any current organization "provides" insurance, they all provide ACCESS to an insurance company that THEY have decided to partner with. And if those are the weak points of this new option, then it looks like pretty awesome! No membership fee to pay, not forced into a stipulated insurance and government path, and an group that CARES ABOUT SKIERS and making skiing FUN again!!

 

[skierjp]

So if you are a well known uninvited judge that just happens to be approached at Nationals to sit in the tower and judge a segment there is no way they will ask if you’ve had a background check. We officials that are connected know very well the Nationals cannot be run on invited officials only. Sometimes the paper work doesn’t necessarily match the event if you know what I mean. From most of the feedback here, if the SSN requirement was dropped we would have no issues. I think what most of us are worried about is if a judge is required for a background check what happens next year? Who’s next?

 

[ToddL]

- How do these scenarios fit into the pending requirements?1) Adults only Basic Skills clinic for people who never before have been a member and who will likely not start competing for a few weeks/months. These adults are participating in a sanctioned event. This requires them to have some form of membership. Is the day pass for clinics still an option in context of all of this? If so, or even if they can pay for a grass roots membership, what additional requirements come along with that? Do they have to complete the training before the clinic? Do they have to complete it afterward? What happens if they fail to do so?2) Collegiate tryouts/recruiting event under a basic skills clinic or club practice. Same questions above.As you can guess, the concern is about how to allow "on that day, walk up" participation for the sake of "trying out" the sport or becoming familiar with our passion.

 

[bigtex2011]

but can a felon with petty theft and a dwi count bouys

wants to know

 

[ski6jones]

Here are a few things I found digging around on the SS site.

USAWS Corrective Actions Update

- What exactly does "regular contact and/or authority over minor athletes" mean and does it really apply to every adult at a 3-event tournament?

Safesport FAQ

- A bunch of stuff here, but noteworthy is;"Who is covered by the Safesport Code - The Code applies to all individuals who participate in sport within the Olympic and Paralympic Movements. ... " It goes on to say members of "National Governing Body (NGB) or its Local Affiliated Organizations (LAO) ..." So where do I get the idea a new org, not affiliated with NGB or "Olympic" anything, wouldn't be subject to SS? Their own website for starters.So

can your sources reconcile this for me? Your sources contradict what I'm reading from Safesport itself WRT a new org.It would be good if these specific questions could be addressed in some substantive way in the winter meetings.Pretty sure

is on the right track.

 

[klindy]

sorry Carl, I was thinking of someone else. My general point is still correct, just wrong example.

 

[lpskier]

As noted above, the BGC applies to “appointed and assigned officials” at Nationals. The fIll-in judges are neither appointed nor assigned and therefore should be exempt from a BGC.

I really don’t feel like arguing with you. Your mind is made up and my life won’t change if you drop out of USAWSWS. But if you are interested, read the recent amendments to the Ted Steven’s Act. I think that’s where you’ll find your answer.

Is the World Water Ski League your baby? If so, kudos to you for a great idea.

 

[ski6jones]

I'm not here to argue, I want to understand. "Like it or lump it" doesn't get me where I need to be, and some very simple questions have gone unanswered. I'll take a look at the info you referenced.

 

[skierjp]

Cool but that really doesn't make sense now. Appointed needs background check but volunteers don't. I guess if I was doing the scheduling there would be no invited, at least on paper ?.

 

[The_MS]

From everything I am reading, it looks like our BOD could lobby and attempt to just make the team leaders, coaches and medical do the SS training. I fear that they are to dug in to change course.

 

[ski6jones]

Reading what seemed like the relevant parts of the

Ted Stevens Act

just raises the same old question, what constitutes "regular contact" with a minor? It clearly states in section 220530 that any amateur sports organization must meet certain obligations for minor athlete safety. So whether under USAWS or outside there are compliance issues under the law. For me that has never been the question, but rather what constitutes compliance?I'm pretty sure I could demonstrate that I do not have "regular contact" (whatever that means) with any minor at any tournament I attend. I probably attend a dozen tournaments a year where I ski, judge, score and drive.Despite all that I would happily take the SS training, chalk it up as part of my official ratings, and move forward if they weren't insisting that EVERY participant be trained.The barriers to entry in competitive 3-event skiing are already high and now we add a 2 hour training course for new skiers? That's a big ask to try something to see if you like it. Our sport already has declining numbers and that certainly won't help.There are solutions that meet the intent of the law without requiring EVERY participant to be trained. Those solutions may not exist for various reasons within the NGB, but that doesn't mean they don't exist elsewhere.

 

[ForrestGump]

I don't know why you keep throwing me out there. If you've got something to say, say it. I think I asked a valid question on what the background checks are looking for and why some of those things matter. We're not asking judges to count money as a bank teller.

Your response is great. But none of the clarifications by the leadership on judges requirements deal with the blanket transfer of liability to the LOCs.

 

[ToddL]

- are you able to answer my questions above from Jan 10th?

 

[Bruce_Butterfield]

straight from USAWSWS MAAPP:“Authority” exists when one person’s position over another person is such that, based on the totality of the circumstances, they have the power or right to direct, control, give orders to, or make decisions for that person. Also, see the Power Imbalance definition in the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s Code“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. Coaches, team managers, staff, physicians, and athletic trainers are all deemed to have regular contact with Minor Athletes. 

Its really hard to understand how anyone who has ever been to an AWSA tournament can say with a straight face that a judge has "authority over" or "regular contact" with any minor according to these definitions.

 

[klindy]

my understanding is that the grassroots membership will still be available and can be used as has in the past. Active members who participate in completions (tournaments) are who would need the SS training. Those “new” active members have 30 days to complete the training or they become ineligible to compete. So at this point I don’t see a difference in how either of those scenarios currently work. That said, each scenario will need to be thought thru as needed.

I don’t see a “blanket transfer of liability” to LOCs. As I stated, IF a LOC uses OLR to sanction and manage registrations for a tournament, the compliance piece is almost completely automated, including any necessary record retention. Exceptions are last minute registrations onsite which can be dealt with by either a handout or posting of requirements. I also understand our insurance carriers are aware of the systems in place and have assured us that SAM coverage exists as it has before. This continuation of coverage is there because of the steps taken to enhance what was in place before.

 

[ToddL]

- given that no sanctioned competition can be conducted with a single, solitary judge forming the determination of the score, it seems to me that no judges have authority as defined above.

 

[ToddL]

- OK. So, that means collegiate recruits will be subject to SS training before they can compete in B team. Correct?That also means that GR membership is still available and the primary tool for Basic Skills event involvement. What happens when the Basic Skills event participants are a mixture of adults and children? In that case do the adult participants (not the hosts) have a SS requirement? What if the clinics were separated by age such that under aged participants are under a separate basic skills sanction than the adult group's sanction, even if they occur on the same site at the same time? What if at a basic skills event for children, all clinic host adults are not actively competing, and therefore have no SS requirement, (except the sole L1 instructor)? It seems by your answer that this is a feasible scenario, correct?

 

[klindy]

as I said each not every scenario has been thought thru completely and will need to be. Understand the same type of thinking you’re describing is exactly why the USAWSWS board initially said “all adult members” need to take SS since it was so difficult to segregate and separate each possible scenario. The outcry largely here caused a rethink of how to minimize the impact, which has been done. Now if you want to keep finding ways to make the practical impossible, the solution will end up back in a “one size fits all” box.

 

[rfa]

Despite the continuing turmoil in this discussion, major progress has been accomplished. Let's recap.April 2021 (51 pages ago) - "2022 they are requiring Safesport training for all members. I’m done."

January 2022 - "From most of the feedback here, if the SSN requirement was dropped we would have no issues".

. From no SS training to Ok with Background checks (w/o SSN). Yes, I am being a bit sarcastic, but if we neglect the 50 intervening pages...progress indeed.More seriously, I have a question about a concern expressed by many that I fail to understand. Either they are right, or I am. This is the "blanket transfer of liability to the LOCs" concern, to quote a recent comment. I think

and

have addressed it and gotten it right (assuming my perspective is the correct one). LOCs are given a list of compliance measures. Compliance with such measures by the LOCs provides liability protection, as opposed to transferring liability to them. Compliance as opposed to negligence. What am I missing? Isn't that how liability protection works? Do we think the combined near $1B settlement from U. Michigan and USOC came about because Nassar did terrible things? Or rather, because those organizations were "negligent" about the terrible things he did? I don't like a (required) 3.5ft fence around my swimming pool. Complaining that it increases my liability would be the wrong thing to complain about. It gives me liability protection! No?Neither a lawyer nor a liability expert. Ready to be educated, if I have it wrong.

 

[The_MS]

I’m still done if I have to do safe sport training. I would be possibly OK with a 10 minute video but no test. When you hit the enter button, it goes into the WWW for all time

 

[skidawg]

ignore

he’s had to many banquets while he’s working on the money pit remodel! ?