2021 is my last year of USAWS

[The_MS]

You would think that a 20 year membership history would suffice as a BG check

[klindy]

@The_MS you should really watch “Athlete A”. In fact anyone that thinks all this is just an attempt to check a box should watch it. It’s clearly discusses all the different issues that are a concern.

 

Nassar was very well liked by the entire gymnastics community. What finally brought him down was a decision made to not include the #2 all around gymnast on the Olympic team. It was recommended to the committee she be left off because she had filed a complaint against Nassar which was being investigated internally by the NGB. It wasn’t until then (and pure luck that the trash at his home wasn’t picked up) that the “puzzle” came into view. He’s an awful human who was able to do what he did thru a systemic failure of the process setup by the NGB. Lots of other factors but if you think it’s easy to spot and deal with, think again.

[lpskier]

@The_MS I for one commit to not giving you shit of any sort if you decide to renew your membership and come home.

[dave2ball]

@klindy why won’t USA WATERSKI, AWSA or who ever the heck they are now take responsibility for a data breach after BRC happen? When asked all everyone hears are crickets. They want to push the responsibility on to the third party. The membership has no idea how of it this company is vetted or if this company is vetted. Being government I’m sure they are required to take the lowest bidder, which is very scary. You can only defend USA WATERSKI so much.

What I hear is if a SS number is required I will not go through a BGC. Does USA WATERSKI hear this? Probably not.

[ToddL]

Survey Link: https://forms.gle/mNXijTa4LrEn4Gf1A (still accepting responses)

 

 

Forty-three (43%) of respondents indicated they are Nationals level or elite competitors. Fifty (50%) indicated they were Regular, Senior, or Emeritus officials.

 

Before answering any questions, the respondent was provided with language and links to the specifics of the topic. They were asked to acknowledge their understanding of that content.

 

With regards to SS training for all, 81% are against this, with 30% stating they will not renew as a result.

 

With regards to BGC for Judges, 87% are against this, with 61% stating they will cease performing such role(s) where BGC is required.

 

Seventy-two (72%) agree that this is just a check-the-box litigation risk avoidance exercise, and the same number stated that this will not make our sport any safer.

 

The survey also asked respondents to rate on a 10-point, Likert scale with the values of oppose (1) or support (10) on the extremes. Here are the average ratings per topic:

 

SS for all members: 3.29

BGC for all Judges: 1.95

BGC for Nat'l Apptd. Judges: 3.52

Affiliation with USA-WS is beneficial: 2.92

Affiliation with USOC is beneficial: 2.51

 

Recall that full support would be a score of 10. Nothing scored an average over 4 which is still on the side of opposition. This indicates that there is a severe opposition to these initiatives. The perception of benefit of USOC and USA-WS is very poor.

[ToddL]

@klindy how does "selected and approved" translate into only appointed? Do other sport disciplines not use the language "appointed"? Are the remaining judging assignments published considered "not approved" and therefore exempt?

[klindy]

@dave2ball the question of the SS# and the significant concern with providing it was a major part of the AWSA board meeting. The direct questions about security concerns, “what if” concerns, etc were all directed at the USAWSWS Executive Director, COB and President. Some questions were not answered but admitted they were legitimate concerns and deserve an answer. I’m hoping to hear those answers soon.

 

I personally asked the question about who actually collects the data (third party or USAWSWS - whether or not it’s stored, i wanted to know whose page needed to be breeched to access the data). That led to a discussion about what general policy of USAWSWS exists (or should exist) to exactly understand the data and it’s security.

 

As for the third party, that is a choice of USAWSWS NOT USOPC. Several (3?) were vetted and one was chosen (same as has been used before). There are lots of companies out there that can do background checks on various levels. This is NOT the lowest bidder. It is a company with a history with USAWSWS and has been reliable since the beginning. Remember, USAWSWS has been doing background checks on board members, staff, coaches, team managers, etc for years. Same company, same process, same data. What’s different is adding appointed/assigned judges who are selected to judge a national championship tournament (all sport divisions) and/or international tournaments. I’d anticipate this to literally effect maybe 20-25 people. There are many more current completed background checks.

 

As for the SS# itself, it’s used as a primary identifier along with name, address and (I think) birthdate. My understanding it that the company needs 3 of the identifiers to align to know they have the right person. Obviously the SS# is a unique identifier that doesn’t change like name/address might.

 

I know Nate has been asked to circle back to the company to see if there is any way to avoid the SS# - up to and including a new screening company. That’s a work in progress. I’ve gone thru 3 or 4 cycles with the company and my SS# has not been used to do any kind of credit check or any other check I’ve been able to detect.

 

If the above is considered “defending USAWSWS”, then so be it. As far as your assertion that no one at USAWSWS is listening, I can categorically say that is wrong. The message was delivered loud and clear and promises were made to find the answers and circle back. We’re all waiting for those answers now.

 

One more important point … the laws/regulations squarely put the responsibility to take proactive steps to provide training and take steps to protect minor athletes and all athletes on the NGB. Things like SafeSport (both training and investigation), background checks, MAAPP notices, etc are all tools to accomplish that task and have their own level of credibility. So some things (like the collection and protection of personal data) are in fact the responsibility of the third party providing that product or service. Ultimately selecting and coordinating with them is the responsibility of USAWSWS (as I see it).

[klindy]

@ToddL Other sport divisions do NOT use the same language which has exactly been the difficulty in developing clear concise language that’s acceptable to us and USOPC. As far as AWSA is concerned, all officials (judges, scorers, drivers, safety, etc) are all identified, selected and approved by the region where the official resides. So, a call for officials goes out and people volunteer to be selected. The officials on the list are checked to be sure they have a current rating appropriate for the tournament. Each region has slightly different procedures but basically their regional councils select and approve (hence the language) at their mid-winter meeting. The quantity of officials needed varies due to the location (2 lakes over 7 days required a different number of bodies than a 4 lake site over 4 days).

 

Additionally there are many volunteers used in a wide variety of judging and scoring roles on site. This is done to help contain expenses since these “local volunteers” are not usually provided lunches, hotel rooms, etc. likewise, they are used for one event (or a part of an event) and no further commitment is needed. Appointed and assigned judges commit to be onsite and available from beginning to end (unless the week is split or when they ski).

 

As has been discussed, to reduce the impact several conversations have taken place to effectively negotiate the requirement back to “appointed and selected judges”. This happens to align with another NGBs approach (Speed Skating I think) which is why it’s acceptable. Again that means it’s a very defined, small group of people who submit their name for consideration knowing full well they’ll need the background check if selected. Also again, many of these long time volunteers have already completed a background check for other reasons (like me as a board member).

[ToddL]

I agree with @jayski. A contract (which is what we sign when we complete our waivers) is intended to clarify the full and binding agreement between two parties. Contracts are painful to draft because they shed light on areas lacking clear agreement, areas based upon assumption, and/or areas that have not been clearly put into words. Well-written contracts will appeal to both parties in that they accurately describe the informal or verbal agreement in detail.

 

In this case the informal explanation does not accurately align with the written language of this contract with every member allowed to be BGC. This is an unacceptable contract as currently written. It does in fact allow for too ambiguous application of BGCs to any and every volunteer at any event per USA-WS so choosing, potentially after-the-fact.

 

Yes, this language is binding for every member in that the waiver you sign to renew and the waiver you sign to participate both bind you to the SafeSport rules.

 

4. I hereby agree to the USA-WSWS Code of Conduct and Ethics, and all other USA-WSWS policies and procedures. The standards set forth in this

Code of Conduct and Ethics are mandatory and must be followed by all USA-WSWS members. Violations of this Code of Conduct and Ethics include

(but are not limited to) the following:

Safe Sport Policy. Any violation of the USA Water Ski & Wake Sports Safe Sport Policy (which is also a violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethics).

 

So, yes, every member will be legally agreeing to that language when you renew/participate.

[dave2ball]

@klindy that is great that all has worked out not getting hacked. But it only take one time to deal with a huge nightmare. If you are willing to take that risk more power to you I’m not too much to loose.

[ToddL]

@klindy - Maybe USA-WS needs to write a paragraph for each discipline specifying the scope uniquely to that discipline's situation. They already call out a specific role for show skiing.

 

Clearly, it is tough to govern a large group of loosely unrelated sports, grown and developed completely in isolation of one another. This simply sheds light on the fact that maybe we shouldn't be governed as one entity. We can be a coalition of entities, but we really have little in common with each other except occurring on the water.

 

If AWSA were to write its own response to SS/NGB requirements, how would you draft the polity so as to best align with our sport's situation, put into writing what has been verbally represented, and provide such language to USA-WS on behalf of AWSA? Maybe we should have taken this bottom up approach from the beginning. Maybe it is not too late.

 

The USA-WS language shared above is too ambiguous and overreaching. If the only justification for that is the variability across divisions, then the policy needs to be written with separate clauses for each divisions application of requirements.

[klindy]

@dave2ball i get it. I’m not the only one whose given my SS# and the company roger actually does the screening does them for far more than just USAWSWS. So while your concerns are valid, I’m guessing I have a better chance of getting Covid from the UPS driver delivering a new ski

[dbutcher]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but many companies ask for only the last four digits of your social security number to identify you. Would giving out only the last four be sufficient for the background check vendor and/or acceptable to those AWSA members needing the background check?

 

[klindy]

@dbutcher good question. The question has been asked of the screening company.

[Horton]

oh I'm sorry I brought this back up by trying to share what I thought was good news...

 

[dave2ball]

@Horton

ir is very good news. It just opened up more discussion. Not a bad thing if done in a respectful way.

[JackQ]

@Horton I concur, very good news. Considering the alternatives, insurance constraints, this is the best likely outcome. I would, as most everyone would, like not to have the BI requirements and still hopeful a BI w/o SS will be a future option. The requirement for BI for international competition already was in place, as I found out preparing for the Senior Pan-AM’s.

 

I and others were concerned that competitive skiing would quickly enter a death spiral if the original “interpretation/implementation” requirements stuck. I would like to thank klindy for his efforts and willingness to engage on this forum where some lost the script of “being able to disagree without being disagreeable.

[klindy]

@JackQ

thanks Jack. Hopefully I’ve been able to post some clarity and engage meaningfully in some solutions.

[ski6jones]

The decisions are the decisions. That is what it is. At the end of this there will be (a) documents and (b) implementation. Shouldn't the documents and the implementation agree? Right now they do not. @ToddL is 100% correct.

 

If in my job my supervisor said I want only a specific group of people to be obligated to get a BGC, and I came back with a contract containing the wording proposed I would probably be fired and rightfully so.

[lpskier]

I have to get my FL concealed carry permit renewed. Fill out a form and get a criminal background check and I’m good to go.

[dvskier]

@lpskier

When I obtained SC and FL concealed weapons permit I had to be fingerprinted as well as attend an in person 8 hour training class with 50 rounds fired.

[ski6jones]

@lpskier @dvskier

y'all are really comparing getting a concealed carry to volunteer judging? In what world are those two things remotely similar?

[lpskier]

@ski6jones If the issue is the sensitivity of your personal information, a background check is a background check. I know an apartment complex -senior and low income housing- where a background check is required along with your application. If I was that concerned about my information being subject to being hacked, I’m much more comfortable with a reputable private contractor using encryption software than I am with the government.

[Horton]

it's about a 6 month wait for a California CCW in addition to an 8-hour class, a practical test with each firearm listed on the permit and then fingerprint plus criminal background check. I'm just sitting around waiting for the paperwork. how is this relevant?

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@Horton its relavent because for a CCW there is both a legal and common sense association that if you have felonies on your record, you cannot legally get a CCW. For the BGC to judge at an AWSA tournament their is neither a legal or common sense association. Its simply checking a box so some bureacrat at USOPC can feel important.

[Jody_Seal]

To dissent and and offer any alternative would and does fall on deaf ears.

Socialism has befallen the sport at the competition level. The perceived need for federal funding in this sport is obscene as well as greedy.

 

Reminder this current leadership and the bureaucrat that leads it have lost industry support and visibility in the last 3 years.

 

 

Oh wait ! If I buy a new top line ski I get a membership to the little league of the sport.

Sorry local little league sports are run better then this near defunct organization.

 

Taking a look at the organizations financials , I don't know. Sure looks like the single biggest influx of moneys into the USAWS was federal moneys....

 

Obscene for sure! And greed!

[The_MS]

USA Pickleball has no SafeSport training requirements for participation.

So what if Congress chose not to renew funding for Safe Sport, would that be an end to the insurance companies demands for training?

[skibackwards]

I thank the board and the other "higher ups" for listening and for at least now getting rid of the background checks for those who judge local tournaments.

 

[JackQ]

@Jody_Seal, I do not like for much of what is going on in country today, some Left and some from the right wings. However, Socialism has not taken root in the sport, (Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership. It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems)

 

We have been affected by a increasingly litigious society, reaction (over?) to truly despicable actions both by the perpetrators, enablers and those who looked the other way; Insurance companies attempting to quantity risks and mitigating efforts and a CYA by many. All mixed together for what has the potential to be a toxic stew.

 

Horton, you may rightly construe this as political and delete if necessary, but I am trying to be politically agnostic.

[Jody_Seal]

@JackQ yea!!! Better go back and read every thing you wrote as it all is correct and in agreement.... what part of they took the government money is not understood as social funding???

Hey ! Its all good..

 

[rfa]

I think this constituted a "record".

January 24 - February

2...

 

@Horton, "oh I'm sorry I brought this back up by trying to share what I thought was good news..."

Well, it's the intention that counts...

(sorry I plagiarized your cartoon)

 

 

 

[Horton]

@JackQ

what you wrote might be the most logical thing in this whole thread.

 

 

[Horton]

@Jody_Seal

I love you man and I give you more latitude than I should because of how much you have done for the sport.

 

We live in unusual times and I admit that it is easy to conflate what you think about the federal government with how you think about USAWS. I agree that the failings in USAWS are a good analogy for many failings in the US Federal government but to say that SafeSport is somehow derived from the teachings of Karl Marx is simply hyperbole.

 

It is my world view that bureaucracy is as much the problem as anything. There are so many possible criticisms of SafeSport and or USAWS. Feel free to point out the failings of the association but if you insist on making it about non-water ski politics I will go back to deleting posts.

 

[Jody_Seal]

@Horton

 

Wait!What?

 

Let's see USAWS BOARD HIRED A BEURACRAT FROM WITHIN THE USOPC WORLD TO OVERSEE THE ORGANIZATION....

USOPC IS A GOVERNMENT FUNDED ORGANIZATION PERIOD!

SAFE SPORT IS A GOVERNMENT ENITY PERIOD!

USAWS RECEIVES FUNDS FROM THE GOVERNMENT. USAWS IS NOW NEAR RELIANT UPON THOSE FUNDS FOR ITS SURVIVAL.

IN ORDER TO BE MEMBERS OF USAWS A REQUIREMENT OF SAFESPORT INDOCTRINATION IS MANDATED !

ON THE TABLE IS CRIMINAL BACKGROUND

SCREENING FOR ALL OFFICIALS!

SO THATS NOT SOCIALISTIC????

 

GOVERNMENT INVOLVED IN A LEASURE SPORT?

 

Might also want to go back and read up on Karl Marx, he wrote the manifesto for comunisum. A political philosopher of the 1800's Karl is considered the father of comunisum

 

So go ahead pull comments and threads i guess its whats the norm now in today's tumultuous times. I think that is called censorship. But it is your site you can censure anyone you like or dislike for that matter.

 

 

 

[bigtex2011]

oh dear

[Drago]

Apparently pickleball is still free, so....

[Dirt]

@Drago you are one of my favorite people in this sport. One of the best skiers I have ever seen. A great guy. Why do you not care if people quit because of this bs overreach?

[Dirt]

Why can’t we just ski like we used to?

[dave2ball]

@Dirt because when government is involved and money exchanges hands there are always strings attached.

[Horton]

how much money do we get from the USOC?

[klindy]

@horton over the last 5 years it’s averages about $200k annually. Some of that was from special grants which were covid related (I’m sure Jody’s head just exploded). Other grants were for special purposes - like funds to employ one person to help with accounting or similar. Other funds were from using the USA Teams website template (yes, we all complain about it - and there’s some changes coming in the next year).

 

Ultimately, if there were NO funds from the USOPC coming in, it could be replaced by increasing the membership dues by $14 (my math).

 

So the money is worthwhile and are from grants that are out there and were never previously applied for. Nate has done a good job “finding money” by some basic research and discussing with other NGBs. Personally, I think this is a good thing. I look at it the same as taking a tax deduction you’re eligible for. Not taking advantage of the dollars would mean cutting back on the specific programs/objectives which the money is earmarked for. Not taking the money isn’t a show stopper for the organization either.

 

Frankly, I challenge anyone to find anything that hasn’t been incentivized or funded at least partially by the government over time. From gas/oil, GM, electricity, almost all the food we eat, textiles, lumber, even water. Could it be done a better way? Perhaps, maybe even likely. But it’s the way thing work because of the people elected to make the decisions.

[klindy]

@Gloersen the federal laws which REQUIRE sport associations to protect youth athletes (and adult athletes) has ZERO to do with USOPC. The requirements are the same whether you’re a member of USOPC or not. Things like SafeSport and verified/approved third party screening companies are tools available THRU USOPC to assist NGBs to comply with the law. The tools are likely better, certainly acceptable, and hopefully effective to address known systemic issues that have (obviously) showed up in other sports.

 

So our affiliation with USOPC gives us (easier and probably cheaper) access to these tools. Due to the credibility of USOPC (argue if you want) and these tools, insurance carriers are more willing to use these as a positive sign the organization has its act together - read: lower risk.

[A_B]

I have a solution to all those concerned about men looking at bikinis....

 

 

[Dirt]

When I read the Federal Law I did not read anything that couldn’t be covered with a ten minute video and a waiver form for most competitors.

 

The main problem is USAWS. We only need an AWSA. It would be run much more efficiently and cater to our sport.

 

Why not have baseball under the same umbrella or parent organization as ice hockey, field hockey, la crosse and cricket?

They all use sticks.

Because they all have there own unique needs and agendas. Because it makes no sense and some would be subsidized by others.

Just my opinion.

[dave2ball]

@Dirt just follow the money. If the government offers money usawaterski or who ever they are this week will take the money. They really don’t care not care.

[bigtex2011]

@Drago for president. Wait that isn't being political is it?

[klindy]

@dave2ball your comments are pretty aggressive and, frankly, offensive to a lot of people who work awful hard at their own expense (time and money) for the collective good of the membership. They/we may not do everything right, but you’re welcome to join the fold and help make corrections.

[Dirt]

Comment removed

[Drago]

@Dirt Short answer is I do care, and you must not have seen me ski in the last 10 years ;)

Long answer to follow, I need a keyboard for that..

[dave2ball]

@klindy

Yes it is strong. It was not to offend anybody who is working hard at the organization. If the organization would of been straight with the membership and explained that due to the face we take government money we are obligated to these mandates. Gave answers as to why this is happening maybe you wound not had a 56 page thread. If it was not for this thread who knows what information may not of come out or what changes were made such as the BRC. That is how they are screwing the members.