Bruce_Butterfield

@klindy in the USAWS email there was no mention of bg checks without submitting SSN. As you know, USAWS took an action to evaluate other options. Where does that stand?

@RichardDoane I was agreeing with you until you referred to MS “ as he's the type of person that every organization needs.” Have you ever met him? I really doubt you could make that comment if you had. ?

@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.

@klindy my post was a little sarcastic but I stand by my comment that USAWS will be begging for judges at nationals.

Yeah but…… The real takeaway was not so much the bg check but the “requirement” to provide ssn and/or pii for the bg check. Both the southern and south central regions expressed major heartburn on this topic. Lots of discussion with no real resolution except that USAWS would look at how to protect PII at the BOD mtg. When you provide your ssn to your employer they are liable for any data breach. Crickets from USAWS on any responsibility/liability for any identity theft. I’m not holding my breath for a meaningful response. My gut feel is that there will be a grand total of 3 appointed judges at nationals who will be working all events with a handful of volunteers. We shall see how that works out.

@lpskier IMO he “significantly displaced” the buoy with the ski. No credit for that buoy. I may have called it differently in real time. Definitely a tough call.

@Horton @klindy concerns were clearly heard, but the response by USAWS was lackluster. I get it, on one hand USAWS is caught with both the legal SS mandates and legitimate insurance/risk concerns, but how they are handling it still leaves alot to be desired. Yes, SS training is a PIA, but in reality not that overwhelming (except for MS). On the other hand they (USAWS) still doesn't recognize the impact these "mandates" have on its members or seem to be concerned. USAWS seemed to be oblivious to what it actually takes to run a nationals and what the difference was between "Appointed", "Assigned", and "volunteer" officals. It really struck me that USAWS is so far disconnected from AWSA and its members. A major point that was unfortunately missed, or misunderstood, is the "requirement" to provide SSN for a BG check. That is huge NFW for many members. Yes, the risk of identity theft may be small, but the consequence can be significant. Volunteer to help at an event and be put at risk for personal IRS/credit/monetary impact? That's a big deal. Bottom line for me is that there is still no rational connection between BG checking "officials" and realistic minor safety. Efforts to date are just putting lipstick on a pig. Oh, and "we're not done yet, more "requirements" to come".

It SUCKS getting old! Best wishes @6balls hope you can find an activity outside of checkers (and your day job) to keep you busy.

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.

that cloud is called "Spring in Texas" And yes, very cool pic!

nope. the only avitars are 2 likes. WTF shows 18 but no identities.Your webmaster is overpaid!

are you fixing it so the user's avatar shows up on WTF, dislike and disagree like it shows up on like etc?

Let’s Go Brandon Horton!!!

@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

@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.

@JeffSurdej "They already solved the background check"???? How do you figure that one? According to Nate "We are making some headway regarding background checks for officials 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 and above judges would be required to have a background check." "making some headway" is far from "solved" How are kids any safer with BG checked officials at Nationals vs at a Class C with non-BG checked officials? Its still a stupid requirement with no benefit and no problem being solved. The pool of judges at Nationals will still be a problem. I'm pretty sure the AWSA board will vote to not do BG checks, but the problem is AWSA vote doesn't count. Its the USAWSWS BOD that will be voting - and AWSA only has 3 votes out of 22 https://teamusa.org/usa-water-ski/about-us/board-of-directors

I'm 59 and in recovery on my second rotator cuff. The first was 6 wks in a sling, then PT and 6 months to semi-normal activity (skiing). Slow and easy to start, about 9 months to feeling pretty "normal" and a year to full strength. After 3 months, the second shoulder seems to be pretty much on the same pace. The surgery and recovery does suck, but the long term result is well worth it.

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

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.

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

@lpskier its the background check. My issue is that the BG check will NOT make any kids safer, NOT improve any "nurturing and safe environment", and NOT reduce any risk of sexual crimes. In short, it will not solve or improve ANY known problem. The BG check will cause current judges to drop their ratings and reduce the number of new judges willing to assist. In other words, a significant downside to the requirement which is NOT in the best interest of the organization despite Nate's claim On top of that, its plain insulting to individuals and does put that individual at risk of identity theft for no benefit. The current explaination is that the BG checks are due to updated USOPC policies requiring BG checks for "game officials". Again this is a logic free mandate from a bureacracy with no reason to negotiate or change their position. They are in charge and everyone must comply. https://awsasouthcentral.com/single-post/response-from-nate Your question about the guy named "Larry" getting on a tower is a perfect example of the stupidity of BG check. With the current rules, Larry can still ski and hang around, just not get on the tower. So 'splain to me how a judges BG check will reduce any risk to kids or the LOC with Larry hanging around? In real tournament, Larry would be watched like a hawk and most likely asked to leave by the LOC (if it was my tournament it would not be an "ask"). Things like that are more effectively handled locally and not by some global bureaucratic mandate from on high.

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

@Mrs_MS that ski looks like the super extra Wide ride. Is that @The_MS new ski?

@klindy @Mrs_MS makes the fundamental point about background checks - what conceivable offence will be uncovered by a BG check that will make a judge a risk or threat to a minor? I can't think of one either. This should be one of the main points of push back against the powers making these decisions. I could see a sex offense being an issue, but sex offenders are already publicly listed by law so a BG check won't provide any new info.

@Kelvin I sure would watch a 1 hr summary without all the dead time of watching a 4-6 hr webcast in real time.