ToddL

I guess what I meant by that is the problem described for snow skiing in that video is focused 100% recreational.

The other difference is recreational (snow) industry vs what we see as water skiing (mostly competitive).

There are some parallels in this to water skiing. (I hope you can get past the narrator's upspeak inflection.) _

@JackQ - not each member selects his/her own. (Not sure how you assumed that was what I meant) Rather, I was just stating that USAWS didn't have to select the SS curriculum. They could have responded with another provider's curriculum as the choice for all of USAWS. @klindy - I have been a L1 Coach for years and years. So, I took the 90-minute version three years ago when that started and the refreshers each time since. I see total applicability to my Coach role. I see the 90-min course as completely excessive and miss-matched for general competitors. In our sport, what would make sense in my opinion is the following: Full curriculum for obvious roles (Coaches, Pros who coach regardless of certification, Ski School staff regardless of certification, Jr team leadership, Jr Dev volunteers, and all Officials who work Jr Dev events, the Regionals, and the national event). For competitive general membership: awareness training of 30 mins or less (program overview (who gets what training /BGC), what to look out for at any event, how/who to report concerns to, how to respond to a report from a youth).

So, I did a thing... I googled a ton looking for alternatives to SS for training and compliance. Well, it seems that the government has learned from Google, Facebook, Amazon and the like that nothing works like a monopoly. Their appears to be no entity that I could find offering any alternative to training content to compete with SS... or so I thought. If we change the search terms from "sport" to just "Harassment Training" or "Ethics and Harassment Training" etc. we find there are multitudes of providers and content. Various hits https://abusepreventionsystems.com/youth-sports/ https://www.praesidiuminc.com/ (used by YMCA) https://www.kidpower.org/youth-sports/ https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/preventingchildsexualabuse-a.pdf#page=28 https://www.nationalcac.org/csaprevention/ https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/can/identifying/training/ The Boy Scouts and Catholic church were ahead of SS in that they created their own programs to address the needs in their organizations. In both cases, the curriculum is fundamentally identical in that all these programs build upon the same social research principles of identifying and preventing abuse. Still. Though, all of the above would have the issue with tracking and compliance in which using SS is the easy button. So, if we assume that USAWS will not consider any alternative providers other than SS itself, then my question is simple: Has USAWS leadership asked SS training development team if a shorter awareness module can be used for general membership distribution while the more in depth current training applied to those in direct contact with minors due to roles and responsibilities? Has the question been asked? If not, why not? PS. I still do not like the language drafted regarding BGC policy. It does not match the verbal explanations. That's a pretty big deal.

@UCFskier - if this is a step in the right direction, then we were given the wrong shoes for the journey. And why must we choose to define our sport as either hobby vs. competition? In fact, I propose that when we lost focus on the hobby side of the sport is when its competition decline began.

@Not_The_Pug - EXACTLY!!! This is what I kept pushing for with regards to SS training! This content and training module DOES NOT match the decided audience. Every time that I brought this up, I was shot down with explanations of: This is what SS provides to USAWS We can't/won't/don't do our own videos We can't/won't seek alternatives to SS provided curriculum Alternatives cost too much, too difficult to track, would be separate from SS tracking etc. Basically, the USAWS leadership took the easy button option of adopting whatever SS provides regardless of the appropriateness or applicability to the audience USAWS chose to be required to complete the curriculum. They as far as I understand did not make any attempt to investigate alternative solutions/curriculum. Rather, they made a decision long ago to fully adopt whatever SS provided along with their alignment with that solution. There appears to be no desire to consider any alternatives.

Maybe so, @klindy. Hopefully, AWSA leadership will easily prove you right this year.

@klindy - I prefer jobs where my scope of responsibility is similar to my scope of control and impact. AWSA roles appear lacking in control and impact with regards to USAWS.

The very concept of a conflict of interest is: "...and you are funded by the organization you’re investigating, they’re likely not going to do the right thing."

This year after a lot of resistance, USAWS landed on a 90 minute video and BGCs for a small group of judges at Nationals. Yeah, still don't like it, but... Next year it will be, what? And the year after that? I could easily see this slowly advance until Dock Starters must be rated officials, and all officials are required to have BGCs.

@mike_mapple and the team were very helpful with some year end purchases for my family!

@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.

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.

@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?

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.

Well, shit.

Currently, only 58 people have contributed to this survey. That participation rate doesn't give its results much weight. If you have not yet taken it, please consider doing so. Survey Link: https://forms.gle/mNXijTa4LrEn4Gf1A Please share this with any AWSA people you know.

Here are the current survey responses summarized. Survey Link: https://forms.gle/mNXijTa4LrEn4Gf1A Please share this with any AWSA people you know.

We've had a long thread discussion, most regions have had meetings, the townhall has occurred. Let's measure where things are... Survey Link: https://forms.gle/mNXijTa4LrEn4Gf1A You can only respond once. You can share the link with others. It is fully anonymous, your IP or email will not be stored with your answer, nor saved with the survey.

@skiinxs - Yep. That Perks stuff is some points-based crap. My employer used to negotiate awesome (25-50% off market prices) employee deals with our customers and suppliers' products. Then, they stopped and enrolled in this same Perks crap. I hate it. Now it feels like a RTIC play on words of "20% of the already over priced competition".

If only one could take the test at the beginning and if 100% passing skip the other 80 minutes...

@buechsr - cool!

@buechsr - for those in California, the meeting was from 5-7pm. If one works typical hours of a full time professional exempt job, they don't conclude work until around 6pm or later and then may have to commute. Just FYI.

Just FYI - The further apart one's feet are, the more asymmetrical their stance in terms of hips to tip trajectory alignment. Picture an extreme separation. (Picture a wake board stance as the extreme.) The ability to align hips or point belly button where the ski is pointed is significantly more difficult with a wide spread. Conversely, extremely close stance means that rear-foot's hip can move more forward.