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.

@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.

@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.

@6balls Thanks for the information. Not being a doctor but for having first hand experience, the only thing I’ll add is skin cancers are also common but very controllable IF you catch it early. So it’s critical to get into a regular habit of visiting a dermatologist. Once the cancer grows into the skin about 1mm, it has a high probability of getting into the lymph system which is the gateway to serious complications. Skin cancer is one of the easiest cancers to detect (unlike many of the conditions @6balls described above). It typically only takes a trained eye to see a potential problem.

I so happy for you @MrJones!! You have an amazing great medical team, tons of supporters in your waterski family and, most important, an amazing family! The effort @Addieski put into action is incredible! As a tangent … the medical technology and protocols available today are advancing at an amazing rate. For my own situation, survival rates in some cases are 10x and more for conditions which were considered dire just 5 years ago. It’s never easy to handle the treatment or the related stress but initiatives like the fundraising effort of @Addieski really has made a difference! Thanks again (personally) and great to be able to get together with @MrJones at the lake!!

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

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

@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

@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).

@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).

@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.

@Bruce_Butterfield AWSA rule 6.01.J lists the number of judges to be appointed depending on the site. So it won’t be “a grand total of 3”. And as I said above the majority of the officials who even submit their names to be selected have already passed a BGC for other reasons.

@jayski I don’t know it’s an action by the USAWSWS board. After hearing all the details it’s likely to helps meet the requirements of a USOPC audit request. All I know is it’s been quite clear that the ONLY new group required to submit for a background check are the appointed and selected judges at national events. So even those that put their name in for appointed/assigned judges don’t need the BGC unless they are selected. I personally asked for that clarification at the AWSA meeting. I can assure you that there were LOTS of pointed, direct questions presented for more than an hour. We walked thru virtually every detail.

@jayski it applies to everyone it previously applied too and appointed AND SELECTED judges (not drivers, not scorers m, not TCs) at Nationally titled events and international events. It does not apply to tournaments with an IWWF sanction unless it’s a World titled event (AMD the official is selected for it). It literally applies to maybe a couple dozen judges who don’t have a background check already. Remember that many of us that volunteer for these events are already screened because we’re on a board or similar.

A great man, amazing skier and even a better friend to those of us fortunate enough to ski with him and know him. I ski on the same Goode wide ride he did and we often discussed setup, etc. He never hesitated to give you his full attention to talk skis, planes, or life. I will miss him along with the whole ski community.

@sunperch this thread was started in early April last year. There was a USAWSWS special board meeting which was called in mid/late March where the decision was made. At one point those meeting minutes were posted on the website and they have since been removed (no idea why). So, yes it’s true the membership has technically known about the SS requirement for “all members” since March.

@JackQ just to clarify, while AWSA (sport division) is certainly part of the communication effort, the call last night was 100% USAWSWS and not AWSA. I’m not trying to deflect anything but AWSA as a collective sport division was front and center with many of the same concerns in this thread. Your comparison above to a W4 boat speed debate/change IS an AWSA issue and is dealt with at that level. The SS and BGC concerns and insurance decisions are at the membership/USAWSWS level. I’m not sure it highlighted the shortcomings at the AWSA level (although there may be plenty for other threads to discuss).

Took me a little less than 90 min too.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

@ToddL remember ALL of SS is 3rd party administered. Not only is SS a recognized program is also provided substantial benefit from a self administered or even self produced program. While I agree a 30 min program might be tailored nicely to waterski specific members/scenarios, as Nate mentioned in his initial response to you, we certainly are content experts on waterskiing but are not experts in the world of sexual harassment, etc. The ability to “get it right” and satisfactorily address any USOPC and/or insurance concerns makes it tough. There are various training programs for different audiences already inside SS which, I’d agree, might be of value.

So @A_B then waterski R&D, boat development, Promo programs (what’s left of them), waterski webcasts, Team development are all things that can be dropped? Remember it’s international tournaments (Worlds, PanAms, PanAm Games) at all levels (U14 thru 65+). It’s more than just Open skiers.