I hope other bloggers come up with their own voting cards so as to stimulate debate.
I am submitting recommendations as to how a member of USA Swimming at the convention should vote at the convention this weekend. Overall I am very impressed with the rule submissions. I credit outside influences for such a refreshing change from previous years. Those outside influences include the lawyers, bloggers, critics and the media who are all behaving like a quality control unit for the organization. Some of these changes should have been implemented in...hmmm, 1992?
Here is a link to all the issues therein: [Link]
R-1 Measures: MUST APPROVE!
R-2 Measures: MUST APPROVE!
R-3 Measures: MUST APPROVE!
In a world filled with 28-megapixel iPhone cameras, GoPro video equipment which are smaller than a deck of cards. Photo messaging on such sites as Twitter, Facebook, and Pinterest. We live in an environment where all it will take is just one towel to fall and your LSC and USA Swimming will have been instrumental in creating some seriously humiliating "child porn."R-4 Measures: MUST APPROVE!
Certification creates quality if the certification follows the American Standards Institute policy of separating the educational body from the certifying or testing body.R-5 Measures: MUST APPROVE!
R-6 Measures: NO RECOMMENDATION!
R-6 Measures: NO RECOMMENDATION!
R-7 Measures: MUST APPROVE!
R-8 Measures: NO RECOMMENDATION!
R-9 Measures: NO RECOMMENDATION!
R10 Measures: MUST APPROVE!
This rule is very welcomed and should be memorized!R11 Measures: NO RECOMMENDATION!
R12 Measures: MUST APPROVE!
No mercenaries allowed. You must be a member if you represent the membershipR13 Measures: NO RECOMMENDATION!
R14 Measures: MUST APPROVE!
R15 Measures: MUST APPROVE!
The boys pick on the weakest, the girls gossip about the strongest. A psychologist told me that the scars from each form of bullying last a lifetime. Swimming should be fun and not an emotionally stressful experience. Hazing, bullying, and gossiping has got to go.R16 Measures: MUST APPROVE!
Loving this proposal and I bet John Leonard is not! - Didn't he marry and divorce one of his swimmers?R17 Measures: MUST APPROVE!
R18 Measures: MUST APPROVE!
R19 Measures: MUST APPROVE!
R20 Measures: MUST APPROVE!
R21 Measures: VOTE NO!
Rule 503.7 - 504.7 Opinion: No officer should be afforded a 2/3s vote to be "voted of the island" or fired for doing a bad job in two separate voting sessions. That smells of cronyism thereby making it impossible for human resources or the board of directors to govern properly.
Rules and laws are always enacted to solve a problem. These rules sound like someone does not want to get fired, or someone wants to keep their job for life.
Please see this post and comment sections for more points of view on this topic: [Link]
R22 Measures: NO RECOMMENDATION!
R23 Measures: VOTE NO!
It gives the President of USA swimming too much power. Our National Governing Bodies (NGBs) are political in nature and allowing the President to appoint individuals to a 4-year run versus having them voted in worries me that the appointments will be political in nature. Members to the Credential Election Committee should all be voted in rather than appointed for this organization has a history of "circling the wagons" and protecting their own. Seriously! Everett Uchiyama comes to mind.R24 Measures: MUST APPROVE!
R25 Measures: MUST APPROVE!
A refreshing measure indeed that gets LSCs truly involved in making this the best sport ever.R26 Measures: NO RECOMMENDATION!
17 comments:
gWell, why not chip in?
I agree with pretty much all your recommendations, except:
R11: Must approve - I agree with the whole rationale of the proposal, and I've had problems due to the current rule before (teams who disregard their own LSCs meet calendar, since they are hosting meets just outside the border).
R13: Must approve - those times go into the swim and are used to qualify for meets; it's fair that they are swam under the same standards as sanctioned meets.
R16: vote no - I know this will get your heat, there are healthy relationships formed between adults that happen to be coach and athlete. Yes, there are many who are not healthy, and many coaches who take advantage of their position of authority to form one, but I just don't think prohibiting every relationship is the way to go. Again, I know of current and former coach-athletes (all in other sports, btw) who are on a stable, healthy relationship for years.
R23: must approve - all that power is already in the hands of the President. The only rule change being voted here is to reduce the number of members in the committee. I agree that the members should be voted on, and also think there should be an even split of athlete and non-athlete members in this committee, but that would require a different proposal altogether.
R26: must approve - athletes deserve to have a voice on the sport (it's about them); whatever the discussion is, it affects them.
Well, why not chip in?
I agree with pretty much all your recommendations, except:
R11: Must approve - I agree with the whole rationale of the proposal, and I've had problems due to the current rule before (teams who disregard their own LSCs meet calendar, since they are hosting meets just outside the border).
R13: Must approve - those times go into the swim and are used to qualify for meets; it's fair that they are swam under the same standards as sanctioned meets.
R16: vote no - I know this will get your heat, there are healthy relationships formed between adults that happen to be coach and athlete. Yes, there are many who are not healthy, and many coaches who take advantage of their position of authority to form one, but I just don't think prohibiting every relationship is the way to go. Again, I know of current and former coach-athletes (all in other sports, btw) who are on a stable, healthy relationship for years.
R23: must approve - all that power is already in the hands of the President. The only rule change being voted here is to reduce the number of members in the committee. I agree that the members should be voted on, and also think there should be an even split of athlete and non-athlete members in this committee, but that would require a different proposal altogether.
R26: must approve - athletes deserve to have a voice on the sport (it's about them); whatever the discussion is, it affects them.
R-4, R-5, R12 all have to do with Administratice officials.
MUST APPROVE - MUST APPROVE!
The LSC I reside in has an administrative official (for years and years) who has made the lives of individuals, families, and entire teams MISERABLE.
Kids (including high schoolers) are terrified to go to the admin table. Parents don't want to go either. Nobody wants to be screamed at.
I never understood why the LSC tolerated this behavior - perhaps because this person has been on the LSC Review Board, Board of Directors, and is a committee officer.
I am thrilled over this feedback.
R-11 I don't like this proposal because some LSC's have a tight leash and want to control what everyone does.
The more meets - the better!
It's unfortunate that people have to find ways to escape the clutches of others.
I attended a team board meeting where the officers of the club (they were also LSC officers) were laughing at the fact that they prevented another team from hosting a meet two weeks before their meet. The reasoning was that they thought it would reduce their revenue. (My family, along with many others, would have attended both meets).
R-17 MUST APPROVE!
It's about time the seriousness of emotional and verbal abuse is acknowledged.
I LOVE this measure!
OOOps, I missed that one; I just added it and I gave it a BUY rating or MUST APPROVE!
Based on your behavior and history, I'm surprised you support R17.
As to R21, I hope that the voting delegates are more open to facts than you are, or USA Swimming is really in trouble.
You have a tendency to be blind to facts if they don't fit your current political objective.
Some internaional perspective on the deck changing rule (and now that I think of it, it is a rule without any stated consequences too):
http://www.SwimmingWorldMagazine.com/lane9/news/USA/31979.asp?q=Do%20We%20Stuffy%20Americans%20Have%20it%20All%20Wrong%20About%20Deck%20Changing?
R-3 Measure:
This is a tough one especially for parents with smaller kids of the opposite sex. Hopefully the perverts won't start hanging out in the locker rooms!
To Anonymous at 8:31 AM
You come here often and post the same nonsense.
I am not blind to facts and it is demonstrable that I link to them. Unlike you I attached my name to my opinions and I encourage comment. Every time you post, I am so tempted to allow look Google Analytics to at look IP addresses but as a matter of character I don't so as to allow my real users contribute safely.
Anon at 8:31
R-17 includes, "abuse of an athlete by a coach or person of authority over the athlete."
I get the impression that Tony is all about protecting the athletes from all kinds of abuses.
Where in Google Analytics does it show IP addresses? My version doesn't. It does show the host name that the user is at (e.g., comcast, or a company name if it's a big one).
Anon at 12:19 -
You said it way better than I did! I am serious!
Anon at 12:23 PM
You cannot see IP addresses in Google Analytics but you can create a custom filter that does - at least in the old version circa 2009.
In the 2012 version you need a static IP address or your own website.
I got really mad when a person posted horrific gossip about Kelly Davies Currin and I was sure it was a lawyer in Orange County, California. Hence, I was about to find a way to either go back to the old Google Analytics and script it or I was going to find way via blogger to do it.
I relented because of the privacy issues with the good people that post here.
Check out LeadLander if you need IP addresses as an Analytics solution. WIll have more later.
What happened with R21 and R23?
I am told they passed with little modifications - we will see
Post a Comment