January 2012 Phone Call Notes

  
  


 
 
 
When: Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Time: 10:45 Mountain Time
 
            Attendees:   George Knight (SWICA), Jack McNeal (BRAO), Kingsley Rutters (TBRA), Bonnie Walker (TXBRA), Erik Anderson (WSBA), Yvonne Van Gent (BRAC), John Sammut (MBRA), Andrew Ross (NYSBRA), Jeff Poulin (NYSBRA), Dave Miller (PCA), Mark Guthart (IBRA), Deb Schiff (NJBA), John Patterson (GABRA), Jim Patton (MABRA), Judy Rhyne (CCA), Steve Mathias (NMBRA), Darrell Webb (NCA), Diane Fortini (NEBRA), , Keith Creeden (FRCA), Ellen Dorsey (PCA) Don Russell (MTBRA), Bruce Dunn (ABC), Dieter Drake (NYSBRA), Alan Atwood (NYSBRA), Jacque Payne (SCCCC),  Dave Fowkes (ICA), Vicki Mackzum (TBRA), Joe Kopena (ECCCC), Joe Holmes (WSBA), and Randy Legeai (LAMBRA).
 
Staff:  Shawn Farrell, Gordon Weldon, Larry Martin, Valecia Frasier, Susan Diller, Andrea Brunelli, Randy Inglis, George Heagerty, Jeff Hansen, Beth Vialpando, Jan Luke, Stuart Lamp, and Fred Blattspieler.
If you were present for the call, and I missed your name, please send me an e-mail so that I may add you to the list
 
To listen to the call: http://www.usacycling.org/forms/la/LA-Call-Jan-2012.mp3


Topics:
 
  1. Officials Assignments – Shawn Farrell
See attachments – Policy IV(a) USAC Nepotism and Officials Assignment Guidelines
 
For the past year, we have been developing Officials Assignment Guidelines working with the National Technical Commission.  We are trying to narrow the range on extreme variations and how many officials are assigned under certain circumstances. These are guidelines and we are looking for input from the LAs.  Please e-mail Shawn Farrell with ideas at sfarrell@usacycling.org
 
Issues that have come up that we need to address:
 
  • Officials being flown across the country to do low level races by invitation of the LA, when there are local officials capable and available to do the job. This leads to very frustrated local officials and terrible morale in that group.
  • A good old boys system where the same officials work the same races year after year. This not only has the same affect on morale, but it also is against USA Cycling rules, which require rotation of equally qualified officials
  • Officials wheeling and dealing to get assignments in areas where they really don’t belong, taking away assignments from officials in the area
  • Confusion regarding who is actually assigning officials to different events. There have been several models, such as below:
    • LA assigns all the officials
    • LA assigns the CR and the CR chooses the rest
    • Race Director chooses the CR, who chooses the rest
    • Race Director chooses everyone
 
We are trying to streamline Officials assignment process.This is the first time we are using this policy – looking for preliminary ideas.The Officials Assignment Spreadsheet is a guideline only to determine the appropriate number of officials – nothing is set in stone.Want to look into variations.
Comments:
 
  • Bonnie – good assignment sheet.  TXBRA uses a similar process.
  • Jacque in SA, collegiate CD, would like to keep it at 2 officials due to costs.  If collegiate race only has 50 riders, no need for that many officials.  When assigning officials for a collegiate race, talk to the Collegiate Director to verify number needed.
  • Can run a small CX race with 1 official – a small CX race would be defined as less than 100 riders.
  • Need at least 2.  Need 1 CR and one person to do results
  • Every club should have an adequate # of officials. Do have some C cat races with 25 riders.
  • In SC have a few CX that only get 30 riders – they staff w/ 2 officials – don’t need 4.
  • Shawn – may need to add another column for the D and E races
  • Can assign Club officials; however, do not expect officials to work for free.
  • Just because it is a Cat C race, the field sizes can sometimes be less than 25, just because the price list is large does not mean there will be large turn outs.
  • In SC, they have smaller CX events averaging 30 riders – do not need 4 officials
  • Build table with expectation that Officials will not work for free.
  • Add another column to address races with less than 100.
  • Big difference between A,B,C races and D and E races and the table does not allow for those differences.
  • Crit table needs more columns as well.  What do you do with a TT with 15 riders for a series?  We need to take into account really small races.  There are lots of variables with the small races.
  • Need to account for really small races.
  • Valuable to show promoters to substantiate needs and what the recommendations are.  Also good for the RD to use if too many Officials are assigned.
  • MTB TT only had 1 official – so this is welcome
  • Judy Rhyne has been addressing the inequities in assignments, the guidelines reinforce the philosophy and she has noticed the officials in her area are more accepting of the change.
  • Track Assignments: Is it okay for tracks to assign officials?
  • Track Commission – in certain areas, the LA has delegated that role to the tracks.  Do want to include the Track managers in the process?
 
 
Who Assigns Officials?
 
If the LA assigns officials, the process will be more equitable and standardized.There will also be more accountability.There are some LAs that do not have the staff to support this.If the RD picks officials, USAC does not know who the official is.Cleaner if the LA does the assigning.
 
  • LA concerned that if they assign all of the officials they will be micromanaging the entire process.  
  • From an administration perspective, it standardizes the assignment process.  At some point this is the direction we want to go in the future.
 
 
Managing Officials:
 
  • There have been instances of Officials showing up at a race that traveled a long distance – where the crew was imported, yet there were local officials available.  In some cases, this is understandable based on geography.  Need to balance this with “playing time” for officials.  This can turn into a vicious circle – officials are not renewing because they did not get any assignments. We need to create opportunities for officials in the area.
 
  • Nepotism – official will get assigned and then tries to get his wife or friend assigned.  If the primary assigning body made the assignment, it reduces the number of questions regarding appropriateness. 
 
 
 
NRC Races – Bruce Dunn ABC
  • How is it working with the RTC assigning Officials?  With the RTC assigning, we do not have as much latitude - cost has gone up because of the RTC assignments.
  • We can discuss.  The RTC is bridging a gap between a pure local assignment for a bigger race and one where the NTC would be making all the assignments.  The RTC has a better view of local officials.  Will do a better job of knowing the outlying regions.
  • Provide information and feedback to the RTC about specific races
 
Official License Fees and apprentice officials:
 
One LA has trouble recruiting and retaining officials and has lost officials due to the new requirement for serving 3 times unpaid as an apprentice and the increase in license fees.
 
  • The intent for the apprenticeship is not to put the apprentice in a race and have them doing the real job of the Chief Judge.
  • The intent is to get them in the field and get experience working with other officials.
  • Suggestion:  Modify policy to reflect that the apprentice not serve as the Chief Ref or Chief Judge
  • Current policy states the apprentice cannot be paid
  • We are open to suggestions to change the apprentice policy
  • License fees – every other licensee pays $60 for a license.  The Officials do have earning potential.  Decided to make the officials fees the same as every other member.  From there we decided to tier the higher level officials as they have the opportunity to work larger races.  The RTC does not have a sponsor, and the official’s fees support the program.
  • Some LAs have not received complaints, others have lost officials
  • USAC has not seen a reduced number of officials
 
No date set for NAT COM – will be in March.Shawn will follow up with that
 
 
  1. Adding Collegiate Directors to the permit approval process – Jeffrey Hansen
  • Benefits
  • Drawbacks
  • Build in over-rides in case of delays
 
The process permitting process varies from region to region.  In some areas the Collegiate Conference Director is heavily involved, and in other areas not so much.  The problem is usually CD receives the flyer and posts to the Conference Director website.  An update to flyer is made, and the LA approves it, but the CD is not made aware of the changes. 
 
Propose we add the CD into the approval process.  We will add another box where the permit will be submitted:
CD approves
LA approves
USAC internal staff approves
 
This is not to replace the LA for Collegiate permits.
 
LA concerns:
  • CD approves it, LA would like specific changes, and it may cause confusion with the Race Director.
  • Could cause some delays.
  • Needs to be set up sequentially, so the LA gets the permit last.  The LAs make the officials assignment.
  • The LA and the CD receive permit notification at the same time.
  • We can try it and if it does not work, can always revert back to the previous process.
  • Jeff wanted to get feedback before implementing – will take some time for IT to program, so we do not know an exact implementation date.
  • We will notify the LAs before the change goes live.
 
 
 
  1. Year-end reminders – Fred Blattspieler
  • 2010 Financial Statement
  • 2010 IRS 990
  • 2011 LA Yearend report
  • 2012 Signed LA agreement
 


This Article Published January 26, 2012 For more information contact:
Volkswagen
ShimanoBonk BreakerUSACDFSierra NevadaSpyCUOREOSMO
UCI USA Cycling is the official governing body for all disciplines of competitive cycling in the United States. The 501c3, membership-based organization aims both to achieve sustained success in international cycling competition and to grow competitive cycling in America while delivering an exceptional customer experience.
View Children's Online Privacy Protection Policy
US Olympic Committee