POTOMAC VALLEY SWIMMING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
[Note:- This is the regularly scheduled January Board meeting that had been previously scheduled for January 18 and January 25, 2000, but had to be rescheduled due to inclement weather.]
The January PVS Board of Directors meeting was called to order at 9:40 am by Thirl Crudup, General Chairman. In attendance were Mark Eldridge, John Ertter, Ward Foley, Jim Garner, John Hirschmann, Linda Klopfenstein, Dave Scibetta, Greg York, Irene Millman, and Linda Edmunds. [The Senior Chairman and Operations Chairman had given notice to the Administrative Assistant prior to the meeting that they would have to leave at 11:15 and Noon, respectively due to prior swimming commitments.]
The General Chair reminded the group that a strict timeline must be followed.APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Ward Foley asked that the November minutes be amended to reflect more details about the discussion of the Meet Recon Program. Note amendment to the Nov Minutes will reflect that during the Administrative report "the office stated they were prepared (as directed) to begin using Meet Recon effective the November Open. Irene reminded everyone that the clubs had been informed of this in the October Flash and would be again in the flash going out after the BoD meeting." These comments had been omitted from the admin/registration report in the November Minutes. Ward also stated that he would like to reserve the right to make further amendments to the minutes based on information that he currently did not have with him
Mark Eldridge asked that the minutes reflect volunteers under the age of 18 at World Cup could not work at the meet. He also asked at the November Board whether the cost of Time Trials was $5 for PVS and $5 for Club meets. There was discussion at the January meeting whether Mark Eldridge had asked specifically about Time Trials. Note: Subsequent to this meeting the Administrative Office reviewed their meeting notes. The notes stated that "the General Chair stated the Policy on Time Trials would not be amended at this time but a discussion would be had with CUBU regarding Time Trials at JO and agreement would be worked out in every one's best interest."
Ward Foley said that he felt a tape recording device was needed at all Board meetings in order to consult the tape in cases where there were questions. He further stated that this problem needed to be rectified immediately. Irene stated that the equipment, which the office currently has for taping of the meetings, is inadequate and that this equipment is not at this meeting. Ward stated that he felt PVS could afford to buy quality equipment for this use and that he would leave it to the Office to handle this. Thirl commented -"let them take care of that." A motion is not needed.
Hirschmann observed (but did not request a change in the minutes) noting that there was a reference in the minutes to the fact we should follow PVS Policy and Procedures in regard to inviting non -PVS teams to our meets, however no such policy can be found there.
Motion to accept the November BoD minutes as amended was PASSED
GENERAL CHAIRMAN'S REPORT:
Thirl stated that he deferred to his written report (see attached) and added that a Nominating Committee was needed to develop a slate for the open positions on the Board. These positions are Age Group Chair, Administrative Vice Chair, Strategic Planning Chair and Operations Vice Chair. John Hirschmann stated that additionally there would be 2 positions on the Board of Review that would have to be elected.. Thirl stated that he was recommending John Ertter, Linda Klopfenstein and Greg York to the Nominating Committee. The Board subsequently APPROVED these names by written ballot.NEW BUSINESS:
Thirl solicited any new business from the group. Linda K. stated that Time Trials held during a club meet were not "legal" times for OVC purposes unless it was open to all clubs within the LSC. She further stated that this was an OVC rule. John Hirschmann questioned whether the regular events in a dual or tri meet that had been sanctioned would be "legal" for OVC purposes. Linda K. responded "yes" if the meet is sanctioned. Dave S. said if a sanctioned tri-meet was held and time trials were announced in the meet announcement, then the time trials would not be good for OVC. Linda K. responded "correct."
Ward Foley stated that he had a piece of new business regarding a request for a meet, which he would hold until the Competition portion of this meeting.
Mark Eldridge stated that he would like to discuss the Meet Director's Financial report and it's availability to anyone within the organization. He stated his opinion that this report as submitted by the Meet Director should be available, be it a club or a PVS meet. Greg York commented that one could figure out the financial information based on the number of splashes. Thirl Crudup questioned the intent of desiring to see this information. Mark E. stated that he felt it would provide information to clubs who potentially would be interested in holding meets and help to deduce whether the fee structure was appropriate. Thirl stated that the Board looks at those issues and the information is kept confidential. The Board made comparisons to determine if the fee structures were appropriate. John E. stated that each team is in and of itself a separate business and it was up to the club sponsoring a meet to release its financial information with regard to the meet. Mark E. stated that he disagreed but would have to live with the decision of the Board. Ward Foley stated that an LSC had suffered an upheaval due to release of information and that as a member in good standing he was comfortable releasing his meet information. He stated that it didn't bother him if others saw his meets and saw no problem with releasing it. Thirl asked if anyone had ever requested Ward's meet financial information. Ward stated that no one had asked him for it, but that someone had asked Evelyn and he authorized the release of that information. John E. stated that there is less of a problem with PVS meets than with club meets, club meets are up to the club to release. Dave Scibetta stated that he didn't believe PVS should post this information publicly. He further stated; that there is a good mechanism in place to compare such information; and that if an individual representing a club wanted to see that information to see how a meet may benefit them that they should be able to see it. He further stated that PVS shouldn't portray it as a secret. Thirl Crudup questioned how a person representing the team would be defined. Dave Scibetta responded that this would include a Head Coach or Team President who had a specific problem or was interested in how a meet may run financially. John H. stated that he agreed for PVS meets but for club meets felt that maybe the authorization for release of this information would need to be a part of the bid. Linda E. asked why one club couldn't just approach the other club directly for information. Thirl asked Greg if he would tell him that information. Greg responded that yes they would release some of the information, splash information would be easy; however, they would not release how much they charged their own team for T-shirts vs. Other teams. Irene stated that if clubs knew their financial information was openly distributed they would be more likely to withhold information because the club didn't want all information to be public. Greg York stated that the Financial gain/loss of a meet was very dependent on the clubs input. He noted that the JO meet had been very unprofitable in the past but that CUBU had put allot into it by adding sponsorships, T-shirts, etc and turned it into a profitable meet; another club may or may not have success depending on how they approach the meet.TRAVEL ASSISTANCE:
Thirl asked the indulgence of the group in moving this item up on the agenda, so that a member who would be refereeing a meet later in the day would be able to leave. He then asked that non-voting members of the Board excuse themselves for this closed portion of the meeting. A member stated that they could not be asked to leave. Thirl stated that because of this member's other involvement with Potomac Valley, it would be inappropriate for them to hear the discussion at this meeting as it may influence them if they became involved in the matter at a future time. The member excused himself.
The Board conducted a portion of the meeting in "closed session." Three motions were passed during that portion of the meeting.
The Board again convened in "open" session.
Linda K. introduced a draft of the proposed travel assistance request form, which will replace the current form. The new form asks for more information including other sources of funding as the funding which PVS provides is only to cover the cost of transportation and should be up to but not more than the cost of transportation. The new form also solicits information about double dipping. The coach and athlete are required to sign the form and attest to the statements made therein. Incomplete or erroneous information can result in denial. It is being proposed that faxes would be allowed only to meet deadlines and that hard copies would need to be submitted with original signatures within a set period of time. The draft of the proposed Appeal Travel Assistance request was also introduced. Linda K. stated that it is very similar to the regular travel assistance request and that the back of the form is to be used for the written explanation. There is a reminder on the form that only the information provided on the form will be considered. There will not be inquiries made regarding information that has been omitted.
Ward stated that the new form seemed crowded however an area should be added where the club could indicate that it had been transmitted via fax and further asked how the forms would be sorted. Linda K. responded that the forms would be sorted 1st by club and then by qualified and appeals. Ward stated that as the funds go to the clubs not the athletes it would not be relevant if the athlete received funds from other sources. He further stated that PVS should not be committing to paying the entire cost of transportation as some athletes may be transported using an extravagant means. John H. stated that he felt the form should reflect exactly what PVS is paying for. Dave S. stated that this was an administrative issue. While he felt comfortable with soliciting information regarding other sources of income, he felt the decision as to dollar amount of travel reimbursement should be based on the location of the meet and this amount when determined would not be changed. Ward agreed with Dave. Mark E. stated that he felt it incorrect to assume limits of what travel costs to transportation, the hotel room, and other expenses are part of the cost of travel. Further, he stated that he did not see the need to have the athlete sign this form when it was the club that would receive the reimbursement and the athletes are in most cases minors. John E. Stated that the Travel Committee can look at what is consistent with a reasonable point of view and then determine the amount to pay. Greg stated that there is a problem with cases where athletes or others make money in excess of all travel-related costs. The funds PVS pays for Travel Reimbursement is collected from a very large percentage of the PVS athlete body and then distributed to a very small percentage of the PVS athlete body. He further stated that travel reimbursement is a privilege but that many coaches are now demanding it as though it is a right. Thirl asked the Travel Committee to fine-tune the draft form for the February BoD meeting.
Linda K. referred to the following written report on two proposed changes to the policy and procedures manual:
The first pertained to #3 the Camp Program in the Administrative section of Policy and Procedures Linda introduced language to update the PVS Policy and Procedures to reflect the change in the camp reimbursement that had been approved at the November board meeting. John H. stated that the issue had been dealt with in the forthcoming package as well, but recommend ed deferring to Linda E's proposed language. The change to 9 Reimbursement of Travel Expenses- simply removes athletes travel to camps reimbursement from this section as they are now dealt with separately in the Camp reimbursement section. John H. moved that these motions be passed. Dave S. asked that the location provision (OTC in Colorado Springs) be struck in order that other locations be permitted.. This reflects the fact USA Swimming is now conducting clinics in locations other than Colorado Springs. Linda K. accepted it as a friendly amendment. Motion to accept the above changes to the Policies and Procedures Manual. PASSED.
The second pertained to changes to the Policy and Procedures Manual pertaining to Athlete Travel Assistance. (#1 in the Competition Division Section) Several provisions within this item were discussed. There was discussion of the length of time from a club's submission of travel assistance request until approved reimbursement was paid to the team. Ward stated that the club was required to wait a long time in the case of summer travel where the next Board meeting does not occur until after convention. Thirl said that the Travel Committee would work on how to see that the reimbursements were made in a timely manner. Linda K. stated that the Travel Committee needed time to look over the requests. Thirl stated that the delay until the Board meeting was not necessary and that the Board could handle the vote electronically. Ward stated that while on travel at Convention to do PVS business, the business of Travel reimbursements should be handled. Greg stated that this new form gave a good start. Linda K. asked the group to consider the question on the form regarding charging a fine when a challenge to eligibility is made and found to be incorrect. Mark E. Stated that his club would not pay this fine if an unathorized person from his club had made the challenge. Linda K. stated that the Travel Committee desires this form be in use for Spring 2000 Travel requests. No action was taken on this item at the Board meeting.SENIOR DIVISION:
Jim G. brought forth items from the Competition Committee. There was discussion of the bonus events at Jr. & Sr. Champs. He indicated that the meet announcements for these meets will be revised in order to assist the athlete in deciding their events. Ward stated that if an athlete swam 100 fly at Sr. Champs as a bonus event, they shouldn't enter the same event at Jr. Champs. Mark E. stated that an event swam as a bonus at Sr. Champs could then not be swum by the same athlete at Jr. Champs- he said we should fall back to the meet announcement.
In response to an inquiry, John H. recommended that we not implement the 2-year rule (pertaining to how long an athlete's time is valid) prior to this summer's Long Course meets.
Jim Garner referred to his written report He also reported that the Eastern Zone wants to have 2 Sectionals and that most LSCs in the Zone seem to be opposed to this. Many LSCs feel that there should be 2 or 3 per region of the Zone. The Competition Committee thought PVS should host or let a club host one of the Sectional meets.
It was indicated that the proposal from the zone had been distributed to as many PVS coaches as possible electronically and that comments needed to be to the General Chair by January 30, so he could consolidate the comments and forward them to the Zone. About 3 comments had been received to date.
Jim G. reported that a committee of himself, Kerry Ellett and Kurt Thiel would be working to investigate the development of a policy regarding Open Water Travel Assistance.TRAVEL-
Thirl stated that the Board would return to the matter of Travel. He suggested that the requirements for this year be distributed to the clubs. Mark E. Asked what had been done with regard to a challenge that had been made for assistance in the 1999 LC season. Dave S. stated that he felt it was the responsibility of the committee to investigate and fix if needed, but that a response to the challenger was not necessary. Linda K. stated that there was a question with regard to this challenge and how far back the travel assistance policy was retroactive. Mark E. and Ward stated that the policy was retroactive for forever. Linda K. stated that she would reinvestigate the issue and respond. Thirl reiterated that the issue would be investigated.REGISTRATION REPORT:
Irene deferred to the written report previously distributed electronically and stated she had some additional information to share regarding registration. Irene referred to the 1999 athlete registration report vs. 2000 athlete registration report. Ward asked specifically about the numbers for his club. Dave S. stated that the number of non-returning athletes at 42% was not that much different than numbers reported at the USA Swimming level. Irene stated that per a conversation the previous week with USA, the percentage of non-returning athletes was 25-30%. Dave S. stated that he finds it interesting that 5000 out of 6000 registered athletes are 14 or under; and that it is expected that the Senior athletes would leave. Greg pointed out that 18% of the total registered athletes are 8 & under and that PVS does less for them than for any of the other age groups and that while they are "paying" a large part of the association's income, they only get long and boring meets. Linda E. commented that she was glad as a parent that the clubs ran the mini-meets as the clubs provided ribbons and goodies, which PVS did not. Dave S. stated that at an USA Swimming Age Group Planning Committee he had learned of and would share with PVS the desire to invest in new programs for those swimmers in the "romance phase" (8 & Under). Getting these athletes to love the sport rather than being purely focused on times. USA Swimming will be investing funds in this area. John H. stated that we used to run B-C meets and gave recognition for best B swimmer, best C swimmer, heat ribbons, etc. Greg stated that perhaps we should do a camp for the 8 & Unders; he would see if his club would be able to run a camp. Thirl stated that PVS could perhaps sponsor such an event. Irene stated that Kerry Ellett should be consulted as he is in charge of camps. She further stated that the number of total registrations as of January this year is up considerably as compared to the same time last year.
Irene referred to the blind copy of the Meet Reconciliation report results for the January meets. She stated that the teams had worked hard and that many had participated without infractions. Greg asked if PVS would follow through with the fines. Mark asked if the fines from the previous round of Meet Reconciliations were being reinstated as per the letter. Linda E. stated that the Office would be reviewing these infractions and verifying that all necessary corrections had been made. She further stated that the results of this verification would be taken to the Administrative Vice Chair and the General Chair for their input. Thirl stated that fines will be issued and enforced for meets beginning with the January Open. Mark E. stated that one couldn't go back in time to investigate the database. John H. attempted to clarify by stating that he thought what others were trying to say is that the Office has more time to review the records based on entries into the database. Ward asked that the use of Meet Reconciliation be introduced early in the next meeting so that there can be more discussion of this issue.
Irene directed the group to the 2001 Registration Procedures in the agenda package and stated that it would be discussed at the February meeting.
Thirl introduced the Administrative Vice Chair's recommended changes to Policies and Procedures. This had been distributed to the Board on the prior day. It was proposed that several items be combined into a omnibus motion. The changes pertained to (1)codifying the "times are only valid for two years" that had been approved by the Board in 1997, (2) fees for time trials and their allocation between PVS and hosting/sponsoring clubs, (3) add fees splits to the Financial Arrangements table, (4) defining what is a splash for fee purposes, (5) ) fees deck entries and their allocation between PVS and hosting/sponsoring clubs, (6) fees that can be charged for programs at PVS sponsored meets, and (7) recodifying the Officials Certification Program which had inadvertently not been included when the Policy and Procedures were updated in May, 1999
There were requests to pull two items (2) and (5) above. A clarification was made to item (1) above. The Board PASSED the proposed changes to Items 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 above. These changes will be reflected in the next update to the Policies and Procedures that will be posted to the PVS webpage.
Mark E. stated with regard to item 2A, which the conduct of time trials at club meets, should not be subjected to a 50/50 split with PVS of the Time Trial fee. John H. stated that the Time Trial fee for the JO meet was split 50/50 with PVS. Ward asked why should the club share the fee with the association when the club is doing the extra work associated with these entries. John H. stated that the entry fees for Time Trials are higher than the normal entry fee even after being split. Thirl stated that the JO sponsor club had agreed to the 50% split, as there was no policy for Time Trial entry fees in Club meets. Mark E. recommended that the club should pay the normal splash fee for Time Trial entries; he further stated that he should remit to PVS the same amount of money regardless of what was charged for the splash. Linda K. stated that she didn't see the need for Time Trials and that her point of view is as an OVC person. John H. stated that as clubs can get sanction for dual and tri meets, they should be able to run these as regular events. Mark E. stated that Time Trials can provide an added opportunity. Ward asked why the club would be required to give extra money to PVS for deck entries. Thirl stated that this has long been the policy for PVS meets and as club meets were now becoming more prevalent; this same policy would seem to apply. Mark E. stated that he wanted deck entries counted as regular splashes and not a different fee dependent on what the event was called. Thirl reiterated that the JO sponsoring team had agreed to split as the language within Policy is unclear regarding club meets. Mark E. asked why the club would need to send additional funds to PVS when the club incurs the additional work. John H. stated that this was already in Policies and Procedures and that this was just a clarification of the language. Thirl responded no, what's in Policies and Procedures refers to PVS meets and this issue was in regard to club meets. Mark E. asked why there should be different fee structures for different events. John E. stated that from a business standpoint it's reasonable to agree to the Splash fee for all kinds of entries. Thirl stated that the splash fee would be charged for Time Trials and deck entries in club meets.
The consensus was that the PVS share for deck entries and time trials at Club meets should be the same as it is for other events being conducted at that meet. Language to reflect that view will be brought to the February board meeting for approval.
Linda K. made a statement regarding OVC and the requirement that the request be made based on the fastest time of the season. Since it was anticipated there would be discussion needed on the remaining six proposals (renumbered 2h and 3a to 3e). These would be tabled until the February Board meeting.. John H. stated that it would move things along if the group expressed their feelings ahead of time.TREASURER'S REPORT:
John Ertter distributed financial reports to the group and explained the new format he was using.. He stated that he felt PVS was in better shape than this time last year, although since PVS is on a cash basis the exact timing of receipts and disbursements can impact reported numbers and resulting comparisons.. He further stated that it was necessary to address the budget and would like to have the budgetary requirements for the following year from each of the division heads before the next meeting of the Board. It was recommended that the February Board meeting be split into 2 separate meetings to allow additional time for this budget process. John E. asked that the Division heads break down their budgets into what they believe they'll need and the associated costs and break it down on a monthly basis.
By this point in time, two Board members had left the meeting due to previously announced commitments and the limited notice that could be given due to the rescheduling required by inclement weather. Therefore, the remainder of this document constitutes notes concerning discussion occurring at an unofficial meeting.
Linda K. commented that with regard to financial matters, the travel shares for this year have yet to be set and that it was necessary to set these at this meeting. The travel share amounts will impact the budget. She continued by stating the recommendation of the travel Committee that Junior and Open Shares (both SC and LC) be set at $250; Senior shares (SC) be set at $450 and that Olympic trial shares be set at $500 for an athlete with a first tier cut and $450 for an athlete with a second tier cut. This represents a $50 reduction in the share amount. Ward stated that as per a conversation with a NCAA compliance officer, PVS couldn't pay different amounts for different athletes for participation in the same meet. He therefore felt that the Olympic Trial share must be the same across the board. Mark E. stated his opinion that different levels of compensation rewarded the athlete for how fast they swam and that PVS should treat all athletes the same. Dave S. contributed that it was less complicated if there was only one set share amount for Olympic Trials. Linda K. stated that the total amount of travel reimbursements made by PVS has greatly increased through the years and that it does have a significant financial impact on the association. One way she stated which had been historically used was a set amount budgeted for travel which was then split into shares based on the number of athletes, she continued by saying that the clubs had not been in favor of this. Greg pointed out that the travel shares would be affecting the next budget year. John E. stated that from a financial perspective $450 or $500 would be fine. He referred to a comment made during the Competition meeting about the cash reserves of the association and stated that PVS would be fiscally irresponsible to operate with no cash reserves. Further, he suggested that he felt a plan should be developed as to the appropriate reserve amount and that all the reserves are there for swimming. Greg stated that the misinformation regarding reserves should be cleared to all members of PVS. John E. stated that he would work to get the information out to the body. Dave S. stated that the goal that had been developed by a previous board was to have cash reserves excluding registration funds to support the association for 12 months. Ron Taylor developed this along with others but it could be used now and/or changed but that PVS must balance to a baseline. Dave S. further stated that he felt John E. made a good point. Linda K. stated that the Board did need to vote and further stated that research indicated that PVS was paying the highest amount for travel shares. While this originally was a token of the accomplishments of athletes who'd been in PVS for reaching that level of competition, it now seemed to have turned into something else. An informal motion was made that travel reimbursement shares for the 2000 season be for Junior (both SC and LC) and Open Shares be set at $250; Senior shares (SC) be set at $450 and that Olympic trial shares be set at $500. Those Board members still present indicated agreement with this proposal. This Board subsequently APPROVED by mail ballot all portion of this motion except that pertaining to the reimbursement for the US OpenCOMPETITION DIVISION
Ward stated that he would table until the February BoD in the interest of time all issues except the following: Ward stated that Age Group Champs had been moved to the Wakefield Pool. Further, he stated that if no venue was available for the Thursday night start of the meet and there was not enough time to move the meet. He recommended that Thursday be left as the official start date of the meet for purposes of age computation. Mark E. stated that he felt the intent of this proposal was good. Ward stated that PVS should spend extra money if necessary in order to secure a facility for the Thursday night events of this meet.
Ward referred to the LC schedule as presented to this body. Ward recommends passage of this schedule with the removal of the AAC Open Water meet, which needs to be brought forth in a different manner The LC schedule with removal of the AAC Open Water Meet was concurred in by those Board members still present.. This Board subsequently APPROVED by mail ballot the long course schedule discussed with the Open Water meet excluded from the motion.
Linda K. stated that there had been one appeal of a travel assistance request for an Open Water meet. The travel committee recommends that this appeal be denied as there is no existing Open Water policy for travel assistance requests within PVS and therefore, others who were eligible may have not submitted requests believing that there was no assistance available. Further, she stated that no past meets would be grandfathered under the new policy when established. She additionally stated that it is the desire of the Travel Committee to have an Open Water policy in effect for this summer. Ward stated that it is irrelevant whether teams believed they would receive reimbursement, all teams had equal opportunity to apply for it. Linda K. thanked Ward for bringing the lack of Open Water policy to the attention of the body and stated that a policy would be in place in the future.ATHLETES' REPRESENTATIVE:
No athlete representative was present. Irene presented on behalf of the athletes the comments regarding the JO meet and the positive commentary from the athlete body regard the facility and how smoothly the meet ran. The athletes enjoy swimming at GMU.OPERATIONS:
The Operations Chair was not present to give his report, having left earlier due to a prior commitment. His written report as attached was presented.. Greg stated that there had been many complaints about one of the January Open sites. A member of the Board will contact the managing team to discuss these issuesCOACHES' REPRESENTATIVE:
Greg stated that there had been some issues with regard to teams having ads for themselves in meet programs. The content of the ad seemed to be the determining factor in determining whether it was allowable. Greg contacted the team in question and discussed the concerns. He also made it clear to the team's meet director that this was not the first time this had occurred and future incidents could jeopardize their team being awarded meets in the future.OLD BUSINESS:
Mark E. stated his concern about the distance meets and their length. The original timeline for the 1000Y Free at the January Distance was from 7:30 am to 4:50 pm. The meet was finished early (at 3:15) without taking breaks. Mark E. stated that additional reimbursement should be made to the team holding the distance meets. Ward indicated that Arlington County had given up the distance meets due to this issue. Thirl stated that the Board would examine this issue.
The informal portion of the meeting concluded at 12:40pm.
Linda Edmunds/Irene Millman