POTOMAC VALLEY SWIMMING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
Attendance -- Jim Garner, Chair Board Members: John Hirschmann, Bill Marlin, Bill Stephens, Jim Van Erden, Ron Whalen, and Greg York. Non-voting Board Members: John Ertter, Boots Hall and Linda Klopfenstein. Guests None
Call to Order -- The meeting was called to order at approximately 6:44 pm, by the General Chair, Jim Garner. Jim had provided the Board with a proposed agenda prior to the meeting.
Approval of Minutes -- A motion was made and passed to approve the minutes of April 11, 2005 Board of Directors minutes as circulated.
Administrative Division --
Registrar's Contract -- Bill reported that Sumie had the contract for review and he did not believe she had any problems with it.
Administrative Assistant -- The Board discussed the status of obtaining an Administrative Assistant. Bill had sent out a proposed list of duties for this the prior Friday. He noted that process had started in September 2002 - following the termination of the contract with Tatoodles. Thirl and he decided to concentrate first on replacing the Registrar and Sumie Emory was selected as a contractor to perform this function. Volunteers (primarily John Hirschmann) took over the other duties that the contractor had performed. He has indicated he wants to reduce his role.
John Ertter and John Hirschmann submitted comments for consideration prior to the meeting.
Bill reviewed some of the specific comments that had been received. After limited discussion on the merits of those comments, it was suggested the it would be more productive use of the Board's time to first discuss to the larger issues involved with this position.
Hirschmann indicated that a discussion of what duties he thought made more sense to transfer to this position had not occurred and he urged that there first be an opportunity for that to take place. He indicated he felt was between a "rock and a hard plate," he was very anxious for this effort to proceed, but was concerned that until now, key people had not been consulted in the development of the recommendation.
The Board then discussed the larger issues involved with recruiting and selecting an Administrative Assistant such as what level of compensation would likely need to (could) be paid, whether any benefits could/should be offered, would/should they be an employee or contractor, what type of skills and previous work experience we would be seeking, what type of candidates would likely be interested in the position, etc. It was affirmed that based on previous discussions, they would be working from their home -- PVS has no current plans to open a physical office. There was also discussion whether they would be expected to be available at set hours whose times would be provided the PVS community. This possibility had been raised at the House of Delegates meeting - most who had been monitoring calls that could go to PVS - indicated that such inquiries are extremely infrequent. Rather almost all inquiries come in via e-mail these days - rather than by telephone.
There was also discussion to what extent we should be assuming a new Administrative Assistant is needed to take over duties currently being performed by volunteers, rather than attempting to recruit new volunteers. It was noted that no significant effort has been made to recruit people to volunteer to fill these positions has been made in quite some time. Also, should PVS be assuming new volunteers will not step forward, if a current volunteer indicates they wish to step down.
The amount of time needed to perform the work currently proposed was discussed and it was agreed it was unlikely one person could perform all of the proposed duties. The view was also expressed that some of the candidates for this position were likely to be seeking less than a full time position.
Hirschmann discussed the amount currently budgeted for contractor services and gave a general idea of what amount would likely be available based on the amount currently planned for the other three contractors PVS currently has.
It was agreed that a subcommittee of Garner, Stephens, Riedlinger, Hirschmann and Van Erden would be formed to address what should be the specific duties of this position. They would both identify the potential duties and prioritize them - determining which are most essential if it is concluded that all could not be done in the time available. This could include whether they should take over any duties currently performed by other contractors. It was determined that all should be available for meetings starting June 16th to discuss.
Later in the meeting (when setting the date for the next Board meeting) the Board agreed that this subcommittee could finalize the proposed duties and the recruiting/advertising approach to be used, without coming back to the full Board for formal approval for this part of the process.
Registration -- Bill Stephens gave a brief report. As of June 3rd, PVS had 7402 registered athletes. This is an increase of 92 in the last month. He stated PVS should still expect a small increase before the registration year ends on August 31st. The June 3rd number is up from 628 from the comparable date last year. Bill also indicated we don't know yet to what extent this is a post Olympic surge.
Club Status Report -- The Board was made aware of a situation involving Ashburn Swim Team (previously Ashburn Village Swim Team.) Questions have recently arisen pertaining to the club's registration and other matters related to the team. The Board discussed the matter. It was concluded that the situation had been evolving very rapidly over the past few days and that all relevant information was not yet available. The Board concluded that no action on the part of the PVS Board was warranted at this time.
General Chairman's Report -- Jim Garner reported that meet results had uploaded at Maryland States in real time (as each heat and event was completed.) It was very well received, the data received a very large number of hits (approximately 47,000) in the 48 hours it was up in this format. Many compliments on doing this were received.
The effort to upload in real time had first been attempted at the Bunkey Lewis Mini Meet on May 21-22, but there was a need to determine how to get around the firewall. It is expected that the next time it will be attempted will be at PVS Senior and PVS Juniors at the University of Maryland and then at Fairland for PVS Age Group Champs. Since it has been done before at the University of Maryland that should pose less of a challenge.
Age Group Swimming
Age Group Coach of the Year -- Bill Marlin reported that about 8-9 applications had been received. It was confirmed (as had been previously decided) that Greg York, Todd Benedick and Bill Marlin will review the applications and select a winner.
PVS LC Eastern Zone Team Progress -- Greg York reported that steps were being taken to send a PVS team to the Eastern Zone LC meet based on the recommendation from May's Competition Committee meeting that was approved by the Board. He stated given the new criteria it will be a greater challenge to determine how many athletes will choose to be part of the team - given the new requirement to travel and participate as a team - rather than on an individual basis as in the past. One challenge is knowing whether 2 or 3 busses would be needed. It was agreed that given the vote by Competition, we have no choice but to rent 3 busses - even if eventually we wind up with just over enough swimmers to fill 2 buses It was agreed that if a swimmer qualifies in just one event and wishes to be part of the team, we are committed to accepting them.
It was also discussed that the team subsidy with be approximately $11.500. (This is based on the House of Delegates guidance to have the subsidy be as close to what was provided to the SC team as practical.) It was recognized that it will be harder to budget with precision given the uncertainty as to how many athletes will choose to be on the team. Pro rating transportation costs with precision will be particularly challenging - not knowing how "full" the third bus will be.
The Board was advised that Competition at its May meeting had voted to recommend that PVS increase the stipend for being Zone Coordinator from $500 to $1500, add the requirement that the Zone Coordinator be present at the meet, that the Zone Coordinator not serve concurrently as a Zone team coach and should serve at least a one-year tenure (2 meets.) The Board concurred in this recommendation. Greg asked and received permission to implement this new policy starting in 2006, due to the need for some lead time to implement. He proposed and received permission to pay Paris Jacobs $1000 to handle the pre-meet arrangements (buses, hotels, meals, processing applications, submitting PVS entries) and that another individual (not a PVS LC zone coach) would be selected and paid $500 to take care of zone team manager responsibilities at the meet site (Buffalo.)Senior Division
Transfer Athlete Funding for the USA-S Disability Meet to the U.S. Paralympics Meet -- Discussion about this item was tabled till Don Riedlinger could be present. It was also pointed out that jurisdiction of this meet is now under the control of the US Paralympic Committee, which is also a governing body reporting to the USOC. This would allow this meet to be differentiated from the Junior Championship Meet supported by NCSA. A letter was shared from Randy Julian of the USA Swimming staff, which recommended that those LSC's who had b been providing travel assistance for the USA-S Disability Meet transfer their funding support.
Sanctioning of 2005-06 Short Course Meets -- Hirschmann handled several action items from Competition in Don Riedlinger's absence. (The recommendation from Competition to change the PVS LC Zone Team participation rules had been approved by the Board by electronic vote earlier.)
Competition endorsed several meets which clubs had requested receive a PVS sanction during the 2005-06 SC season. These are:
The Board voted to sanction the first five meets and endorse the OCCS meet which will be subject to a VSI sanction. The Board was advised that AST would no longer be involved in co-sponsoring the first four meets with YORK.
Competition had also been advised that Chris Huott had requested some changes. Because of the Redskins schedule, PGS&LC is not available on October 22-23, therefore he is requesting permission to move the Senior Circuit Meet #1 previously sanctioned to October 29-30. The Senior Circuit Meet #2 is now planned to be hosted by SEVA in VSI territory and will be withdrawn from the PVS calendar. In addition MSSC also indicated it was no longer planning to conduct it's Winter Long Course Invitational scheduled for January 28-29, 2006. It was now requesting support for a new sanction request for a February Qualifier on February 5-6. Competition had endorsed these changes. The Board approved these changes.
Award of Meet Hosting Bids for PVS Sponsored Meets (2005/06SC Season -- Hirschmann reported that bids had only been received to host 9 or the 13 meet/sites for PVS sponsored meets during the 2005-06 SC schedule. All were eligible for award as a priority bid. Hirschmann identified the meets bid as:
The Board voted to award hosting of these meets.Hirschmann identified the 4 meet/sites and their prior year meet hosts for which bids were not received this year as:
Hirschmann advised the Board that several notices had been sent out via FLASH MAIL regarding the opportunity to bid to host these meets. He noted that the other clubs who had hosted the comparable meets last year and they had either indicated they would not be bidding or had not responded.
The Board discussed why it is not getting enough bids and whether it should be pursuing other alternatives. Others asked if PVS should take over direct responsibility for running any of these meets (i. e., not have a host club.) Questions were also asked whether paying a larger meet hosting would help. Hirschmann noted that past increases (which have been significant) have not generally resulted in more clubs bidding to host these meets. Concern was also expressed that some clubs are hosting meets and earning significant fees, but are not providing many volunteers from within their own club to help run the meet.
It was also noted that the PVS Distance meets have proven particularly challenging to staff and that club travel plans may be making it difficult to find meet hosts for the PVS November Open.
Number of PVS EZ LC Coaches -- Competition had observed that the new PVS policy for its LC Zone Team would require PVS zone coaches to be in charge of more swimmers for a longer period of time. It was therefore proposed that PVS send a full compliment of eight coaches - the maximum permitted by the Zone. The Board approved this recommendation.
Criteria for Receiving Travel Assistance for Attending 2005 US Open -Competition recommended that the requirement remain as it has been in the recent past - participation in 4 swims during the PVS 2005 LC season - at least two of which are in PVS sponsored meets. The meet will be held in Auburn, AL - December 1-3. The Board voted to support this recommendation.
Travel Assistance World Championship Trials -- The Board received a report on the requests for travel assistance pertaining to the Word Championship Trials held in Indianapolis, IN April 1-6, 2005. The Board was advised that 13 applications for travel assistance were received - 8 of these satisfied the criteria for receiving travel assistance. The Board voted to approve these applications. The Board was also advised of the five appeals received, three had not satisfied the meet participation requirement, but were entitled to a waiver under the college exemption requirement. The Board approved these applications on this basis.
The Board then discussed the two remaining applications. One involved an application submitted on behalf of an athlete who had satisfied the requirement that they swim in at least 9 PVS sanctioned meets, but had not satisfied the requirement that at least 6 of these be in PVS sponsored meets. This was due in part that they chose to participate in club meets rather than PVS Open meets in October and/or November. The Board voted to not approve this request. The final application involved an athlete who is no longer attending college full time and may or may not be attending any classes. He is reported to be assisting as a coach while he is training. The Board voted to not approve this request.
Strategic Planning -- Jim Van Erden indicated he had no report from Strategic Planning.
Coaches' Representatives -- Bill Marlin indicated he had nothing to report that had not been covered under Age Group Planning.
Athlete Representatives -- No athlete representatives were present and no written reports were submitted prior to the meeting.
Treasurer's Report/Finance Division -- PVS's financial statements and reports on the financial aspects of PVS sponsored and club sponsored meets as of May 31, 2005 had been distributed to the Board in advance of the meeting. They showed that PVS's current assets on hand as of May 31, 2005 were $619,539 including $4,479 in the Dave Davis fund. Hirschmann indicated that he did not feel there was anything of significance in the reports that warranted the Board's attention. John Ertter noted that were about 3 uncleared checks for significant amounts. He would contact the recipient to find out why they had not been cashed yet.
John Ertter also stated he had found that it would be possible to move some PVS funds to another bank and receive a better rate of interest. The current arrangements with M&T Bank, including how the funds are segregated for control purposes could be continued under this arrangement. No Board action was taken on this proposal.
The Board was notified that a contract had been entered into with Don Smith as Equipment Manager following the April PVS Board meeting. The General Chairman and the Operations Vice Chairman agreed to make the effective date on Don's contract effective September 1, 2003. The Board had earlier been advised that the effective date for the new contract would be September 1, 2004.
The Board had decided at its April Board meeting that a rebate should be made to those who paid the $350 fee to be on the PVS EZ SC Zone team. At that point, it was estimated that rebate would be about $175. The rebate was to be calculated so that the PVS subsidy to the team would equal the budgeted $15,000. Since then additional expenses attributable to the zone team have been identified that would reduce the rebate if paid to less than $50. (The LSC subsidy before any rebate is now about $11,500.) The Board agreed to not to issue rebate checks given the availability of more complete information about the total costs incurred.
John Ertter distributed information that showed the potential size of a rebate to PVS clubs - should PVS elect to do so Hirschmann indicated he was not opposed to doing so, how he also noted that this had been discussed at both the April Board meeting and as the May House of Delegates meeting without a decision being made to proceed. At the House meeting, alternative formulas for making such a rebate were discussed. It was also suggested that a Committee be formed to propose a possible formula that might recognize both club size and participation in supporting PVS activities. The need for an objective and relatively objective basis for making this determination was also discussed.
Operations Division -- The Board discussed some matters that had been brought to the attention of some Board members in the past 2-3 days regarding the situation at Fairland. The Board discussed the matter and concluded that no circumstances were present which warranted not continuing with the meets currently scheduled there for this long course season. The Board was advised that many items, about which concerns have been expressed, are being addressed by the Fairland pool management prior to next meet. Also, new lighting is scheduled to be installed when Fairland is closed in mid-August for annual maintenance. The Board discussed whether it should send a letter to MNCPPC emphasizing the importance PVS attaches to this effort and that it becomes more critical in winter when natural daylight is less and the days shorter.
Outreach Program -- It was noted that Art Lopez's Outreach Program was discussed extensively at the House of Delegates meeting on May 23rd. There was no further discussion about the progress of this program at this meeting.
Report from Coaches Receiving PVS Grants -- No coaches who received coach's continuing education grants were present to give a report pertaining to their grant. It was suggested we should consider asking to get the reports in writing, rather than seeking a verbal presentation at a meeting.
Timing of PVS's Elections for Athlete and Coach Representative to the PVS Board -- It was noted that the election for Coaches Representative was not held in conjunction with the spring PVS Championship meets as called for in PVS's by-laws. Furthermore, no nominations were taken for candidates for PVS Athlete Representative at the annual House of Delegates meeting. It was recognized that plans need to be made for election of these two Board positions. The current incumbents, Todd Benedick and Ethan Bassett are eligible to be reelected if they wish to run again.
The Board discussed the challenge of identifying athlete representatives who would have the time and interest to serve at least a full two year term as a Board representative. Most have historically participated in Board activities for no more than a few months.
New Business -- No new business came before the Board.
Next Board Meeting -- The Board agreed to meet next on Tuesday July 26th. Greg indicated the meeting could be held at River Falls.
Adjournment -- The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:55pm.