AS APPROVED at the PVS Board Meeting -- March 8, 2006


River Falls Community Center
Potomac, MD


ATTENDANCE: Board Members: Jim Garner, Frani Hess, John Hirschmann, Dan Jacobs, Don Riedlinger, Bill Stephens, Ron Whalen, Greg York. Non-voting Board members: Janet Auger, Linda Klopfenstein. Guests: Manga Dalizu, Paris Jacobs, Mike Kraeuter and Ward Foley.

CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:09 pm by Jim Garner, General Chair.

AGENDA: Jim provided the Board with a proposed Agenda.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the January 18, 2006 meeting were approved.

BOARD OF REVIEW WORKSHOP PRESENTATION – Ward Foley was welcomed to the Board meeting and reported on a workshop presented by USA-S that he had attended in Atlanta, Georgia. He was very complimentary of the workshop and described it as one the best and most useful he has had an opportunity to attend. Ward described three highlights of the presentation:

  1. It is recommended that the BOR have its own attorney on retainer who does not represent the Board of Directors. This would be appropriate in the eventuality that the Board of Directors was a party in the matter before the Board of Review. As a result of this recommendation, Ward identified attorneys previously involved with swimming who have volunteered to serve as counsel to the BOR – should such services ever be needed.
  2. The Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act has important ramifications to both individual clubs and PVS. An important essence of the Act is that a team cannot deny an athlete the ability to compete without providing said athlete with a hearing. Even if a swimmer violates a Code of Conduct, the athlete’s team cannot deny him or her the opportunity to compete without a hearing. Ward recommended that a procedure be investigated and implemented for our Zone swimmers to ensure compliance with the Act. This involves having the parent and/or swimmer acknowledge their right to a hearing as part of signing the form applying to be a member of the LSC zone team. How this would have applicability for team trips was also discussed.
  3. Article 203.6 in the USA-S Rules and Regulations addresses the procedure when a member club of an LSC has secured a court judgment against an athlete (or his or her parents or custodians) for non-payment of club dues and fees. In the event of a court judgment, the swimmer must unattach and cannot represent, yet can practice with, that or any other club until the judgment has been satisfied. PVS By-Laws provide that an athlete be barred from participating or training with any member club if a final judgment has been entered.  Since the PVS By-Laws were generated from a template provided by USA-S, Jim Garner was going to seek guidance from USA-S Counsel regarding this apparent discrepancy.

AGE GROUP PLANNING CONFERENCE – Ward reported on a roundtable discussion that has occurred among Age Group Chairs. While a great number of ideas have been put forth, the committee remains in a flux due to the planned re-organization. Ward stated that a large majority of LSC’s place more responsibility (i.e., meet hosting) on their clubs as compared to PVS. Hosting non-swimming activities (i.e., bowling, dances) was suggested as a means to increasing swimmer retention.

Noting that more than one-third of PVS’ registered swimmers are in the 10 & Under age group, Bill Stephens inquired about whether it would be appropriate for PVS to do more programming for this group. Ward replied that there had been discussion about modifying the IMX program for that group.

Thereafter, the discussion continued as to how PVS could better serve its younger swimmers. It was noted that the length of the meets was a potential stumbling block to getting parents of younger swimmers to participate and/or remain in the sport. Bill Stephens posed the idea whereby PVS would rent a pool for an entire day and allow different teams to hold short 2-hour meets. While acknowledging the merits of such a plan, Don Riedlinger stated he thought such an undertaking might best be done by the clubs, and not PVS, since PVS already offered Open meets to address the needs of all swimmers within the association. The Chair appointed Paris Jacobs, Greg York, Bill Stephens and allowed others to be named later, to a committee to propose possible new formats for 10 and under meets to the Competition Committee.

FISH JUNE LC MEET – John Hirschmann explained that he was responsible for inviting Mike Kraeuter (FISH) to the Board meeting. While the issue had been discussed at the prior Board meeting and various concerns raised as reflected in the minutes of that meeting, John wanted to explain the history behind the issue. FISH had inquired last September about when to bid to host a LC meet in June, 2006. Since such bids under PVS’s P&P are not to be considered until the Winter Competition meeting, the issue was deferred and no specific information about the meet to be bid was sought. Additionally, a decision was made in May 2005 to move the PVS Distance meet from Memorial Day weekend to June. As a result, when PVS rescheduled its Distance Meet for June 17-18, it was not aware that FISH was interested in bidding to host a club sponsored meet on that weekend.

Following John’s introduction, Mike explained that FISH was willing to accommodate PVS however it so desired in order to gain approval for the meet. He stated that they were willing to eliminate the distance events and would be willing to limit the number of swimmers from PVS and/or limit the number of PVS teams invited. He also stated the desire to hold the meet next year as well.

Thereafter followed a discussion on the potential effect on the PVS sponsored meets – particularly PVS Senior/Age I scheduled on the prior weekend and PVS Senior/Age II scheduled on the following weekend -- should the meet be sanctioned. This would include the revenue the host clubs (now selected) could expect to earn from those meets. Don pointed out that, in removing the distance events, the proposed meet was no longer in direct conflict with the PVS Distance Meet, yet FISH would still need a waiver to be allowed to hold a meet on the same weekend as a PVS sponsored meet. Board members expressed the view that if the teams directly involved in the above two meets and FISH could work out a mutually agreeable solution, the Board would be willing to reconsider the matter. The Chair appointed Bill Marlin, Manga Dalizu, and Dan Jacobs to work out a possible solution to the meet conflicts and the issue was tabled.  [On February 15, 2006, by electronic vote the Board issued a sanction for the meet.]

PVS CLUB REQUIREMENTS – Manga Dalizu provided a second draft of the “PVS Club Requirements” proposal.  His initial proposal had been presented at the September Competition Committee meeting. The proposal outlines minimum standards for the establishment of new clubs and defines the minimum requirements for a club to remain in good standing. There was considerable interest in the proposal’s section outlining a team’s minimum requirements for officials and penalties for non-compliance. It was suggested that it might not be realistic or a good strategy to attempt to implement it all at once. It was decided that the Board should inform the House of Delegates of this undertaking, seeks its input, and that perhaps it should be incorporated into the Strategic Plan for implementation over the next few years.

ATHLETE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE PVS BOARD - Frani Hess was introduced and welcomed as the new Athlete Representative to the Board. Her report  had previously been submitted to the Board.

COMPETITION DIVISION – The Board returned to the matter of setting the cost per swimmer to attend the Eastern Zone meets. The first motion put forth for the purpose of initiating discussion was the recommendation from the January 2006 Competition Committee meeting. Don clarified that there needed to be a 2/3 vote in order to change the amounts previously budgeted since we were making a change to a matter that had been directly addressed by the HofD. Prior to the meeting based on updated estimates for the 2006 Spring Zone meet provided by Paris, both Hirschmann and Garner distributed various analyses of what would need to be the per swimmer charge and the resulting LSC subsidy under a wide range of scenarios. The SC meet was easier to estimate since the number of athletes likely to participate is known with a high degree of certainty – approximately 85. In contrast, based on relatively recent history, the LC team size could vary from 60 to about 150. The analysis addressed how large the LSC subsidy would need to be under various assumptions regarding the size of the team and amount each swimmer would be charged.  Per swimmer charges ranging from about $300 to $500 for SC and from $350 to $680 for LC were illustrated.  For the SC meet, the LSC subsidy estimates ranged from about $15,000 to $32,000--for the LC meet they ranged from $15,000 to $62,000.  The basis for those estimates was reviewed and a general consensus was reached regarding the correctness of the methodology used.

Riedlinger made the initial motion based on the Competition Committee recommendation that the swimmer cost to be on the SC team be $350 and the LC team $400. This motion was seconded. A motion was then made, seconded and approved to divide the question so that short course and long course meets be voted on separately. The motion to have the SC fee be $350/athlete failed 3 – 5. A second motion was made, seconded and passed 7 – 0 – 1 to set the cost per swimmer for the 2006 SC Zone Team at $400 per swimmer. The expected LSC subsidy for a team of 85 swimmers will be about $27,700.  The Board next addressed the Long Course Eastern Zone meet. The initial motion to have the fee set at $400 was defeated. A motion was then made, seconded and passed 8 – 0 to set the cost per swimmer for the 2006 LC Zone Team at $500 per swimmer. The expected LSC subsidy will range from about $28,000 to $40,000--depending on the final size of the team.  The Board took no formal action regarding whether the swimmer’s contribution should always be at least 25% of expected costs nor did it further address any change in what should be the financial support for PVS zone teams in 2007 and beyond.

Concluding Eastern Zone matters, Paris Jacobs presented TYR’s “Team Sponsorship Agreement” for review. The contract is between TYR and Potomac Valley Zone Team (it would not be applicable to other PVS activities or PVS member clubs) and has a four-year term (2006-2009). TYR agreed to provide outfitting on a subsidized basis with a greater subsidy being provided in the first year of the program. The outfitting that would be provided as part of team registration and what would be available on an optional basis was reviewed. The athletes and coaches present indicated they were comfortable using TYR as the team outfitter. Paris was encouraged to get the understanding in writing with TYR so that if new personnel were involved between now and 2009 – the basics of the agreement would still be understood. A motion was made, seconded and approved to authorize entering into the agreement.

Don announced that Bill Marlin was taking on the position of Distance Coordinator recently vacated by Rod Montrie.

A discussion of the mechanics of waiving entry fees for PVS sponsored meets for athletes registered under the Outreach program was deferred due to John Ertter’s absence. This request had been made at last May’s HofD meeting.

There was nothing new to report regarding the status of the Dale City Jets’ (DCJT) application to join PVS. It is understood their application is pending with the USA-S staff. Don posed the question of how PVS should handle a Zone Team application from a member of DCJT. No solutions were offered.

In response to a request by Tiburon to advertise its upcoming camp, “Train with a Champ,” the Board voted (7-1) to post the flyer on the PVS website. Hirschmann indicated he would add it to the listing of “What’s New.” Board guidance had been sought since several years ago, there was a reluctance to allow the PVS website to be used to promote club profit making activities.

The Board next addressed a request by a swimmer’s parent to institute a “Swimmer of the Month” program. The view was expressed that in order to fairly and effectively implement such a program – invitations to propose nominees and criteria would have to be established as well as a process to receive and evaluate the applications. It was decided that this project should more properly be left to the individual clubs.

Prior to the meeting, Bill Marlin had emailed the Board with the suggestion that PVS initiate an “Adapted Swimmer of the Year” Program.  The idea was tabled due to Bill’s absence.

Linda Klopfenstein addressed the matter of how best to handle travel reimbursements for future the USA Swimming Conventions. It was indicated it would be best to base it on actual costs so as to not necessitate the need for issuing 1099’s to recipients. It was also agreed it should be finalized in advance of convention.

Due to the late hour, the remaining Agenda items were not discussed.

NEXT BOARD MEETING – The Board agreed to hold its next meeting Wednesday, March 8th at Oak Marr.

– The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:09 pm.

Respectfully submitted by:

Janet Auger
PVS Administrative Assistant