AS APPROVED at the PVS Board Meeting -- December 14, 2005


6:30 PM -- WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 16, 2005
River Falls Community Center
Potomac, MD

Attendance -- Jim Garner, Chair Board Members: John Hirschmann, Dan Jacobs, Bill Marlin, Don Riedlinger, Bill Stephens, Jim Van Erden, Ron Whalen, and Greg York. Non-voting Board Members: John Ertter, Boots Hall and Linda Klopfenstein. Guests: Cy Cyganiewicz, Mark Faherty, Paris Jacobs, Eric Moore, and Mike Pliuskaitis.

Call to Order -- The meeting was called to order at 7:28 pm, by the Acting Chair, Bill Stephens. Jim Garner had provided the Board with a proposed agenda prior to the meeting. Bill advised that Jim Garner was delayed in arriving and suggested the Board first discuss agenda items from Senior Swimming.

Senior Swimming --

PVS Records Policy -- Don Riedlinger indicated that PVS had received an inquiry from Mark Eldridge in October as to whether swimmers competing in PVS sanctioned meets that were not open to all PVS teams (invitational meets) were eligible to set a PVS Open Record. As a result, John Hirschmann and Don had researched the matter and the results of that review and history on how PVS's records had been maintained for the last several years had been provided to the Board.

Don provided the Board with changes he planned to propose to the PVS's Policy and Procedures regarding being recognized for establishing a PVS Open or Resident record (A-8). The changes would apply to both the exact criteria for being eligible for a PVS Open or Resident record and the documentation that needed to be submitted to support a record application. There was discussion whether PVS still had the technical ability to identify PVS Open records set by non-PVS athletes. Don noted he was simply advising the Board at this time of his thinking. He would next seek Competition Committee input in January and then bring it back to the Board for action. It was noted that Mark Eldridge and Greg York had been heavily involved in developing the current policy that had been adopted in 2000. Some of the considerations that caused the 2000 revisions were discussed. It was recommended the Mark Eldridge's input be sought prior to seeking Competition Committee input. Don indicated it was his plan to do so.

PVS 2006-07 SC Sponsored Meet Schedule --

Don reminded the Board that Hirschmann for purposes of initiating discussion at the Competition Committee meeting had proposed continuation of the 2005-06 SC schedule in 2006-07 for PVS sponsored meets. This meant the PVS SC Senior Championship would be March 8-11, 2007 and the PVS Age Group Championship would be March 15-18, 2007.

Competition as a result of a proposal by Dave Kraft discussed this and then by a 3-1 vote (with many abstentions) amended the proposed recommendation so that each meet would be one week earlier so that PVS SC Senior Championship would be March 1-4, 2007 and the PVS Age Group Championship would be March 8-11, 2007.

The Board had initially discussed this recommendation at its October meeting and decided to defer taking action on the item. It had asked Riedlinger, Marlin and Jacobs to seek further input from the coaches as to what they thought would be the preferred competition program.

Riedlinger reported back to the Board. It was noted that having PVS Senior Championships on the first weekend in March would mean for Maryland HS and Virginia private HS swimmers, this meet would be only 5 days after the end of Metros. The primary motive for having PVS 14/U Age Group Championships earlier than the third weekend in March was to allow those swimmers a chance to also swim Sectionals, as well as a last chance to qualify under the fax entry provision.

Therefore, Riedlinger indicated that another alternative to be considered would be to reverse the dates and thus have the PVS SC Senior Championship March 8-11, 2007 and the PVS Age Group Championship March 1-4, 2007. Don indicated that he had discussed this option with Dave Kraft and while it was not Dave's first preference - it was an acceptable alternative.

The Board then discussed the two alternatives and which was the preferable order to have these two meets. It was noted that if 14/U Age Group came first, it would require only a limited number of freshmen to swim their PVS championship meet shortly after Metro's. Other coaches stated they liked having the 14/U Champs first as it was consistent with the normal advancement and progression of championship meets. Others noted that by having the Senior Championship Meet first, it would permit a two week break prior to Sectionals and the likely NCSA Meet for those swimmers who would be eligible. Also, Metro's is not factor for Virginia public HS swimmers and their state championship meet has historically been at least a week earlier than Metros. There was extended discussion on the matter, after which the coaches present caucused. They reported back that it was their consensus to have the Senior Championship meet on the first weekend in March and the 14/U Championship Meet on the second weekend.

Riedlinger made a motion to have the PVS 14/U SC Age Group Championship Meet on March 1-4, 2007 and the PVS SC Senior Championship on March 8-11, 2007. The MOTION PASSED 5-2.

It was also noted that the PVS Board had not acted on the other schedule related recommendations related to PVSs sponsored meets during the 2006-07 short course season - namely to have the PVS October, November and January Open Meets and the PVS January and February Distance meets on the same weekends as they were in 2005-06. The Board APPROVED this recommendation without objection.

As a result, these meets will be on:

  • PVS October Open Meet - October 13-15, 2006
  • PVS November Open Meet - November 10-12, 2006
  • PVS January Distance Meet - January 6-7, 2007
  • PVS January Open Meet - January 20-21, 2007
  • PVS February Distance Meet - February 18-19, 2007

PVS Age Group Swimming

PVS Eastern Zone Team -- The Board was advised that PVS support of the 2005 LC Zone team had been $23,757 rather than the $11,500 that had been voted by the House in May. It was noted the had been caused by several factors. These include the fact the team had 61 athletes on it rather than the planned for 130-140, the need to rent two buses despite the small number, the inability to cancel many or reassign all of the reservations made in anticipation of the higher number, and the Board decision to reduce the payment per swimmer to participate on the team from $590 to $500.

The Board was also advised that the budget for 2006 (as approved by the House) was to provide $15,000 In support for both the SC and LC teams.

A request was made to have the Board adjust the amount of financial support from the LSC for this year's LC team. Others requested that this discussion be deferred until a decision was made whether the LSC would send its athletes as a team as it did in 2005 or resume the practice of having swimmers go with their parents as was done in 2004 and earlier.

Competition had voted 13-1 at its September meeting to recommend that PV conduct its LC zone team in 2006 on the same basis it had in 2005. Most felt that only doing it for one year and relatively late notice of how the team would be conducted meant that last year was not a fair test of whether the concept would work in the long term. It was also noted it takes time for a new concept to take hold, the swimmers and their families who participated were positive about their experiences and that they will presumably share their views with prospective 2006 team members.

Don Riedlinger reviewed with the Board when the decisions had been made last year regarding the conduct of the LC team. This included the Competition recommendation on January 9 (approved by the Board on January 13) to only take the top 3 swimmers in each event, the Competition May 15 decision (which was approved by the Board by e-vote on May 21) to allow all eligible swimmers to be on the team and require they travel/participate as part of the team and the July 26 decision to reduce the cost per swimmer from $590 to $500. Others pointed out that while the decisions were made on these dates, the minutes are not immediately posted and most families and coaches do not read the minutes and thus were not aware of the decisions until considerably later. Many did not know about the changes until the specific LC zone material was posted to the website about July 1. It was agreed PVS needs to do much better in this regard in the future.

Don also reported that PV continued to have good participation from its 10/U and 11-12 athletes who had finished near the top in events of the PVS LC 14 & Under Championships. However, this was generally not the case for our 13-14 age swimmers and we had very limited participation in the 15-18 age bracket.

It was noted that the meet was in Buffalo in both 2004 and 2005 (and will be in 2006) so that should not explain the difference in participation. There are no other meets when LC Zones are held that would explain a decision to not participate. He noted PVS had no hard data why fewer members chose to participate in 2005 - the presumption is it is some combination of the higher cost, the need to commit for the entire time period, the fact that team participation and costs were changed late and the fact many families had made vacation plans and/or family budget plans earlier. The greater cost was presumably more relevant for swimmers who qualified for a limited number of events and/or had multiple family members eligible to compete.

It was also agreed there was not a consensus amongst the coaches on the best way to proceed. The LSC can only provide the opportunity. It was also observed that a coach's views can have a big impact on whether a swimmer applies to be on the team and therefore gaining their support is important to having a successful team. Also, many teams (given the uncertainty about the 2005 LC team eligibility rules) did not continue to offer training opportunities up to the time of the meet. Finally it was noted that several coaches who had urged the LSC to go to a "team concept" then had not supported it by having their swimmers participate on the team.

PVS had received many positive notes from families who did participate on the 2005 zone team and were urging continuation of the concept. It was suggested that others had voted by their non-participation.

A motion was made and seconded to conduct the 2006 PVS LC zone team on the same basis as was done in 2005. The motion PASSED 6-1.

It was agreed the Board needs to defer taking action on considering changing PVS's financial support for its 2006 zone teams (SC and/or LC) until the House can be informed that it is on the Board's agenda.

Garner made a recommendation that in the future, PVS try to keep the cost for participating on the zone team fixed from year to year and thus adjust the zone subsidy as the cost of sending a team varies from year. His recommendation was seconded. There was no discussion whether the amount should be different for the SC and LC teams. Hirschmann indicated he would take such input into consideration in preparing the 2007 PVS budget for the Board and then House consideration. The Board PASSED 7-1-1 a resolution that it was the sense of the Board that the cost to a swimmer to participate on a PVS zone team should be a fixed amount and should not vary significantly from year to year.

It was also noted PVS has the authority to help families in financial need to participate in PVS activities, including its zone team.

Swim Team Status Review -- Jim Garner started presiding.

AST/BWST -- Bill Stephens informed the Board that he had been on a conference call with Ira Klein and Pat Hogan that afternoon and a determination had been made by USA-S that the Blue Wave Swim Team (BWST) would be classified as a new team and that the Ashburn Swim Team (AST) would be allowed to reregister with PVS as a renewing team for 2006.

He reviewed with the Board the criteria that the USA-S Board had approved at its September meeting including the "3 question test." (copy attached.) It becomes applicable anytime a new team wishes to join an LSC other than where its initial training facilities are located and/or where its initial team members live. It would also be applicable anytime where the initial swimmers primarily live is in a different LSC than the pool where they will initially train.

It is anticipated that the application of BWST to join USA Swimming as a new member club would be processed under these procedures. This means that if VSI agrees to have BWST join PVS, they would be permitted to do so - otherwise the matter would be referred to USA Swimming and the Vice-President for Local Administration for a decision. Bill also indicated that USA Swimming had indicated that they would welcome the PVS Board passing a resolution on this matter. The resolution read as follows: "WHEREAS the staff of USA Swimming had made an initial determination that the Blue Waves Swim Team is a new team under the current definition of team membership, and "WHEREAS USA Swimming has a new policy in place regarding the placement of the new teams in a LSC and the staff has requested that PVS acknowledge the new policy and follow its procedures. "Therefore, it is MOVED that: "PVS supports the application of the Blue Waves Swim Team to join PVS. However, since the answers to the criteria for placement list VSI as well as PVS, then PVS formally asks VSI to concur with such a request for BWST to join PVS."

Some PVS Board members observed that PVS had already taken this position and therefore there was no need to PVS to take this position for a second time. After discussion, it was agreed to amend the motion to read:

"Therefore, it is MOVED that:

"PVS reaffirms its previous decision and supports the application of…"

The resolution as amended was APPROVED by the PVS Board.

In response to questions, it was clarified that the "test" regarding which LSC a new club should join no longer contains four questions, the question pertaining to "where the business records are kept" was removed before it was adopted by the USA-S Board in September.

Eric Moore spoke to the Board and stated he was very upset to learn that his club, Ashburn Swim Team had been changed in the records of USA-S to the Blue Wave Swim Team, despite the fact he had informed the PVS Board in July that he owned the Ashburn Swim Team and intended to renew his club's membership with PVS for 2006.

He further stated that the assertion by the Ashburn Homeowners Association (HOA) that they owned the team was not correct. He emphasized that they had not submitted any written material that he had been able to see in support of their position. In contrast, he submitted he had sent approximately 60 pages of documentation to USA Swimming in support of his position that he owns the Ashburn Swim Team.

Bill Stephens indicated that information has been received from the HOA in support of their position, but has not generally been made available.

PVS stated that it agrees with the finding (as he had been previously advised) that AST will be permitted to rejoin PVS as a renewing member club for 2006. BWST will be required to join USA-S as a new club member and the process for determining in which LSC they should be registered will be followed. It was also noted that BWST had attended the required Club Business Management School in the event it would be determined that they would need to register as a new club.

Hirschmann in response to a question stated that the October 11th Board minutes pertaining to the BWST and AST situation was correct as he understood the matter. He stated he was prepared to amend the minutes if the Board felt that he had misunderstood what was presented.

There were also inquiries as to why if the Blue Wave Swim Team had not yet been admitted as a member club by PVS - why its results were appearing in the results and psych sheets under "BWST-PV." It was explained this happened before there was general awareness of the situation and that it was all recently changed to "UN-BW" (no LSC designation.) It was explained that the "UN-BW format was used (as is normal PVS practice) so at a meet the coach supervising an athlete could be readily identified and also to ease financial record keeping pertaining to entry fees due, etc.

Eric explained that as a result of how the matter was handled in SWIMS, the entire previous history of his club and the performance of his athletes was obliterated.

PVS indicated the records in SWIMS would be corrected to show AST as an existing club and the BWST would be entered into SWIMS as a new club when it is officially accepted. This was not intended by PVS and was done as an administrative convenience without appreciating all the consequences. USA Swimming suggested that this could be done when the status of BWST was resolved. Several PVS Board members recommended that this be done as soon as possible.

GWU -- The Board was also informed that the George Washington University (GWU) swim team has applied to rejoin PVS as a college swim team. The Board was advised that it is USA-S's position that college clubs are not subject to the "new club" requirements. The Board accepted George Washington University's application to rejoin PVS as a club member.

DCJT -- The Board was advised that the DC Jets are also in the process of submitting an application to join USA Swimming as a new member club. The Board was informed that they have not yet submitted complete paperwork that will be used to help determine which LSC they should join. It is presumed that when they do so, they will indicate that they feel "it is in the best interest of the club to be registered" in PVS. It was noted they have submitted considerable material, but their application is still considered incomplete. It was pointed out the application process now requires a complete business plan.

The Board discussed where they are initially training and additional sites where they indicate they plan to start as additional team training sites. Where the majority of swimmers live who have initially joined the team, whether they swam previously in PVS was also reviewed. The team would be owned by Sports and Health Clubs which operates many pools in the region, including 9 within PVS's boundaries.

There was considerable discussion about the matter, including whether it was realistic that they would be able use of all the training sites mentioned in their draft application.

It was agreed the Board was only receiving a status report on the DC Jets application and that it was not appropriate for the Board to take any action regarding the pending application.

SNOW -- Mike Pliuskaitis informed the Board that he had recently purchased 3 acres in South Riding in eastern Loudoun County. He expects to start construction of a pool on that land in February and to be open in June. He noted that the Club Facility Development staff from USA Swimming had been of major assistance in helping him finalize his plans.

He stated he hopes to host 20-36 meets per year there. He indicated he recognizes he will need VSI sanction for those meets but also stated he will always try to invite PVS teams to his meets. He also indicated he was considering paying officials to work his meets. He was advised that doing so would be in violation of PVS policy. He was also informed that VSI and PVS have entered into a reciprocity agreement for recognizing each other's Stroke and Turn clinics.

Approval of Minutes -- A motion was made to approve the minutes of October 11, 2005 Board of Directors minutes as posted in draft form on the PVS website. The MOTION PASSED 6-2.

Supplemental language had been drafted to include in the minutes as additional information - which had become known subsequent to the October Board meeting related to the AST and BWST situation. The Board agreed it was not necessary to add this to those minutes as the subsequent developments would be added as appropriate to the minutes of the November Board meeting.

General Chairman Items

Status of Contract with Montgomery County Recreation Department (MCRD) -- As agreed to at the last Board meeting, a revised contract had been prepared by PVS and presented to MCRD for their consideration. MCRD agreed to the contract as submitted. The Board authorized its General Chairman to enter into the contract by an electronic vote initiated on October 20th. Procedures to allow payments to be made to PVS under the contract are now being put in place by MCRD. John Ertter has been in contact with Melanie Sasse of MCRD about the specifics. It is expected that PVS will be receiving payments from MCRD shortly.

Status of Administrative Assistant Position - Garner reported that the selection committee had met and reviewed the nine applications that had been received. They had narrowed the field to four that it wished to initially interview. One of those four had declined the interview as they accepted another job in the interim. Scheduling of interviews with the remaining candidates is now in process.

Operations Division -- Mark Faherty as Meet Director of the CUBU course at the PVS October Open came to the Board meeting to express the wide spread concern that existed because PVS did not provide working starting systems for two venues of the October Open at Fairland. Mark explained he was at the Board meeting on behalf of the coaches, parents, and swimmers who participated in the meet. . He stated that some of this may have been caused by miscommunication as to who was bringing what when it became clear PVS did not have sufficient working equipment. He indicated he had been initially told that his course would be provided with working starting systems and only learned very close to the time of the meet that this might not be the case.

As a result, whistle starts had to be used on the CUBU course Friday evening and all day Saturday. By Sunday, many people had made their starters available and they were used at the meet. (The FAST course - given parents on their team live closer to Fairland - were able to obtain a backup starter for their side of the pool in time for Saturday's sessions.) Faherty said he had also been in contact with Board members in the interim and was aware of the circumstances that caused this to happen, but felt he also needed to come to this Board meeting to put this concern "on the record."

PVS apologized for this failure and agreed it should not have happened. PVS acknowledged it definitely had the resources to purchase the new starting systems and advised Mark that the purchase had been authorized in July.

Ron Whalen took responsibility for the fact that this happened. He acknowledged that his division took too long researching which starting system to order, getting price quotes, etc. which resulted in the order being placed too late for the starting systems to be available for the October Open meets. Six new starting systems were ordered and have now arrived and are available for use at PVS meets.

PVS November Open -- Garner reported that he had received a very complimentary e-mail regarding Mark Faherty's assistance conducting one course at the November Open. Others noted that the Potomac Marlins had taken overall responsibility for assuring this course of the meet would be able to happen after no acceptable bids from any club to host the meet for PVS had been received. This had been a joint effort. Bill Marlin had processed the entries and handled the pre-meet arrangements, including assignments down to how many timers each club should provide and other aspects of planning for who would assist at the meet. He also handled the post meet reporting responsibilities. TIBU took responsibility for meet hospitality.

It was also noted that PVS had considerable trouble getting clubs to bid to host either course at PGS&LC. FISH had stepped forward earlier only when it became apparent that no other club was likely to do so. It asked its swimmers to participate so that there would be sufficient volunteer coverage.

Finance Division -- There was no discussion at this meeting of the October 31, 2005 financial statements that had been distributed to the Board prior to the meeting. These financial statements and reports on the financial aspects of PVS sponsored and club sponsored meets as of October 31, 2005 had been distributed to the Board in advance of the meeting. They showed that PVS's current assets on hand as of October 31, 2005 were $753,716 including $4,490 in the Dave Davis fund. It was noted that this amount was so high given the large number of registrations that had been received and paid for in October, but for which payment of $153,974 to USA-S for their share of the dues would not be made until November. The Board was also advised that as agreed to at the October Board meeting, PVS was in the process of transferring funds in the Dave Davis fund to the Operating account to allow those funds to be used in support of the officials portion of the recently completed Swimposium.

Hirschmann reported disbursements for attendance at the USA-S convention in September had largely been completed. However, there was a need for the Board to authorize an amount to be paid to Paris Jacobs since she attended for the purpose of coordinating PVS Swimposium plans with people who were in attendance at USA-S. She had requested reimbursement for ˝ room lodging costs for four nights. The Board authorized the reimbursement of $275 to Paris Jacobs.

Old Business -- There was no Old Business

New Business -- There was no New Business

Next Board Meeting -- The Board agreed to have its next meeting Wednesday December 14th at Oak Marr.

Adjournment -- The Board meeting adjourned at approximately 10:20 pm