WATERSKI NEWS
1/5/97
NGB STATUS, USAWS and our BOD's recent actions to achieve them.
by Roger Hammel EVP Eastern Region
In the past few weeks there has been intense activity and much speculation about the fate of our bid for NGB status with the US Olympic Committee (USOC), and the implementation of USA WATERSKI (USAWS). Some of this speculation and discussion has been posted on websites popular with skiers. Years of work on the part of many dedicated people, the goal of becoming an Olympic sport, and the future direction of organized waterskiing hang in the balance. I have written this to bring members of the Eastern Region up to speed on this issue and to advise them about what the AWSA Board of Directors is doing and has done to meet this challenge.
In addition I have sent two letters to Water Ski News Online in response to their coverage of the issue. The background and full text of those letters follows the questions and answers below. I hope this effort will help the membership understand the problems and pull together at this important time for organized waterskiing.
Q1 - I've heard that USOC has not accepted AWSA's petition to be recognized as the NGB (National Governing Body of Waterskiing). I've also heard that the AWSA's reorganization which formed USAWS has been killed. Is this true ?
A1 - What you've heard and what has been reported in unofficial non-AWSA Websites is not fully accurate. There have been some timing problems and delay, but we expect to achieve both USOC recognition as the NGB, & USAWS reorganization in 1997.
Q2 - Can you give us some background on just where we were before this USOC situation arose ?
A2 - AWSA has been working very hard for a number of years to gain NGB status with the USOC. Additionally, we have been working to achieve reorganization, whereby AWSA would become a Sports Division of a larger umbrella organization named USAWS. As you may know, the AWSA Board of Directors and its membership voted last spring and summer to approve the reorganization. This was fully covered in the Water Skier last summer and fall, complete with the new by-laws for both organizations. The USAWS Bylaws do not stipulate the date that the USAWS Board of Directors is to be seated (official inception of the organization). The date is in the Policy & Procedures Manual of USAWS AWSA intended to implement the USAWS reorganization this January 1997 with the board meeting We are still technically AWSA until these new by-laws were implemented and the USAWS Board of Directors seated.
Q3 - So what happened to change all this ? I presume that the flurry of activity that I heard about was real ? What were the problems ?
A3 - Yes the activity was real. The AWSA leadership worked diligently over the holiday period to preserve both items that we are striving for: USOC recognition as NGB, and USAWS reorganization. First, AWSA had been dealing with the USOC as AWSA for more than 8 years, since USAWS was only recently formed. We had petitioned the USOC for NGB status as AWSA, which is our legal entity until we implement the USAWS reorganization. The USOC was aware of our reorganization plans, but expected to see the NGB status given to AWSA. This became evident at the Dec. 7, 1996 USOC Membership and Credentials Committee meeting. At this meeting, the committee made the determination to recommend to the USOC Board of Directors at its upcoming February 16-17, 1997 meeting, that they transfer AWSA's USOC membership from an Affiliated Sport Organization to a Pan American Sport Organization (National Governing Body - NGB). This indeed was very good news.
However, the USOC public notice announced the hearing as an "AWSA" transfer from an Affiliated Sport Organization to a Pan American Sport Organization. To change AWSA to USAWS, the USOC would have had to put out a new notice with the new name. It would have been a new application, not a transfer. This new notice, like the old, would have had to be published 30-60 days prior to the hearing. Furthermore, before a hearing on USAWS could be held, it must have been in operation; have an acceptable Constitution and Bylaws; have accepted articles of incorporation in some state, with a statement from the state of good standing; and finally, must be approved by the Government as a not-for-profit organization. Finally, USOC could not consider USAWS on the date of our hearing (December 7,1996), since USAWS did not yet exist as an organization on that date. So we had a timing problem, since we planned to enact USAWS during the same timeframe that we were applying for NGB status.
Therefore, if we went ahead with USAWS reorganization during this same timeframe, the USOC would have had to make us go back and reapply for NGB status as USAWS, which meant some delay. We were also aware that the USOC was electing new officers, and that they may appoint new people to the important committees and its members that we had stake-holdered and cultivated good relationships with over the past 8 years. Thus, we felt that the USOC opportunity may not present itself again soon in as viable a fashion, and that there was some risk in delaying.
Q4 - So what did the AWSA leadership decide to do ?
A4 - The leadership of AWSA made a gutsy decision to postpone the implementation of USAWS, to modify the existing operating AWSA by-laws (NOT the same by-laws approved by members last summer to make AWSA as a sports division under USAWS, but rather the current ones we operate under now) to meet specific items brought up by the USOC. We later plan to petition the USOC to change the name of the NGB entity to USAWS, and have AWSA be a Sports Division like we planned all along. Because the next USOC Board meeting was scheduled for February 15-16, we had to act very fast. We could accomplish the first phase by then, and the name change would have to follow.
Q5 - What actions did these decisions entail ?
A5 - First we had to plan to postpone the USAWS implementation - which is not an operational problem since the USAWS Board had not yet been seated. Second we had to modify the existing and current AWSA by-laws as requested by the USOC. This meant a vote of the AWSA BOD, and will mean a vote by the membership. These revised AWSA by-laws will then be presented to the USOC in time for its Feb. 15-16 Board meeting. We did not kill USAWS in this process, but postponed it.
Q6 - You said that USAWS was not killed. When and how will it be implemented?
A6 - We plan to hammer out the details at our BOD meeting in late January, but the gameplan outline calls for a USAWS name change petition very shortly after we achieve NGB status, the USAWS by-laws to be slightly modified with similar USOC initiated changes made to the existing AWSA by-laws, the AWSA by-laws then changed to show AWSA existing as a Sports Division. These final sets of by-laws will be very similar to the ones that our BOD approved last spring, and that our members approved last summer. The differences will be changes specifically requested by USOC. And yes, this will require them to be approved once again by the BOD and by the general membership. We then hope to implement USAWS later in 1997, or at the first AWSA BOD meeting after the USAWS name change and USAWS By-laws have been approved by USOC. At the latest, this should occur by January 1998, a year delay.
Q7 - So the general membership will be expected to vote on the existing AWSA by-laws to secure USOC recognition as the NGB, and then vote once again on a revised set of AWSA and USAWS by-laws later in 1997 - similar in nature to the by-laws that they approved last summer ? Could this have been any more confusing ?
A7 - Yes, as we see it now, that is what will be required. We know it is difficult, but it is an unfortunate byproduct of simultaneous transition to two very important objectives for our organization and for the water skiing community. We will look for ways to streamline this process, but you are correct in what we understand to be the likely path we must follow. We have not given up on USAWS, and it was NOT "killed" as reported in a non-AWSA, non-official popular website. That site article had several errors and incorrect facts in its article. We want to achieve both objectives ASAP in 1997, but strongly feel that achieving NGB status first as AWSA had the greater probability of success. Our leadership felt that going the other way, achieving USAWS first and re-submitting NGB petition would substantially delay the USOC recognizing USAWS as the NGB, and would run the risk that it not be achieved at all. Essentially, the old saying "strike while the iron is hot" applied to this situation.
Q8 - The other Sports Divisions don't directly benefit by USOC participation. Since they strongly supported the USAWS reorganization and concept, how will they react to the USAWS postponement ?
A8 - We are not sure, but sincerely hope that they will not change their zeal for USAWS, and will support this delay and postponement in order to secure USOC recognition as the NGB. Their representatives generally supported the revised AWSA by-laws, and we hope that the sports division general membership does as well. Remember, our goal is to have BOTH recognition by USOC as the NGB for waterskiing, and with USAWS being the recognized entity, and AWSA as one of its sports divisions after we implement the USAWS reorganization. Unless we achieve both of these items, USOC NGB and USAWS, we will not have realized our goals. So we ask for the membership's understanding and support that we might achieve both objectives ASAP in 1997.
Background - The first of the following letters was sent in response to articles posted in Water Ski News Online about the USAWS situation. My statements in that letter were erroneously attributed to Roger Dilling, and only selected statements were published. The second letter was then sent, and the article on Water Ski News Online was promptly updated twice to correct the name and more accurately reflect the intent of the letter. The full text of both letters is reproduced here in the hope that it will help members get a better understanding of the USAWS situation.
Mooseman,
You should go by title of Webmeister Extraordinairre !!
I appreciate the oftimes difficult job of reporting any type of news, including "sensational" news in Internet media. Generally I have found your web page interesting, reasonably accurate and evenhanded, and thus have bookmarked it on ALL my family's 3 Mac computers plus my office computer. I enjoy stopping by on a frequent basis, and see that you put in many hours keeping it curent and interesting. But as an AWSA member, and EVP from Eastern Region, I would ask that you please crosscheck your more "controversial" stories with multiple sources, and at least get "official" responses to temper your "stealth" sources. As a result of not doing this, I believe that your latest story with the leadline "Here today, gone tomorrow" regarding the USOC (United States Olympic Committee) & AWSA/USAWS, has substantial factual inaccuracies.
The AWSA BOD (board of directors) did not vote to "kill" USAWS as you have reported, but merely to table its introduction until after the fine day that AWSA is approved by the US Olympic Committee as the NGB (National Governing Body) of waterskiing in the USA. Some of the Board members were very strong in their comments that accompanied their votes that USAWS must NOT be "killed" (as you put it), and that it was important to the organization that we continue to march forward with USAWS implementation ASAP. The AWSA leadership & its BOD felt that it was more feasable to have USOC accept the old AWSA organization that made the original request for NGB status, and then request a name change to USAWS, as opposed to changing the name on the application for NGB status to USAWS, stakeholdering USOC and running the risk of delay or non-acceptance. And yes, you are certainly correct that it is important to the organization and its membership that waterskiing be acceptable to the US Olympic committee. Hence the board's response, and the commendable and prompt action on the part of our leadership over the holidays. We all hope and pray that it will fly as planned.
Re: the membership voting last summer, I would have to agree with you that most of the members did not vote on the by-laws last time, but I somehow doubt that the outcome would have been different if most members had voted. USAWS type structure was and still is in the best interests of the waterskiing organization AWSA.
As for USAWS "coming about..so that the other sports divisions were 'all of a sudden' on their own for management and funding", I believe that statement to also be false. From my observations, the sports divisions were indeed supportive of USAWS, and it was not something that came about all of a sudden. The discussions had been ongoing for more than 5 years, and only were approved last spring after considerable input and work from the BOD as a whole. The non-3 event Sports Divisions believe in USAWS, and from the comments I observed this holiday period certainly hope that the USOC situation does not do anything to compormise AWSA's liklihood of acheiving the USAWS reorganization ASAP. As you point out, they are not the direct beneficiaries of this delay.
Obviously we need to do a bit better job of PR when dealing with these controversial issues. If we had, your article would have been different, and my letter would be only complementary. At least that is how I hope it would turn out. Perhaps this is an item for future AWSA action, we'll see. Anyway, please keep up the website. As I said before, I enjoy reading it and drop by often, and appreciate your hard work. We have a site for communicating the Eastern Region news and info htp://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/awsaeast produced by Jim Meis, and which is hotkeyed on your link page. Working with Jim on AWSAEAST, I appreciate just how much work is involved.
See you on the water,
Roger S. Hammel EVP Eastern Region
Mooseman,
I really didn't mean to be considered a "source" for the article, but you did accurately quote me. I think it would have been fair to at least put my entire letter elsewhere in your Webpage, and perhaps hotkey to the entire letter. The way you quoted me sort of portrays me as an "official" spokesperson for AWSA, and that is not the case. I was just trying to clear up the inaccuracies in your previous article, and to try and make the statement that the Sports Divisions and AWSA 3 eventers are working together for USAWS. Apparently we are also working together for USOC recognition as the NGB of water skiing, and although that is not as "sensational" as you might like, it is indeed good news for waterskiing.
Again, you do have a good webpage that we visit. Apparently others do too, as I've already had an E-mail or two asking when I changed my name to Dilling, as apparently you got the Roger's mixed up earlier today. (It was corrected by the time I stopped by this evening.) I assure you, Roger Dilling and Roger Hammel are not the same person in any way shape or form.
Best Regards,
Roger Hammel