2012 Governing Council Meeting Proposals

[drskater]

Looks like the proposal to hold GC every other year is the "hot" topic for GC this year.

As a delegate, I'm leaning towards "yea." It seems that the pros outweigh the cons. However, if you have any opinions I'd love to know.

Alternatively, does anyone actually care? 

[FigureSpins]

I think it's a good cost-savings effort, as is the intended use of webinars.  However, if they're going to rubber-stamp everything anyway, the delegate system is like pretending to have a voice.

Our club delegate inquired about the membership rate increases last year.  The answer he got was that it was evenly applied, which he assumed was true.  However, individual membership rates jumped 40% while regular club memberships only increased 25%. His bigger concern, which was not addressed, was that the timing of this change affected clubs that had already sent out renewal notices at the old rate, not realizing it would be that big a jump. (I suppose I was dumb to assume that a club rep would give a flying fig about individual memberships.)

I really think that there should be some sort of standard implementation period to effectively implement the changes.  Last year's changes to the Adult Moves tests discouraged a lot of skaters who were actively preparing, but didn't have enough time to test before the changes were implemented. 

Perhaps GC should be held earlier in the year, but that would be during the competitive season, which is a show-stopper.  Since the season runs from late summer to spring, that only leaves summer for decisions, but not enough time for implementation of major changes.

[Isk8NYC]

Mod note: posts about adult moves changes split out, per AgnesNitt's request.
This topic is the 2012 Governing Council meeting. 

Back on topic: That can't possibly be the entire agenda for GC.  I don't think the proposals are out yet.  There is a form on the Members Only site if anyone wants to submit New Business items.

[Isk8NYC]

As for GC every two years- I think our club always sends a proxy, we don't have the money to send a delegate.  It is essentially moot to us, as we really have no voice at all.

We send a delegate, but I'm not sure if the Club pays all expenses or if the delegate pays part of his expenses.

With the advent of online surveys and voting, I don't know that the delegate system really works, unless they do discuss and amend proposals at the GC meeting.  If they're just doing yay or nay voting, why not give each member the right to vote their own mind (online) instead?

[Isk8NYC]

There are proposals in the GC book to limit the number of jumps in a sequence in the No-test, Pre-Preliminary, Preliminary and Pre-Juvenile well-balanced programs to three maximum. 

To view the book, sign into the USFSA members only site and click on "Governing Council."

[drskater]

With the advent of online surveys and voting, I don't know that the delegate system really works, unless they do discuss and amend proposals at the GC meeting.  If they're just doing yay or nay voting, why not give each member the right to vote their own mind (online) instead?

Well, that's an interesting point.  I don't think that USFS (nor I, I confess) trusts the average member to be familiar enough with the rulebook, the administrative and organizational structure of USFS and etc. to make an informed decision on ALL the issues that come before GC, not just the ones that affect her or him directly. That's the purpose of the delegate system--someone to represent your (or at least your club's) best interests.

Believe me there is almost too much discussion and amending at these meetings, lol!!  Last year it took almost two hours to to get to the vote about changing JR Nationals. Lots of of other issues had competing proposals that died and amendments that died. It wasn't entirely a rubber stamp session. (Except for 1. membership dues increase; and 2. changes to adult MITF--those were rubber-stamped.)

But your point is good in that does expose one of the main flaws of holding GC every other year (i.e. in even years): business will build up and it is possible those GC meetings could be ineffective as a result. Odd years are designated for "discussions," and can include web-only delegates.

However, money is tight all over. Most clubs really can't afford to fully fund their delegates, if at all. I suppose it may boil down whether clubs feel that the need to keep USFS (more) accountable outweighs the financial benefits.

BTW: (addressed to anyone reading this) Please please please take the time to read through the proposals and contact your club's delegates accordingly!!!!