I've sent the following by email, but I'll post it here too. Please note that when I refer to the original proposal, I'm referring to the original version where in case #2, the effective date is the date when the certificate & map are transmitted to the next level (normally Vice Chair):
It's amazing how big a can of worms got opened by this proposal from Gene and myself. Let me start by rephrasing the proposal in a way that unifies both cases (and this will lead to an addition that, I hope, will make it more acceptable to many of you).
The principle is that a certification cannot be considered effective until the measurer has verifiably transmitted suitable information to an appropriate person in RRTC different from the measurer himself/herself.
This principle is well established for the case when the measurer isn't a certifier, and is formalized in USATF Rule 240.3b which states: "Effective date: Certification is effective as of the date that all measurements and necessary adjustments are submitted as evidenced by the postmark, although the actual review and approval of the certification may be at a later date." (Note: while the reference to "postmark" may seem outdated, it's really not limited to postal mail, as other forms of transmission such as email and fax do have postmarks of a sort; thus, the word "postmark" should be interpreted simply as verifiable transmission date.)
A lot of people seem to think that Rule 240.3b doesn't apply when the measurer is a certifier; i.e., the measurer/certifier should be allowed to state the date when they completed measurements & adjustments, and write it in as the "certification effective date," even though that date may be well before the date when they transmit the certificate and map into the RRTC system, and nobody else in RRTC can verify the date. This would allow a loophole that contradicts RRTC's system of checks and balances and may allow abuse in some cases; i.e., in some cases of big money races, the measurer/certifier may be under some pressure to falsify the date.
Has such abuse ever occurred? It's impossible to say. Since the dates are unverifiable, we have no way of knowing if those dates have ever been falsified. We do know, however, that abuse of another kind has occurred in many cases, and this other kind of abuse is also addressed by the current proposal: There have been quite a few cases when measurers with FS status have written certificates, which they've presumably provided to the race directors, although they've sat on these certificates for long periods (sometimes over a year) before sending them into the RRTC system. According to the principle I stated above, the certifications in these cases cannot be considered effective before they were transmitted into the RRTC system.
I've said that my stated principle will allow an addition to the original proposal. This is intended for the case when timing is tight and there isn't enough time to prepare the map & certificate before race day. I wrote above that the effective date depends on transmission of "suitable information" to an appropriate person. What is "suitable information?" According to Rule 240.3b, it just needs to be enough to show that measurements and adjustments have been completed. Thus, when the measurer isn't a certifier, they needn't have sent a complete application at that point -- they just need to send enough data to show that they've completed measurements and adjustments. Now, if the measurer is an FS certifier, they don't need to send their data to anyone, but they still ought to send verification that they've done the measurements and adjustments. For this purpose, it should be enough to send a simple email to the person at the next level of review (normally the Vice Chair) saying they've done the measurements and adjustments for a specified course.
Of course, there's no need to bother with such an email if you have lots of time before race day, in which case the measurer/certifier can simply write the date of transmission of the certificate/map as the effective date of certification, as in Gene's original proposal. But if timing is tight, then send an email to the Vice Chair when you've completed measurements and adjustments. Then, when writing the certificate, you can use the date of that email as the effective date.
Now, I'm curious about something: The current "Course certification effective date" language has been on our certificates for less than 3 years. Previously, it was "Course paperwork submission date," and before that, it was "Course paperwork postmark date." How did all you guys fill in that field (for courses you measured yourself) when it was labeled "submission date" or "postmark date?" Did you leave the field blank or write "N/A" since nothing had been submitted to you? In my case, I always tried to estimate the date when I would send the cert & map to the next level of review. Note that, even before it acquired its current labeling, the date written into this field was always regarded as the effective date of certification, for consideration of whether a certification applied to a given race.
Finally, I'll comment on how this topic arose. I wasn't originally thinking about abuse by certifiers. In fact, I'd sent in a certification for a course that I measured recently, and in filling out the certificate, I entered the signature date as Sept 14 and the certification effective date as Sept 15 (I did this because I figured I'd be transmitting the cert & map on Sept 15, but I wrote the certificate at night on Sept 14). Duane wrote that it isn't right to enter an effective date later than the signature date. I agree that this can look confusing. So, if I was going to transmit the cert & map on Sept 15, I also should have entered the signature date as Sept 15. However, in discussion of the matter, it emerged that some people think certifiers should be allowed to write in an effective date that nobody else in RRTC can verify. This led to consideration of the possibility of abuse; thus, the current proposal.