The Annual Meeting may indeed be productive in discussing areas for improvement. However, I believe that it might be even more productive if those who will be running the show – if Kevin’s amendment should pass – do the discussing. In the event of passage the Associations will be in charge of certification, not RRTC. It will be their responsibility – not RRTC’s – to establish and operate the system. RRTC has other agenda items to occupy its time at the Annual Meeting.
It took RRTC 25 years to get where we are, and we were fortunate in that we were able to recruit capable people. It remains to be seen whether the 57 Associations can work together to identify good people and put them to work. It is not safe to assume that all those presently in RRTC will just jump on the new bandwagon.
One of the strengths of RRTC has been its dependence on hard-working and capable people, not on committees or organizations. We know where the buck stops in RRTC. This has allowed us to put the proven people to work. When it was found that a person was not getting the job done, there was a central complaint person – the RRTC Chairman – who investigated the shortfall and did something to correct it. This was not handled democratically, but it was handled a lot faster than it would be if things had to pass through a committee or wait for an election.
With 57 Associations “in charge” there are bound to be a few of the new certifiers who are not up to the job. What is to be done? Wait for the next election and hope the new person is better? Remember that those who vote for the certifier are not those who are served by him. It’s all those measurers out there who deserve good service.
Thus far I have not heard complaints from measurers that they are getting inadequate service from their certifier. The system is working just fine.
Many of the ills Kevin mentions can be handled without changing the organization of RRTC at all. First, we do not need any more certifiers. The volume of submissions has not overloaded any of our state certifiers.
We need more measurers, not more certifiers. Any Association wishing to develop a program to provide their area with more measurers need not rely on RRTC to do it for them – they can do it themselves. All they have to do is learn to measure and do it. In this they will have the support of RRTC.
Are seminars needed? Perhaps, although the return from seminars has historically been low. People come and participate, and nothing further is heard from most of them. Putting on a seminar is not easy – it requires whoever wants to do it to do a lot of organizing and planning. RRTC has several people who have given seminars, and they are available to do this – as long as the sponsoring group provides venue, organization and funding. The instructor can tell the sponsor what is needed, but it’s the sponsor who must do the organizational heavy lifting. Find a good venue, recruit the students, provide the bikes and counters and fund the expenses of the instructor.
The RRTC people, in my experience, abhor organizational politics, and we have been fortunate to avoid it so far. We choose our leaders by consensus, competence and willingness to work. This has worked, and USATF has benefited thereby.
It’s not broken. Let’s not try to fix it.