Skip to main content

I recently received a certificate from a State Certifier from a state other than his own. The measurer reside in the same state as this certifier.

I told the certifier that, in the future, he should forward any application he receives for an out-of-state course to the appropriate certifier for the stae involved.

My reasoning for this is that the certifier for the state where the course is, is responsible for keeping the files for that state and people will look to him with any questions about a certified course. Therefore, he should be the one to review the application and issue the certificate.

Additionally, the out-of-state certifier is taking money (the application/review fee) from
his pocket.

This is the way I always did it and am looking for input from others on this issue.

There is one exception ... if a certifier isn't doing his/her job properly and is taking too long to get certificates out I would have no problem going around him/her. This used to happen in NC before I took it over ... measurers used to send their applications out-of-state in order to expedite things. Of course, if this issue ever comes up, the appropriate Vice Chair or Chariman should be notified so the problem can be soved.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

As much as I agree with following a general protocol in submitting course measurement applications for review to the certifier of the state we reside in, the process still should always remain a voluntary choice. Course measurers should be allowed the opportunity to submit their course applications to any final signatory. As Paul says, the territorial jurisdiction of a regional certifier should only be strictly enforced when the time line from submission to receipt of the measurement certificate is completed in a reasonable time period. Pete Riegel argues for one week, I say within two weeks seems reasonable.

At times, let’s hope at least once a year, certifiers take a much deserved vacation with family and friends. Shouldn’t course measurers have the option to send their application to another certifier? Additionally, how many times does a course measurer have to put up with slow turn around times before being allowed to send work to someone else who is more responsive? What criterion defines if a certifier is doing his or her job correctly?

Courtesy sharing of measurement certificates can assist regional certifiers if ever asked questions about a particular course. Given the fact that all course information is online, questions seem very remote. Why is it necessary for certifiers to duplicate the efforts being done by our course registrar?

The idea that approving a course, one certifier is taking money out of another certifier’s pocket is unreasonable. Approving courses for certification isn’t a private kingdom, but a privilege and a service. If a particular certifier does not give any consideration by providing a service reviewing and approving an application how is he or she entitled to the review fee?
Correction to Kevin:

The one week I believe reasonable refers to turn-around time, not the time between receipt of material and issuance of certificate. I think that three days or so is actually better. People who send material to certifiers are waiting eagerly for a response. I can’t see any good reason why they should not get one, fast.

This does not assure that they will get their certificate quickly. Once the certifier has reviewed the material and responded, the ball is once again in the measurer’s court. Maybe all is well, in which case the response will be a certificate. Perhaps an explanation of something is needed. Perhaps the map needs work. Whatever is needed will take some time, and it is the measurer’s clock that is ticking, not the certifier’s.

Commentary on Kevin’s idea:

I think course measurers being able to pick their certifier is an awful idea. If adopted it could result in the most popular certifier having all the work. The guy could be popular because he or she has fast response time, a lower fee, or standards that are not as high as some of the other certifiers. Soon there would be fewer certifiers, and those who receive no applications would have nothing to do. This would deplete our talent pool and leave us with fewer experienced people.

I can see the following on the BB: “Fast, Accurate, Cheap Certification Service! Contact XXXXX for the fastest course certifications. No Waiting! No Hassle.”

A new certifier cannot be expected to work as efficiently as an experienced one. A learning curve must be experienced. We receive very few complaints about our service, and occasional delays are part of the human condition, and not problems that must be solved by turning the system upside-down.
Here goes Kevin again. He presents himself as if things are wrong with RRTC, but that is not the case. If a state certifier is not doing their job, then the VC or myself will step in a correct the problem.

I agree with Pete's commnet that it is a bad idea to allow another state certifier to review work from a different state. I again state if their is a problem with a state certifier then it will be corrected, but this is rare.

Gene Newman
What the heck did Pete and Gene read additional to what I wrote? A careful reading of my earlier posting in no way advocates simply seeking any certifier to review course applications for certification without cause. What I did say was; if a certifier isn’t doing their job by turning paperwork around in a reasonable time frame or is away on an extended vacation, course measurers should have the OPTION to seek out another certifier.

The ironic thing about the idea, it is actually Pete’s. I know for a fact Pete agrees with this idea because he has recently reviewed and approved out of state work for another certifier while away on vacation.

Gene’s reactionary posting is too typical of always holding to some party line, challenging any question, while not fully reading or listening to what others really have to say.

Why doesn’t the Bulletin Board practice some of what it purports to be: “This area is for Certifiers and others to discuss aspects of course certification. Let's see some discussion. The more we use this the better we will communicate. As a suggestion, why not resolve this year to post something once a week? Each post elicits responses, and this makes things more interesting.” Yet, those of us who dare to “discuss” a few issues are repeatedly banged over the head into submission.

Who was it asking why more of the 155 Bulletin Board members don’t participate?
My first post to this board, and I'm always prepared for flames headed my way.

I in fact have submitted work to someone who was not the certifier for the state. The reasons were 1) a short time frame to get the cert to the race director, and 2) convenience.
Could I have finished the work earlier and just sent it off? Maybe, probably not (that's just me and my schedule). And why not just hand it to someone I see weekly.

I don't plan to make a habit of it, but I would think that unless this is epidemic, a mandate doesn't makes a lot of sense.

Of course, if this is the policy except for rare cases, I would logically expect that even final signatories who measure out of their state territory are submitting their work to the home state certifier. Is this done?

If someone can get a job measuring because they are less expensive than the next rider, then why can't a measurer in turn hand off to a certifier that should be equally adept as any other to save 10, 20, x dollars less. Establish a uniform national fee structure, and then it becomes a more reasonable requirement.

Finally, as to the statment,
"Additionally, the out-of-state certifier is taking money (the application/review fee) from
his pocket.'
If the person is living hand-to-mouth, then gosh, let's help the guy (or gal) out, but measurement is a rough way to make a living. IMHO, an extra buck at any opportunity it's not what a committe like this is all about.

Steve Vaitones
Given the fact that all course information is online, questions seem very remote. Why is it necessary for certifiers to duplicate the efforts being done by our course registrar?

The certifiers are a lot more involved with the courses than I am. They are responsible for interpreting the data given to them from the measurers, checking accuracy and issuing a certificate. I'm just a glorified file clerk Wink

Any certifier who can whip through 50 courses in one evening isn't doing a very thorough job of it. I've done as many as 100, but that was a long evening. There's a big difference between certifying and recording.

There will be no flames for you, however you have brought up some interesting points.

#1. I feel it is important wherever possible to keep the measurer work within the same state. Yes, there are times when as you suggest it may work better to use an out of state final signatory.

#2. When a final sigantory measures out of their state they submit a copy of the certificate to the home state certifier. It is not necessary for them to submit the paper work just a copy of the certificate.

#3. The fees a final sigantory charge can be as high as $30, but no more. Maybe we at RRTC should make this the standard fee, but I just don't want to do this at this time. I don't think any of the final sigantories do this for the money. I know for myself that it is done to provide accurate course for the runners and standards are followed.

Gene Newman

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.