Effective date on a Certificate!

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 (Note: while the reference to "postmark" may seem outdated, it's really not limited to postal mail, as other forms of transmission such as email and fax do have postmarks of a sort; thus, the word "postmark" should be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.

The modern certification system has been in place for three decades. The effective date has always been the date that the last required information was sent by the measurer.

I know of no problems that this has caused, and I do not understand why a change is necessary.

The certifiers have always been trusted, and few problems have arisen from this. In the 1980’s when I was a newbie RRTC Chairman, I fired two certifiers. I had received complaints from measurers. One was taking money and not producing certificates. The other was taking a very long time to process paperwork. The firing was preceded by correspondence with the affected certifiers, pointing out the problems and requesting them to fix them. Neither did, and I replaced them. This option remains open to the Chairman.

In both cases I proceeded because of actual complaints from measurers who were getting inadequate service from their certifiers.

There are all sorts of bad scenarios that can be imagined, and it is possible to construct rules and regulations to prevent them, but this route leads to paranoia. I see no benefit in changing a system that has worked well for over 30 years.

There have been no problems that we have been unable to fix on a case-by-case basis, and those we have had to fix have been few and varied.

I suggest we back off on making more rules and policies to fix problems that have not yet existed.

quote:

Originally posted by Gene Newman:
I’m asking your opinion of the following proposal before it’s actually used.
There are two cases for us to consider when deciding the course Effective Date placed on the certificate and these are as follows: #1. Any Certifier reviewing another's work and issues a certificate #2. One measures a course and issues a certificate.

For #1 The present policy should remain the same. That is, the Certifier would use the postmark date or email date of the submissions of the final data approved for certification.

For #2 The Effective Date would be the date the certificate is signed. This certificate should be mailed in timely manner to the Vice Chair.

Gene:
I thought the rule was that the course was effective on completion of the measurements by the FS. However, measurements are of no practical value until the FS gets the map to the race director. Your proposal today (9/20/11) would require that the FS attend to completion of the certificate form at the same time, and I do not find this in the least onerous. Nev

Pete, We are not making a new rule exactly. Some Final Signatories(FS) didn't understand what should be the effective date on the certificate. My second proposal is clarifying it for all.

If you surf around enough on this site (or maybe it was a past Measurement News)I think you will find an account by Bob Thurston and another by Ron Scardera. In any case, I recall that they both found that there was a police change to the marathon course that was told to the organizers on race day, Both rode around on their bikes and found solutions that permitted the course to be OK.

It would be asking a lot for them to get all the paperwork done before the race was over.

Sometimes we have to deal with things as they are, and not as we might wish them to be.

I hate to see us getting like the US congress, passing laws right and left. We are a tiny group of people, and by and large we know what to do. Have we really got a problem to solve, or is it just a need to see things nice and tidy?

The idea of a proposed change in the effective date policy based on the possibility that a certifier would lie about about the date a course was measured indicates a pretty low opinion for those individuals that have distinguished themselves as trustworthy, knowledgable, volunteers willing to assist new measurers and experienced ones with course measurement questions and concerns. This group of distinguished individuals have ALL shown a dedication to the sport long before being considered for a certifier's position.
The latest proposal #2 could force a certifier to lie on a certificate in order to have a course measured on or near race day because it was not possible to produce a Measurement Certificate before midnight.
If I were inclined to lie about a measurement date, this would be a great resolution. I could just lie about the date the Certificate was signed instead and get the thing in the mail within a week or so.
This whole policy change stinks and I believe it should be tossed out!
Mike Wickiser

Pete wrote in his first post above, "The effective date has always been the date that the last required information was sent by the measurer." I agree. But what does this mean when the measurer is a certifier? The "last required information" to be sent by the measurer/certifier is the certificate & map. Thus, it means that the effective date is the date when the certifier sends the certificate & map to the Vice Chair -- which actually matches the initial version of the proposal that Gene sent by email, rather than the somewhat toned down version at the top of this thread.

In his 2nd post in this thread, Pete wrote that he doesn't want us "passing laws right and left." There is no need to pass any new laws. We already have a perfectly good rule defining effective date in the USATF Rules of Competition which you can download at http://www.usatf.org/About/Competition-Rules.aspx -- namely, Rule 240.3b which reads as follows:

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.

(And please don't get hung up on the word "postmark" which can be interpreted as applying to other transmission methods besides postal mail.)

There is no doubt that this rule applies when the measurer is a non-certifier, who must submit data to a regional certifier. But there seems to be debate about whether it applies when the measurer is a certifier. I contend that it applies to all of us. It's actually somewhat curious: Although we pride ourselves in following uniform procedures and a system of "checks and balances," a lot of people want certifiers to have the authority to write "effective dates" that haven't been confirmed by any sort of "postmark" -- i.e., verifiable transmission of data that someone else in RRTC can verify.

Now, to say exactly what sort of policy I prefer. I actually prefer Gene's earlier (stricter) statement that was transmitted by email, namely, that in case #2, "The Effective Date would be the date the certificate is signed and mailed to a Vice Chair." The more lenient statement at the beginning of this thread urges certificates to be mailed in a "timely" manner, but doesn't specify how timely they need to be. However, both versions suffer from the defect that when timing is tight, certifiers may be induced to lie, as Mike indicated.

Therefore, I prefer the stricter statement that was in the email, but with a provision for cases when timing is tight. In particular, the measurer/certifier can simply send an email to the Vice Chair when measurements and adjustments have been completed, even though the map & certificate haven't been prepared yet. This email would serve the purpose of a verifiable ("postmarked" type) communication, consistent with Rule 240.3b. Then, when the certificate is prepared, which may be after the race date, the certifier can use the date of the email as "effective date," thereby entering an effective date earlier than the signature date, and being totally honest.

To be clear on exactly what I'm suggesting, I propose that in case #2, the Effective Date is either the date when the certificate is signed and mailed to a Vice Chair or an earlier date when measurements and adjustments were completed, provided that the certifier has already notified the Vice Chair on that earlier date that the measurements were completed.

The idea is that either of these conditions (mailing certificate to Vice Chair, or notifying Vice Chair when measurements were completed) would constitute a verifiable ("postmark" type) communication consistent with Rule 240.3b.

I thought I remembered that in the event of a certifier measuring a course, that the date of the certification was the date the certificate was forwarded to the vice-chair. So I went back to my Measurement News files, and, there it is, in issue #123, January, 2004, on page 3.

Personally I've always tried to do this and have succeeded much more often than not. My understanding was that such a policy was still in place, but in a bulletin board exchange in May, 2009 I was informed by Gene and Jim Gerweck that the effective date was the date I signed the certificate. So I didn't lose any sleep this weekend even though I didn't forward the certificate dated September 17 for the September 18 race until September 19.

Bob's observation is correct, at least for me in that I do most of my certificate preparation at night and most of my copying and mailing the next day. Or I'll get a gaggle of these in over a few days and send them forward in one envelope at the end of a week or weekend. Personally I don't think the fact that a certificate might be dated one day and sent forward a few days later is a big deal- as long as it goes forward before the race date.

I like Bob's proposal. A course measured by a certifier should be sent forward before the race date, either physically or electronically. If there are extenuating circumstances, the certifier and VC should be talking and should work something out.

Perhaps I’ve had a sheltered life, but in 30 years of measuring courses I’ve never signed a certificate after the race was run. On a few occasions I have told the race director that I am unable to do what he wants me to do – get the work done before the race is run. On these occasions the race director says to go ahead with the work and they’ll use the course next year.

What bothers me about these “policies” is that they take a lot of words to attempt to cure imaginary or rare problems. We wind up with nothing concrete. If we are worried that a certifier may be a liar, we write a “policy.” Will this stop the lies? Do the lies exist outside our fevered imagination?

For a group as small as ours, and people as varied as we are, I believe a walk-in-lockstep approach stifles individual motivation and ability. Even though I'm not personally affected by whatever change is contemplated, I resent new rules and regulations that exist to simply reduce paranoia.

What was the origin of this date brouhaha anyway? What actual problem surfaced to make it necessary?

This is not a question about measurement - it's a political issue, solving what is not yet a problem. A simple question-and-answer in the meeting of the Records Committee can resolve borderline questions like this.

Keep #1. Forget #2

The main problem lies with several certifier's don't understand what date to be placed for the effective date.

The idea of being accountable was a 2nd thought, but in my view it was a good idea.

Yes, too many policy's can be a problem. I suggest the following to be sent to all certifier's.

The effective date is when the final corrected data is received from a measurer or when a certifier completes their work on a course they measured.

Again, this all should take place in a timely manner. By this, I mean the Certificate should be in the mail no later than a week after issuing this Certificate.

The Vice Chair and Registrar would check to see that this is done.

Pete, the origin of this discussion was that I (as VC West) received a certificate from Bob, on which the Effective Date was the day after the date of his signature. He measured the course himself.

So, I sent him an email, saying I thought that the Effective Date shouldn't be after his signature date. He then explained why he did it, and why it is proper. I replied that I thought it might confuse others, just as it did me. I now understand why he did it, but I replied that I thought the Effective Date shouldn't be after the signature date.

Gene's & Bob's clarifications seem to indicate that the signature date should not predate the Effective Date. This may sometimes require that the FS notifies the VC that the work has been completed, if the FS can't get all the paperwork submitted the same day the final measurement is completed.

While this final scenario may seem overkill, I can understand where it could become important, if a record is set, and someone (maybe the current record-holder) challenges the validity of the measurement/certification. May not happen in our lifetimes, but with all the lawyers looking for clients, it may.

Lots of discussion for what seems to many to be a non-issue, but the end result is very simple to accommodate.

Below is what we should be using so all of us are consistent with filling in the Effective date on the Certificate.


USATF Rule 240.3b states: "Effective date: Certification is effective as of the date that all measurements and necessary adjustments are submitted as evidenced by the postmark (verifiable transmission date), although the actual review and approval of the certification may be at a later date."

This applies whether or not the measurer is a certifier.

If the measurer is not a certifier, and sends data for review to a regional certifier, the effective date is the date when the measurer sends data that the certifier considers acceptable, as indicated by postmark or other verifiable means (e.g., date of email transmission).

When the measurer is a certifier, the effective date is usually the date when the measurer/certifier sends the map and certificate to the next level of review (e.g., Vice Chair), as this is a verifiable transmission date(it should be sent before the race date). In this situation, enter the certificate/map transmission date as both the effective date and the date of the certifier's signature. If timing is tight, meaning that it might not be possible to send the map and certificate before race day, 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 (and, in this case, the effective date would be earlier than the certifier's signature date).

In all cases, the effective date should not be later than the date of the certifier's signature.

Does this mean that certifiers can no longer do measurements/adjustments on race day prior to the race start?

Matthew,
Certifiers can still do race day adjustments. This is a case where the "If timing is tight" provision would apply. If you can't get the whole thing (including new map & certificate) written up on race day itself then, on that day, send an email to your Vice Chair, indicating what you've done and pointing out that the new certificate/map will follow. You may then use the date of your email (i.e., race day) as the effective date.