Kevin Lucas' Proposed Amendment

This brings to mind the question of Federalism vs. States Rights faced by the country's founding fathers more tha 200 years ago.

They wisely decided that certain things, like a standing army and postal service, were better governed by a centralized government, while others, like education, were more efficiently handled by the individual states.

USATF is set up in much the same way. The Olympic and World Championship teams and coaches aren't picked by voting in the Associations, but rather through the centralized national office.

There are several problems with Kevin's proposal.

First, everyone knows what state they live in. Many people do not know which Association they belong to. Pete notes that Ohio is split among 2 Associations (other states are similar). Unless someone is in tune w/ the local workings of USATF, they may be unaware of this, causing some confusion as to where they should send their paperwork. I am the sanctions chairman for the Connecticut Association (one of the anomalies where the state and Association boundries coincide) and each year several sanctions get sent to the New England Association by mistake. I can't believe the same wouldn't happen with certification.

Second, and more importantly, the level of involvement and competency varies greatly from one Association to the other. The Adirondack Association Kevin is part of is one of the better ones, but there are others that are barely functional, with one or two people handling all the duties. To think that having an Association wave a magic wand and dub someone as their certification chairman will increase the number of measures is naive at best. The number of people interested and potentially qualified to become measurers is quite small. It's like a rural area deciding "we need more doctors" and going out and asking people "hey, how would you like to become an MD." That's not to equate measurement with brain surgery, but the simile is apt.

It also opens up the possibility of someone being appointed as Assocation certifier for political reasons, or simply because they volunteered for an open position. Admittedly, some associations might come up with excellent people, but others would not. Currently, state certifiers are a rather exclusive group, and for a good reason - it's a technically demanding position, that someone has to earn, rather than simply fill because they want to.

The current system may not be perfect, and there may be ways to increase its efficiency, but the total revamping proposed is a step backwards, rather than ahead.

I was very glad to read these couple of comments regarding our proposed By-Laws Amendment. Especially, reading comments here from Pete, our former Chairman, Jim, our MN Editor, and Laurent, a long time IAAF Measurer, and a few comments written in MN from Mike, our current Chairman.

It seems clear that we can all agree on the fact that there are problems within the RRTC. How best to address these problems is really the core issue at hand. Our proposed amendment doesn’t seek to create a new and unnecessary bureaucracy, peppered with incompetent elected officials. We see our amendment effectively tackling the ongoing development and needs of the sport thru a truly democratic organization working with many of the talented people already in place and within associations.

The oligarchy political structure of the RRTC does not allow for outside voices to be heard. The system in place is too subjective. A democratically structured RRTC requires experienced leaders who are accountable for results and growth. There simply isn’t accountability in the current RRTC form. Just ask yourself if current status quo in course certification meeting the needs of all interested parties?

As much as I trust the wisdom of individual judgments of others, I strongly believe that desions made by a collective group almost always yield much better results. Maybe my grandfather’s advise and direction was the only acception to this rule. The biased appointment process for a Regional Certifier’s position or to Chairman doesn’t allow others who might be more talented and capable to enter. Why hasn’t an objective criteria been developed for the appointment process? Why hasn’t there been a search committee established to seek out new qualified people? Why aren’t current officers and certifiers grooming our future officers and certifiers? Why are Regional Certifiers able to keep their positions for life, just as long as they are willing to process applications?

What I have found a little odd in the comments is all the constant bell ringing for the idea that only “qualified, experienced, and competent” Regional Certifiers who can review an application for certification, all the while our Measurement Manual is set up for “anyone” to measure. We have a process for “anyone” to complete, yet the review must be by a “qualified, experienced, and competent” person. When does the “anyone” become able to competent to review our application? Just what criteria signifies “qualified, experienced, and competent”?

Some associations already have working relationships with Regional Certifiers. Naturally these relationships should be encouraged to continue. In associations dominated by a greater focus on Youth Athletics programs, they would naturally defer to the wisdom of the RRTC to work under the certifier of the closest neighboring association. The goal is to assist each association to be independent and disseminate the workload. We can certainly agree that most associations could, thru proper trainings, eventually run their own program locally.



Jim, you have to admit that MN has failed as effective communication tool for the RRTC. The goal of a quarterly publication hasn’t been met, even after lowering it from bi-monthly publication. Does an editor wait for submissions or seek them? Is it really worth publishing MN in October with only four pieces of old information in it, our August By-Laws Amendment, Chicago’s Tribune Lakeshore Marathon June article, Neville’s June Cyclocomputer Measuring, and a course list current thru August when the September 12th list was available. Do you really think that all is well with the RRTC?

Pete, despite admitting to problems within the RRTC, you also say all is well with the structure. Why has the current structure been unable to find solutions? Was your subjective appointment of Mike the best decision for the RRTC? Could a collective team have elected a stronger leader, maybe? A collective team would certainly be accountable for the failures of the chairman elected. Who is accountable today?

Note: George Regan, is the long time President of the Adirondack Association (Albany Area) and Race Director of the Freihofer’s Run for Women, and I have co-sponsored this amendment. I am the Secretary of the Niagara Association (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse areas), one of four NY associations (Niagara, Adirondack, Metropolitan, and Long Island), and a National Certifier.

Since the days of Ted Corbitt RRTC has been a meritocracy, not a democracy. When Ted’s load got too heavy, he appointed new people to cover various geographical areas. He did not ask anyone to elect them – he appointed them from the ranks of those who had shown that they understood the work to be done.

That tradition has carried on to this day. The work is done by those who have done it and understand what is involved. When I was chairman, and people asked me how they could become involved in RRTC, I always told them “measure a few courses.” Some did, and became members of the group. That’s always been the source of RRTC recruits.

Kevin has pointed out what he calls “problems” and calls for a cure to be applied via democratic procedures. The fact that something is not perfect does not indicate a “problem.” The certification system, as it stands, is one of the most smooth-running and effective things that USATF does. It can be better, of course. What human institution cannot be better?

Absent from Kevin’s proposal are details of how this great democratic revision is to be accomplished. From where are the personnel going to come? How will the paper flow?

In my real-life work as an engineer I always was happiest when my boss was also an engineer, and knew the work as well as I did. I was less happy when I was managed by a “manager.” I do not know how others in RRTC feel about operating under a system where they may be micromanaged by elected people who may never have measured a course. It is important to remember that RRTC people enjoy the work, and anything that diminishes that enjoyment can cause people to decide not to do the work.

There is a story about killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. I believe Kevin should read it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kevin P. Lucas:
"Our proposed amendment doesn’t seek to create a new and unnecessary bureaucracy, peppered with incompetent elected officials."

But there is nothing to preclude that, either. Given the track record of other USTAF bodies I've worked with (LDR, i.e) I'm not optimistic.

"The oligarchy political structure of the RRTC does not allow for outside voices to be heard."

This board would seem to be clear proof to the contrary.

"A democratically structured RRTC requires experienced leaders who are accountable for results and growth. There simply isn’t accountability in the current RRTC form."

The chairman is accountable to the President of USATF. Concerns with his performance could be addressed there, the same as the national office personnel in charge of sanctions, High Performance, etc. which are also appointed offices.

"Just ask yourself if current status quo in course certification meeting the needs of all interested parties?"

All? Perhaps not. The vast majority? I'd say yes.

"As much as I trust the wisdom of individual judgments of others, I strongly believe that desions made by a collective group almost always yield much better results."

Hmm, and how's that working in Baghdad these days?

"The biased appointment process for a Regional Certifier’s position or to Chairman doesn’t allow others who might be more talented and capable to enter. Why hasn’t an objective criteria been developed for the appointment process? Why hasn’t there been a search committee established to seek out new qualified people? Why aren’t current officers and certifiers grooming our future officers and certifiers? Why are Regional Certifiers able to keep their positions for life, just as long as they are willing to process applications?"

So you're advocating that someone doing a perfectly good job, with a proven track record, be replaced just to "give someone else a chance"?

"What I have found a little odd in the comments is all the constant bell ringing for the idea that only “qualified, experienced, and competent” Regional Certifiers who can review an application for certification, all the while our Measurement Manual is set up for “anyone” to measure. We have a process for “anyone” to complete, yet the review must be by a “qualified, experienced, and competent” person. When does the “anyone” become able to competent to review our application? Just what criteria signifies “qualified, experienced, and competent”?"

For the same reason that "anyone" can get a driver's license, yet only qualified officials can administer driving tests. To equate the competency of measurers and certifiers is specious reasoning. The more varied the expertise level of measurers, the more skilled a certifier should be to pick up mistakes and help correct them.

"We can certainly agree that most associations could, thru proper trainings, eventually run their own program locally."

I don't agree with that at all - and perhaps this is our major point of disagreement. My own experience with my Association had obviously been far less positive than yours - and Connecticut is a small and relatively well-run Association, with a strong corps group of measurers, most of whom have no link to CT-USATF.

"Jim, you have to admit that MN has failed as effective communication tool for the RRTC. The goal of a quarterly publication hasn’t been met, even after lowering it from bi-monthly publication. Does an editor wait for submissions or seek them? Is it really worth publishing MN in October with only four pieces of old information in it, our August By-Laws Amendment, Chicago’s Tribune Lakeshore Marathon June article, Neville’s June Cyclocomputer Measuring, and a course list current thru August when the September 12th list was available. Do you really think that all is well with the RRTC?"

To answer these in order:

1. MN has not "failed" as much as it has largely been replaced by electronic communication, such as MNF, which has in turn been superseded by this bulletin board.
2. Material has repeatedly been solicited, in print and online. Pete used to provide much of the material himself, especially in his final years as editor (and still does). I don't have the time to do that. Perhaps everything has been said that needs saying. Kevin, have YOU ever contributed anything to MN?
3. You may well be right that MN has outlived its useful life. Perhaps there's some eager volunteer lurking in the verdant Associations hinterland who can breathe new life into it. If so, I'll gladly hand over the reigns.
4. I've seen no drastic dropoff in the number of certified courses, which to me would be the clearest indication that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the current RRTC system. The fact that a course I've had certified doesn't appear instantly on the central search engine database isn't an issue of great concern to me.

The Proposed Amendment

Those who have not read Kevin Lucas’ proposed amendment may download it from:

amendment

Click on file "amendment.pdf"

The amendment is shown as it appeared in the latest Measurement News.

It seems to me that if it passes, the Associations are going to have a whale of a job organizing a brand-new certification system from the ground up. What people wishing to obtain certification will do while they are working it out is unclear.

This amendment takes the form of a hostile takeover, and is in no way an offer to help. It is an offer to supervise.

The proposed amendment also fails to take into account that USATF certification of courses is accepted by other organizing bodies for LDR, i.e., RRCA, IAAF, AIMS. Placing the state associations in charge of the function is a poor idea and will not increase the number of courses measured and certified.

Communicating benefits of course certification to individual race directors and organizations is what needs to be done, not placing another layer of management over the few who measure and certify for the benefit of the many. Micromanaging course certification is only going to scare away folks who have the desire to make certain courses are measured.

This note was sent today to Kevin Lucas with copy to George Regan:

Dear Kevin,

By now you know of the overwhelming opposition to your proposed bylaw amendment by such certifiers and measurers who have expressed an opinion on the Course Measurement Bulletin Board. Our Chairman, Mike Wickiser, also opposes it.

It would save us RRTC people who will be at the annual meeting a lot of running around if you would withdraw it from consideration.

If you do not withdraw it, and it should pass, it will result in the gutting of the composition of RRTC. All those presently involved in course certification will be removed from office unless they choose to run for office, and win. As many will not choose to do this, the new RRTC will find itself lacking qualified people.

This will not be seen as beneficial by those seeking to get a course certified.

Think hard - if the amendment passes, your name, and George Regan's will be associated with the change, and you will gather all the credit or blame for it. You may well be the new Chairman, chief of a tribe with few Indians.

I hope you will recognize that the proposed amendment is harmful and withdraw it.

Sincerely yours, Pete Riegel

Appreciate the little bit of attention this amendment has received. Opinions expressed counter to the amendment are important. Yet I think the few extreme outcomes to the amendment are unfounded. I do agree change is often uncomfortable and sometimes difficult.

There have been many times through the history of our sport to point to as examples of change, which were difficult at first, but ultimately, added something better to the sport. The issue of prize money and maintaining an athlete’s “amateur” status comes to mind.

This proposed amendment may not be as lofty a goal as the issues involved with prize money, but there are important principles involved. Why can’t aspiring measurers ascend through the ranks of RRTC? Why can’t the RRTC work as effectively under the governance of the USATF like every other committee or council? How do the officials and rules committees maintain independence and integrity, but the RRTC can’t?

This amendment opens the doors for all those currently outside the narrow RRTC circle who wish to learn, practice, and promote the process of course certification. How many of you have said, “I wish there was someone to share the workload with?” Why shouldn’t the business of RRTC be handed off to a peer while you might be going through an especially busy period at work and while experiencing family or health problems? Those willing individuals are out there waiting their turn. Are positions within the RRTC, positions for life like sitting on the Supreme Court, but they have an army of clerks?

Many certifiers currently already have relationships with their local associations. Why can’t these relationships be formalized? Is the thought of working within an association below the RRTC? Associations are very much like the RRTC, if you are willing and able to do the work the job is yours. How do associations manage to put on USATF Championships or major road races and officiate events?

This amendment is very much alive. Why can’t the good people in the RRTC work cooperatively with their local associations to continue to implement the road course certification program? As far as the work is concerned, what really changes?

If admittedly there is a shortage of measurers, why can’t an educational process be undertaken? If the application paperwork and filing of certificates and maps are slow, why not explore ways to better use current technologies? If the RRTC is an aging population, why not adopt a governance structure that is more inclusive?

Dear Doug,

Thanks for your comments. I am posting this exchange on the Course Measurement bulletin Board.

Best, Pete

Doug's attached comments may be found at:

DougReaction

Click on "DougReaction.doc"

In a message dated 10/22/2005 11:20:13 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, doug@rail-tech.net writes:

Hi Rod,

In short I am 100% against this. Lucas apparently has not contacted any of the officers of RRTC. Being the past Validations Chairman and having heard from him on another matter 3 weeks ago, I think I would have heard about this.

Attached is his document into which I have inserted my comments. I am copying others on this. I see this as just an attempted power-grab. I am not aware of Lucas bringing any problems to the attention of the RRTC. I would suggest to you that the committee is composed of people who know and understand measuring of road courses. The organization has evolved over the course of 25 years and is copied by organizations in many other countries. While we may need to do a few things better, I think the basic organization does an excellent job with the resources we have. Lucas could have contacted RRTC at any time to express his concerns. He didn’t to my knowledge.

Best regards-Doug Loeffler

----------------------------------------------

From: Larsenrod@aol.com [mailto:Larsenrod@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 6:57 AM
To: doug@rail-tech.net
Subject: Fwd: Final Copy Amendment and Your Endorsement

Doug,

What are your thoughts on this proposal? I would like your imput before I respond.

Thanks,

Rod

Rod Larsen

President
USATF Florida

Message from Norm Green:

On 10/22/05 1:14 AM, "runrnorm@comcast.net"
runrnorm@comcast.netwrote:

Kevin,

I have read your covering memo and the updated text of your amendment. With all my energy I will be opposing any change in legislation concerning RRTC at the Jacksonville annual meeting. I am very satisfied with the present text of Bylaws, Section II, Article 15--Long Distance Running Division, D-Councils: 3-Road Running Technical Council.

Norman M Green Jr
Masters LDR Chair


Message from Basil Honikman:

Basil Honikman <honikman@runningusa.orgwrote:

Norm

Well said!!

Without rules and records a sport such as ours has no shape or form. It takes a long long time for these to develop to a point where they are functioning very well. While there is always room for improvement the proposed change will do much more harm than good.

The work of the last 25 years should not be permitted to be undone by measures such as this.

Best regards

Basil Honikman


Message from Mike Wickiser:
Basil & Norm,
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
Best regards,
Mike Wickiser

Message from Ryan Lamppa

--- Ryan Lamppa <ryan@runningusa.orgwrote:

To ALL:

There's a whole lot of nothing here. I eventually stopped counting the number of blanket, meaningless statements.

In essence, this by-law change decentralizes the RRTC and puts it under aegis of the associations. At present, USATF does not have enough good associations to pull this off and thus, its implementation would be a logistical nightmare. In addition, I don't see the revenue stream needed to make this work even in the rudimentary sense.

If this passes, as the adage goes, its supporters will get the government they deserve.

On the below, I would love to see how Kevin determined the "facts" below.

>>Less than 15% of all Sanctioned road races are run on certified courses. Less than 5% of all road races are run on certified courses.<<

Ryan

Kevin Lucas proposed a wide sweeping change for the USA road running community. I commend Kevin on his comments, ideas and his defense. While some of his ideas warrant consideration, I do not believe it is necessary to restructure the current Road Running Technical Council into a committee similar to the Officials Committee.

Given the current state of the USATF associations, I do not believe most associations will be capable or willing to undertake the enormous task of training, measuring and certifying road courses. Moreover, I cannot image that requiring the RRTC to add 57 new members would result in a worthy increase in the number of quality measurers. That can only be accomplished by promoting, training and getting the word out on what a measurer does and why courses need to be certified. There are several folks in the running and track community (including some in the upper ranks) that have little or no idea what the RRTC does. It may be worthwhile to approach the LDR sports committees at the annual meeting and present what the RRTC does. We may get a few folks interested enough to eventually become measurers.

The national office has taken on the big task of publishing and making available the huge volume of maps and certificates that previously sat in file cabinets and floppy disks. Currently, there's just one full time information systems employee and one intern. That will likely change when the USATF membership costs increase in 2007. In the meantime, it will take some time to speed up the process of getting the courses online. We can start by suggesting ways to speed up the process on the measurers and certifiers end. For example, the measurement certificate itself, can be made electronic and the data either automatically posted online, or prepared for posting online. Maps may be scanned by the measurer, certifier, reviewer, etc., submitted electronically, or may be added later.

The newsletter is important and serves as a permanent record on RRTC activities. That newsletter, however, has merged with the electronic age. In the past, the newsletter was the sole source of information. Although, it's distribution was limited, it got a lot of attention and resources. Nowadays, the newsletter is just one of several sources of information. With the addition of the bulletin board, email, MFN subscription list and the web site, anyone can access information about the measurement process.

I do agree that the RRTC annual meetings need to be held together with the USATF National Annual meeting in December. Scheduling the RRTC meetings away from the national meetings was a cost cutting measure and may have had a better attendance, but it also distanced the RRTC from the running community. The RRTC does have one meeting planned at the 2005 USATF National Annual meeting. We'll meet on Saturday, December 3, 2005, 8:30 am to 12:30 am.

All of the changes and suggestions Kevin proposed may be implemented without restructuring the RRTC. If voted on at the annual meeting, I do not think Kevin's amendment will pass but do hope Kevin will be able to push some if his ideas and work within the RRTC community to implement those ideas.

Sincerely,

Justin Kuo

Does anybody but Kevin support the proposed amendment? It would be interesting if their positions on it were to be posted.

My first reaction to Kevin Lucas's amendment proposal was its unworkability. After reading the many comments on the forum, I find my opinion confirmed.

If for no other reason, the weak and unresponsive experience I have found with two states USATF associations over the years, is enough to make it unworkable.

If the amendment was to be effected, I could see where I would find it too difficult and frustrating to find my position fulfilling and rewarding.

Dave Poppers
dpoppers@comcast.net

A couple thoughts occurred to me... without reorganizing all of the RRTC, is there anything the RRTC can do to be more in-touch with the local associations? Many certifiers live outside the USATF association that they are certifying courses for.

How about asking certifiers to make one more copy of the course certificate and mail it to the local USATF association? The copy may end up in a stack on top of someone's desk, but it may also be just what the local association needed to confirm the local race was certified.

How about certifiers introducing themselves to the local association? That could be done by sending a letter or email and would include a description of the certification process and fee.

Doesn't it make sense that USATF course certifiers should be members of the USATF organization? A similar situation came up several years ago with the USATF officials. In the past, it was possible to become a USATF official and work national championship events that selected which athletes would represent the USA in international competition, without ever being a member of the USATF. Now, all officials selected to work at championship meets must have current USATF memberships.

Suggestions? -- Justin

RRTC people need to think of Kevin's proposal as a starting point of a discussion, not some sort of invasion or coup attempt. Every committee within USATF can and should reevaluate their operating procedures and structure routinely to assure they are doing everything possible to be the best they can. Having a system the is completely insulated from the outside never works, nor does one with complete openness. Compromise must be reached, and can be.

As it currently stands, 95% of the road races know nothing of the RRTC, USATF &/or the services that can offered to them from these groups. Having a definitive structure that gets this word out to the grassroots in each Association is a necessity. Everyone benefits from it and then the LDR community has a greater reason to be happier with USATF as a whole.

The reactions of most of the replies so far have been knee-jerk and defensive. This is no good. Just because a legendary man started a procedure and it is based on custom, does not make it the best way to run an organize something. The complaints of power grabbing seem to be made by those who fear losing the power that they have been given, which is normal when someone is "king for life". Listen to each other (especially where Justin is leading this conversation) and find some middle ground. Demanding that legislation be dropped because it will make people busy is ridiculous. Table the proposal and work on it so that people can all benefit.

Change is not always bad, but change on the scale proposed by Kevin will move things in an irreversible direction.

As a certifier I’ve always considered that I serve measurers, first and foremost. They are the only people with whom I come in contact during the process of certification. I receive applications from them, I am asked questions. I process the applications and answer the questions. All this is between me and the measurer. I don’t need help.

The resulting certificates are sent to the registrar and are listed.

Typical turnaround time between me and the measurer is one to three days. If all is well this means that the measurer gets his certificate within a week of the time he mails it to me. If we do it electronically it will happen within a day – sometimes the same day.

I do not interact with either of the Ohio associations.

I could do more, but I don’t want to. I consider that what I am doing is of large benefit to USATF and I believe certifiers should be, if not thanked, at least not criticized for not doing more interacting with USATF. My interests do not lie in kids’ track or racewalking, and my focus on road running is all on the technical side, and not in promoting or putting on races. I am doing what I enjoy doing, and it helps USATF.

Some certifiers are active in their local associations and some are not. But active or inactive, as long as they are out there certifying courses the road running community is being well served.

RRTC has evolved into a smooth-running bureaucracy in which the people we serve – the measurers – get fast and accurate service. We have all the people we need, and are constantly recruiting from the pool of experienced measurers who know the work. Few in RRTC are overloaded with RRTC work.

Nothing stands in the way of the associations promoting certification, but I have seen few do so. RRTC has been available to help anyone for over 20 years, and this has included any association that cares to ask.

I would bet that any change will result in higher cost to the measurer, as certification will be seen as a cash cow by the association. There will be more time between application and receipt of a certificate, and more work for the certifier. I’d also bet that some of those chosen by their associations to be certifiers will not be qualified to do the job.

As for RRTC folks being power-mad and kings for life, I need only point to the recent example of several certifiers willingly giving up a state to accommodate a newly-appointed certifier. Anyone who thinks being a certifier gives one "power" needs to adjust.

The proposed amendment should be put down, not tabled. It is a bad idea.

It is my strong belief, and the shared belief of the co-sponsors of the proposed USATF RRTC Bylaws Amendment, that the upcoming Annual Meeting, November 30 – December 4, in Jacksonville will be very productive in discussion outlining areas of improvement with meaningful solutions to implement over the subsequent months that follow. The collective talent within the RRTC will properly review areas needing improvement, outline solution plans, and establish a timeline for achievement.

The focus of discussion will address ways to expand the number active course measurers. Measurement clinics and trainings across the country will be scheduled to educate new measurers. We will agree on the development of a measurer testing method for both written and hands on knowledge, which parallels the current Officials Certification process and ranking criteria. Criteria for each level of measurer thru certifier status will be established.

Of course, we will discuss the need to increase the ranks of Certifiers who can review and approve applications for certification. Expanding the current Certifier list to include all final signatories and allow each to review and approve applications in any area of the country. Identify and elevate more senior measurers to final signatory status. Communicating this expanded certifier list, with an active measurer list, to all 57 associations and interested parties.

With the onset of the new USATF Running Ranking System that will rank performances from events only run on certified courses, addressing the necessary timely flow of paperwork will be an agenda item. Someone has already suggested that 4-6 persons could act as final reviewers and upload course data and maps to the national system, sharing the current work load now completed by two vice chairs and the course registrar. We will naturally explore ideas of electronic application forms for measurers and certificate and map submissions by certifiers.

Looking forward to the discussion with many of you in Jacksonville. Enjoy the Thanksgiving holiday with family and friends. We’ll see you soon.

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.

This Email was sent today

To: Bill Roe, Andy Martin, Fred Finke, RRIC, Mike Wickiser, Norman Green, Norman Brand, John Blackburn, James Murphy, Bob Hersh, Kevin Lucas, George Regan, Justin Kuo, Doug Loeffler, Jim Gerweck, Dave Poppers

Gentlefolk,

A proposed amendment to the USATF bylaws has been submitted by Kevin Lucas, Secretary, Niagara Association. It has been recommended by George Regan, Secretary, Adirondack Association. It would affect:

Section II - Bylaws
Article 15 - Long Distance Running Division
D - Councils - Road Running Technical Council

This proposed amendment has caused consternation among the members of the Road Running Technical Council (RRTC) as it appears that if implemented, the resulting bylaw would have RRTC governed by the Associations rather than being appointed by the USATF President. This would greatly disrupt the effectiveness of RRTC's operations. Those who have gone on record opposing the proposed amendment include:

Mike Wickiser, Chairman, RRTC
Pete Riegel, past Chairman, RRTC
Justin Kuo, Chairman, Records Committee
Basil Honikman and Ryan Lamppa, Running USA
Doug Loeffler, past Validations Chairman and Florida course certifier, RRTC
Norman Green, Chairman, Masters LDR
Jim Gerweck, Editor, Measurement News
Dave Poppers, Colorado certifier, USATF

RRTC has operated for almost 25 years without major problems. It is a going concern which is understood by those it serves – race directors and course measurers all over the USA. It is a major thing that USATF does that is generally applauded by the road running community.

It would be a large mistake for RRTC to be politicized or otherwise tinkered with. It’s not broken, and does not require fixing.

Please consider the effect that passage of this amendment would have, and vote it down. Do not table it – put a stake through its heart.

A full discussion of the matter may be seen at:

Amendment Discussion

I hope to see you in Jacksonville,

Best regards, Pete Riegel
Peter S. Riegel
3354 Kirkham Road
Columbus, OH 43221
Phone: 614-451-5617
fax: 614-451-5610
email: riegelpete@aol.com