subcontracting measurements by a certifier

from Mike Wickiser to Gene Newman:

Sounds like a one time deal. In that case the situation isn't too big a deal.

I don't like the idea of subcontracting measurements by a certifier. It becomes difficult to separate the measurement from the certification, plus the certification service shouldn't extend outside of a certifier's area.

If Pete or I were to sub out a measurement in Illinois, then Jay Wight should be the certifier. Under that scenario we would not be certifiers but sub-contracting measurers.

Mixing these two activities can lead to states with one measurer/certifier.

Best regards,
Mike

Shouldn't we require the person listed as the "lead measurer" on the application to have physically measured at least part of the course?

This is a small problem, or maybe none at all. If I was hiring a measurer in another state to work for me, it would certainly be a lot less complicated if I was to certify the course, rather than involving the state certifier.

I would have zero objection to another certifier hiring somebody in Ohio to measure an Ohio course, and doing the certification himself. Saves me the bother.

I can see that this could get complicated if it happened a lot, but so far it seems to be an uncommon occurrence. I note that in 2010 the most states any certifier has certified in is six.

Actually I admire the enterprise shown by the guy whose actions have caused this discussion to arise. It got a couple of courses measured that otherwise might not have been.

I don't think this calls for a blanket prohibition. We are grownups and should be able to work things out.

Pete, I'm gald to see your response. I don't know if this thread was prompted by my activities, or not, but I do fit the scenario.

I have measured local courses for folks who put on races nationally. They liked my work as a measurer and have asked me to measure in other states. Travel costs don't make this feasible in most situations, so I find a local measurer and have them do the measurement. I check the paperwork, and create the map. (The map in one huge reason they want me involved.)

Since I have managed the whole process, I know the course at least as well as anyone, having analyzed it on MapMyRun before turning it over to the measurer. We then go over it in detail, and discuss the entire course. When reviewing his/her paperwork, I know what parts of the course may cause issues, and make sure all paperwork answers any issues. At this point, I see little reason to turn it over to another certifier for them to review again. I agree with Pete - saves the bother.

I also wouldn't have any objection to someone coming into my states and doing the same thing.

To be perfectly clear, I am contacted by race directors - I don't actively solicit measurements outside of my area. So, for clarification, I am not trying to go out of my area; my distant business comes from referrals or repeat clients.

And, regarding Pete's comment about getting additional courses measured, this was definitely the case for one small town measurement. They couldn't find anyone willing to travel to do their measurement, but I was able to find someone, and they got their course measured.

Another thought - I don't see this as a subcontract by a certifier, but rather a subcontract by a measurer. I happen to be a certifier, so I write the certificate. All paperwork is still created and reviewed, just as if a measurer submitted a course to me. I do create the map in this scenario, which is another reason I write the certificate. If I sent it all to another certifier, then they have to deal with putting info on the map, copies, etc. I see no point in that. I do send a copy of the cert to the certifier, as a courtesy copy, so they have a record of the course in their files.

In my opinion, it does not matter whether or not the person doing the subcontracting is a certifier or not. The paperwork should be sent to the certifier for the state where the course exists, period, unless the person actually doing the measurement is a certifier. If this policy is not adhered to, why have state certifiers at all? One of the roles of the state certifier to develop and encourage local measurers, including map drawing. Maps for certification (as opposed to map drawing for media publication) do not have to be works of art, just legible and have the necessary detail. In my view, out-of-state certifiers subcontracting measurement undermines the work of in-state certifiers.

What if we take "certifier" out of the equation? Reasons I am asked to manage out-of-state measurements is that I also host a Web page with the race map, downloadable map, GPS track, link to the MapMyRun.com map, and photos of each split location. So, in addition to getting a measurement, they get much more. Even if I was not a certifier, they would be having me manage the measurement, so they get all the supplemental product.

It so happens that I am also a certifier, and will review the paperwork as I would for anyone else submitting a course for certification in my state. In doing so, why duplicate the effort by sending all paperwork to someone else to review, for a second time?

As to "...why have state certifiers at all?"; because this is not a regular occurrence. I think I have done 6 courses this way this year. I do encourage local measurers, in that I have them do the measurement. And, I always let clients know they can go directly to the measurer. If they go that route, they won't get the other items I offer. Their choice. Again, I am not soliciting the work, it is coming to me.

As West VC, I can only recall less than a handful of instances that fit this scenario. And as Duane said, in those cases, it doesn't make sense to duplicate efforts. RRTC does have a policy that a courtesy copy of the cert be sent to the state certifier, so he/she has it in her database. I'm not sure if this is becoming a problem w/ some of the "franchise" races bringing in their own measurer to do an out of state course.

We’re a small group. We shouldn’t be clamoring for more rules and procedures for how we work together. Every day we see, in the news, some tiny problem that’s “solved” by the creation of a new law. Over time this has created a mess that is understood by nobody but lawyers.

It does not help to try to “fix” everything a few of us may find annoying. The world will not end if we do not act as if we were all in fixed boxes in an organization chart. That’s neat on paper but lacks flexibility.

I urge us all to count to ten when something irritates. Not every small problem will become a big one.

Pete is correct that we can't fix everything, but I as Chair/Registrar don't want this to become a problem.

I have had three Certifier's ask me about this situation and that's why I did this post. I contacted one of the measurer's where this situation did occur. He stated he was only asked to do it the way described when the Certifier couldn't travel to do the measurement.

I agree with Matt, just pass the work onto the Regional Certifier of that State.

If someone contacts a Certifier to Certify a race they either can or can't do it. When they can measure it, then that's not a problem. However, if they can't measure the course then whoever measures the course will submit the paperwork to the proper Regional Certifier for review.

As a Certifier, we should always respect other Certifier's.

It's interesting that the application for certification form asks for the "Person in Charge of Measurement" while the Measurement Certificate form just says "Measured by".

In the scenario Duane describes, he is clearly the "Person in Charge of Measurement" even though the course was "Measured by" the person who actually rode the bike.

I don't question the value that Duane adds to the process, but agree with Mark that the name on the front of the certificate (as well as on the website) ought to be that of one of the people that actually measured the course. Maybe if that were the case, the work would be coming to those local measurers instead of to those of us who show up first when someone uses a search engine.

I think those of us who serve as certifiers but also measure courses walk a fine line. Our role as certifiers requires us to promote course measurement and certification, sometimes at the risk of a negative impact on our measurement income. Personally when I get an inquiry, I tell the person who inquires that they can measure the course themselves, and in some cases offer to loan them a counter. If they want a referral to a measurer, I refer then to the measurer closest to them. Sometimes that's me. Most of the time it isn't.

You'll note that I used the term "serve". I see the role of the certifier to be to promote the concept of course measurement and certification to the betterment of the sport as a whole. I wouldn't ask anybody to go in the hole doing so, but I'm not sure it should be the basis of a large profit center, either.

Jay makes a good point. As Certifiers and Measurers we walk a fine line. A Certifier's responsibility is to promote course measurement by assisting and training new measurers.
Certifers are to be of service. Therefore the $30.00 maximum review fee.
As a measurer in our own right we want to aid the sport but at financial gain.
I am frequently asked to certify a course for some race, usually in Indiana. Living in Ohio the cost of having me come to measure a race is noteworthy. My standard answer to these requests is that I can measure but they can also measure their course for themselves. My assistance as Certifier is ALWAYS available and I am more than willing to help them throught the measurement process. This is how to groom new measurers.
Then if they prefer to contract with someone, I will explain that a local measurer would be the easiest way to get the course measured and certified. I will then refer them to someone local who has shown acceptable work.
I never thought of taking on the job and then contracting with a local measurer.Even if a Certifier were to subcontract the measurement, the certifier would most certainly NOT be the Person in Charge of Measurement. That person should be the person in charge of the actual measurement of the course. ie: the person ON the bike.
A few years back this type of situation occured. The Certiifer was not a State or Regional certifer but a FS measurer.
This certifier contracted to certify races, then contracted with a measurer to do the measurement, map, and paperwork. Pete Riegel was the RRTC Chairman at the time and ruled that to be listed as Measurer on the Measuremnt Certificate you HAD to have physically taken part in the measurement of the course.
As for contracting with a measurer outside of any Certifier's region, as a contractor for a race OK, but then creating the Measurement Certificate would not be appropriate. Certifiers are assigned regions of responsibility. To review work of a measurer outside of a certifier's region sets a bad precedent. First it steps on the toes of the Certifier who should be reviewing the measurement. Next it sets up an opportunity to pick a favored Certifier rather than deal with that regions assigned Certifier.
From time to time I step in for Pete when he is away to London and I have even certified a calibration course out of my region but that course was for a race course IN my region. Just across the state line.
The point is that as a one time situation exceptions can be made. For a Certifier to be acting as a middleman and then listing themself as Measurer would appear to be a misuse of the privelege and responsibility of being a USATF Regional Certifier

It seems that there is some misuse of terms, and possibly misunderstanding of the situation, as it involves me.

I am acting as a measurer when my clients ask me to manage the measurement of a course, not a certifier. If I can travel, I do it. If I can't travel, I get a local to do the measurement. That person is listed on the cert, and the paperwork, as the measurer, and also "person in charge". My name is nowhere on the measurement paperwork.

The measurer does his job, I create the map, and I fill in his descriptions of split locations. I also send the map to him to confirm accuracy.

I have written the certs, as I reviewed his paperwork for accuracy and methodology. I have been informed I can no longer do this when it is not my assigned state, which is fine. I will continue to make sure all is in order, but the measurer will send the paperwork and the map to the local certifier.

For the record, when anyone (local or distant) calls me for a measurement, I don't ask them whether they found me as a certifier or through my own Website as a measurer. I always tell them they can measure themselves, and that I will guide them if they want. Very few want to even look into doing it themselves. I also let them know about other local measurers available through the USATF site. All my distant work is done for previous clients, who had me measure in Colorado, so it was an existing relationship.

I just want everyone analyzing the situation to know the facts. I perform my certifier responsibilities properly, even when it costs me the measurement when someone contacts me through my business, not the USATF site. I have not solicited distant measurements, period. When someone distant contacts me through my business site, I let them know they can use a local measurer. I only sub-contract when they say they want all of the RaceMeasure product.

I will never be a big, national measurer. But, as for the concern that someone is making a bigger business of this beyond a few local measurements, I think this is irrelevant. Doctors provide a service, but when the first group of them banded together for a common office, I am sure people thought they were "too commercial". After all, doctors are supposed to be docs because they want to help people, not be in it for the cash, right???

Anyone can do what I am doing, if they wish. I certainly have no corner on the market for ancillary benefits of using RaceMeasure to measure a course, but I do have clients that don't want to use anyone else. Does that make me a bad person, or make sub-contracting unethical? I don't think so. I think it demonstrates a free market. Do we want to be parochial in our measurement territories? That is not my cup of tea.