US SAILING JUDGES COMMITTEE
Annual Meeting - October 12, 2000
Hotel Monteleone, New Orleans, Louisiana

Open Session - Thursday, October 12, 2000

[Minutes approved in Charlotte, March 24, 2001]

Except as noted by an asterisk (*) below, all members of the Judges Committee and Lacey Howe (US SAILING Race Administration Director) were present:

Mr. Capron called the meeting to order shortly after 0930, welcomed approximately 15 observers and introduced the members of the Committee.

The minutes of the meetings (open and closed sessions) in Chicago on March 25, 2000, and the teleconference on August 15, 2000 were approved as distributed.

The committee honored the memory of Gay Lynn who recently passed away with a moment of silence.

UMPIRES PROGRAM

Ward proposed several revisions to the Umpire's Certification process. The revisions were distributed to the committee. Ward described two main concerns that the revisions were intended to address: first, that the quality of on-water training and experience prior to certification be improved, and second that the overall training process be easier to accomplish.

The key revisions are: (a) to increase the on-water experience requirement to a total of 5 events (2 of them "major" events); (b) to include in the on-water experience, assessment forms to be filled out by at least 6 certified umpires evaluating the skills demonstrated by the student umpire; and (c) to allow umpire workshops and tests to be conducted independently of on-water training.

Savage asked about the time period required to accumulate the on-water experience. After some discussion it was decided that 4 years be the time period both for accumulating experience and for taking the seminar and passing the test.

There was discussion about what constituted a "major" event. Ward was reluctant to have a fixed list of perennial "major" events since the quality of competition varied considerably from year to year at many events. Concern was raised and noted that events should not be retroactively downgraded as being a major event.

Capron mentioned the success at the Prince of Wales in Annapolis to having the student umpires work as a 3rd umpire with 2 certified umpires. He asked Ward to write up that system in order to encourage it to be used regularly. Coppleson suggested that the final wording encourage clubs hosting umpire events to make provisions to encourage a few non-certified umpires to obtain experience.

Capron said that the on-water assessment forms have been introduced at the women's Grade 1 event, Thompson Cup, and the forms distributed at this meeting reflected improvements as a result of that experience.

Chuck Kober suggested that responsibility for teaching the umpire seminar at the Prince of Wales should be separated from the organization of the POW event itself.

Ward listed the members of the Umpire Subcommittee as including himself, Tuna Wullschleger, Steve Shepstone, Kirk Brown and Ted Everingham.

Dave Neal asked about term limits on the Umpires subcommittee. After some discussion it was recommended and approved that these terms have the same restrictions as those for RAJ, 2 terms of 3 years each. The JC has the power to grant an extension. Ward indicated that he felt formally staggering the terms was not necessary as it would likely occur naturally anyway.

There was some addition discussion and clarification about who is eligible to teach an Umpire's Seminar. The Umpire's Subcommittee will approve all instructors for Umpire's Seminars.

RAMIFICATIONS OF ACTION AGAINST ALBATROSS YACHT CLUB

Terry Harper joined the meeting briefly to address concerns from the JC about the Notice of Action concerning Albatross Yacht Club (AYC).

Capron described the committee's concerns as primarily oriented towards the extent of the ban of US SAILING officials officiating at AYC events.

Harper replied that that Action was intended to be very specific and ban US SAILING officials only from working events hosted by AYC. It did not extend to events where a host club was not a member club of US SAILING.

After some discussion it was determined, that while Lacey Howe had sent an email to all judges containing the Notice of Action, that many judges, including several RAJ, and not received the email.

Savage expressed concern that the ban essentially denied sailors at AYC events from their right to appeal as that would involve US SAILING officials. She maintained that since sailing is a self-enforcing sport, this right to appeal was a very fundamental part of the sport and should not be denied to any sailors, regardless of actions of the host club.

Harper briefly explained the main concept of the Ted Stevens Amateur Athletic Act, that it requires sports running amateur events to provide equal opportunity to participate to amateur athletes. The full text of the Ted Stevens Act was reported to be available on the US Olympic Committee's website (www.usoc.org).

Ward asked Harper how the Ted Stevens Act applies to events such as a private yacht club that hosts a members-only event. Harper's reply was that as long as the event was listed as members-only in the Notice of Race and that all members were welcome to enter, then it should be allowable.

Ward then asked about invitational events. Terry replied more generally that the Notice of Race should clearly state the eligibility requirements for an event, and that the club that honors those requirements should be okay.

Capron then brought the discussion back to the central issue of penalties to US SAILING officials that violate the ban to officiate at AYC events. Harper replied that the Notice of Action specifically did not address that issue, but that the JC should be ready to deal with the issue if it occurs.

Harper also said that the Racing Rules Committee had been asked to prepare a US SAILING prescription to rule 76.1 to ensure that clubs are aware of their obligations under the Ted Stevens Act.

After some discussion it was agreed that Mary Savage and Art Engel from the Rules Committees would work with Neal and Ault to draft a memo requesting written clarification of the role of US SAILING officials in appeals related to the AYC affair and to specifically obtain permission to go ahead with the processing of the appeals, and to obtain guidance for dealing with judges that violate the ban.

JUDGES PROGRAM

Lacy Howe reported on the overall status of Judges Training Workshops and Testing. Overall since the inception of the Workshops, 421 people have attended a workshop, of those 318 passed the first time, 34 passed the second time, and 69 had failed once or more.

Overall, the number of active judges declined in 2000 for the second year in a row with 29 judges retiring or deceased and only 15 new judges being certified.

Lacey also reported that the stock of Judges Manual was getting low but that this was well timed with a new rules cycle coming up.

The current budget for the JC includes $1K for work improving the Umpires Program and $2K for improved web services.

Stephen Jeffries asked if there was a published list of approved workshop instructors. The answer was no, but there is a requirement that instructors be Senior Judges who had already attended a workshop and passed the test and were approved by the RAJ to teach a workshop. There was some discussion about whether or not to require a specific certification to teach a workshop, but the conclusion was the current system was working and no change was necessary.

There was some discussion about Judges whose terms are expiring in December but have not yet completed a Workshop and passed the test. While there was sympathy for a few cases that involved extraordinary circumstances, the consensus was that judges have all had sufficient time to complete the required Workshop and Test and that those not having done so would be dropped as Certified Judges on January 1st. If conditions merit it, lapsed judges who complete the workshop and test early in 2001 may request that the JC reinstate them without having to complete a full new application. (Note: there was further discussion of this in closed session, with the recommendation that 60 days was ample grace period to request re-instatement without a new application)

Dellenbaugh announced that there would be an ISAF International Judges seminar and test in Annapolis, Maryland on December 9-10. Savage proposed that since the IJ seminar and test covered much of the same material and the IJ test was a more difficult test to pass that it should be an approved substitute for taking the US workshop and test.

After a discussion it was motioned and approved that the taking IJ seminar is an allowable substitute for the US seminar, and that the passing the IJ test was an allowable substitute for passing the US judges test.

RAJ Survey Form

Capron passed out forms for each RAJ to validate their contact and email information and describe needs in their areas. Each RAJ was asked to complete the form and turn it in at the closed session.

Judges Manual

The Judges Manual is due for revisions. In addition to the need to update it for upcoming rules changes, Capron indicated that he felt the sections on rule 69 guidance and rule 42 needed to be expanded. He cited the likelihood that on-water judging of rule 42 violations was going to become much more common and with it came an increased need to provide good guidance in the Judges Manual. Also the final section could use improvement.

When the new rules to go into effect on April 1, 2001, and new rule books hitting the streets around March 1st, that same time period should be the target for completing the Judges Manual revisions.

There was discussion and general agreement that the new rule book should be "coil bound" and made smaller (the size the Royal and the Canadian Yachting Associations' rules books were recommended.

There was also discussion about a recent trend in arbitration processes. On occasion, competitors who have presented one set of circumstances in the arbitration hearing and then dramatically changed their testimony for the full hearing. There was discussion about the pros and cons of amending the arbitration process to allow the arbitrator to be called in as a witness on the full protesting hearing. In general, it was decided that this was an unusual circumstance that could be further minimized by a careful arbitrator who kept their comments to a minimum during the arbitration hearing.

Web site

Discussion moved on to the Judge Committee Website and how it could be improved. A quick show of hands indicated that not all RAJs were aware that there was a facility for quickly obtaining a set of email address of judges by region or level.

Not all RAJs had the opportunity to evaluate the Judges Forum software that is available. In discussing this forum it was agreed that Grosvenor should put a link to the forum on the full judges page (essentially releasing it to the general public). And that a disclaimer should be put in the forum that the opinions expressed in this forum were personal opinions only and that only valid protest hearings and appeals could provide official rule interpretations.

The development of an online submission and query capability for judges' annual reports was briefly discussed and generally hailed as a good idea. Grosvenor was given the action to work with Chris Luppens of Race Management Committee's Web Liaison, Ken Signorello (US SAILING webmaster), and Lacey Howe to discuss and implement a prototype joint submission form with Race Management.

The meeting adjourned at 1202.

Sandy Grosvenor, Secretary