Oh Absolutly, I agree
completly with this. I was thinking primairily of the scheduling of rides within
a region. But your outline is rite on. The entire sanctioning process is
out of date. Annie
This
is more than one individual should be responsible for. The regional
sanctioning director or appointee should be part of the process, but not the
sole judge.
Steph
-----Original Message----- From:
ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Annie
George Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 7:54 AM To:
AERC LIST Cc: ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re:Re:
[RC] Sanctioning issues
Steph, Exactly. As AERC
grows the things that worked well when we were small and spread thinly over
the regions, simply do not work now. Rides, spaced fairly, and
competition of rides ( I don't mean close on the same days) is a
good thing for the members. It consistently improves the quality of the
overall ride experience. On trail and in camp. Thus better
guaranteeing that the riders are getting what they want and what the rules
call for. Along with the RM's making a little money and the ride fees not
going out of site. All of which is plenty of reason to have a
board appointed SD that is NOT an RM or RD. I am sure that any
BOD/RM/RD/SD person, that has the best interest of the sport ahead of
their personal gains would be strongly in favor of these
changes. Anne George
Anne - I generally agree with you. As a previous sanctioning
director, and as a ride manager, I have always felt that the person who 1)
has the authority to grant a ride manager the permission to hold a
ride and 2) should be diligent in judging the merits of a
ride -i.e. does it meet AERC standards? and 3) has the very difficult
task of scheduling rides fairly - should not be an elected
individual. This should be primarily
an administrative task, not a political one.
The USEF (was AHSA/USAEq/USET) while it also has it's problems and
issues - is a reasonable model . It has an elected Board of Directors to
govern the organization, but no elected member of the Board has complete
power and authority over deciding which events will take place. There is
an administrative contact that you send your application to, and the final
ride request is reviewed and approved by a committee. Admittedly there are
problems with this system too, but I believe it is ultimately more fair.
AERC is more regionally oriented than USEF, and has more Endurance
events, and therefore geography/demography is very critical when
scheduling rides. Each region is different and the process needs regional
input, but not total regional control. There are too many other
(National/AERC) sanctioning issues to be considered.
I think the current sanctioning system that AERC uses is
becoming less appropriate as the sport grows.
Steph
-----Original Message----- From:
ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Annie
George Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 6:15
AM To: ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [RC] SW
Sanctioning conflict
As a SW
member, I think a reasonable solution to the problem of conflict of
interest in sanctioning, among other things, would be that the
sanctioning director NOT be a regional director OR a ride
manager. I think there would be plennty of perfectly capable, qualified
and knowing willing people that would do the sanctioning job that
did not want to be either a regional director or ride manager. Thus an
end to the conflict. And an effective end to anyone person having
even the appearance of to much influence or power. I see no
reason why this could not be quickly and effectively instituted if
the majority of the BOD is indeed interested in fairness. I have
long be concerned with some of the direction of AERC and this is one
problem that could easily be solved. Anne
George
