Post by schlager7 on Oct 27, 2005 8:45:39 GMT -6
As a reference: The Bay Cup is the model for the Houston Cup. Our division, and all the others, answer to the USFA. While the excerpts below detail USFA issues with the Bay Cup it is not intended as a parallel to our Houston Cup, rather as a look at the results of the USFA taking a detailed look at a situation or division(s).
The following excerpts come from a page on the Bay Cup website. The entire piece is here: www.thebaycup.org/MAIN/a_message_from_the_chairs_of_the.htm
I think many from my division (especially those who were at the July meeting with Mr. Alperstein & Ms. Baumgart) will hear echos of past and current issues. In many places you can insert a number of procedures we developed in the places where the document read "Bay Cup.":
Elipses will mark the breaks.
On September 28, USFA Executive Director Michael Massik and USFA General Counsel Donald Alperstein arranged and participated in a conference call with the three division chairs, as well as Buzz Hurst, USFA Divisions and Sections Committee Chair, to discuss the consequences, for both Bay Cup and the three divisions, of Mr. Dew’s suspension. In the course of the discussion, in order to get answers about what Mr. Dew was and was not allowed to do, we had to explain what Bay Cup was, what Mr. Dew’s role with Bay Cup was, and how Bay Cup has been managed over the past several years. As the discussion progressed, we chairs were told in no uncertain terms that we had been derelict in allowing Bay Cup as much independence as it had had over the past several years, and that in order for Bay Cup events to be sanctioned (that is, covered by USFA liability insurance and able to award new classifications), Bay Cup governance had to be clearly subordinate to the divisions.
Specifically, we were told that:
-- an independent bank account with access by only one non-elected individual was improper.
-- classification changes must be submitted through the division where the event is held and not through any independent entity.
-- the division is the basic unit of USFA administration; while divisions may choose to cooperate in scheduling events open to USFA members, there is no provision for any independent entity to run sanctioned events outside the divisional/sectional structure. While there is nothing to prevent a private entity from organizing and running tournaments, those events would be private, unsanctioned events not covered by USFA liability insurance and unable to award ratings...
...it is clear from our discussions with Michael Massik and Donald Alperstein that we cannot simply return to the same structure and administration for Bay Cup...
...the USFA was unaware of how Bay Cup was structured and run. Now that USFA has taken notice, we must change Bay Cup's structure to conform with current USFA rules...
There is, at least, a kind of comfort in knowing our situation was not all that unique.
The following excerpts come from a page on the Bay Cup website. The entire piece is here: www.thebaycup.org/MAIN/a_message_from_the_chairs_of_the.htm
I think many from my division (especially those who were at the July meeting with Mr. Alperstein & Ms. Baumgart) will hear echos of past and current issues. In many places you can insert a number of procedures we developed in the places where the document read "Bay Cup.":
Elipses will mark the breaks.
On September 28, USFA Executive Director Michael Massik and USFA General Counsel Donald Alperstein arranged and participated in a conference call with the three division chairs, as well as Buzz Hurst, USFA Divisions and Sections Committee Chair, to discuss the consequences, for both Bay Cup and the three divisions, of Mr. Dew’s suspension. In the course of the discussion, in order to get answers about what Mr. Dew was and was not allowed to do, we had to explain what Bay Cup was, what Mr. Dew’s role with Bay Cup was, and how Bay Cup has been managed over the past several years. As the discussion progressed, we chairs were told in no uncertain terms that we had been derelict in allowing Bay Cup as much independence as it had had over the past several years, and that in order for Bay Cup events to be sanctioned (that is, covered by USFA liability insurance and able to award new classifications), Bay Cup governance had to be clearly subordinate to the divisions.
Specifically, we were told that:
-- an independent bank account with access by only one non-elected individual was improper.
-- classification changes must be submitted through the division where the event is held and not through any independent entity.
-- the division is the basic unit of USFA administration; while divisions may choose to cooperate in scheduling events open to USFA members, there is no provision for any independent entity to run sanctioned events outside the divisional/sectional structure. While there is nothing to prevent a private entity from organizing and running tournaments, those events would be private, unsanctioned events not covered by USFA liability insurance and unable to award ratings...
...it is clear from our discussions with Michael Massik and Donald Alperstein that we cannot simply return to the same structure and administration for Bay Cup...
...the USFA was unaware of how Bay Cup was structured and run. Now that USFA has taken notice, we must change Bay Cup's structure to conform with current USFA rules...
There is, at least, a kind of comfort in knowing our situation was not all that unique.