January 2012 Technical Director Update

Happy New Year everyone! The quadrennial years are always so exciting, what with the Olympics, leap year, and presidential elections. This will be a busy and exciting year for everyone involved with USA Cycling. So, let’s get to it…

Officials Clothing Program

The sale item for January will be the long-sleeve dress shirts shown here:

These will be offered at the monthly discount rate of 15% by using the code OFFICIAL12JAN Please see the link to our clothing store.

Rulebooks

The rulebooks are done, both online and printed. It is time to send out to officials who have renewed their licenses, so if you have not done so already, please renew now. In about a week, I will pull the database and send to our mail house for shipping. If you have renewed by then, you will be in our initial mailing.

Motoref MVR process

The motoref renewal process has not changed any. Anyone with a motoref C,B, or A certification will need to complete the MVR process before their license will be active. This WILL generate a pend in the system, and only I can unpend it, after I hear from NCSI that you have a green light. Attached to this email is the instruction sheet for how to access the NCSI system for the 2012 motoref program.

One thing – please make sure you have renewed your license online prior to NCSI finishing their report. When I get a report from NCSI, I go to your account to remove the pend. If you have not yet renewed, there is no pend to remove. At that point, there is nothing I can do with the green light NCSI just gave you and, unfortunately, I don’t really have the time to check every day to see if green lighted officials have finally attempted to renew. Your license will definitely be active and in your hands much faster if you renew the license and then do the NCSI. Thanks.

Officials Assignments

We have finished the initial rounds of national-level officials’ assignments, and there were many changes this year. In the first round of assignments, the National Technical Commission (NTC) assigned all of the positions for the UCI races and most of the positions for the National Championships. For the NRC races, the NTC assigned the Chief Referee and Chief Judge, and then the Regional Technical Commissions (RTC) assigned other positions, followed by the local associations filling out the crews.

We have published a new Policy IV that describes how many officials should be assigned for different types of races, who makes those assignments, and what rank the officials should be. This will be an evolutionary process for this coming year, and changes will be inevitable as we move forward.

This policy also describes some of the philosophy of how officials should be assigned. These include the following concepts:

• Significant variation from the assignment table will need to be approved by the next higher authority. For example, if the table says that a given race type should have 5 officials, and the RTC wants to assign 12, then that decision will need to be looked at by the NTC prior to establishing the crew. There may be very good reasons for the difference (or perhaps not). The goal here is to make sure the correct number of officials of the correct rank are assigned to provide the level of expertise needed to properly run the race. Another goal is to protect the race director from being gouged by too big a crew when it is unnecessary. The policy will give substance for complaints either way. If a race director is trying to run a five day stage race for multiple categories with two officials, the table will provide ammo to the LA officials’ assignor for why more are being assigned. It will give the race director ammo when they want to complain about 12 officials for a cyclo-cross event with a grand total of 96 participants.
   
• For races where the local association (LA) is assigning the crew, officials should be assigned from within the LA. Thus, we would not expect to see officials flying from the east coast to work a level C event on the west coast. Any variation from that would need to be looked at by the RTC and Regional Coordinator to make sure a variance is appropriate. Again, there may be good reasons for doing so. However, historically the reason has just as often been based on a buddy buddy system where the body making the assignment really just wants to get a group of friends together and somehow convinces the race director this is a good idea. As we work to stimulate the officials program and provide opportunities for experience and advancement, these inappropriate officials’ assignments will be looked at with greater scrutiny.


• Almost any race type has the potential to have extra officials assigned as apprentices. These officials will incur no cost to the race organization, but they might receive some form of compensation from the LA, the RTC, or even the NTC in the form of reimbursement as part of the mentoring program. Beginning in 2012, new officials will be expected to work as apprentices at three events prior to being put on the official crew. However, the three mentored experiences do count for their B upgrade if they accomplish various tasks on the B modules. The point here is to give new officials some mentored experience their first time out, rather than just throwing them to the wolves. It will do little good to assign three new officials to a race as the only members of the crew, not pay them, and then say, “there, you had your three apprentice positions.” The idea is that a regular crew should be established, and then new officials should also be on the crew learning from their more experienced colleagues. In that situation, it would be the LA that decides if the official assigned is there as an apprentice or as active crew.

Nepotism/Patronage

Finally, another topic that is very current and has been a problem for some time is how to navigate the uncertain waters of assigning officials who are relatives (read – nepotism), although this applies equally well to close groups of friends (patronage). It is a tricky thing for all concerned, and often the appearances are worse than the reality, but you know the old adage about perceptions. There are certainly times when it is appropriate for family members to be on the same crew. For example, as we sit in the ivory tower in Colorado Springs making national-level assignments, and we decide that Bill (a motoref) and Mary (a judge), a couple who live in Palo Alto, CA, would be excellent choices for the Amgen Tour of California, and we make that assignment, then there is nothing wrong with that. We have two qualified officials, one car ride, shared hotel room. Everybody wins.

Let’s look at another scenario. We have assigned John from Portland to be the time board driver. We have assigned Sally from Salt Lake to carry the time board. Now, John’s wife Ophelia also occasionally carries a time board. She calls up the Race Director and points out that if SHE were assigned to carry the time board, then it would be cheaper for the organization since she and John would travel together, cutting costs, and they would share a hotel room. Ophelia just made the very inappropriate suggestion to fire Sally and use herself, trying to get her and John to the same event. That is one face of nepotism, albeit a rather extreme one. However, we have seen this scenario attempted in the last few years.

Let’s look at another scenario. Jorge is assigned to be the CR of an event. He asks the LA officials’ assigner about the crew and is given several names. He then tells the assignor that he feels the crew is a little light or a little weak in the judging department, or perhaps that the table suggests that a level A official should be Chief Judge, but the person on the list is a level B. He points out that his wife is a level A, and wouldn’t she be a better choice for Chief Judge? Jorge gets mixed reviews for this one. He was okay noticing that the CJ did not have the rank required by the table, but he was way out of line suggesting his wife get the spot. That is the other face of nepotism. The problem is that he may be right. His wife may be an excellent judge, and perhaps the best judge available, and there may be many good reasons why his wife should be assigned. Unfortunately, making the suggestion and trying to influence a decision in favor of a spouse crosses a line that can do more damage than the good that would come from the assignment.

In general, anyone with any influence on officials’ assignments should never attempt to get a family member on the same crew. To some extent this could even apply to groups of well known close friends, as the same concept applies. The UCI has a code of ethics for commissaires that prohibits bringing a spouse to a race or asking the race director for favors. To do so exerts an influence on the race director. There is a real and perceived power difference. The race directors get a report from the commissaire. This report may influence whether that race gets to move up, stay the same, or be downgraded next year. To ask the favor carries an implied threat of retaliation if the favor is not granted. It is essentially a type of harassment. The official making the suggestion can clearly have the best intentions and perhaps we even know that no pressure or implied threat was meant, but again the appearance is there and what the CR making the suggestion intended may not be what the race director understood or felt.

In some cases, this relationship is the opposite. In areas where the race directors have been allowed to choose their own crews, then the power difference leaves the race director with the stronger hand. Then we see just the reverse situation. An official who wants to be invited next year, and get paid, cannot afford to annoy the race director, so he gives a glowing report to a weak race. That is one of the reasons that we try to avoid having the same Chief Referee year after year for national-level assignments. It helps keep such conflicted relationships from developing. I have had to have this conversation with many race directors. They will argue that, “if it aint broke, don’t fix it.” We understand that feeling. If I were a race director, I might want to keep the same crew and CR that I am comfortable with too. However, there is a flip side to that and eventually it is better for everyone if stable cliques are broken up, as everyone needs fresh perspectives from time to time. Also, it would be better if the race director does not get to pick the crew anyway. That should come from a more established assigning authority, such as the LA, the RTC, or the NTC.

Also, in general, any official who asks or lobbies to get a family member assigned is making a huge mistake. The same can be said of the Chief Referee who lobbies to have a race use the photofinish and timing company run by his close friend. These practices will also be scrutinized a lot this year as we work through a new process for officials assignments. Again, there are times where it makes sense for family members and couples to work the same race, but at the national level, it will be looked at carefully in 2012. In many cases, whether it was appropriate is based on how we got to that situation as much as the situation itself. For example:

• NTC or RTC assigns a couple to an event with no intercession of the officials – Good
   
• CR requests his or her spouse be assigned – Bad (always)
   
• Race Director asks the CR if his wife is willing to work too, in order to save gas and housing. Hmm. If that is really how it happened, not inherently bad, but if I am the CR, it would make me very nervous. People may not believe that is how it went down. Plus, the excuse, “the race director really wanted my spouse there” has been used for decades, and is second only to, “the check’s in the mail” Be careful. Be very careful before setting yourself up for that type of criticism. It might be the right call. It might not. It depends on what the other options were and how many qualified people are going to not get that assignment because the spouse did.

Speaking very candidly here, many of us always have a balancing act to do between family and this vocation we call officiating. If I accept an assignment to the AToC, I am burning a week of vacation time away from my family, ultimately depriving them of a week I could be with them some other time. If my spouse were a cycling official, I would be thrilled if she could come along to the races I am assigned to. That way I don’t have to decide between family and cycling. The problem comes with how I might get to that situation. I think the only safe way would be for me to just let the assigning authorities know that my wife is available for the same races and let them decide. If the LA has an assignment grid that we fill out, we can make sure we say we are available on the same days. Someone else then decides. The same is true at the national level. We know who the officiating couples are. Sometimes we assign them to the same races, and sometimes not for whatever reasons. Couples that refuse to ever work apart don’t get as many assignments as those that work independently. Sometimes package deals just don’t work. Also, sometimes there are significant differences in talent between the two officials who want to work together, and on occasion the superior official has seen his or her career hampered by continued attempts to drag the inferior spouse along to races. Quite often we hear from race directors, “we really want Diane Smith here, but not if it means we have to have Richard Smith here.”

Professional Officials Association

As we have been working on the components of the professional officials association, we are drafting a document that outlines all of the administrative details of the officials program. I will be attaching a draft of this document for your convenience in the February TD update. The document will outline most of the aspects of the new officials programs including:
 

That is it for this one. Remember to renew your licenses. If you live in a cold zone, enjoy the skiing. If you live in a warm zone, you probably are already enjoying the 2012 season.

Shawn Farrell
Technical Director
sfarrell@usacycling.org