Again, I am merely the messenger!

I do agree with Will, Sean, John and for that matter all of you! There are many reasons that may have caused a person to leave the meeting early.

While coaching passes was on the agenda, the reduction was a motion from the floor. I believe it was spawned by a question about whether we (the State Body) had a quorum to approve the constitutional changes. After reflecting on that sad state of affairs, the subsequent motion to reduce the passes was made.

This was not a motion made by the Executive board but a motion made by a club leader. While a few board members supported the motion it was far from a consensus.

Yes, there are a ton of great volunteers that dedicate a ton of hours to the benefit of our kids.

I recall a mandate this past Summer, that after re-thinking was changed. If you feel strongly about this issue, contact your club leader, your Sub director, etc. and let your voice be heard.

Well put Randy. I have already put an email into my District Director. I hope everyone else does the same. I really believe that this deserves a re-think.

Tom Heald
Spring Hill Wrestling Club
_________________________________

The state has to have this meeting annually for it to remain a nonprofit 501-3 organization. The intent is to have all clubs represented once a year to have ideas share, voiced, and voted on. All club directors and coaches take this and the district meetings as an added responsibility on when they get into this -so they can be heard from and act as the representative of their club.

Sean McCarthy
STA Kids Club

It has been my opinion for some time that the important decisions are made at the executive board level anyway, thus denying the body a chance to vote on them.

While I did NOT vote in favor of the motion as it was presented, I agree with Sean on this. Last year I had a conflict that I knew could pull me away from the meeting early. I coach youth football and the team I was coaching had reached the league championship to be played on Sunday afternoon. Knowing that I had a responsibility to be in two places at once led me to ask for help from another coach on our team. We both traveled to Salina on Sunday morning and when I had to leave my club was still represented. The Executive Board has tried to get the point made several times; our annual meeting is important. When the business of USAWA-KS is conducted we need a quorum of member clubs in the room. This is a typical example of why that is necessary; not only for our organization but at the individual club level as well. If more clubs would have stuck around the motion may have failed. This was a very close vote; I can’t remember the exact count but I think less than 10 votes would have turned the tide and we wouldn’t even be discussing this issue at all. However, the motion did carry and we all have to live with the decision that was made…whether we voted for it or not.

In my mind, the example of overturning a “Board” decision that Randy talks about in his last post was a very different situation. That decision was made by a few elected representatives; who after talking with their constituents reversed their previous judgment. This particular issue was presented to the “State Body” at large and it carried by a majority vote of those present. Whether you agree with the decision or not, I think that under the circumstance it would be wrong for the “Board” to reverse a decision made by the “State Body”. That would set a very, very bad precedent. Our leadership needs to be reasonable and measured in our approach. But we also need to be decisive after a decision is made. …especially if that decision was made by the “State Body”.

BTW... I did offer an amendment to the motion which would have allowed those punished by this vote to buy back the pass that they lost. That amendment was not seconded by anyone on the floor and thus was not voted on by our body. I thought this would have been a reasonable compromise. However, those in the room appeared to be either strongly for or strongly against the original motion and were not in the mood to compromise.

Ah but we were told we don't need a quorum "in the room" but simply a quorum that had been checked in at the beginning of the day. A decision I disagree with and I think sets a bad precedent. I know that is the way business has always been conducted in the past but that doesn't make it right or constitutional IMO. Under this system we could all check in and leave directly and the business would still get done.

...you are correct. As interpreted from our constitution, a quorum is established at the beginning of the meeting. I apologize if my comments above were misleading. Those who leave are counted as abstentions to any vote after their departure. Your point only puts a heavier emphasis on the importance and responsibility of being present in order to represent your constituents.

Per the constitution, the Executive Council may NOT overrule a decision by the State Body.

I agree that clubs should have had a representative that could stay the whole meeting. I also understand the importance of a quorum. The issue that made their decision unreasonable was to penalize these clubs on the fly. The rules were clear before the meeting and then changed after the clubs that had to leave had fulfilled their requirements. Those clubs that made the trip and stayed 3 hours or longer should not receive the same penalty as the guy who blew the meeting off altogether. The correct way to go about this would have been to vote in this requirement for next year, so that all clubs could plan accordingly.

I won't argue the decision to penalize the clubs that left early because to be honest I have mixed feelings about it. But lets be honest here, out of the approximate 50% of the clubs who left early how many do you suppose had an acceptable reason for doing so? Ten percent? I don't know, but I would guess it would be less than half of them.

Chief,

For the sake of clarity, it is my understanding that those clubs that did not show up at all will lose “2” coaches passes…this is the same as it has been in the past. The motion that passed this year only took “1” pass away from those clubs that signed in but were not present at a roll-call taken at the end of the business session.

Mark

Mark,

The rule in place gives each club two passes for the first 5 wrestlers. If they didn't show, they lost one pass. This same penalty was imposed on the clubs that did show but left early.

Sorry...I stand corrected.

To add another point of clarity to this topic.....

Before the vote was made to take away coaches passes (a negative form of punishiment) there was an amendment to give the clubs that had stayed a third pass and let the clubs that left early keep two passes. The idea behind this motion was to reward the clubs that had stayed without punishing the clubs that signed in and left. I personally thought this was the fairest option.

The state body voted on this and this idea was defeated by 1 vote.

I pass this on so that everyone understands that there was a lot of discussion and some additional ideas discussed prior to the voting on the measure that was passed.

Also, please do not hold Randy responsible in any way shape or form for this. As stated earlier he is just the messenger that posted the decision on this forum.

Shawn Budke

I think it's tthe kids being punished here not the coaches. A lot of kids have had a certain coach with them all year, thats who they feel comfortable with. To take away passes after the fact is crazy. This rule should be implkemented for next year. I am so glad my son is almost done with kids wrestling, the leadership is getting petty and imposing stupid rules to show their authority, get a life it's for the kids not a bunch of pumped up adults who think their special because they donate their time. hell we all donate time and money to this sport. get a clue

Why not handle the coaches passes just like every other tournament? If you are a coach, you get a pass. It worked all year long. Pretty simple. So now we are going to force clubs to start swapping out passes so they can get on the floor to coach a kid. Find another way to punish us radicals that left early from the meeting. Changing the rules mid-stream doesn't seem right. As I said before, a precidence was set in previous years when the sign in sheet was used as role call.

It would appear that no matter what is discussed here, nothing will change since it was approved from the floor of the state meeting. I hope all that voted in favor of this feel good about it. In the end, the kids will suffer.

Tom Heald

I agree with Chief Renegade
But when Randy uses the word MAY it makes it look like the board can pick and choose which clubs will get the pass taken away and which ones will not lose them. Its all in the wording.
A good lawer would have a field day with this in just the wording alone.

What is the exact wording of the new rule. Why doesn't someone from our state leadership address this issue? It seems to me that every year our leadership tries to be more and more restrictive when it comes to state passes. They say they want the sport to grow but with the ridiculous restrictions and rules that get implemented every year it just drives people away. I would love to stay in the sport and coach 5-10 more years but frankly I am tired of all the BS, Not every team that left early will be penalized if you are a good old boy and are freinds with Ned, Leanna or any other of the powers that be you will be given all the passes you ask for, for the rest of us we will be punished and lose a pass. I think it's crazy

Randy,

I will be the first to apologize for this misdirected criticism, you are an assest to USA wrestling at the national and especially the state level, and for that I thank you! Keep up the good work, and keep us informed.

The "leadership" did not make this rule or even the make the motion on this issue. Your peers that sat next to you and saw you leave made the motion, disscussed the issue, tried to ammend the motion, discussed the issue some more, and voted. In effect, your lack of voting on this issue has created the problem.

I am on the Executive Board and do not have a vote at this meeting. Most every issue we deal with at the Executive level must be passed by you at this once a year meeting.

I understand you are upset, but I feel you are directing your anger and discontent toward the wrong people. The leadership does not magically appear, they are voted on in a parlimentarian matter.

Many of the points and suggestions made on this site make sense, if only they would have been heard in a meeting by those who can vote and support your views, like the State Body Meeting.