Need I post another off-point image to derail this debate again??

Who is better equipped to process upgrade and grant requests: a leo, a taurus or an aquarius?

The election process was far less absurd when it was just me and Mikey wrestling in the mud.

I'd love to hang out and be witty, but Tad has assigned us three essays for homework.

BTW:
(I'm a Leo, if that helps.)

At the track, an official is an excellent choice for the person evaluating upgrade requests because they can see so much of a rider's racing behavior, and that is exactly what we have for track upgrades.

But on the road, an official sees hardly any of a rider's behavior. A coach and/or current racer sees much more than an official. But this is a moot point because the guidelines won't include an allowance for the upgrade person to evaluate a rider's behavior in races.

I think it would be useful if the NCNCA guidelines required that each upgrade request included a letter of recommendation from a rider in a higher category who knows that racer well, or a similar letter from the rider's coach. This requirement won't have any affect in many cases, but for requests that are barely qualified on points it might cause some riders to get a bit of useful advice about racing skill and behavior improvement prior to submitting their upgrade request.

Well, then referencing upgrades only. Wouldn't someone with coaching or even mentoring experience be just as qualified as an official to give feedback to riders, perhaps even more so? Don't get me wrong, officiating is invaluable to racing yet coaches and mentors are charged with developing skills in riders. I would assume a coach to be more qualified than an official to provide skills feedback.

The comment about being a race official was directed to the upgrade process, not grants.

== Eric

Eric,

I believe the NCNCA board should approve the rules used locally for upgrades based on the USAC rules as a guideline. USAC rules should not be a pass-through. The resulting local upgrade rules/guidelines should be objective and not open to interpretation. Discretion should have no part in the upgrade process or else there would be charges of bias and unfairness and the administration would have to include an arbitration or appeals process. This would clog up the system. There have been over 100 upgrades approved and many denied this season already.

Being an official is not indispensable to the role of VP which has responsibilities other than upgrades. How does officiating enable the VP to administer the grant process?

Jumping into this discussion -- and specifically referencing the questions asked by DT -- this is why having race officiating experience is invaluable for Vice President. As a race official, I have dealt with riders who just weren't where they should have been. There isn't anything in the rules dealing with this, but there have been times when, as a race official, I just had to tell a rider that they needed coaching in an area, or explained how they could improve in an area. Recommendations to be sure, but with the added leverage of being Vice President it could be enforced when really necessary.

== Eric

Looks like a centerline violation :)

Dig the tattoo guy. Excellent color.

I'm so glad I could warp you guys out of that Black Hole you were stuck in.

lol.....there's only one man smiling in this picture.

ZebraMan wrote:I don't believe in the no-win scenario, Bones.

That's the man we need as chief official.

"Phasers set to stun."

It's really not confusing at all, there is just too much energy going into one single topic. The VP has more duties than upgrades, which is a delegated duty anyways.

Let's broaden the focus and not get stuck in minutia.

Ron

Mad Axeman wrote:What this administration and district does not need is roques making up their own rules.

Never tell me that we don't need rogues!

Let me say two words to you: Kobayashi Maru.

I don't believe in the no-win scenario, Bones.

I'm confused: so if the board (which includes the VP, so this is a bit confusing) recommends the district deviate from USAC guidelines, the VP will follow the board as opposed to USAC? That contradicts what I just quoted, but as long as that's the policy, it's fine with me.

Reread that statement with importance placed on "VP". The statement does not in any way suggest that the NCNCA will strictly adhere to only USAC rules, only that the VP will.

Again, people are assuming the VP position has more power than it does.

Be careful not to read more into something than what is really there.

Ron

I've no problem with the Board making policy decisions. I just don't want to see statements like the following being the policy:

slowpoke wrote:The USAC rules are the ONLY criteria the VP will use in giving or denying an upgrade.

DJ,
With Casey's departure there will be many changes to what was business as usual that were in place for many years. We have already seen the positive changes that this administration has implented.

I will once again point out two very important facts that some seem to be missing.
This election is for Vice President, Casey was President.
Ultimately the upgrade responsibility lies in the hands of the President.
This year our new President chose to delegate that task to the VP.
The analogy of a dictatorship of any kind just doesn't make sense in this discussion.
As I mentioned, if there is to be a deviation from USA Cycling policies it should only be done with consult of the Board.
If any VP were to deviate without that support, that person sets themselves up for potential conflict of interest by using a delegated responsibility to benefit certain constituents or individuals over others.

An elected official of a non-profit organization MUST act within the rules governing that organization. To deviate sets up personal liability and loss of protection that the limit of liability umbrella offers.

All of the candidates would be wise to concur.

What this administration and district does not need is roques making up their own rules.

Ron

There's something to be said for benign dictatorship. But that aside, I would discourage my club from supporting any candidate who advocated strict compliance with USAC doctrine. USAC has its own agenda and own priorities.

This decision should be up to the board and not an individual.
That way if there is a situation where we stray from the USA Cycling rules it is done uniformly and not at any one individuals whim.

Ron

I fully support Casey's decision to allow OBRA races to count towards up to some fraction of all upgrade points, despite USAC guidelines to the contrary. I think that was a wonderful stand against USAC's monopolistic position.

You could argue there's a rational basis for USAC exerting control over race standards. But some guy can come in from Botswana and be bumped up to cat 2 based on his results there. So you won't give someone credit for racing in Oregon?

The "strict letter of the USAC rules" position is not in the best interest of Northern California/Nevada racing.

added: Okay, the Botswana example isn't totally fair, as someone who's been upgraded by OBRA will have that upgrade recognized by USAC, as well. But then this really just proves the point that USAC recognizes OBRA as valid race experience, so the exclusion of OBRA races from USAC based upgrades is strictly to strengthen its monopoly.

ZebraMan wrote:Were any of we three candidates to assume the office and immediately rewrite or disregard portions of the rulebook by fancy or to promote some personal agenda, the members would justifiably have a great complaint.

Maybe somebody should review the upgrades made by the VP who held the office for two weeks.

I will say that there is something deliciously Machiavellian about Casey's decision not to follow certain of the USAC upgrading guidelines based on opposition of logic, while maintaining rigorous adherence to others based on staunch moral principles.

That seeming inconsistency demonstrated an independence of action that few would question given Casey's long service and credentials, but it is a luxury of discretion accorded only through the respect of long service. Were any of we three candidates to assume the office and immediately rewrite or disregard portions of the rulebook by fancy or to promote some personal agenda, the members would justifiably have a great complaint.

I personally believe that Casey's approach was sound, but Phippsy makes a valid point as well. What is clear is that no exception should be made for Chris' sample applicant if it is not available for all with similar credentials. I do not wish to have to justify each decision, case by case, in this Forum or out at race sites. Better to have a consistent rule that all may rely upon.

Meanwhile, as to Phippsy's hypothetical master 4, I respectfully suggest that a ticket to dance with the 45's is too valuable to be spent on those who race socially and without any recent successes. If his riding has been dedicated to the promotion of teammates, perhaps it is the team's turn to work for his advancement. The quality of competition in the category is the preeminent goal along with the safety of the racers. While the latter goal is clearly not an issue with a rider of that pedigree, the quality of competition is better enhanced by saving precious numbers for riders competing for victory.

Thus, I believe I personally agree with Casey's decision not to follow the "experience" criterion for advancement. But there's nothing I enjoy more than a logical debate, so I suppose that a sound mind like Chris' could persuade the Board to a different approach. But never in the case of a single individual. The criteria must be clear and consistently applied for all.

Wait, I am confused.

Casey gave an answer of what he used to do and cited an actual situation and how he handled it.

Did you want us to answer in a past tense for job that we have not been elected or tasked to do yet?

Casey in essence answered in a way that confirms what Jess and I both said. The guide lines for upgrade process are clear and that we would follow them. As Casey did.

Also, Casey was the President, not the Vice President. Lorri is filling his shoes, so to speak. What does this comparison have to do with the VP?

Again, I would point out that you are assuming the VP has more responsibility and authority then the position actually carries. The VP is part of a larger team and works with the board, in times acts as President in the Presidents absence. But to ask a question that makes it sound as if the VP will be acting autonomously and by his or her own rules really isn't an accurate representation of the real duties.

So I am not clear on what the point of this exercise was.
Are you asking if we will follow the very clear guidelines set by USA Cycling (in which case we both answered affirmative), or are you asking have we followed the guidelines during our tour of duty (in which case neither of us can answer)?

Ron

casey wrote:For the record I'll just note that I didn't follow all the USAC upgrade criteria. I never accepted the upgrading from 4 to 3 based on 20 pack finishes in fields of 50 or more riders. See http://www.ncncaracing.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=196&highlight= for the discussion on why I never liked or accepted this criteria for upgrading from 4 to 3. Outside of that one exception I did upgrades by the book and required everyone to meet the requirements. There were a few times I was contacted by higher level USAC people ( once even including the USAC CEO) asking for an upgrade for someone who wasn't qualified based on the guidelines. IN each of those times I politely told the USAC folks I wasn't going to upgrade someone who didn't meet the criteria no mater who they were riding partners or friends with.

VP Candidates, this was the type of answer I was hoping to read from each of you. I know the rules and this subjest is an old argument on the board. Was poking to get a reaction. Which ever of the three wins, you'll have have some tuff shoes to fill.

Casey, thanks for all of your years of service. Your going to be missed.

I can see the case against upgrading a newer rider to Cat 3 based on 20 pack finishes. But, I know of a 45+ (almost 55+) lifetime Cat 4 who has raced for years, but never bothered to upgrade since he always just raced 45+.

Now that more races are cutting off 45+ at 1/2/3 he wants to upgrade to Cat 3 so he can race with the same guys he's been safely racing with for years. The problem is within the last 4-5 years he's been a support rider and only has pack finishes on his USAC results.

I'm not asking for an upgrade for this person, merely stating a case where one might consider 20 pack finishes sufficient for an upgrade to Cat 3.

For the record I'll just note that I didn't follow all the USAC upgrade criteria. I never accepted the upgrading from 4 to 3 based on 20 pack finishes in fields of 50 or more riders. See http://www.ncncaracing.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=196&highlight= for the discussion on why I never liked or accepted this criteria for upgrading from 4 to 3. Outside of that one exception I did upgrades by the book and required everyone to meet the requirements. There were a few times I was contacted by higher level USAC people ( once even including the USAC CEO) asking for an upgrade for someone who wasn't qualified based on the guidelines. IN each of those times I politely told the USAC folks I wasn't going to upgrade someone who didn't meet the criteria no mater who they were riding partners or friends with.

That is exactly what I said, Pokey.
It is not properly a discretionary matter. Eligibility is the sole criterion. But that dosn't preclude the possibility of a dialogue about the wisdom, not the merits, of the move.
I agree with Casey that many riders and teams are seeking upgrades before they have the necessary skills. It's worth a brief discussion in some instances, but in end it is solely a matter of point eligibility.

As for Sunday, it was beautiful at Land Park too. Went to the zoo, slammed some watts with my crew, then did some shopping with my girls. Everyone came home happy. That's Super Sunday, fellas.

The upgrades ARE done by one person, and that person follows the guidelines in the USAC rulebook. Since the track upgrades do have a subjective component, the track upgrade committee will often be consulted before authorizing the upgrade.

Everyone can view a copy of the rulebook at usacycling.org and may even request a hard copy sent to you (active officials receive one annually).

Remember field sizes and race lengths are a key component of the upgrade process and, if not verified, may lessen your point total.

George Meilahn
VP Juniors

Jess and Ron, thanks for sharing your opinion on upgrading.

What I want to know is, do either of you know what the USAC rules state for upgrades? Please point out which rules give the VP freedom of personal judgement for upgrade and which are specific to be followed exactly.

The USAC rules are the ONLY criteria the VP will use in giving or denying an upgrade.

Jess and Ron, thanks for sharing your opinion on upgrading.

What I want to know is, do either of you know what the USAC rules state for upgrades? Please point out which rules give the VP freedom of personal judgement for upgrade and which are specific to be followed exactly.

The USAC rules are the ONLY criteria the VP will use in giving or denying an upgrade.

Not exaclty what my thought was behind my statement.

The NCNCA board can confirm that I have no shortage of ideas and opinions, and I share them openly.
My point is more of an acknowledgement that a team effort is an effective way to serve the constituency.

Posting at 1:00 AM Jess? You're carazy man. Bright sunny day at the EBs, we missed you out there.

Ron

I don't think anyone in the District can, or should, be the sole arbitor of who is deserving or skilled enough for an upgrade, but by a uniform procedure such as we have in place. Just by the nature of racing, there is no way for an official or an officer to know what the skills are of a particular racer, and seeking the opinions of his/her peers is unwise and non-neutral in too many ways to be worth considering.

That said, I can conceive of eligible candidates who I might have a little dialogue with, depending on their credentials or lack thereof, or the practicalities of the upgrade. For example, it might be worth reminding a master 35 or 45 who upgrades from a 3 to a 2 with exactly the threshhold number of points that there are several fine races for 3/4's for which he'll no longer be eligible, while the advantages of a master cat.2 license are almost nill. A similar conversation with juniors in a similar circumstance might be appropriate.

But in the end, the criteria for upgrading should be absolute, if only to remove any suspicion of bias or advantage.

As far as serving at the will of the President, I respectfully disagree with my friend Ron; that is not the case in an elected Board position. The duties of the VP are defined, and as any Board member, his/her contribution to the Board is best made with independance of thought and personal creativity. That is why we are directly elected by the teams independantly, rather than on a ticket (we've seen how well that went) or appointed as a cabinet of the president.

I have never been, and will never be, anyone's man. That is not part of the job.

It's an excellent questions and a valid concern.
The problem is that if a rider legitimately has the points, there is no way to hold them back.
Who verifies the riders skill? Who accepts the responsibility (could be liability) of holding a rider back that meets all the documented qualifications to have earned his or her upgrade?

On top of the above issue, this question assumes that the VP even has the authority to make that decision or operate at that level.
That is not what the VP does. The VP is an assistant to the President, not a policy maker. This question should more appropriately be directed at the President.

Ron

What can/will the VP do regarding riders that want to upgrade but maybe have more points than skills?

What can/will the VP do regarding riders that have already upgraded and lack sufficient skills?

I realize there may be USAC constraints but we have A LOT of riders in the district and I think we can/should set a bar.

ZebraMan wrote: I don't exactly joust with dull blades either.
And no one outside of his paid staff will ever suggest that Jess is the sharpest tool in the shed.

ZebraMan wrote:In this election the teams have at least three good candidates who have proven by past dedicated service that they will serve the region responsibly and competently.

We should all be appreciative of that.

Jess is a fantastic candidate and I encouraged him to run the first time around. I stick by those words.

However, I was encouraged to run by several people and have a rekindled passion for working with our current board members after participating in the last few months at the meetings. I see really great things on the horizon for NCNCA and I would love to be a part of helping those changes come to fruition.

I am sure the candidates statements will be released soon, so I will leave it at that for now.
Please feel free to send me an email or call if you have any concerns or questions.

ron@ebcyclist.org
925-606-9975

Cheers,
Ron

Jonathan -

Your team should vote for me because I didn't need to wait two more weeks to announce my candidacy or to make the decision to run.

Vote for me because I didn't wait to see if the field was level; the old team had left the field and no one was left to play, so I stepped up to fill the void.

Vote for me because it is neither my plan nor the remotest possibility that I will be leaving the district or the job within my first month in office. And even that, the slightest and least demanding of qualifications, is an improvement upon the teams' last selection for the job.

Vote for me because I will do a good job, and because when something sucks for the sport or the members I will say so without worrying about whether someone's feelings might get hurt.

Vote for me because I'm not one to make pie-in-the-sky promises about what I'll accomplish as VP. I'll get the upgrade requests and the other VP tasks done timely and well, and I will contribute to the Board a voice of logic and honesty.

Or vote for me because the job will give me less time to spend on the Forum.

An afterthought:

At least one person out there thinks I should not comment about the Michael Hernandez matter.

Look. The guy said some pretty nasty things to me in the past. No problem. I don't exactly joust with dull blades either. I thought when he said those things they were in fun, like my jab fests with Warren G. But not Mike. His rigid adherence during the VP campaign to the insulting things he'd said was just plain rude and disrespectful. Had it simply been interpersonal tension between two guys, okay; but we were campaigning to serve others. He should have at least said that his exaggerated (I hope) comments about my body odor were just making fun. But he would not. Then, after campaigning in a way that I considered nasty, he resigns the office after 17 days. I believe that at the very least I am now entitled to comment.

That said, I promise not to bring up the subject again, even in quip or jest. The vice presidential election was not in December and is not now a referendum on Michael vs. Jess. It's about who will do the job you want done in that role. When I ran in December it was because I knew I was the better choice of candidate. In this election the teams have at least three good candidates who have proven by past dedicated service that they will serve the region responsibly and competently.

Jonathan, any selection your team makes in this election will be a good one.

There are 3 candidates in the mix. This new thread is simply to move on from them declaring it - to - how they are going to improve the ncnca.

Jonathan,

While both Ron and Jess have declared their candidacy, Rodney has not. Only the Secretary knows for certain who has submitted a nomination prior to the deadline which is nearly two weeks away. Out of respect to those that might be considering a nomination (Rodney, others?) perhaps it would better to wait until all of the candidates have declared to allow for a level playing field. This would allow the statements to both be constructed considering opponents and for them to be evaluated contemporaneously. Just a thought.

Bill