---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anthony Parrish <aparrish@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:31 AM
Subject: RE: MORE Response to Dan and Justin's emails
To: Brett Tillotson <btillotson79@...>

Brett:  Would you please forward to everyone?  My webserver won't allow me to send to so many recipients at one time and this should be kept together.  Thanks, Andy   Hello Fellow Coaches:  At the risk of just stirring the soup, I will give my opinion too:   The two interpretations (and yes, I think every piece of bacon has two sides no matter how thin it is sliced) concern this rule:   Article II (Section 1 Part C) A student shall not represent more than one (1) Association Member during any one (1) scholastic year without written permission of both team's coaches, or adult leader in the absence of a coach, and approval of the FSRA Executive Committee.   Justin's interpretation --if I can be so bold as to select one sentence—is preventative in application--   "I believe the spirit of Article II (Section 1 Part C) is to prevent a consolidation of talent and speed to one team, more specifically to prevent rowers from jumping to another crew in the middle of the year " --   and posits that Coaches and rowers need rules to prevent abusive behavior.   Whereas Dan's (and at least some of the FSRA Board members) can be read as--   "FSRA believes it would be an extraordinary, and troubling, precedent to extend a monopoly right over a former athlete who's family no longer even lives in the same city, county or region"—   and appears to say that we trust Coaches and rowers to do the right thing unless it is clear otherwise.   The literal (and narrower) interpretation of the rule clearly supports Justin.  The broader interpretation requires a little bit of searching to be supported:  What is the overall goal of FSRA?  What are these rules supposed to be doing overall?  My idealistic answer is :  enabling and enhancing our beloved sport's innate appeal to young people's desire to learn what they can be capable of through fair and safe racing competition.   Of course, in today's world, success in the form of championships and medals (what I've called "pot hunting" when that is the first and only goal) brings in additional parent support and additional funding.   FSRA's rules and by-laws rely upon our Board to put in the time and effort to enforce them.  It is the only way we can operate unless we want to hire paid bureaucrats to administer us (heaven forbid).  So as long as the Board members are willing to take the heat for their decisions, I will always lean toward supporting their decisions and their actions.  Personally, I am also always in favor of "let the kids row." That said, I detest rule-benders for personal advantage, and pot hunters of every ilk.   In this instance, I believe we would all be best served if the rule were to be "clarified" to read  "... and, in the absence of both coaches’ consent, formal approval of the FSRA Executive Committee shall be required.”   But the rule doesn't say that now.  So do we prevent the two brothers from rowing for a year (which is a long time in a high school rower’s life) because of a move their parent's decided upon?  Were these rowers recruited?  Not by Sarasota’s coaches unless I have totally misjudged them these past 5 years.  By some of Sarasota’s rowers?  Possibly.  I have seen that happen here in Miami. In fact, three Belen rowers joined my MRC Varsity squad last year in a way that also caused the FSRA Board to get involved.    In the end, I believe our rules are guidelines, not absolute.  We have elected Board members to interpret them as best they can in light of all the facts.  I must support them, and then vote to replace them if I believe their rulings show they are not up to the task they have volunteered to undertake.   Sincerely,   Andy Parrish Head Coach, Coconut Grove Rowing Club     --- On Sun, 3/11/12, Brett Tillotson <btillotson79@...> wrote: As I didn't notice his email address included, I'm looping in Dan Newman, referenced in the email below, with this reply.  Thanks From: coachbrad@... Subject: Response to Dan and Justin's emails Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 08:39:54 -0400 To: justinknust@... In response to Dan's email, I would just like to reiterate that OUR FSRA By-laws state:  c. A student shall not represent more than one (1) Association Member during any one (1) scholastic year without written permission of both team's coaches, or adult leader in the absence of a coach, and approval of the FSRA Executive Committee. The rule does not allow for exceptions to be made. It doesn't say that we have to follow the rule, unless someone moves, or if someone doesn't like their coach. In fact, it specifically states that not only does OARS have to release them for them to switch teams within the scholastic year, but that the FSRA committee also has to approve it through a vote. In Dan's own words, even that hasn't happened. This unilateral "decision" under minds the legitimacy of our rights as voting members. We voted on this by law and it was approved by the majority. Dan, or even the entire FSRA board do not have the authority to overturn rules voted on by the membership. If the by law needs to be changed, that change needs to occur at the annual meeting, again with a majority vote. This family could have very easily waited until the summer to switch teams, which would have fallen within the rules of OUR organization. Dan even told me that I wouldn't have to worry about something like this happening with my team since the by laws state: d. A non-scholastic team member shall not be in attendance at a secondary school represented by a scholastic rowing team without prior written consent of the scholastic team's coach, or adult leader in the absence of a coach, and approval of the FSRA Executive Committee. If they are not going to follow Article II, Section 1.c, why would I feel confident that they would follow Article II, Section 1.d. Not following the by laws is a very dangerous precedent! To be clear, I have no personal issue with any person involved. I like the coaches from both organizations, and the members of the board. I am not arguing the legitimacy of the move. I am not debating whether the rule is right or wrong. The fact is, the rule exists and should be followed, unless its changed through a vote at our annual meeting. It's not too late. Whoever made the "decision" to allow these rowers to switch mid season did not have the power to do so. These rowers are ineligible to compete for Sarasota Crew until SE Regionals or any other regatta where FSRA holds no jurisdiction. Thanks for your time, Brad Arnold Head Coach Edgewater Crew coachbrad@... On Mar 9, 2012, at 11:24 PM, Justin Knust <justinknust@...> wrote: Dear FSRA Member: First, let me explain that the following is a personal opinion and personal account of the facts.  I am not speaking on behalf of the OARS board of directors or OARS coaching staff.  I am writing to you today of my concern regarding a unilateral decision that appears to drastically shift FSRA policy.  On January 1, 2012, I was notified by the father of two of my rowers that the family was moving to Sarasota.  However, he further explained that they would be keeping their house in Orlando and that he would continue to work in Orlando.  As far as I know, they have acquired a two-bedroom apartment in Sarasota and are looking to buy their second home in Sarasota.  Even though they are home schooled, the two boys are enrolled in a school in Orlando which they attend once a week.  They have participated in Sarasota Crew practices.  In addition, both athletes have raced at the Sarasota Invite and the MRC Regatta without release. It is my understanding (as per Article II Section 1 Part C (See Below) that in order for these athletes to row for any FSRA member they must be released by OARS and the transfer must be approved by FSRA.  This was also the interpretation of FSRA President Dan Newman.  In an email sent out to FSRA in July 2011, Dan explained: "If a rower were to switch programs over the summer, he or she would not violate this policy. There is no prohibition against switching programs over the summer. (Again, to be clear, this is applies only to athletes moving from one non-scholastic Youth member to another.) Any rower seeking to switch from one club to another during the school year, however, must receive permission from their current program." He went on to say: "There are, in fact, no exemptions to this rule listed in our Constitution or By-laws. FSRA Executive Board takes a very conservative approach to this policy. Please note the rule says "and," not "or" regarding the release of an athlete. FSRA has only overridden the lack of a release in one or two cases when the original program violated FSRA's ethics guidelines with irrefutable proof. Practically speaking, do not expect FSRA to override a team's decision to not release a rower." I have not and will not be signing a release.  OARS has not violated the ethical guidelines of FSRA.  Today, March 9th, I was informed that FSRA will grant the two rowers in question a release effective immediately; essentially overriding my decision not to release the rowers.  FSRA explained that the release was granted because "in a scenario in which an athlete relocates out of a program's immediate area to another area, the FSRA considers a release from their original program to be unnecessary for them to row at a program in their new area."  THIS IS a definitive shift from previously stated FSRA policy.  Please note, the bylaws do not state anything about relocation.  In addition, this explanation from FSRA offers no definition of "immediate area".  If we allow this transfer to take place, what is preventing the top 16 seniors in the state from coming together, deciding on one team to transfer to, and spending spring of their senior seasons winning a championship for MRC/OARS/Sarasota Crew? To be clear, it seems as though, FSRA now has a policy of approving rower releases unilaterally.  In another email, Dan explained "coaches should try to trust athlete to make decisions about their own best interest."  Following the logic of the FSRA board, we should allow rowers to transfer from team to team freely right up until their boat launches at the state championship if it is their best interest.  My concern is, FSRA is supposed to be watching out for the best interest of the sport of rowing, for all teams equally, and for the competitiveness of the state.  If they are not, who is? I understand that opinions on my course of action will be varied.  I will continue to stand by my decisions in the face of any criticism.  I believe the spirit of Article II (Section 1 Part C) is to prevent a consolidation of talent and speed to one team, more specifically to prevent rowers from jumping to another crew in the middle of the year.  We as an organization must ensure against a few wealthy, powerful families and groups threatening the competitiveness that makes rowing in our state so great.  If two rowers are allowed to transfer, what is stopping the Third? Fifth? or Eighth? If you have any questions, comments, or opinions you would like to share with me please feel free to email or call me anytime.  Thanks for your time. Article II (Secton 1 Part C) A student shall not represent more than one (1) Association Member during any one (1) scholastic year without written permission of both team's coaches, or adult leader in the absence of a coach, and approval of the FSRA Executive Committee. -- Justin Knust (407)970-1855

 

Coaches,

As I have read the various points of view of how Article II (Section 1 Part C), or as I call it, the indentured servitude clause, should be applied, I think that the group is missing the bigger picture.  Rather than debate how the rule should be applied, I think the better question would be: Why does the rule exist in the first place?

How would each of you feel if you were not allowed to change jobs without the written permission of your current boss and some industry governing body?

What is wrong with allowing the rowers to have the freedom to choose what they believe is the best program for them?  If that would lead some rowers to switch programs, it would be the market's way of telling one club that they are aren't offering as good a product as the other.  Do the rowers really need to be "protected" from themselves?  Or, is it really the coaches that think they need the protection?

I say, repeal the whole rule.  If you want to attract more rowers to your club or school program, offer a better product.  If you can't offer a valuable product, the market will tell you to try something else.  I believe that more competition among organizations, coaches and rowers would be a good thing.

If total repeal isn't palatable, how about at least shorting the period of servitude to the current (fall or spring) season?

Bob Schumacher
Jacksonville Rowing Club
Select Scullers Coach

On 3/12/2012 9:38 AM, Brett Tillotson wrote:

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anthony Parrish <aparrish@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:31 AM
Subject: RE: MORE Response to Dan and Justin's emails
To: Brett Tillotson <btillotson79@...>

Brett:  Would you please forward to everyone?  My webserver won't allow me to send to so many recipients at one time and this should be kept together.  Thanks, Andy   Hello Fellow Coaches:  At the risk of just stirring the soup, I will give my opinion too:   The two interpretations (and yes, I think every piece of bacon has two sides no matter how thin it is sliced) concern this rule:   Article II (Section 1 Part C) A student shall not represent more than one (1) Association Member during any one (1) scholastic year without written permission of both team's coaches, or adult leader in the absence of a coach, and approval of the FSRA Executive Committee.   Justin's interpretation --if I can be so bold as to select one sentence—is preventative in application--   "I believe the spirit of Article II (Section 1 Part C) is to prevent a consolidation of talent and speed to one team, more specifically to prevent rowers from jumping to another crew in the middle of the year " --   and posits that Coaches and rowers need rules to prevent abusive behavior.   Whereas Dan's (and at least some of the FSRA Board members) can be read as--   "FSRA believes it would be an extraordinary, and troubling, precedent to extend a monopoly right over a former athlete who's family no longer even lives in the same city, county or region"—   and appears to say that we trust Coaches and rowers to do the right thing unless it is clear otherwise.   The literal (and narrower) interpretation of the rule clearly supports Justin.  The broader interpretation requires a little bit of searching to be supported:  What is the overall goal of FSRA?  What are these rules supposed to be doing overall?  My idealistic answer is :  enabling and enhancing our beloved sport's innate appeal to young people's desire to learn what they can be capable of through fair and safe racing competition.   Of course, in today's world, success in the form of championships and medals (what I've called "pot hunting" when that is the first and only goal) brings in additional parent support and additional funding.   FSRA's rules and by-laws rely upon our Board to put in the time and effort to enforce them.  It is the only way we can operate unless we want to hire paid bureaucrats to administer us (heaven forbid).  So as long as the Board members are willing to take the heat for their decisions, I will always lean toward supporting their decisions and their actions.  Personally, I am also always in favor of "let the kids row." That said, I detest rule-benders for personal advantage, and pot hunters of every ilk.   In this instance, I believe we would all be best served if the rule were to be "clarified" to read  "... and, in the absence of both coaches’ consent, formal approval of the FSRA Executive Committee shall be required.â€�   But the rule doesn't say that now.  So do we prevent the two brothers from rowing for a year (which is a long time in a high school rower’s life) because of a move their parent's decided upon?  Were these rowers recruited?  Not by Sarasota’s coaches unless I have totally misjudged them these past 5 years.  By some of Sarasota’s rowers?  Possibly.  I have seen that happen here in Miami. In fact, three Belen rowers joined my MRC Varsity squad last year in a way that also caused the FSRA Board to get involved.    In the end, I believe our rules are guidelines, not absolute.  We have elected Board members to interpret them as best they can in light of all the facts.  I must support them, and then vote to replace them if I believe their rulings show they are not up to the task they have volunteered to undertake.   Sincerely,   Andy Parrish Head Coach, Coconut Grove Rowing Club     --- On Sun, 3/11/12, Brett Tillotson <btillotson79@...> wrote: As I didn't notice his email address included, I'm looping in Dan Newman, referenced in the email below, with this reply.  Thanks From: coachbrad@... Subject: Response to Dan and Justin's emails Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 08:39:54 -0400 To: justinknust@... In response to Dan's email, I would just like to reiterate that OUR FSRA By-laws state:  c. A student shall not represent more than one (1) Association Member during any one (1) scholastic year without written permission of both team's coaches, or adult leader in the absence of a coach, and approval of the FSRA Executive Committee. The rule does not allow for exceptions to be made. It doesn't say that we have to follow the rule, unless someone moves, or if someone doesn't like their coach. In fact, it specifically states that not only does OARS have to release them for them to switch teams within the scholastic year, but that the FSRA committee also has to approve it through a vote. In Dan's own words, even that hasn't happened. This unilateral "decision" under minds the legitimacy of our rights as voting members. We voted on this by law and it was approved by the majority. Dan, or even the entire FSRA board do not have the authority to overturn rules voted on by the membership. If the by law needs to be changed, that change needs to occur at the annual meeting, again with a majority vote. This family could have very easily waited until the summer to switch teams, which would have fallen within the rules of OUR organization. Dan even told me that I wouldn't have to worry about something like this happening with my team since the by laws state: d. A non-scholastic team member shall not be in attendance at a secondary school represented by a scholastic rowing team without prior written consent of the scholastic team's coach, or adult leader in the absence of a coach, and approval of the FSRA Executive Committee. If they are not going to follow Article II, Section 1.c, why would I feel confident that they would follow Article II, Section 1.d. Not following the by laws is a very dangerous precedent! To be clear, I have no personal issue with any person involved. I like the coaches from both organizations, and the members of the board. I am not arguing the legitimacy of the move. I am not debating whether the rule is right or wrong. The fact is, the rule exists and should be followed, unless its changed through a vote at our annual meeting. It's not too late. Whoever made the "decision" to allow these rowers to switch mid season did not have the power to do so. These rowers are ineligible to compete for Sarasota Crew until SE Regionals or any other regatta where FSRA holds no jurisdiction. Thanks for your time, Brad Arnold Head Coach Edgewater Crew coachbrad@... On Mar 9, 2012, at 11:24 PM, Justin Knust <justinknust@...> wrote: Dear FSRA Member: First, let me explain that the following is a personal opinion and personal account of the facts.  I am not speaking on behalf of the OARS board of directors or OARS coaching staff.  I am writing to you today of my concern regarding a unilateral decision that appears to drastically shift FSRA policy.  On January 1, 2012, I was notified by the father of two of my rowers that the family was moving to Sarasota.  However, he further explained that they would be keeping their house in Orlando and that he would continue to work in Orlando.  As far as I know, they have acquired a two-bedroom apartment in Sarasota and are looking to buy their second home in Sarasota.  Even though they are home schooled, the two boys are enrolled in a school in Orlando which they attend once a week.  They have participated in Sarasota Crew practices.  In addition, both athletes have raced at the Sarasota Invite and the MRC Regatta without release. It is my understanding (as per Article II Section 1 Part C (See Below) that in order for these athletes to row for any FSRA member they must be released by OARS and the transfer must be approved by FSRA.  This was also the interpretation of FSRA President Dan Newman.  In an email sent out to FSRA in July 2011, Dan explained: "If a rower were to switch programs over the summer, he or she would not violate this policy. There is no prohibition against switching programs over the summer. (Again, to be clear, this is applies only to athletes moving from one non-scholastic Youth member to another.) Any rower seeking to switch from one club to another during the school year, however, must receive permission from their current program." He went on to say: "There are, in fact, no exemptions to this rule listed in our Constitution or By-laws. FSRA Executive Board takes a very conservative approach to this policy. Please note the rule says "and," not "or" regarding the release of an athlete. FSRA has only overridden the lack of a release in one or two cases when the original program violated FSRA's ethics guidelines with irrefutable proof. Practically speaking, do not expect FSRA to override a team's decision to not release a rower." I have not and will not be signing a release.  OARS has not violated the ethical guidelines of FSRA.  Today, March 9th, I was informed that FSRA will grant the two rowers in question a release effective immediately; essentially overriding my decision not to release the rowers.  FSRA explained that the release was granted because "in a scenario in which an athlete relocates out of a program's immediate area to another area, the FSRA considers a release from their original program to be unnecessary for them to row at a program in their new area."  THIS IS a definitive shift from previously stated FSRA policy.  Please note, the bylaws do not state anything about relocation.  In addition, this explanation from FSRA offers no definition of "immediate area".  If we allow this transfer to take place, what is preventing the top 16 seniors in the state from coming together, deciding on one team to transfer to, and spending spring of their senior seasons winning a championship for MRC/OARS/Sarasota Crew? To be clear, it seems as though, FSRA now has a policy of approving rower releases unilaterally.  In another email, Dan explained "coaches should try to trust athlete to make decisions about their own best interest."  Following the logic of the FSRA board, we should allow rowers to transfer from team to team freely right up until their boat launches at the state championship if it is their best interest.  My concern is, FSRA is supposed to be watching out for the best interest of the sport of rowing, for all teams equally, and for the competitiveness of the state.  If they are not, who is? I understand that opinions on my course of action will be varied.  I will continue to stand by my decisions in the face of any criticism.  I believe the spirit of Article II (Section 1 Part C) is to prevent a consolidation of talent and speed to one team, more specifically to prevent rowers from jumping to another crew in the middle of the year.  We as an organization must ensure against a few wealthy, powerful families and groups threatening the competitiveness that makes rowing in our state so great.  If two rowers are allowed to transfer, what is stopping the Third? Fifth? or Eighth? If you have any questions, comments, or opinions you would like to share with me please feel free to email or call me anytime.  Thanks for your time. Article II (Secton 1 Part C) A student shall not represent more than one (1) Association Member during any one (1) scholastic year without written permission of both team's coaches, or adult leader in the absence of a coach, and approval of the FSRA Executive Committee. -- Justin Knust (407)970-1855

Monk,

 

Excellent comments on this subject matter.

 

Congratulations on your recent induction into the Rowing Hall of Fame. You not only stroked  some very  fast boats at Harvard and lead the  Big Eight to  an Olympic  silver medal in 1972 but you  have given so much back to Rowing as a former President of US Rowing and most importantly as a coach of Junior programs  in Florida over the past four  decades.

 

Thank you for your continued contributions to our sport.

 

Tom Feaster

 

From: FSRA@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FSRA@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Monk
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 4:39 PM
To: Bob Schumacher
Cc: Brett Tillotson; fsra@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FSRA] Even MORE Response to Dan and Justin's emails

 

 

A thought from an old and battered oar-

 

Putting aside any core reasons for having a rowing program in the first place ( this weekend,I had a delightful conversation with Brad Negaard's  sister Kristen [a former very competitive oar]who is running a 3 day a week non competitive high school program in Noank, CT across the river from the Stonington program which is highly competitive) :

it seems to me, having been at several FSRA meetings where most of the time was used to discuss this topic of switching teams, that without any rule, the same human behavior which caused our "free market" financial system to fail would continue to rear its ugly  head in our sport. 

 

I believe that the original rule came to be when certain coaches decided to leave one program, start a new one or move to another and take their oarsmen with them. 

 

Andy Parrish and I lived through parents, not coaches, making targeted and marketed phone calls to persuade, sometimes successfully, athletes to jump ship. We have dealt with Athletic directors lying. I have been involved in very highly charged situatioins in which  oarsmen at the highest level used  attorneys to interpret rules for their own personal gain. I have dealt with coaches trying to change rules to collect oarsmen they felt would be the fastest when six months before they argued the opposite. USRowing has had a series of lawsuits which cost the organization 100s of thousand of dollars because athletes wanted what they wanted, rules be damned.

 

Even the NFL has rules for the multi millionaire club (which we in Miami are watching closely now). 

 

MRC has never enforced the rule essentially for the reasons Bob outlines but I feel it would be a big mistake to throw it out simply because I do not think that we can rely on our membership , whether it be coaches , clubs, ADs, or parents to always take what we would all consider to be the high road. Sad to say.

 

Even bosses and industry governing bodies have delved into this area - not so much in Florida as it is an at will state, but it's there and it's  unfortunately the same human behavior which gets in the way. 

 

As to this particular case, I think it would help if the executive Board took up the issue, gathered all the facts and then rendered its decision. Maybe it has already done that, but given the wording that Justin reports, it does seem a bit odd to, in essence, add a new dimension to the rule, especially since the circumstances, if reported correctly, seem to partially contradict that dimension. 

 

If the real story is that the brothers decided on their own to row in Sarasota and the family has moved (sort of) because of that , I would say good bye and good luck. It is unfortunate, however, that these horses were allowed to escape from the barn without appropriate dialogue. (Again, I have no knowledge of any particulars of this case) And I , as Andy, have the utmost respect for the two main coaches in this story.

 

If the only reality of the rule is that it ensures that coaches and/or ADs, program heads AND parents talk to each other before any changes and allow these adolescents under our care a pause to think about what is important to determine the best decision for each student athlete then applying it correctly and fairly as we go along is well worth it.

 

Happy from the bleachers,

 

Monk

On Mar 12, 2012, at 2:49 PM, Bob Schumacher <R_C_S@...> wrote:

 

Coaches,

As I have read the various points of view of how Article II (Section 1 Part C), or as I call it, the indentured servitude clause, should be applied, I think that the group is missing the bigger picture.  Rather than debate how the rule should be applied, I think the better question would be: Why does the rule exist in the first place?

How would each of you feel if you were not allowed to change jobs without the written permission of your current boss and some industry governing body?

What is wrong with allowing the rowers to have the freedom to choose what they believe is the best program for them?  If that would lead some rowers to switch programs, it would be the market's way of telling one club that they are aren't offering as good a product as the other.  Do the rowers really need to be "protected" from themselves?  Or, is it really the coaches that think they need the protection?

I say, repeal the whole rule.  If you want to attract more rowers to your club or school program, offer a better product.  If you can't offer a valuable product, the market will tell you to try something else.  I believe that more competition among organizations, coaches and rowers would be a good thing.

If total repeal isn't palatable, how about at least shorting the period of servitude to the current (fall or spring) season?

Bob Schumacher
Jacksonville Rowing Club
Select Scullers Coach

On 3/12/2012 9:38 AM, Brett Tillotson wrote:

 

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anthony Parrish <aparrish@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:31 AM
Subject: RE: MORE Response to Dan and Justin's emails
To: Brett Tillotson <btillotson79@...>

Brett:  Would you please forward to everyone?  My webserver won't allow me to send to so many recipients at one time and this should be kept together.  Thanks, Andy   Hello Fellow Coaches:  At the risk of just stirring the soup, I will give my opinion too:   The two interpretations (and yes, I think every piece of bacon has two sides no matter how thin it is sliced) concern this rule:   Article II (Section 1 Part C) A student shall not represent more than one (1) Association Member during any one (1) scholastic year without written permission of both team's coaches, or adult leader in the absence of a coach, and approval of the FSRA Executive Committee.   Justin's interpretation --if I can be so bold as to select one sentence—is preventative in application--   "I believe the spirit of Article II (Section 1 Part C) is to prevent a consolidation of talent and speed to one team, more specifically to prevent rowers from jumping to another crew in the middle of the year " --   and posits that Coaches and rowers need rules to prevent abusive behavior.   Whereas Dan's (and at least some of the FSRA Board members) can be read as--   "FSRA believes it would be an extraordinary, and troubling, precedent to extend a monopoly right over a former athlete who's family no longer even lives in the same city, county or region"—   and appears to say that we trust Coaches and rowers to do the right thing unless it is clear otherwise.   The literal (and narrower) interpretation of the rule clearly supports Justin.  The broader interpretation requires a little bit of searching to be supported:  What is the overall goal of FSRA?  What are these rules supposed to be doing overall?  My idealistic answer is :  enabling and enhancing our beloved sport's innate appeal to young people's desire to learn what they can be capable of through fair and safe racing competition.   Of course, in today's world, success in the form of championships and medals (what I've called "pot hunting" when that is the first and only goal) brings in additional parent support and additional funding.   FSRA's rules and by-laws rely upon our Board to put in the time and effort to enforce them.  It is the only way we can operate unless we want to hire paid bureaucrats to administer us (heaven forbid).  So as long as the Board members are willing to take the heat for their decisions, I will always lean toward supporting their decisions and their actions.  Personally, I am also always in favor of "let the kids row." That said, I detest rule-benders for personal advantage, and pot hunters of every ilk.   In this instance, I believe we would all be best served if the rule were to be "clarified" to read  "... and, in the absence of both coaches’ consent, formal approval of the FSRA Executive Committee shall be required.â€�   But the rule doesn't say that now.  So do we prevent the two brothers from rowing for a year (which is a long time in a high school rower’s life) because of a move their parent's decided upon?  Were these rowers recruited?  Not by Sarasota’s coaches unless I have totally misjudged them these past 5 years.  By some of Sarasota’s rowers?  Possibly.  I have seen that happen here in Miami. In fact, three Belen rowers joined my MRC Varsity squad last year in a way that also caused the FSRA Board to get involved.    In the end, I believe our rules are guidelines, not absolute.  We have elected Board members to interpret them as best they can in light of all the facts.  I must support them, and then vote to replace them if I believe their rulings show they are not up to the task they have volunteered to undertake.   Sincerely,   Andy Parrish Head Coach, Coconut Grove Rowing Club     --- On Sun, 3/11/12, Brett Tillotson <btillotson79@...> wrote:   As I didn't notice his email address included, I'm looping in Dan Newman, referenced in the email below, with this reply.  Thanks From: coachbrad@... Subject: Response to Dan and Justin's emails Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 08:39:54 -0400 To: justinknust@... In response to Dan's email, I would just like to reiterate that OUR FSRA By-laws state:    c. A student shall not represent more than one (1) Association Member during any one (1) scholastic year without written permission of both team's coaches, or adult leader in the absence of a coach, and approval of the FSRA Executive Committee.   The rule does not allow for exceptions to be made. It doesn't say that we have to follow the rule, unless someone moves, or if someone doesn't like their coach. In fact, it specifically states that not only does OARS have to release them for them to switch teams within the scholastic year, but that the FSRA committee also has to approve it through a vote. In Dan's own words, even that hasn't happened.   This unilateral "decision" under minds the legitimacy of our rights as voting members. We voted on this by law and it was approved by the majority. Dan, or even the entire FSRA board do not have the authority to overturn rules voted on by the membership. If the by law needs to be changed, that change needs to occur at the annual meeting, again with a majority vote. This family could have very easily waited until the summer to switch teams, which would have fallen within the rules of OUR organization.   Dan even told me that I wouldn't have to worry about something like this happening with my team since the by laws state:   d. A non-scholastic team member shall not be in attendance at a secondary school represented by a scholastic rowing team without prior written consent of the scholastic team's coach, or adult leader in the absence of a coach, and approval of the FSRA Executive Committee.   If they are not going to follow Article II, Section 1.c, why would I feel confident that they would follow Article II, Section 1.d. Not following the by laws is a very dangerous precedent!   To be clear, I have no personal issue with any person involved. I like the coaches from both organizations, and the members of the board. I am not arguing the legitimacy of the move. I am not debating whether the rule is right or wrong. The fact is, the rule exists and should be followed, unless its changed through a vote at our annual meeting. It's not too late. Whoever made the "decision" to allow these rowers to switch mid season did not have the power to do so. These rowers are ineligible to compete for Sarasota Crew until SE Regionals or any other regatta where FSRA holds no jurisdiction.   Thanks for your time, Brad Arnold Head Coach Edgewater Crew coachbrad@...   On Mar 9, 2012, at 11:24 PM, Justin Knust <justinknust@...> wrote: Dear FSRA Member: First, let me explain that the following is a personal opinion and personal account of the facts.  I am not speaking on behalf of the OARS board of directors or OARS coaching staff.  I am writing to you today of my concern regarding a unilateral decision that appears to drastically shift FSRA policy.  On January 1, 2012, I was notified by the father of two of my rowers that the family was moving to Sarasota.  However, he further explained that they would be keeping their house in Orlando and that he would continue to work in Orlando.  As far as I know, they have acquired a two-bedroom apartment in Sarasota and are looking to buy their second home in Sarasota.  Even though they are home schooled, the two boys are enrolled in a school in Orlando which they attend once a week.  They have participated in Sarasota Crew practices.  In addition, both athletes have raced at the Sarasota Invite and the MRC Regatta without release. It is my understanding (as per Article II Section 1 Part C (See Below) that in order for these athletes to row for any FSRA member they must be released by OARS and the transfer must be approved by FSRA.  This was also the interpretation of FSRA President Dan Newman.  In an email sent out to FSRA in July 2011, Dan explained: "If a rower were to switch programs over the summer, he or she would not violate this policy. There is no prohibition against switching programs over the summer. (Again, to be clear, this is applies only to athletes moving from one non-scholastic Youth member to another.) Any rower seeking to switch from one club to another during the school year, however, must receive permission from their current program." He went on to say: "There are, in fact, no exemptions to this rule listed in our Constitution or By-laws. FSRA Executive Board takes a very conservative approach to this policy. Please note the rule says "and," not "or" regarding the release of an athlete. FSRA has only overridden the lack of a release in one or two cases when the original program violated FSRA's ethics guidelines with irrefutable proof. Practically speaking, do not expect FSRA to override a team's decision to not release a rower." I have not and will not be signing a release.  OARS has not violated the ethical guidelines of FSRA.  Today, March 9th, I was informed that FSRA will grant the two rowers in question a release effective immediately; essentially overriding my decision not to release the rowers.  FSRA explained that the release was granted because "in a scenario in which an athlete relocates out of a program's immediate area to another area, the FSRA considers a release from their original program to be unnecessary for them to row at a program in their new area."  THIS IS a definitive shift from previously stated FSRA policy.  Please note, the bylaws do not state anything about relocation.  In addition, this explanation from FSRA offers no definition of "immediate area".  If we allow this transfer to take place, what is preventing the top 16 seniors in the state from coming together, deciding on one team to transfer to, and spending spring of their senior seasons winning a championship for MRC/OARS/Sarasota Crew? To be clear, it seems as though, FSRA now has a policy of approving rower releases unilaterally.  In another email, Dan explained "coaches should try to trust athlete to make decisions about their own best interest."  Following the logic of the FSRA board, we should allow rowers to transfer from team to team freely right up until their boat launches at the state championship if it is their best interest.  My concern is, FSRA is supposed to be watching out for the best interest of the sport of rowing, for all teams equally, and for the competitiveness of the state.  If they are not, who is? I understand that opinions on my course of action will be varied.  I will continue to stand by my decisions in the face of any criticism.  I believe the spirit of Article II (Section 1 Part C) is to prevent a consolidation of talent and speed to one team, more specifically to prevent rowers from jumping to another crew in the middle of the year.  We as an organization must ensure against a few wealthy, powerful families and groups threatening the competitiveness that makes rowing in our state so great.  If two rowers are allowed to transfer, what is stopping the Third? Fifth? or Eighth? If you have any questions, comments, or opinions you would like to share with me please feel free to email or call me anytime.  Thanks for your time. Article II (Secton 1 Part C) A student shall not represent more than one (1) Association Member during any one (1) scholastic year without written permission of both team's coaches, or adult leader in the absence of a coach, and approval of the FSRA Executive Committee. -- Justin Knust (407)970-1855

 

Section 1. Responsibilities of Representatives.

a. Shall establish general policies of the Association; 
b. Approve the annual budget and financial report of the Association; 
c. Establish the annual racing schedule; 

d. Plan and conduct the Association Annual State Championship Regatta(s). 

A group of central Florida coaches met last night to discuss the FSRA board essentially changing the rules mid-season without a special meeting and 2/3 vote. You may have seen my previous email on the subject. Since the board has not realized that they don't have the power to change the by-laws without a 2/3 vote of the membership, we're looking for other coaches to get involved.

There have been a few incidents over the past couple years where the board has inconsistently held up the by-laws. (With the Boone/SORA situation, Edgewater/NOR, and now OARS/Sarasota.)We voted and approved these rules for a reason, and they cannot be overturned by 4 representatives. If we allow this to continue, we're setting a very dangerous precedent. Coaches, what you need to understand is the board is interpreting your silence as acceptance of what they arbitrarily decided.

Article IX-Section 2 of our by laws states:

All Association Members shall certify the eligibility of all student-athletes. The Association Member shall not permit a student-athlete to participate in any competition unless the student-athlete meets all eligibility requirements.

When Sarasota allowed the Delaney brothers to race at the Sarasota Invitational without being released and before the board sent their letter to OARS saying they were released effective immediately, they violated our by-laws. When NOR did this three years ago they were banned from the State Championship. I don't have any personal agenda with this situation other than consistent treatment for all members of FSRA.

Again, these rowers are not eligible to race at any FSRA events for the rest of this season. They can however participate at Regionals and Nationals.

I don't want anyone to be thinking short-sided on this issue. Our ultimate goal should be to uphold the by-laws. If we don't do it now, we have no argument to do it in the future.

A group of central Florida coaches met last night to discuss the FSRA board essentially changing the rules mid-season without a special meeting and 2/3 vote. You may have seen my previous email on the subject. Since the board has not realized that they don't have the power to change the by-laws without a 2/3 vote of the membership, we're looking for other coaches to get involved.

There have been a few incidents over the past couple years where the board has inconsistently held up the by-laws. (With the Boone/SORA situation, Edgewater/NOR, and now OARS/Sarasota.)We voted and approved these rules for a reason, and they cannot be overturned by 4 representatives. If we allow this to continue, we're setting a very dangerous precedent. Coaches, what you need to understand is the board is interpreting your silence as acceptance of what they arbitrarily decided.

Article IX-Section 2 of our by laws states:

All Association Members shall certify the eligibility of all student-athletes. The Association Member shall not permit a student-athlete to participate in any competition unless the student-athlete meets all eligibility requirements.

When Sarasota allowed the Delaney brothers to race at the Sarasota Invitational without being released and before the board sent their letter to OARS saying they were released effective immediately, they violated our by-laws. When NOR did this three years ago they were banned from the State Championship. I don't have any personal agenda with this situation other than consistent treatment for all members of FSRA.

Again, these rowers are not eligible to race at any FSRA events for the rest of this season. They can however participate at Regionals and Nationals.

I don't want anyone to be thinking short-sided on this issue. Our ultimate goal should be to uphold the by-laws. If we don't do it now, we have no argument to do it in the future.

This letter is being sent in agreement with LBRA, Edgewater, OARS, NOR, and Boone. I'm sure many other coaches feel the same way, and I hope that you'll respond with your agreement! Don't be the silent majority.

Brad Arnold

Head Coach

Edgewater Crew

coachbrad@...

On Mar 20, 2012, at 11:54 PM, Phil McMican <Pmcmicanii@...> wrote:

 

All, 

For those of you who do not know, I have been on both sides of this argument over the past 6 years. I even tried to get new rules passed 3 years ago at the FSRA annual meeting that would have allowed rowers the freedom to choose where they row. After much debate at that years annual FSRA meeting,  the amendment I proposed was voted down by the FSRA membership and it was NOT passed. The membership said they did not want rowers to be able to switch teams.

Around that same time, rowers who had already been a member of one program wanted to row for the program I was coaching. They were denied that ability by their former coaches and the FSRA Board and were not allowed to row at the FSRA championships. Yet, just last year the FSRA Board granted permission to a rower to leave my program and row for another program after I had denied his release. I'm sure there has been other instances where the FSRA Board has weighed in on the eligibility of a rower. 

Though I have been on both sides of this argument, I believe in following the rules and bylaws that the majority of the membership has agreed upon. That, after all, is what I agree to do by being a member of the association. If you don't like the rules, don't join.  

What troubles me is that I have heard the FSRA Board say that they do not want to be a Board that has to intervene in-between teams and their issues. However, they continue to do just that and the membership allows them to, EVEN when their decisions not only contradict their previous rulings but clearly go against the VOTED upon and AGREED upon set of rules and bylaws set by the association. Why are the rules enforced for some coaches/programs and not for others?? 

Why have a set of bylaws and rules if a Board of 5 (only 4 of which should have voted on this OARS issue) can decide to overrule a majority vote of 43 members and amend our bylaws when OUR bylaws clearly state what the role of the FSRA Board is…  

Section 1. Responsibilities of Representatives.

The management of this organization shall be vested in representatives of Association Members who:

a. Shall establish general policies of the Association; 
b. Approve the annual budget and financial report of the Association; 
c. Establish the annual racing schedule; 

d. Plan and conduct the Association Annual State Championship Regatta(s). 

Further, OUR bylaws clearly state what it takes to change rules or make amendments to the bylaws….

Article V - Amendments

Section 1. Amendments to the Constitution and By-Laws.

a. Amendments to the Constitution or By-Laws may be offered by any representative of an Association Member in good standing.  All proposed amendments must be submitted in writing to the Corresponding Secretary so that due notice shall be sent to all Association Members of the proposed action with the regular notice for the Annual Meeting, at least fourteen (14) days in advance of the date scheduled for the Annual Meeting.

b. Any addition, alternation, or amendment made to this Constitution or By-Laws shall require approval of two-thirds (2/3) of the representatives present at the Annual Meeting.

Are we going to follow the rules or not? 

On the other side of this debate...Did we not just agree upon a set of ethics at a recent FSRA annual meeting? Which clearly say that an association member shall monitor it's program to assure compliance with ALL bylaws and guidelines. … If you haven't read them, here they are… (I've highlighted some key points).

Article IX - Conduct of Association Members

Section 1. Compliance with Rules.

a. All Association Members shall comply with all bylaws and other rules of the Association for the duration of the rowing season.

b. Each Association Member shall monitor its program to assure compliance with all bylaws and guidelines and shall take appropriate corrective actions regarding instances of noncompliance.

c. Staff members, student-athletes and other individuals and groups representing, supporting or promoting the Association Members athletic interests shall comply with applicable bylaws.

Section 2. Eligibility of Student-Athletes.

All Association Members shall certify the eligibility of all student-athletes. The Association Member shall not permit a student-athlete to participate in any competition unless the student-athlete meets all eligibility requirements.

Section 3. Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct.

Association Members shall promote sportsmanship and ethical conduct in its athletic programs.

a. The student-athletes, coaches and all other individuals associated with the member program shall adhere to such fundamental values as respect, fairness, civility, honesty and responsibility.

b. The Association Members shall educate, on a continuing basis, all staff members, student-athletes, and other individuals and groups representing, supporting or promoting the members' athletic interests about these values and any applicable FSRA Ethical Guidelines.

c. Recruitment or attempted recruitment of students participating for another Association Member for athletic purposes is an act of unsportsmanlike conduct and is expressly forbidden.

The Rules listed by Brad in the email below and the rules I have mentioned are the rules that were agreed upon by this membership. Exceptions shouldn't be made unless there are clear and accepted exceptions established; which in the case, there are none.

 

Why go through the work to establish all of these rules for a championship regatta if they are disregarded and not enforced 100% ? 

Simply wanting to see rules enforced as they are written, equally to all teams. 

-

Phil McMican 

LBRA

On Mar 11, 2012, at 8:39 AM, Brad Arnold wrote:

In response to Dan's email, I would just like to reiterate that OUR FSRA By-laws state:

 c. A student shall not represent more than one (1) Association Member during any one (1) scholastic year without written permission of both team's coaches, or adult leader in the absence of a coach, and approval of the FSRA Executive Committee.

The rule does not allow for exceptions to be made. It doesn't say that we have to follow the rule, unless someone moves, or if someone doesn't like their coach. In fact, it specifically states that not only does OARS have to release them for them to switch teams within the scholastic year, but that the FSRA committee also has to approve it through a vote. In Dan's own words, even that hasn't happened.

This unilateral "decision" under minds the legitimacy of our rights as voting members. We voted on this by law and it was approved by the majority. Dan, or even the entire FSRA board do not have the authority to overturn rules voted on by the membership. If the by law needs to be changed, that change needs to occur at the annual meeting, again with a majority vote. This family could have very easily waited until the summer to switch teams, which would have fallen within the rules of OUR organization.

Dan even told me that I wouldn't have to worry about something like this happening with my team since the by laws state:

d. A non-scholastic team member shall not be in attendance at a secondary school represented by a scholastic rowing team without prior written consent of the scholastic team's coach, or adult leader in the absence of a coach, and approval of the FSRA Executive Committee.

If they are not going to follow Article II, Section 1.c, why would I feel confident that they would follow Article II, Section 1.d. Not following the by laws is a very dangerous precedent!

To be clear, I have no personal issue with any person involved. I like the coaches from both organizations, and the members of the board. I am not arguing the legitimacy of the move. I am not debating whether the rule is right or wrong. The fact is, the rule exists and should be followed, unless its changed through a vote at our annual meeting. It's not too late. Whoever made the "decision" to allow these rowers to switch mid season did not have the power to do so. These rowers are ineligible to compete for Sarasota Crew until SE Regionals or any other regatta where FSRA holds no jurisdiction.

Thanks for your time,

Brad Arnold

Head Coach

Edgewater Crew

coachbrad@...

On Mar 9, 2012, at 11:24 PM, Justin Knust <justinknust@...> wrote:

Dear FSRA Member:

First, let me explain that the following is a personal opinion and personal account of the facts.  I am not speaking on behalf of the OARS board of directors or OARS coaching staff.  I am writing to you today of my concern regarding a unilateral decision that appears to drastically shift FSRA policy.  

On January 1, 2012, I was notified by the father of two of my rowers that the family was moving to Sarasota.  However, he further explained that they would be keeping their house in Orlando and that he would continue to work in Orlando.  As far as I know, they have acquired a two-bedroom apartment in Sarasota and are looking to buy their second home in Sarasota.  Even though they are home schooled, the two boys are enrolled in a school in Orlando which they attend once a week.  They have participated in Sarasota Crew practices.  In addition, both athletes have raced at the Sarasota Invite and the MRC Regatta without release.

It is my understanding (as per Article II Section 1 Part C (See Below) that in order for these athletes to row for any FSRA member they must be released by OARS and the transfer must be approved by FSRA.  This was also the interpretation of FSRA President Dan Newman.  In an email sent out to FSRA in July 2011, Dan explained:

"If a rower were to switch programs over the summer, he or she would not violate this policy. There is no prohibition against switching programs over the summer. (Again, to be clear, this is applies only to athletes moving from one non-scholastic Youth member to another.) Any rower seeking to switch from one club to another during the school year, however, must receive permission from their current program."

He went on to say:

"There are, in fact, no exemptions to this rule listed in our Constitution or By-laws. FSRA Executive Board takes a very conservative approach to this policy. Please note the rule says "and," not "or" regarding the release of an athlete. FSRA has only overridden the lack of a release in one or two cases when the original program violated FSRA's ethics guidelines with irrefutable proof. Practically speaking, do not expect FSRA to override a team's decision to not release a rower."

I have not and will not be signing a release.  OARS has not violated the ethical guidelines of FSRA.  Today, March 9th, I was informed that FSRA will grant the two rowers in question a release effective immediately; essentially overriding my decision not to release the rowers.  FSRA explained that the release was granted because "in a scenario in which an athlete relocates out of a program's immediate area to another area, the FSRA considers a release from their original program to be unnecessary for them to row at a program in their new area."  THIS IS a definitive shift from previously stated FSRA policy.  Please note, the bylaws do not state anything about relocation.  In addition, this explanation from FSRA offers no definition of "immediate area".  If we allow this transfer to take place, what is preventing the top 16 seniors in the state from coming together, deciding on one team to transfer to, and spending spring of their senior seasons winning a championship for MRC/OARS/Sarasota Crew?

To be clear, it seems as though, FSRA now has a policy of approving rower releases unilaterally.  In another email, Dan explained "coaches should try to trust athlete to make decisions about their own best interest."  Following the logic of the FSRA board, we should allow rowers to transfer from team to team freely right up until their boat launches at the state championship if it is their best interest.  My concern is, FSRA is supposed to be watching out for the best interest of the sport of rowing, for all teams equally, and for the competitiveness of the state.  If they are not, who is?

I understand that opinions on my course of action will be varied.  I will continue to stand by my decisions in the face of any criticism.  I believe the spirit of Article II (Section 1 Part C) is to prevent a consolidation of talent and speed to one team, more specifically to prevent rowers from jumping to another crew in the middle of the year.  We as an organization must ensure against a few wealthy, powerful families and groups threatening the competitiveness that makes rowing in our state so great.  If two rowers are allowed to transfer, what is stopping the Third? Fifth? or Eighth?

If you have any questions, comments, or opinions you would like to share with me please feel free to email or call me anytime.  Thanks for your time.

Article II (Secton 1 Part C)
A student shall not represent more than one (1) Association Member during any one (1) scholastic year without written permission of both team's coaches, or adult leader in the absence of a coach, and approval of the FSRA Executive Committee.

-- 
Justin Knust
(407)970-1855

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Bob Schumacher <R_C_S@...> wrote:

 

Coaches,

As I have read the various points of view of how Article II (Section 1 Part C), or as I call it, the indentured servitude clause, should be applied, I think that the group is missing the bigger picture.  Rather than debate how the rule should be applied, I think the better question would be: Why does the rule exist in the first place?

How would each of you feel if you were not allowed to change jobs without the written permission of your current boss and some industry governing body?

What is wrong with allowing the rowers to have the freedom to choose what they believe is the best program for them?  If that would lead some rowers to switch programs, it would be the market's way of telling one club that they are aren't offering as good a product as the other.  Do the rowers really need to be "protected" from themselves?  Or, is it really the coaches that think they need the protection?

I say, repeal the whole rule.  If you want to attract more rowers to your club or school program, offer a better product.  If you can't offer a valuable product, the market will tell you to try something else.  I believe that more competition among organizations, coaches and rowers would be a good thing.

If total repeal isn't palatable, how about at least shorting the period of servitude to the current (fall or spring) season?

Bob Schumacher
Jacksonville Rowing Club
Select Scullers Coach

On 3/12/2012 9:38 AM, Brett Tillotson wrote:

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anthony Parrish <aparrish@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:31 AM
Subject: RE: MORE Response to Dan and Justin's emails
To: Brett Tillotson <btillotson79@...>

Brett:  Would you please forward to everyone?  My webserver won't allow me to send to so many recipients at one time and this should be kept together.  Thanks, Andy   Hello Fellow Coaches:  At the risk of just stirring the soup, I will give my opinion too:   The two interpretations (and yes, I think every piece of bacon has two sides no matter how thin it is sliced) concern this rule:   Article II (Section 1 Part C) A student shall not represent more than one (1) Association Member during any one (1) scholastic year without written permission of both team's coaches, or adult leader in the absence of a coach, and approval of the FSRA Executive Committee.   Justin's interpretation --if I can be so bold as to select one sentence—is preventative in application--   "I believe the spirit of Article II (Section 1 Part C) is to prevent a consolidation of talent and speed to one team, more specifically to prevent rowers from jumping to another crew in the middle of the year " --   and posits that Coaches and rowers need rules to prevent abusive behavior.   Whereas Dan's (and at least some of the FSRA Board members) can be read as--   "FSRA believes it would be an extraordinary, and troubling, precedent to extend a monopoly right over a former athlete who's family no longer even lives in the same city, county or region"—   and appears to say that we trust Coaches and rowers to do the right thing unless it is clear otherwise.   The literal (and narrower) interpretation of the rule clearly supports Justin.  The broader interpretation requires a little bit of searching to be supported:  What is the overall goal of FSRA?  What are these rules supposed to be doing overall?  My idealistic answer is :  enabling and enhancing our beloved sport's innate appeal to young people's desire to learn what they can be capable of through fair and safe racing competition.   Of course, in today's world, success in the form of championships and medals (what I've called "pot hunting" when that is the first and only goal) brings in additional parent support and additional funding.   FSRA's rules and by-laws rely upon our Board to put in the time and effort to enforce them.  It is the only way we can operate unless we want to hire paid bureaucrats to administer us (heaven forbid).  So as long as the Board members are willing to take the heat for their decisions, I will always lean toward supporting their decisions and their actions.  Personally, I am also always in favor of "let the kids row." That said, I detest rule-benders for personal advantage, and pot hunters of every ilk.   In this instance, I believe we would all be best served if the rule were to be "clarified" to read  "... and, in the absence of both coaches’ consent, formal approval of the FSRA Executive Committee shall be required.â€�   But the rule doesn't say that now.  So do we prevent the two brothers from rowing for a year (which is a long time in a high school rower’s life) because of a move their parent's decided upon?  Were these rowers recruited?  Not by Sarasota’s coaches unless I have totally misjudged them these past 5 years.  By some of Sarasota’s rowers?  Possibly.  I have seen that happen here in Miami. In fact, three Belen rowers joined my MRC Varsity squad last year in a way that also caused the FSRA Board to get involved.    In the end, I believe our rules are guidelines, not absolute.  We have elected Board members to interpret them as best they can in light of all the facts.  I must support them, and then vote to replace them if I believe their rulings show they are not up to the task they have volunteered to undertake.   Sincerely,   Andy Parrish Head Coach, Coconut Grove Rowing Club     --- On Sun, 3/11/12, Brett Tillotson <btillotson79@...> wrote: As I didn't notice his email address included, I'm looping in Dan Newman, referenced in the email below, with this reply.  Thanks From: coachbrad@... Subject: Response to Dan and Justin's emails Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 08:39:54 -0400 To: justinknust@... In response to Dan's email, I would just like to reiterate that OUR FSRA By-laws state:  c. A student shall not represent more than one (1) Association Member during any one (1) scholastic year without written permission of both team's coaches, or adult leader in the absence of a coach, and approval of the FSRA Executive Committee. The rule does not allow for exceptions to be made. It doesn't say that we have to follow the rule, unless someone moves, or if someone doesn't like their coach. In fact, it specifically states that not only does OARS have to release them for them to switch teams within the scholastic year, but that the FSRA committee also has to approve it through a vote. In Dan's own words, even that hasn't happened. This unilateral "decision" under minds the legitimacy of our rights as voting members. We voted on this by law and it was approved by the majority. Dan, or even the entire FSRA board do not have the authority to overturn rules voted on by the membership. If the by law needs to be changed, that change needs to occur at the annual meeting, again with a majority vote. This family could have very easily waited until the summer to switch teams, which would have fallen within the rules of OUR organization. Dan even told me that I wouldn't have to worry about something like this happening with my team since the by laws state: d. A non-scholastic team member shall not be in attendance at a secondary school represented by a scholastic rowing team without prior written consent of the scholastic team's coach, or adult leader in the absence of a coach, and approval of the FSRA Executive Committee. If they are not going to follow Article II, Section 1.c, why would I feel confident that they would follow Article II, Section 1.d. Not following the by laws is a very dangerous precedent! To be clear, I have no personal issue with any person involved. I like the coaches from both organizations, and the members of the board. I am not arguing the legitimacy of the move. I am not debating whether the rule is right or wrong. The fact is, the rule exists and should be followed, unless its changed through a vote at our annual meeting. It's not too late. Whoever made the "decision" to allow these rowers to switch mid season did not have the power to do so. These rowers are ineligible to compete for Sarasota Crew until SE Regionals or any other regatta where FSRA holds no jurisdiction. Thanks for your time, Brad Arnold Head Coach Edgewater Crew coachbrad@... On Mar 9, 2012, at 11:24 PM, Justin Knust <justinknust@...> wrote: Dear FSRA Member: First, let me explain that the following is a personal opinion and personal account of the facts.  I am not speaking on behalf of the OARS board of directors or OARS coaching staff.  I am writing to you today of my concern regarding a unilateral decision that appears to drastically shift FSRA policy.  On January 1, 2012, I was notified by the father of two of my rowers that the family was moving to Sarasota.  However, he further explained that they would be keeping their house in Orlando and that he would continue to work in Orlando.  As far as I know, they have acquired a two-bedroom apartment in Sarasota and are looking to buy their second home in Sarasota.  Even though they are home schooled, the two boys are enrolled in a school in Orlando which they attend once a week.  They have participated in Sarasota Crew practices.  In addition, both athletes have raced at the Sarasota Invite and the MRC Regatta without release. It is my understanding (as per Article II Section 1 Part C (See Below) that in order for these athletes to row for any FSRA member they must be released by OARS and the transfer must be approved by FSRA.  This was also the interpretation of FSRA President Dan Newman.  In an email sent out to FSRA in July 2011, Dan explained: "If a rower were to switch programs over the summer, he or she would not violate this policy. There is no prohibition against switching programs over the summer. (Again, to be clear, this is applies only to athletes moving from one non-scholastic Youth member to another.) Any rower seeking to switch from one club to another during the school year, however, must receive permission from their current program." He went on to say: "There are, in fact, no exemptions to this rule listed in our Constitution or By-laws. FSRA Executive Board takes a very conservative approach to this policy. Please note the rule says "and," not "or" regarding the release of an athlete. FSRA has only overridden the lack of a release in one or two cases when the original program violated FSRA's ethics guidelines with irrefutable proof. Practically speaking, do not expect FSRA to override a team's decision to not release a rower." I have not and will not be signing a release.  OARS has not violated the ethical guidelines of FSRA.  Today, March 9th, I was informed that FSRA will grant the two rowers in question a release effective immediately; essentially overriding my decision not to release the rowers.  FSRA explained that the release was granted because "in a scenario in which an athlete relocates out of a program's immediate area to another area, the FSRA considers a release from their original program to be unnecessary for them to row at a program in their new area."  THIS IS a definitive shift from previously stated FSRA policy.  Please note, the bylaws do not state anything about relocation.  In addition, this explanation from FSRA offers no definition of "immediate area".  If we allow this transfer to take place, what is preventing the top 16 seniors in the state from coming together, deciding on one team to transfer to, and spending spring of their senior seasons winning a championship for MRC/OARS/Sarasota Crew? To be clear, it seems as though, FSRA now has a policy of approving rower releases unilaterally.  In another email, Dan explained "coaches should try to trust athlete to make decisions about their own best interest."  Following the logic of the FSRA board, we should allow rowers to transfer from team to team freely right up until their boat launches at the state championship if it is their best interest.  My concern is, FSRA is supposed to be watching out for the best interest of the sport of rowing, for all teams equally, and for the competitiveness of the state.  If they are not, who is? I understand that opinions on my course of action will be varied.  I will continue to stand by my decisions in the face of any criticism.  I believe the spirit of Article II (Section 1 Part C) is to prevent a consolidation of talent and speed to one team, more specifically to prevent rowers from jumping to another crew in the middle of the year.  We as an organization must ensure against a few wealthy, powerful families and groups threatening the competitiveness that makes rowing in our state so great.  If two rowers are allowed to transfer, what is stopping the Third? Fifth? or Eighth? If you have any questions, comments, or opinions you would like to share with me please feel free to email or call me anytime.  Thanks for your time. Article II (Secton 1 Part C) A student shall not represent more than one (1) Association Member during any one (1) scholastic year without written permission of both team's coaches, or adult leader in the absence of a coach, and approval of the FSRA Executive Committee. -- Justin Knust (407)970-1855

--
Phil McMican II

 

A group of central Florida coaches met last night to discuss the FSRA board essentially changing the rules mid-season by allowing two rowers to switch teams in the middle of a scholastic year (without being released). You may have seen my previous email on the subject. Since the board has not realized that they don't have the power to change the by-laws without a 2/3 vote of the membership, we're looking for other coaches to get involved.

There have been a few of these incidents over the past couple years where the board has inconsistently held up the by-laws. (With the Boone/SORA situation, Edgewater/NOR, and now OARS/Sarasota.)We voted and approved these rules for a reason, and they cannot be overturned by 4 representatives. If we allow this to continue, we're setting a very dangerous precedent. Coaches, what you need to understand is the board is interpreting your silence as acceptance of what they arbitrarily decided.

Article IX-Section 2 states:

All Association Members shall certify the eligibility of all student-athletes. The Association Member shall not permit a student-athlete to participate in any competition unless the student-athlete meets all eligibility requirements.

When Sarasota allowed the Delaney brothers to race at the Sarasota Invitational without being released and before the board sent their letter to OARS saying they were released effective immediately, they violated our by-laws. I don't have any personal agenda with this situation other than consistent treatment for all members of FSRA.

Again, these rowers are not eligible to race at any FSRA events for the rest of this season. 

Brad Arnold

Head Coach

Edgewater Crew

coachbrad@...

On Mar 20, 2012, at 11:54 PM, Phil McMican <Pmcmicanii@...> wrote:

 

All, 

For those of you who do not know, I have been on both sides of this argument over the past 6 years. I even tried to get new rules passed 3 years ago at the FSRA annual meeting that would have allowed rowers the freedom to choose where they row. After much debate at that years annual FSRA meeting,  the amendment I proposed was voted down by the FSRA membership and it was NOT passed. The membership said they did not want rowers to be able to switch teams.

Around that same time, rowers who had already been a member of one program wanted to row for the program I was coaching. They were denied that ability by their former coaches and the FSRA Board and were not allowed to row at the FSRA championships. Yet, just last year the FSRA Board granted permission to a rower to leave my program and row for another program after I had denied his release. I'm sure there has been other instances where the FSRA Board has weighed in on the eligibility of a rower. 

Though I have been on both sides of this argument, I believe in following the rules and bylaws that the majority of the membership has agreed upon. That, after all, is what I agree to do by being a member of the association. If you don't like the rules, don't join.  

What troubles me is that I have heard the FSRA Board say that they do not want to be a Board that has to intervene in-between teams and their issues. However, they continue to do just that and the membership allows them to, EVEN when their decisions not only contradict their previous rulings but clearly go against the VOTED upon and AGREED upon set of rules and bylaws set by the association. Why are the rules enforced for some coaches/programs and not for others?? 

Why have a set of bylaws and rules if a Board of 5 (only 4 of which should have voted on this OARS issue) can decide to overrule a majority vote of 43 members and amend our bylaws when OUR bylaws clearly state what the role of the FSRA Board is…  

Section 1. Responsibilities of Representatives.

The management of this organization shall be vested in representatives of Association Members who:

a. Shall establish general policies of the Association; 
b. Approve the annual budget and financial report of the Association; 
c. Establish the annual racing schedule; 

d. Plan and conduct the Association Annual State Championship Regatta(s). 

Further, OUR bylaws clearly state what it takes to change rules or make amendments to the bylaws….

Article V - Amendments

Section 1. Amendments to the Constitution and By-Laws.

a. Amendments to the Constitution or By-Laws may be offered by any representative of an Association Member in good standing.  All proposed amendments must be submitted in writing to the Corresponding Secretary so that due notice shall be sent to all Association Members of the proposed action with the regular notice for the Annual Meeting, at least fourteen (14) days in advance of the date scheduled for the Annual Meeting.

b. Any addition, alternation, or amendment made to this Constitution or By-Laws shall require approval of two-thirds (2/3) of the representatives present at the Annual Meeting.

Are we going to follow the rules or not? 

On the other side of this debate...Did we not just agree upon a set of ethics at a recent FSRA annual meeting? Which clearly say that an association member shall monitor it's program to assure compliance with ALL bylaws and guidelines. … If you haven't read them, here they are… (I've highlighted some key points).

Article IX - Conduct of Association Members

Section 1. Compliance with Rules.

a. All Association Members shall comply with all bylaws and other rules of the Association for the duration of the rowing season.

b. Each Association Member shall monitor its program to assure compliance with all bylaws and guidelines and shall take appropriate corrective actions regarding instances of noncompliance.

c. Staff members, student-athletes and other individuals and groups representing, supporting or promoting the Association Members athletic interests shall comply with applicable bylaws.

Section 2. Eligibility of Student-Athletes.

All Association Members shall certify the eligibility of all student-athletes. The Association Member shall not permit a student-athlete to participate in any competition unless the student-athlete meets all eligibility requirements.

Section 3. Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct.

Association Members shall promote sportsmanship and ethical conduct in its athletic programs.

a. The student-athletes, coaches and all other individuals associated with the member program shall adhere to such fundamental values as respect, fairness, civility, honesty and responsibility.

b. The Association Members shall educate, on a continuing basis, all staff members, student-athletes, and other individuals and groups representing, supporting or promoting the members' athletic interests about these values and any applicable FSRA Ethical Guidelines.

c. Recruitment or attempted recruitment of students participating for another Association Member for athletic purposes is an act of unsportsmanlike conduct and is expressly forbidden.

The Rules listed by Brad in the email below and the rules I have mentioned are the rules that were agreed upon by this membership. Exceptions shouldn't be made unless there are clear and accepted exceptions established; which in the case, there are none.

 

Why go through the work to establish all of these rules for a championship regatta if they are disregarded and not enforced 100% ? 

Simply wanting to see rules enforced as they are written, equally to all teams. 

-

* NOR/Edgewater & Power10/Winter Park - In his email this morning, Phil McMican stated that he had been on both sides of this issue having been a coach at both Power10 and Edgewater. And he's correct, his position on FSRA's policy literally flipped over night when he switched his affiliation between programs. In fact, nearly two-thirds of all contested FSRA eligibility cases over the last six years have featured Phil on one side or the other.

When he was with Power 10, he recruited 10 key Winter Park rowers and asked repeatedly for FSRA to intervene on his behalf. He asked for an FSRA release for the rowers and he asked for my personal help to intercede. I spent dozens on hours working with Phil, Dan Bertossa, Mike Vertullo and the Winter Park AD and Principal to find some accommodation.

It was this situation which led to the most recent amendment's to our FSRA Bylaws. Our ethics and recruiting policy was literally created to address Phil's behavior at P10. 

Once at Edgewater, Phil's position switched and he asked for FSRA to enforce his decision to not release a rower to OARS. I asked him to empathize based on his recent experience of not getting kids released from Winter Park, but still he resisted and still FSRA supported his position. When the parent of the rower in question presented irrefutable evidence of a hostile environment for their rower, fostered by Phil, including an Edgewater Board member who personally drove rowers to egg and toilet paper the rowers house, FSRA granted a release and considered taking action on the Edgewater organization.

To date, this is the only FSRA override of a team's claim under our eligibility policy.

* Boone/SORA - In 2010, a majority of the members of the original Boone Crew/SORA voted to disassociate with Boone High and become open to members of other schools. A group of parents chose to restart Boone Crew after this vote. FSRA recognized that the new Boone Crew has full FSRA Scholastic rights to all Boone High students other than those who voted to form the new SORA organization. FSRA did significant work to verify dates of incorporation and to certify that our ruling complied with the findings of the Orange County courts.

* OARS/Sarasota - Two former rowers of OARS have moved to Sarasota County. OARS has asserted that FSRA policy applies in this case. FSRA believes OARS is incorrect. FSRA has determined our Eligibility Policy does not grant a program the monopoly right when a family moves their legal residence to another county.

OARS concern relies on the contention that this move is a sham and the family has moved in appearance-only to allow their oldest son to row for another program. OARS has been asked to provide any evidence that this move is fake or that the rowers were recruited in violation of FSRA policy. Failing to provide any evidence to the contrary, FSRA verified the family had in fact moved to Sarasota, thereby establishing legal residence, and local memberships at the YMCA and in a local church.

FSRA,

There is a bunch of finger pointing going on.  Now coaches are pointing fingers at the board.  After reading the original 2 emails, I am satisfied that not only the family had moved, but that the rules inadequately address the issue and therefore the decision the board made is acceptable. 

The problem lies in Orlando.  Orlando has been fighting about this for at least as long as I've been coaching in Florida (5 years).  Other cities have issues with "rower stealing" but most of us are able to figure it out ourselves.  

The two teams involved have over 100 rowers each.  If 2 of them PICK UP AND MOVE TO ANOTHER CITY then LEAVE IT ALONE, get over it and put 2 other kids in the boat.  

Mid season local team switching is unacceptable, but this is not the case.

Steven Maher

Head Coach, Tampa Prep Rowing

---

From: FSRA@yahoogroups.com [FSRA@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of Brad Arnold [coachbrad@...]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 9:50 AM
To: Brad Arnold
Cc: Phil McMican; Bob Schumacher; Justin Knust; fsra@yahoogroups.com Florida rowing
Subject: [FSRA] To all voting members of FSRA

 

A group of central Florida coaches met last night to discuss the FSRA board essentially changing the rules mid-season without a special meeting and 2/3 vote. You may have seen my previous email on the subject. Since the board has not realized that they don't have the power to change the by-laws without a 2/3 vote of the membership, we're looking for other coaches to get involved.

There have been a few incidents over the past couple years where the board has inconsistently held up the by-laws. (With the Boone/SORA situation, Edgewater/NOR, and now OARS/Sarasota.)We voted and approved these rules for a reason, and they cannot be overturned by 4 representatives. If we allow this to continue, we're setting a very dangerous precedent. Coaches, what you need to understand is the board is interpreting your silence as acceptance of what they arbitrarily decided.

Article IX-Section 2 of our by laws states:

All Association Members shall certify the eligibility of all student-athletes. The Association Member shall not permit a student-athlete to participate in any competition unless the student-athlete meets all eligibility requirements.

When Sarasota allowed the Delaney brothers to race at the Sarasota Invitational without being released and before the board sent their letter to OARS saying they were released effective immediately, they violated our by-laws. When NOR did this three years ago they were banned from the State Championship. I don't have any personal agenda with this situation other than consistent treatment for all members of FSRA.

Again, these rowers are not eligible to race at any FSRA events for the rest of this season. They can however participate at Regionals and Nationals.

I don't want anyone to be thinking short-sided on this issue. Our ultimate goal should be to uphold the by-laws. If we don't do it now, we have no argument to do it in the future.

This letter is being sent in agreement with LBRA, Edgewater, OARS, NOR, and Boone. I'm sure many other coaches feel the same way, and I hope that you'll respond with your agreement! Don't be the silent majority.

Brad Arnold

Head Coach

Edgewater Crew

coachbrad@...

On Mar 20, 2012, at 11:54 PM, Phil McMican <Pmcmicanii@...> wrote:

 

All, 

For those of you who do not know, I have been on both sides of this argument over the past 6 years. I even tried to get new rules passed 3 years ago at the FSRA annual meeting that would have allowed rowers the freedom to choose where they row. After much debate at that years annual FSRA meeting,  the amendment I proposed was voted down by the FSRA membership and it was NOT passed. The membership said they did not want rowers to be able to switch teams.

Around that same time, rowers who had already been a member of one program wanted to row for the program I was coaching. They were denied that ability by their former coaches and the FSRA Board and were not allowed to row at the FSRA championships. Yet, just last year the FSRA Board granted permission to a rower to leave my program and row for another program after I had denied his release. I'm sure there has been other instances where the FSRA Board has weighed in on the eligibility of a rower. 

Though I have been on both sides of this argument, I believe in following the rules and bylaws that the majority of the membership has agreed upon. That, after all, is what I agree to do by being a member of the association. If you don't like the rules, don't join.  

What troubles me is that I have heard the FSRA Board say that they do not want to be a Board that has to intervene in-between teams and their issues. However, they continue to do just that and the membership allows them to, EVEN when their decisions not only contradict their previous rulings but clearly go against the VOTED upon and AGREED upon set of rules and bylaws set by the association. Why are the rules enforced for some coaches/programs and not for others?? 

Why have a set of bylaws and rules if a Board of 5 (only 4 of which should have voted on this OARS issue) can decide to overrule a majority vote of 43 members and amend our bylaws when OUR bylaws clearly state what the role of the FSRA Board is…  

Section 1. Responsibilities of Representatives.

The management of this organization shall be vested in representatives of Association Members who:

a. Shall establish general policies of the Association; 
b. Approve the annual budget and financial report of the Association; 
c. Establish the annual racing schedule; 

d. Plan and conduct the Association Annual State Championship Regatta(s). 

Further, OUR bylaws clearly state what it takes to change rules or make amendments to the bylaws….

Article V - Amendments

Section 1. Amendments to the Constitution and By-Laws.

a. Amendments to the Constitution or By-Laws may be offered by any representative of an Association Member in good standing.  All proposed amendments must be submitted in writing to the Corresponding Secretary so that due notice shall be sent to all Association Members of the proposed action with the regular notice for the Annual Meeting, at least fourteen (14) days in advance of the date scheduled for the Annual Meeting.

b. Any addition, alternation, or amendment made to this Constitution or By-Laws shall require approval of two-thirds (2/3) of the representatives present at the Annual Meeting.

Are we going to follow the rules or not? 

On the other side of this debate...Did we not just agree upon a set of ethics at a recent FSRA annual meeting? Which clearly say that an association member shall monitor it's program to assure compliance with ALL bylaws and guidelines. … If you haven't read them, here they are… (I've highlighted some key points).

Article IX - Conduct of Association Members

Section 1. Compliance with Rules.

a. All Association Members shall comply with all bylaws and other rules of the Association for the duration of the rowing season.

b. Each Association Member shall monitor its program to assure compliance with all bylaws and guidelines and shall take appropriate corrective actions regarding instances of noncompliance.

c. Staff members, student-athletes and other individuals and groups representing, supporting or promoting the Association Members athletic interests shall comply with applicable bylaws.

Section 2. Eligibility of Student-Athletes.

All Association Members shall certify the eligibility of all student-athletes. The Association Member shall not permit a student-athlete to participate in any competition unless the student-athlete meets all eligibility requirements.

Section 3. Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct.

Association Members shall promote sportsmanship and ethical conduct in its athletic programs.

a. The student-athletes, coaches and all other individuals associated with the member program shall adhere to such fundamental values as respect, fairness, civility, honesty and responsibility.

b. The Association Members shall educate, on a continuing basis, all staff members, student-athletes, and other individuals and groups representing, supporting or promoting the members' athletic interests about these values and any applicable FSRA Ethical Guidelines.

c. Recruitment or attempted recruitment of students participating for another Association Member for athletic purposes is an act of unsportsmanlike conduct and is expressly forbidden.

The Rules listed by Brad in the email below and the rules I have mentioned are the rules that were agreed upon by this membership. Exceptions shouldn't be made unless there are clear and accepted exceptions established; which in the case, there are none.

 

Why go through the work to establish all of these rules for a championship regatta if they are disregarded and not enforced 100% ? 

Simply wanting to see rules enforced as they are written, equally to all teams. 

-

Phil McMican 

LBRA

On Mar 11, 2012, at 8:39 AM, Brad Arnold wrote:

In response to Dan's email, I would just like to reiterate that OUR FSRA By-laws state:

 c. A student shall not represent more than one (1) Association Member during any one (1) scholastic year without written permission of both team's coaches, or adult leader in the absence of a coach, and approval of the FSRA Executive Committee.

The rule does not allow for exceptions to be made. It doesn't say that we have to follow the rule, unless someone moves, or if someone doesn't like their coach. In fact, it specifically states that not only does OARS have to release them for them to switch teams within the scholastic year, but that the FSRA committee also has to approve it through a vote. In Dan's own words, even that hasn't happened.

This unilateral "decision" under minds the legitimacy of our rights as voting members. We voted on this by law and it was approved by the majority. Dan, or even the entire FSRA board do not have the authority to overturn rules voted on by the membership. If the by law needs to be changed, that change needs to occur at the annual meeting, again with a majority vote. This family could have very easily waited until the summer to switch teams, which would have fallen within the rules of OUR organization.

Dan even told me that I wouldn't have to worry about something like this happening with my team since the by laws state:

d. A non-scholastic team member shall not be in attendance at a secondary school represented by a scholastic rowing team without prior written consent of the scholastic team's coach, or adult leader in the absence of a coach, and approval of the FSRA Executive Committee.

If they are not going to follow Article II, Section 1.c, why would I feel confident that they would follow Article II, Section 1.d. Not following the by laws is a very dangerous precedent!

To be clear, I have no personal issue with any person involved. I like the coaches from both organizations, and the members of the board. I am not arguing the legitimacy of the move. I am not debating whether the rule is right or wrong. The fact is, the rule exists and should be followed, unless its changed through a vote at our annual meeting. It's not too late. Whoever made the "decision" to allow these rowers to switch mid season did not have the power to do so. These rowers are ineligible to compete for Sarasota Crew until SE Regionals or any other regatta where FSRA holds no jurisdiction.

Thanks for your time,

Brad Arnold

Head Coach

Edgewater Crew

coachbrad@...

On Mar 9, 2012, at 11:24 PM, Justin Knust <justinknust@...> wrote:

Dear FSRA Member:

First, let me explain that the following is a personal opinion and personal account of the facts.  I am not speaking on behalf of the OARS board of directors or OARS coaching staff.  I am writing to you today of my concern regarding a unilateral decision that appears to drastically shift FSRA policy.  

On January 1, 2012, I was notified by the father of two of my rowers that the family was moving to Sarasota.  However, he further explained that they would be keeping their house in Orlando and that he would continue to work in Orlando.  As far as I know, they have acquired a two-bedroom apartment in Sarasota and are looking to buy their second home in Sarasota.  Even though they are home schooled, the two boys are enrolled in a school in Orlando which they attend once a week.  They have participated in Sarasota Crew practices.  In addition, both athletes have raced at the Sarasota Invite and the MRC Regatta without release.

It is my understanding (as per Article II Section 1 Part C (See Below) that in order for these athletes to row for any FSRA member they must be released by OARS and the transfer must be approved by FSRA.  This was also the interpretation of FSRA President Dan Newman.  In an email sent out to FSRA in July 2011, Dan explained:

"If a rower were to switch programs over the summer, he or she would not violate this policy. There is no prohibition against switching programs over the summer. (Again, to be clear, this is applies only to athletes moving from one non-scholastic Youth member to another.) Any rower seeking to switch from one club to another during the school year, however, must receive permission from their current program."

He went on to say:

"There are, in fact, no exemptions to this rule listed in our Constitution or By-laws. FSRA Executive Board takes a very conservative approach to this policy. Please note the rule says "and," not "or" regarding the release of an athlete. FSRA has only overridden the lack of a release in one or two cases when the original program violated FSRA's ethics guidelines with irrefutable proof. Practically speaking, do not expect FSRA to override a team's decision to not release a rower."

I have not and will not be signing a release.  OARS has not violated the ethical guidelines of FSRA.  Today, March 9th, I was informed that FSRA will grant the two rowers in question a release effective immediately; essentially overriding my decision not to release the rowers.  FSRA explained that the release was granted because "in a scenario in which an athlete relocates out of a program's immediate area to another area, the FSRA considers a release from their original program to be unnecessary for them to row at a program in their new area."  THIS IS a definitive shift from previously stated FSRA policy.  Please note, the bylaws do not state anything about relocation.  In addition, this explanation from FSRA offers no definition of "immediate area".  If we allow this transfer to take place, what is preventing the top 16 seniors in the state from coming together, deciding on one team to transfer to, and spending spring of their senior seasons winning a championship for MRC/OARS/Sarasota Crew?

To be clear, it seems as though, FSRA now has a policy of approving rower releases unilaterally.  In another email, Dan explained "coaches should try to trust athlete to make decisions about their own best interest."  Following the logic of the FSRA board, we should allow rowers to transfer from team to team freely right up until their boat launches at the state championship if it is their best interest.  My concern is, FSRA is supposed to be watching out for the best interest of the sport of rowing, for all teams equally, and for the competitiveness of the state.  If they are not, who is?

I understand that opinions on my course of action will be varied.  I will continue to stand by my decisions in the face of any criticism.  I believe the spirit of Article II (Section 1 Part C) is to prevent a consolidation of talent and speed to one team, more specifically to prevent rowers from jumping to another crew in the middle of the year.  We as an organization must ensure against a few wealthy, powerful families and groups threatening the competitiveness that makes rowing in our state so great.  If two rowers are allowed to transfer, what is stopping the Third? Fifth? or Eighth?

If you have any questions, comments, or opinions you would like to share with me please feel free to email or call me anytime.  Thanks for your time.

Article II (Secton 1 Part C)
A student shall not represent more than one (1) Association Member during any one (1) scholastic year without written permission of both team's coaches, or adult leader in the absence of a coach, and approval of the FSRA Executive Committee.

-- 
Justin Knust
(407)970-1855

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Bob Schumacher <R_C_S@...> wrote:

 

Coaches,

As I have read the various points of view of how Article II (Section 1 Part C), or as I call it, the indentured servitude clause, should be applied, I think that the group is missing the bigger picture.  Rather than debate how the rule should be applied, I think the better question would be: Why does the rule exist in the first place?

How would each of you feel if you were not allowed to change jobs without the written permission of your current boss and some industry governing body?

What is wrong with allowing the rowers to have the freedom to choose what they believe is the best program for them?  If that would lead some rowers to switch programs, it would be the market's way of telling one club that they are aren't offering as good a product as the other.  Do the rowers really need to be "protected" from themselves?  Or, is it really the coaches that think they need the protection?

I say, repeal the whole rule.  If you want to attract more rowers to your club or school program, offer a better product.  If you can't offer a valuable product, the market will tell you to try something else.  I believe that more competition among organizations, coaches and rowers would be a good thing.

If total repeal isn't palatable, how about at least shorting the period of servitude to the current (fall or spring) season?

Bob Schumacher
Jacksonville Rowing Club
Select Scullers Coach

On 3/12/2012 9:38 AM, Brett Tillotson wrote:

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anthony Parrish <aparrish@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:31 AM
Subject: RE: MORE Response to Dan and Justin's emails
To: Brett Tillotson <btillotson79@...>

Brett:  Would you please forward to everyone?  My webserver won't allow me to send to so many recipients at one time and this should be kept together.  Thanks, Andy   Hello Fellow Coaches:  At the risk of just stirring the soup, I will give my opinion too:   The two interpretations (and yes, I think every piece of bacon has two sides no matter how thin it is sliced) concern this rule:   Article II (Section 1 Part C) A student shall not represent more than one (1) Association Member during any one (1) scholastic year without written permission of both team's coaches, or adult leader in the absence of a coach, and approval of the FSRA Executive Committee.   Justin's interpretation --if I can be so bold as to select one sentence—is preventative in application--   "I believe the spirit of Article II (Section 1 Part C) is to prevent a consolidation of talent and speed to one team, more specifically to prevent rowers from jumping to another crew in the middle of the year " --   and posits that Coaches and rowers need rules to prevent abusive behavior.   Whereas Dan's (and at least some of the FSRA Board members) can be read as--   "FSRA believes it would be an extraordinary, and troubling, precedent to extend a monopoly right over a former athlete who's family no longer even lives in the same city, county or region"—   and appears to say that we trust Coaches and rowers to do the right thing unless it is clear otherwise.   The literal (and narrower) interpretation of the rule clearly supports Justin.  The broader interpretation requires a little bit of searching to be supported:  What is the overall goal of FSRA?  What are these rules supposed to be doing overall?  My idealistic answer is :  enabling and enhancing our beloved sport's innate appeal to young people's desire to learn what they can be capable of through fair and safe racing competition.   Of course, in today's world, success in the form of championships and medals (what I've called "pot hunting" when that is the first and only goal) brings in additional parent support and additional funding.   FSRA's rules and by-laws rely upon our Board to put in the time and effort to enforce them.  It is the only way we can operate unless we want to hire paid bureaucrats to administer us (heaven forbid).  So as long as the Board members are willing to take the heat for their decisions, I will always lean toward supporting their decisions and their actions.  Personally, I am also always in favor of "let the kids row." That said, I detest rule-benders for personal advantage, and pot hunters of every ilk.   In this instance, I believe we would all be best served if the rule were to be "clarified" to read  "... and, in the absence of both coaches’ consent, formal approval of the FSRA Executive Committee shall be required.”   But the rule doesn't say that now.  So do we prevent the two brothers from rowing for a year (which is a long time in a high school rower’s life) because of a move their parent's decided upon?  Were these rowers recruited?  Not by Sarasota’s coaches unless I have totally misjudged them these past 5 years.  By some of Sarasota’s rowers?  Possibly.  I have seen that happen here in Miami. In fact, three Belen rowers joined my MRC Varsity squad last year in a way that also caused the FSRA Board to get involved.    In the end, I believe our rules are guidelines, not absolute.  We have elected Board members to interpret them as best they can in light of all the facts.  I must support them, and then vote to replace them if I believe their rulings show they are not up to the task they have volunteered to undertake.   Sincerely,   Andy Parrish Head Coach, Coconut Grove Rowing Club     --- On Sun, 3/11/12, Brett Tillotson <btillotson79@...> wrote: As I didn't notice his email address included, I'm looping in Dan Newman, referenced in the email below, with this reply.  Thanks From: coachbrad@... Subject: Response to Dan and Justin's emails Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 08:39:54 -0400 To: justinknust@... In response to Dan's email, I would just like to reiterate that OUR FSRA By-laws state:  c. A student shall not represent more than one (1) Association Member during any one (1) scholastic year without written permission of both team's coaches, or adult leader in the absence of a coach, and approval of the FSRA Executive Committee. The rule does not allow for exceptions to be made. It doesn't say that we have to follow the rule, unless someone moves, or if someone doesn't like their coach. In fact, it specifically states that not only does OARS have to release them for them to switch teams within the scholastic year, but that the FSRA committee also has to approve it through a vote. In Dan's own words, even that hasn't happened. This unilateral "decision" under minds the legitimacy of our rights as voting members. We voted on this by law and it was approved by the majority. Dan, or even the entire FSRA board do not have the authority to overturn rules voted on by the membership. If the by law needs to be changed, that change needs to occur at the annual meeting, again with a majority vote. This family could have very easily waited until the summer to switch teams, which would have fallen within the rules of OUR organization. Dan even told me that I wouldn't have to worry about something like this happening with my team since the by laws state: d. A non-scholastic team member shall not be in attendance at a secondary school represented by a scholastic rowing team without prior written consent of the scholastic team's coach, or adult leader in the absence of a coach, and approval of the FSRA Executive Committee. If they are not going to follow Article II, Section 1.c, why would I feel confident that they would follow Article II, Section 1.d. Not following the by laws is a very dangerous precedent! To be clear, I have no personal issue with any person involved. I like the coaches from both organizations, and the members of the board. I am not arguing the legitimacy of the move. I am not debating whether the rule is right or wrong. The fact is, the rule exists and should be followed, unless its changed through a vote at our annual meeting. It's not too late. Whoever made the "decision" to allow these rowers to switch mid season did not have the power to do so. These rowers are ineligible to compete for Sarasota Crew until SE Regionals or any other regatta where FSRA holds no jurisdiction. Thanks for your time, Brad Arnold Head Coach Edgewater Crew coachbrad@... On Mar 9, 2012, at 11:24 PM, Justin Knust <justinknust@...> wrote: Dear FSRA Member: First, let me explain that the following is a personal opinion and personal account of the facts.  I am not speaking on behalf of the OARS board of directors or OARS coaching staff.  I am writing to you today of my concern regarding a unilateral decision that appears to drastically shift FSRA policy.  On January 1, 2012, I was notified by the father of two of my rowers that the family was moving to Sarasota.  However, he further explained that they would be keeping their house in Orlando and that he would continue to work in Orlando.  As far as I know, they have acquired a two-bedroom apartment in Sarasota and are looking to buy their second home in Sarasota.  Even though they are home schooled, the two boys are enrolled in a school in Orlando which they attend once a week.  They have participated in Sarasota Crew practices.  In addition, both athletes have raced at the Sarasota Invite and the MRC Regatta without release. It is my understanding (as per Article II Section 1 Part C (See Below) that in order for these athletes to row for any FSRA member they must be released by OARS and the transfer must be approved by FSRA.  This was also the interpretation of FSRA President Dan Newman.  In an email sent out to FSRA in July 2011, Dan explained: "If a rower were to switch programs over the summer, he or she would not violate this policy. There is no prohibition against switching programs over the summer. (Again, to be clear, this is applies only to athletes moving from one non-scholastic Youth member to another.) Any rower seeking to switch from one club to another during the school year, however, must receive permission from their current program." He went on to say: "There are, in fact, no exemptions to this rule listed in our Constitution or By-laws. FSRA Executive Board takes a very conservative approach to this policy. Please note the rule says "and," not "or" regarding the release of an athlete. FSRA has only overridden the lack of a release in one or two cases when the original program violated FSRA's ethics guidelines with irrefutable proof. Practically speaking, do not expect FSRA to override a team's decision to not release a rower." I have not and will not be signing a release.  OARS has not violated the ethical guidelines of FSRA.  Today, March 9th, I was informed that FSRA will grant the two rowers in question a release effective immediately; essentially overriding my decision not to release the rowers.  FSRA explained that the release was granted because "in a scenario in which an athlete relocates out of a program's immediate area to another area, the FSRA considers a release from their original program to be unnecessary for them to row at a program in their new area."  THIS IS a definitive shift from previously stated FSRA policy.  Please note, the bylaws do not state anything about relocation.  In addition, this explanation from FSRA offers no definition of "immediate area".  If we allow this transfer to take place, what is preventing the top 16 seniors in the state from coming together, deciding on one team to transfer to, and spending spring of their senior seasons winning a championship for MRC/OARS/Sarasota Crew? To be clear, it seems as though, FSRA now has a policy of approving rower releases unilaterally.  In another email, Dan explained "coaches should try to trust athlete to make decisions about their own best interest."  Following the logic of the FSRA board, we should allow rowers to transfer from team to team freely right up until their boat launches at the state championship if it is their best interest.  My concern is, FSRA is supposed to be watching out for the best interest of the sport of rowing, for all teams equally, and for the competitiveness of the state.  If they are not, who is? I understand that opinions on my course of action will be varied.  I will continue to stand by my decisions in the face of any criticism.  I believe the spirit of Article II (Section 1 Part C) is to prevent a consolidation of talent and speed to one team, more specifically to prevent rowers from jumping to another crew in the middle of the year.  We as an organization must ensure against a few wealthy, powerful families and groups threatening the competitiveness that makes rowing in our state so great.  If two rowers are allowed to transfer, what is stopping the Third? Fifth? or Eighth? If you have any questions, comments, or opinions you would like to share with me please feel free to email or call me anytime.  Thanks for your time. Article II (Secton 1 Part C) A student shall not represent more than one (1) Association Member during any one (1) scholastic year without written permission of both team's coaches, or adult leader in the absence of a coach, and approval of the FSRA Executive Committee. -- Justin Knust (407)970-1855

--
Phil McMican II