|
|
|
| Organizations (1242 Posts)
|
| Name |
Organizations |
|
USSSF
|
|
On 12/2/2001 Bman
wrote in from
(12.80.nnn.nnn)
i am glad that racing will not be resatricted to USSSF members only. . You have been e-mailed.....
|
|
|
|
|
USSSF (pronounced: U-triple S-F)
|
|
On 12/2/2001
GBJ
wrote in from
(24.38.nnn.nnn)
But to be clear... my plans do not include mandated membership for participants in USSSF sanctioned or promoted events. Nor do my plans include anything that specifies that USSSF members cannot participate in non-USSSF sanctioned events. I may personally suggest that members follow their own money with support and loyalty, but the USSSF, as hopefully chartered, will not be in the business of controlling the lives and activities of its' members.
|
|
|
|
|
USSSF
|
|
On 12/2/2001
GBJ
wrote in from
(24.38.nnn.nnn)
Boardman, The membership rates have yet to be determined. In fact, the membership categories have yet to be clearly defined. These choices are all part of the chartering process, and suggestions such as yours are part of it. There are many facets to the discussion of implementing your suggestion, and how such programs can operate within the structure of an association business. I'd love to discuss them with you at length. Send me an e-mail address.
|
|
|
|
|
USSSF
|
|
On 12/2/2001 Boardman
wrote in from
(12.80.nnn.nnn)
GBJ - I like your idea. Her's something else to consider....
-What about the guy that only wants to race once in a sanctioned race or a couple of times a year? Maybe a "participation fee" for only that race? Make it reasonable but break it up the membership costs ( is that $100 per year?) divided by the # of sanctioned races and add that fee seperately to the entry fee. Sort of a trial membership. If the racer does pays enough sanction fees to race then deduct the amount previously paid if any and give them a membership or let them pay remaining balance for membership if they decide they want to join.
BTW - quite an epistle for a vicodin induced stupor!
Bman
KHRT Think (maybe not) Tank
|
|
|
|
|
USSSF
|
|
On 12/2/2001
GBJ
wrote in from
(24.38.nnn.nnn)
Glen, I certainly understand and agree with your point. As Carl pointed out, it's the biblical story of the widow who gave ger mite, which I, as a National Cathedral docent, have the opportunity to tell several times a week. However, I don't think that you're seeing that I'm discussing something different. I'm not talking about the "Haves" and the "Have Nots", and their relative abilities to give, by proportion. I am discussing another well-known human tendancy, addressed in other biblical tales and children's stories, wherein: nobody wants to help Henny Penny go through growing and grinding the grain, and then baking the bread, but when the bread is finished, and smells and looks oh, so good... everybody's willing to help her eat it. I'm not talking about the relative difference between the millionaire who gives .0001% of his fortune and still makes a notable financial difference, and the indigent homeless man who reaches into his nearly empty pocket and gives the only dollar in his pocket, 100% of his financial strength. I'm talking about the people who seem to give to the extent of their capabilities and then follow it up my giving more in the form of "doing", when contrasted with people who wouldn't voluntarily contribute to anything, unless, of course, they see that they actually stand to immediately gain something of greater value than they've just given.
I don't know. While it wasn't my intention to flatter, I do believe I just expressed that I feel a person who is a ready, willing, volutary contributor, like yourself, is a "better" person than a person who manages to always be un-ready, and unwilling to contribute. It probably could've been a compliment, and I admire that you're not necessarily in it for the compliments. I just know that if I haven't managed to get you to see that, in many ways, we're making the same differentiations in people, but that you seem to want to discuss it in an Apples-and-Oranges fashion that makes it sound like we actually disagree, then I don't know how else to explain myself.
|
|
|
|
|
???
|
|
On 12/2/2001 C-Money
wrote in from
(152.163.nnn.nnn)
I just had to comment on Glen's retelling of the biblical parable of the widow's mite (where Jesus points out her giving out of her poverty. . .) and GBJ's quoting (not exactly, but close enough) the great Arlo Guthrie's Alices Restaurant (with the circles and arrows, and a paragraph on the back o' each on, 'splainin what each one was. . .).
What a literary bunch we've become.
But, seriously folks-I'll join an organization that has to do with Slalom and seems to have half it's s@$% together.
Carl Kincaid
|
|
|
|
|
Orgs. and the law
|
|
On 12/2/2001
Mad Hack
wrote in from
(211.12.nnn.nnn)
I think it is a function of organizations (knuckleheads included) to take their strength in numbers to fight city by-laws which would take away the property which we all pay for in taxes away from us. Some cities are blessed with beautiful pristine but unrideable hills, made so by retrograde legislation designed to keep people off the streets. This, aside from all the usual administrative stuff, is one of the functions that larger organizations can serve.
|
|
|
|
|
usssf
|
|
On 12/2/2001
Mad Hack
wrote in from
(211.12.nnn.nnn)
If you were a millionaire you wouldn't drop anything into a pot unless you were going to get some return on it--tax deductions, whatever. If you were a millionaire doing it for the reasons GBJ considers better, would it be $100? Not likely. Why do poor people give more to panhandlers and tip better at restaurants? Because they feel an affinity with the people they are "giving" their money to, and, Glen, I think you do too, beyond any sacrifice.
People are the same with taxes (especially, from what I can gather, in the States)--they pay as little as possible and expect an "equal" return. Why else don't you guys have health insurance? Because every politician who wants to get elected has to promise tax cuts out of one side of their mouth, and out of the other side of their mouth promise to give big business more money.
GBJ, I think you are right. People are going to compare "promoters" with "big business" and "organizations" with government. People should remember, however, that big business (at least publicly) despises government because it despises democracy (privately they love it, however--check out how much these rich corps. get in welfare). People have no control or influence over corporations (here people equals "racers"). There is no reason, though, that racers can't all work together under some organization, and that organization in turn with promoters and companies/sponsors. It's a large undertaking and progress would be slow, require great effort and most of all patience. If something is truly democratic, things take a long time to decide and to agree upon. Do people have the time and the will?
As far as precision of expression, I've not read anybody as precise and accurate as GBJ, Don O'Shei and Chris Chaput and their posts are long. Long does not mean "not concise." Others have their own economy of expression, yet often require more assumptions made by reading between the lines. Others just "walk softly and carry a big stick."
|
|
|
|
|
NSSSF
|
|
On 12/1/2001 Glen
wrote in from
(216.102.nnn.nnn)
I'd disagree.
If I was a millon aire and drop 100 dollars into a Salvation Army pot it's not going to affect me much, thus the gift is small.
If a person who is on foodstamps and welfare drops a dollar into the pot, I believe that they have given more of themselves.
To often we value the gift over the sacrifice.
Either way, I think you want to do what's right and hope you can pull it off.
|
|
|
|
|
USSSF
|
|
On 12/1/2001
GBJ
wrote in from
(24.38.nnn.nnn)
I think I'm in agreement with pretty much everything you just said, Glen. I'm also dosed on painkillers. It may not be politically correct for me to answer this way, when you note, "I'd pay for a membership to support a group I believe in and a group that was actually doing something, even though I don't race. I've bought skatepark memberships to support the park, knowing that I'd never go enough to make back whatever the discount is. Does that make me better than someone who's budget is tighter than mine?", but I say YES. I say, in my opinion, this tendancy does make you a "better" person than others without that tendancy. You can give it all over to a matter of someone's cash level, but ultimately budgets are about priorities and priorities are about choices. It may make me seem a total ass to say it so plainly, but I believe that one of the many ways into which the human race can be essentially divided is into Contributors and Consumers. For whatever it's worth, you sound like a contributor to me.
|
|
|
|
|
USSSSSF
|
|
On 12/1/2001 Glen
wrote in from
(216.102.nnn.nnn)
GBJ,
Volunteer organizations are always in need of one thing...more volunteers. Volunteers are usually really excited to help, at first, but then life and priorities kick in then they stop showing up. I'd love to be able to organize and be a part of a bunch of skate related groups, because I love skateboarding, but I have a wife, kids, mortgage, and job that has to come first. Taking care of the things in life that matter doesn't make me a slacker in any way, nor would ignoring those things in order to do what I want, make me a better person. I'd pay for a membership to support a group I believe in and a group that was actually doing something, even though I don't race. I've bought skatepark memberships to support the park, knowing that I'd never go enough to make back whatever the discount is. Does that make me better than someone who's budget is tighter than mine? I was at the Rose Bowl swap meet once, it's huge, and overheard two vendors complaining that crowd was bad because they wouldn't pay the prices for their crap, ooops.. I mean vintage stuff. They never mentioned the possibility that they didn't have what people wanted or that they were charging too much for what they did have.
An organization should not start off by inferring that if it fails it's somehow the peoples fault.
If it fails,
1. it was possibly not put together in a way that the people thought it should be.
2. the (services to (cost or time) ratio didn't work out.
3. possibly, nobody really wanted the organization in the first place.
4. the not-for-profit organization had to buy condos for the board members so as, to not show so much profit.
I'd be willing to help in any way I can up to the point that my duties to my family, church, or job wasn't compromised and if it is the right organization.
I hope the best for it, and take care of the hand
|
|
|
|
|
...uuh
|
|
On 12/1/2001
cnova
wrote in from
(65.56.nnn.nnn)
The best way I know how to .. concisely, is to .. words .. !
|
|
|
|
|
Poor Boy's Sports
|
|
On 12/1/2001
GBJ
wrote in from
(24.38.nnn.nnn)
John, We'll each have to make our own choices, but it definitely doesn't make sense to start a business with no intention of charging enough to keep it afloat. Furthermore, who ever said anything about being 100% member funded? I certainly didn't. In fact, if you re-read my post you'll see that I very specifically said, "The money that it takes to birth and grow such an organization can come from many sources, but first and foremost, the money comes from the members." I said, "first" and I said, "foremost", but I never said "solely", "only" or "exclusively". Funny what you see when you read something knowing full well how you feel about it before you even read it. No offense to you, John, but it is a known and expected in the association management professions that there will always be a certain portion of the larger, base population who will always feel that any voluntary membership organization's membership rates are too high. Here you are talking about the ISSA again, an organization that you plainly admit was probably underfunded, but we can't even ask them because they eventually ceased to exist; and you're talking about $25 and $40, when, dude!, you can't even play a season of Boy's Club Flag Football in Brookline for $40. You've got to catch up with the times, if even just a little. You're suggesting membership rates for a voting membership in a national-level sport representative body that are about the same as the Cub Scouts charge a 10-year-old for a season of playing tee-ball.
I'm sorry that you're poor. You're not the only one living from paycheck-to-paycheck, and health insurance??? What's that? This cast and this mangled bone in my thumb is a purely cash/debt affair. With all of that... I'm still going to own a Charter Professional Racer Membership (the most expensive individual rate) in whatever organization might occur. No matter what it might cost. I'm just not going to base membership rates low because of where it sits on your list of priorities. I'm going to set membership rates based on reasonable projections of anticipated membership numbers at certain rates versus carefully calculated operations and member services expense budgets. There's no reason to do it otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
poor boy slalom club
|
|
On 12/1/2001
john gilmour
wrote in from
(12.91.nnn.nnn)
Someone once said to me that they thought "one reason why the slalomer racers were such a great group of guys....was because they are poor". I'm not afraid to admit I'm poor. I certainly could apply for welfare and food stamps and get it. It's not that we are not selfless, it really is many of us live pay check to paycheck and have other more pressing issues that need attending- like medical insurance etc.
I belonged to the ISSA and paid membership dues. They were inexpensive $25 per year for a amatuer membership and $40 per year for a pro membership. I am sure it was underfunded.
I really don't have a solution at this time.
Of course poor people don't alway aportion their income properly....one thing that keeps you poor- but I really don't think the lot of us could afford an organization that is 100% member funded. If there was a sliding scale it might be a bit easier- but how to implement that?
|
|
|
|
|
USSSF
|
|
On 12/1/2001
roger
wrote in from
(66.51.nnn.nnn)
GBJ, you are a gentleman and I apologize for having more tact in my feedback. I look forward to more details, but take care of your hand first.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you
|
|
On 12/1/2001
GBJ
wrote in from
(24.38.nnn.nnn)
Roger, Understood. Believe me, I can write concisely. I am well-paid for my technical writing skills. However, on this forum and in this case, much of what I am discussing is highly-conceptual and even a bit emotional. I think the bullets and numbers you're proposing would be much more appropriate and even necessary in any reasonably detailed presentation of the USSSF and how I envision it. Much of the long post was pointed at people with whom I already have some previous conversation on the subject.
Forgive me if my first response to you was abrupt or inappropriate. If what you'd expected, and what you'd like to know, is a bit about my proposals for the USSSF, please write to me at e-mail address and I'd be glad to detail as much as my poor hurt hand will allow; with bullets, numbers, and 37 8x10 glossy, color photographs with arrows and descriptions, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
usssf
|
|
On 12/1/2001
PA Dan
wrote in from
(4.4.nnn.nnn)
GBJ,
Checkbook and pen ready. It's an immense benefit for those of us who don't have the experience, time, and/or desire to take on such a task as you're proposing to have someone in our ranks who IS!!
BTW, heal fast and hope to ride together again before the Gathering.
Dan
|
|
|
|
|
uh...
|
|
On 12/1/2001
roger
wrote in from
(66.51.nnn.nnn)
GBJ, writing concisely is an art. You can do not expect all to read your post in it's entirety. I stopped halfway in the second paragraph, others might scan through it, and some will ready it all. So you have to ask yourself how important is it to you that people understand you. If you want more to read, you have to make it more readable.
Do not take this as a personal attack, but please learn how to express yourself more efficiently. Bullets, numbers, anything that helps format the information would be greatly appreciated.
We are skaters, not lawyers, the fewer the words the better.
|
|
|
|
|
usssf
|
|
On 12/1/2001
Scabs
wrote in from
(65.80.nnn.nnn)
GBJ,
Count me in. Though temporarily unemployed, I can always sell something on eBay to pay for membership ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
duh...
|
|
On 12/1/2001
GBJ
wrote in from
(24.38.nnn.nnn)
Roger, no. I don't have a condensed version, and I couldn't possibly imagine condensing the scope and breadth of the issues at hand into a single paragraph. If you don't have the time to spend, then don't spend it. My guess is that if you can't afford the five minutes it might take to read what I've just written, in order to understand the entire situation, it's highly likely that you are not one of the special people to whom I was referring in my previous post.
|
|
|
|
|
uh...
|
|
On 12/1/2001 roger
wrote in from
(66.51.nnn.nnn)
GBJ, do you have a condensed version?
A single paragraph would be nice.
|
|
|
|
|
United States Slalom Skateboarding Federation
|
|
On 12/1/2001
GBJ
wrote in from
(24.38.nnn.nnn)
As many of you know, I have long been considering founding the United States Slalom Skateboarding Federation. The purpose of this organization would have been to foster the stable, well-founded growth and development of slalom skateboarding as a viable, recognized, respected form of athletic competition. My mottoes in that effort were to be either, “Racing toward the 22nd Century” or, more simply put, “Building a sport that lasts”.
In my own past there are years of experience as the Business Manager of a national trade association. In my time there, the association I managed went from an organization where the bookkeeping was kept in a shoebox under a bed and was done by the well-intended wife of a prominent member, to an organization that represents more than one thousand member businesses across the country, is held in high-regard by affiliated industries and organizations, and operates with an annual budget that approaches $1,000,000. I know what it takes to organize, develop and operate a successful association. Building a successful representative organization takes the unified commitment of a group of people, a shared vision and common purpose, a LOT of hard work, and even after all of that, building a successful, reputable representative organization takes money. The money that it takes to birth and grow such an organization can come from many sources, but first and foremost, the money comes from the members. If anything already spells the doom of a slalom skateboarding organization, in my opinion, it is the vibe that I’m already getting that there are not nearly enough SELF-LESS contributors in our population to ever get a successful organizing body off of the ground. There’s a significant portion of us that think the whole thing should (or even could) happen for free and who won’t ever make a voluntary financial contribution, such as purchasing a membership. Another significant portion of our population might part with a membership fee, if it’s a low enough amount, but will then sit back and attempt to match every penny of benefit that they get over the year to every penny they spent on the membership, and y’know what? Those people are going to be disappointed, and “right” that it wasn’t worth the money. That’s because if they spent $100 they’re going to feel that they should, at least, get $100 worth of benefits back for it. Rarely is there going to be such a direct correlation between the money spent on a membership and the monetary value of such benefits that might come as a result of that membership.
Now I’m going to tell you about a few of the guys I’ve met out there that truly represent to me what involvement and membership in an association such as the United States Slalom Skateboarding Federation is supposed to be all about. There are actually slalom skaters out there, who we all know, who have told me that as soon as I announce the founding of the organization, and announce a membership price, their checks will be in the mail. I’ve had guys offer to buy full, voting, memberships for their children, even though those children would be to young to cast a vote in the operation of the organization. Believe it or not, there are even some of us who have offered to be additional money, over and above a proposed membership rate, just to be permanently listed amongst the Charter Members of what they hope and intend to be an organization that will outlast us all. Then, after all of that, some of these same people have offered to simply forego some of the more direct, tangible (and expensive to the organization) member benefits while offering to contribute further to its’ growth and development by volunteering generous quantities of their time and talents. These are the men and women who recognize that an organization such as the proposed USSSF would have been a chance to give, contribute and be a part of something bigger than themselves. These precious few people seemed to understand that by purchasing a membership they would have been giving to something that’s about the future, not paying to see what they can get out of it now. These very special people know who they are. They probably even recognize snippets of conversations that we’ve had between us. My point and the source of my ever-growing doubt is, most of you aren’t like these people. Ask yourself whether you fit into this category, and if everyone out there is being honest with his or herself, the most common answer is going to be, “No, that’s not me.” People may not go so far as to feel that they themselves are necessarily outright selfish. Everybody’ll have a reason that somehow absolves him or her from the blame of being uninvolved. Some people will object to the prices, not because they themselves wouldn’t be able to afford it, but because they are thinking on behalf of others who couldn’t. Others will object on the basis of their politics, that organization itself is somehow a concession to “Big Brother” and giving away their own control. I’ve even heard some people imply that it is somehow “Republican” to be against such organizations, because Republicans are against big government, while never even understanding that it is privately-operated, not-for-profit organizations, such as the proposed USSSF, that are exactly what true Republicans believe in INSTEAD of big government. No matter what story a person needs to tell his or herself about why they are remaining uninvolved, the bottom line is that the person is simply not a contributor.
What might some of the benefits of the USSSF have been? A quarterly magazine, a monthly newsletter, “swag” (t-shirts, hats, stickers and other such USSSF “gear”), travelling “event kits” (ramps, relaible timers or multi-event contracts with a reputable sports timing vendor, flags, cones, displays, etc.) as proposed on the NCDSA Slalom Page, negotiated discount rates on airfare, hotels and rental cars, an organized event calendar, special event registration rates for members, reduced rate insurance alternatives for race organizers, a fairly elected rules committee comprised of our members to create a fair and reliable set of rules for our sport, and a program for developing and fostering the smaller, local levels of competition that will eventually feed participants into the larger, national-scale competitive community that we are seeing right now. Throw the rest of the intangibles on top of all that; the further development of organized and quantified communications within the community, and the unified face we’d then be able to present to other affiliated industries, media and potential non-slalom industry sponsors, and you have everything that an organization such as the USSSF is supposed to be.
|
|
|
|
|
khrt
|
|
On 12/1/2001 cfavero
wrote in from
(205.188.nnn.nnn)
hey,i am all up for the kids thing.as alan ,nima,steve can testify,they have all seen 4 year old nate run the hills at the secret spot in the burbs.on top of that i have witnessed at our sessions c-money's,chris novotny's boys doing some serious butt boarding.nate and ben,my boys,simply call it "coning"in reference to running the cones.the truly dig it to the point of when given a chioce vesus the skatepark or slalom,like today,they chose slalom.i think it is totally healthy to promote all aspects of skating.back in the day when we all were coming up,the best skaters did it all and dominated.i was reading an interview it tws last wek with a street skater and he referenced the fact that he cant drop in on a full half pipe.i dont want my kids to miss out on all facets of skating.thats truly where its at.know in reference to the youngest knucklehead alan has never given the proper initiation to nate,but all the sessions they have had together should purt him in there no sweat,many good vibes to all,cf
|
|
|
|
|
Mini KHRT
|
|
On 12/1/2001 Ricky
wrote in from
(24.170.nnn.nnn)
I really liked seeing Andy Mac & Bob Burnquist at La Costa. If these two ever join us at a race and it gets out that they had fun, and thought it was cool. This sport could explode. Groms would be dying for kids size, quality slalom equipment and cones. This needs to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
KHRTJr. Division
|
|
On 11/30/2001 Boardman
wrote in from
(12.80.nnn.nnn)
i agree with ricky byrd. The younger guys in my "hood" are into slalom! Time for training.
|
|
|
|
|
