Just imagine the psychological torture of trying to work for a company that
operated like the organization you described.



"Bart Senior" .@. wrote in message ...

"DSK" wrote

IMHO a lot of that has to do with personalities. The people who are
attracted to the upper levels of these types of groups are either service
driven (and their idea of "service" may not be the same as yours or mine)
or ego driven.

These groups turn the same people over and over in the
different jobs in the same functional areas. While they have
provision for changing the "leadership" positions, the old
guard remain highly placed within the organization and exert
tremendous influence. Basically, if you don't go along with
their "Party Line" you are forced out. So ideas become
entrenched.

A strong performer is a threat to the old guard because it
diminishes their authority. So while the old guard recirculates in
lesser positions they retain influence beyond their authority. I've
observed they do not want the newcomers to make significant
progress, particularly in areas the entrenched people formerly served
as leaders. In other words the old leaders do not want the new ones
to outshine them because this diminshes their authority. The concept
of moving things along, and getting things done is delayed to a snails
pace to mitigate such threats--perferably until someone else takes
over and the process continues. The net result is little gets done.

We do see that provisions are made to protect fiefdoms. Open
elections for specific positions are not part of the process. The
good old boys control access to jobs and influence.

However, if someone makes a big enough stink, topics do get
talked about. An outside threat can make things happen when
nothing else will. Keep up the pressure and things may change.

I tried in vain for a year to get the local USPS coastline squadrons
to coordinate their course offerings so that ever course would be
offered every year. The District felt threatened by this. Some
thought I was trying to split the district in half--not the case. It
was a simple matter of trying to serve the needs of the students.
Everyone told me that other people had tried to do this and failed.
I beat myself up trying to coordinate things, and the district people
ordered me to stop having working group meetings. Why? What
possible reason could they have. I invited them to set it up
organize it and lead it. Nothing. Eventually I quit. That actually
shook things up enough so that the meeting was finally scheduled.
Many people called me at the lower levels called and asked me
to participate. I'd had enough.

Similarly I've volunteered numerous times at US Sailing though
various people and they never got a reply back. Can you wonder
why I think they are so bogus? What non-profit turns away
any volunteer? That is the first thing you learn working at a
non-profit--never turn away a volunteer! What conclusion can
you draw except they are a bunch of losers--poorly lead, poorly
managed, and unable to represent their constituents.

I would describe USSA's role in the selection process as interfering,
money-laundering, and playing favorites.

They certainly give the appearance they are playing favorites. The
same names come up over and over again. That is a bad sign.

Still I'm shocked the system is not totally open and transparent
to the world. That would be fair. Whether they would argue the
system is fair not or not is not relevant. If it gives the appearance
of being unfair it is not an acceptable system. I'll have to look into
this. They should be hammered on the subject until they change to
a fair system.

But the US Olympic sailing selection process should absolutely be open,
ie the process & the priorities of the selection committee should be
known to the competitors. This "secret probation" malarkey is right out
of Animal House. They claim they don't want competitors to 'game the
system' but it's obviously (IMHO) being gamed from the inside.

How can you game the system if it is based on skills on the
water? I don't understand why this is not the case?

Again, it's a question of personalities... I think that some people
probably would refuse to serve on Race Committees if they didn't get the
chance to tyrannize the racers with their majestic authority. But USSA
certification magnifies this tendency when it should minimize it, IMHO.

I haven't raced much since I lived in the San Francisco Bay
area. The race committee work there was exceptional. Nearly
all the racing I did was one-design. I have no complaints
about it. If it did it would be nit picking. Of course the wind
was pretty consistent there--which makes it easy for a race
committee.

Here in Connecticut I can't say I'm terribly impressed with
the race courses they lay out. The PHRF racing I've been it
used buoys and never set a marks. It is laughable IMHO, and
hard to take seriously. They use downwind starts! Why? I
don't get it. On the other hand, the yacht club races for
one-design, seemed to be well run--many of them with very
impressive programs. Now this is club racing, not major
regattas where people seem to go pyscho.

How do you feel about the race committees at the yacht
club, fleet, level?

.... I'd like to know more about how US Sailing
spend their money.

A lot of people would. The dinghy classes are sure that their dues & fees
are subsiding the keelboats & offshore racing, the big boat guys are
complaining that they are ****ing away money on the little boats.

My choice would be to let the members vote where each of
there dollars is spent--without exception. If that means
some people don't get paid, too bad.

Where do they spend all the money?

I bet they do have an annual treasurer's report, but I don't know where
it's published.

I doubt many see it, and if they do, I'll bet the important
details are folded in to bigger pots where they won't show.
I want to see spreadsheets broken down by funcation area
down to the line item expenditure.

As I said before, my solution was to pretty much shrug off involvement...
except when pulled into it by the clubs where we sail.

My point of view also. With the addition of loudly pointing out
the problem areas to motivate those in charge into improving
the organization.