carissa

To complete the e-learning module, please click this link: https://members.psia-rm.org/rm-lms

*Please use a browser other than Mozilla Firefox, videos will not play properly if using Firefox*

*The LMS must be completed from a laptop or computer, it does not work from a cell phone or most tablets*

Once there, you will need to log in using your log-in credentials for the PSIA RM Member Portal you set up when you joined as a new member. Once logged in, please click the “Then go to the RM LMS here: https:lms.psia-rm.org” link below the red “Login Over Here!” lettering in red.

Once logged in to the LMS, there will be a dashboard with the “Level 1 Online Course” available, you will need to click that and subscribe to the group. You will get an access denied screen if you do not subscribe first! Once you have subscribed, you can click on the lessons button at the bottom. There are three lessons that need to be completed before you attend the on-snow exam:

• Introduction to PSIA
• The Skills Concept
• Movement Analysis & Teaching

 

There will be several sections within the each module, you will need to complete a quiz at the end of each section (please only click the green “Next” button to navigate through the quizzes, if you click this button at the start of the presentation it will skip all the information). Make sure you click the green “Finish” button when you are finished with each quiz.  We will be monitoring the completion of your LMS, it must be completed at least 72 hours before the start of the on-snow exam. You do not have to complete it all at once, you can complete 1 lesson a day until they are all complete.

You must score at least 80% on each quiz in order to pass, if you do not score 80% or higher, you will need to retake that module again until you receive a passing score.

Register for the 2014 PSIA-RM Tele Academy now!

You can register online at the following links:

Click here to register for the 3-Day event

Click here to register for the 2-Day event

January 11, 2014

 

Eric,

Per our conversation this past Thursday, I wanted to follow up on my email response to your announcement to the Presidents coming out of the ASEA October meeting in Copper Mt.  As I mentioned in that email (copied below), “My hope is for RM to parallel those (ASEA’s governance) efforts with a process to draft an agreement of affiliation between RM and the ASEA as business entities…”  The RM Board brought that process to a completion at our recent winter meeting.
Speaking for the RM Board, I want to assure you and your Board, as well as the entire membership of the ASEA, that PSIA-RM is completely committed to continuing our alliance with the ASEA and the national brand which we have helped create. Our intention is not to simply participate; we have a continuing, and even stronger commitment to contribute as much as possible to ASEA’s effort to serve their members across the country.  As your present ASEA Board moves toward more direct representation within its Board we welcome the opportunity to have a voice in ASEA’s continuing development. We look forward to being involved with decisions the ASEA Board will be making which affect the collective entities.

With that said, we all know this is an alliance of individual groups and not a partnership per se. We at RM realize that to contribute, and certainly to the significant extent we feel is our responsibility, it is imperative we have an agreement of understanding; one which clearly defines our relationship and affiliation with the ASEA. We have looked at our historical relationship, our present business model, and possible changes to that model as we continue to move forward.  As a result we have arrived at a Memorandum of Understanding (attached). We feel this agreement will allow us to be a positive contributor to the ASEA’s efforts. At the same time it assures our independence as a business entity and our ability to maintain and develop our assets. It is these assets which allow us to serve our individual membership and contribute to a unified effort to serve professionals, the public, and the industry.
This Memorandum of Understanding is an agreement we are prepared to sign, and for the most part, will remain the agreement we would sign going forward should the process continue at the pace it has the past few years.

Speaking for the RM Board, I request the ASEA Executive Committee, and subsequently the ASEA Board; give this Memorandum of Understanding careful consideration as soon as possible. Our intention is to mutually sign it and move forward, collectively and individually, on our mission of helping our professionals serve the snow sports public to the best of their ability, promote our sport for the public welfare, and support the industry to which we are all committed.

Sincerely,

Joel Munn-President PSIA-RM-AASI

 

 

 

February 12, 2014

Joel,

 

Thank you for forwarding the RM Memorandum of Understanding.  It was passed on to the PSIA-AASI Board of Directors prior to our meeting on February 2, 2014.

 

During that meeting, Peter Donahue made a motion to adopt the RM Memorandum of Understanding.  The motion failed for lack of a second. The board went on to discuss ways we might move forward with RM. This led to support for a small group to develop specific responses to items in the Memorandum that require further discussion with RM, in order to reach mutually acceptable language that is in the best interests of the membership.

 

We are optimistic that this is a step towards clarifying our relationship, and that we can reach common ground on the points in the document that are not already mutually acceptable.

 

I appreciate the opportunity for further discussion and will be in contact as soon as we are prepared to discuss specific issues in a productive way.

 

Sincerely,

 

Eric Sheckleton

Chairman of the Board

PSIA-AASI

Eric Sheckleton

Chairman of the Board

PSIA-AASI

 

 

EXHIBIT 1

 

The entities associated with ASEA, are as follows:

 

Alaska (PSIA‑AASI Alaska)

Central (PSIA‑AASI Central)

Eastern (PSIA‑AASI Eastern)

Intermountain (PSIA‑ AASI Intermountain)

Northern Intermountain (PSIA‑ AASI Northern Intermountain)

Northern Rocky Mountain (PSIA‑ AASI Northern Rocky Mountain)

Northwest (Professional Snowsports Instructors of America Northwest)

Rocky Mountain (PSIA‑AASI Rocky Mountain)

Western (PSIA‑AASI Western) 

 

 

EXHIBIT 2

 

Office General Operations

RM will exclusively oversee their own staff and determine the rate at which their administration can respond to requests by ASEA.

IT/Database

RM can operate on whatever database they choose.

Education/Certification Events

RM is the sole provider of all events in their territory both for educational credit and certification with the exception of national academy and teams training or when a team member is hired independently through ASEA.

RM will exclusively determine the process for running all certification and specialist events; this includes class size, length, staff qualifications, and prerequisites. They agree to test to the National standard.

RM has the right to hold events on what dates and locations as they so choose.

RM has the right to offer Trainer level events also  known as Level 4 certification locally should a need arise.

Membership

RM maintains the right to print id cards at our option.

RM will set dues at whatever rate they deem necessary.

RM has the right to modify their billing cycle.

We reserve the right to collect or not collect ASEA dues.

RM will not print id cards for non ASEA members.

Sponsorship

RM reserves  the right to have “local” benefits available to their membership.

RM reserves the right to have a uniform supplier/sponsor if it is a financial benefit to the Ed staff.

Marks, logos style

RM reserves the right to have their own logo that they can use in conjunction with the PSIA/AASI shields.

With the exception of the logo/shield, RM reserves the right to use the font and size of print on all items relative to their business such as but not limited to letterhead, website, brochures, handbooks, and billing.

 

Great Coaches…

I have the extreme pleasure and benefit to hang with so many wonderful coaches throughout the season.  Whether it’s sliding with folks during education sessions or working closely with our advanced education staff, I get to witness some of the magic that happens when the sharing begins.  I’m talking about the Zen of teaching awesomeness here, the stuff you can’t find in any manual, workbook or instructional video.  Ok, so I just totally jinxed myself, because I can’t really even write about it based on my last sentence.  However, I can share what I’ve observed out in the snowy pasture of educational life.  I don’t have all of the answers, but I did ask this simple question to conjure up some thoughts.  Great coaches…?

Learn

Great coaches are hungry for knowledge and never stop asking why, how, when, where or what if?  They are true students of the sport and insist on learning right alongside of their students.  The great ones never settle knowing that constant evolution is happening at so many levels.  Psychology, diet, technique, equipment, etc.  As the athletes push, the mentors must be ahead of game striving for constant knowledge.  The result is that they never have all of the answers and insist on progressing together as a team.

Play

Before each game of arguably America’s pastime, the umpire exclaims “play ball!”  Or, before a tennis match the chair umpire says “ready, play.”  Great coaches play.  They honor the sport by exuding the same fundamental love that they have always had for the sport.  This playful exuberance rubs off on everyone around them and the atmosphere is simply electric with the joy of learning.  One of my mentors and still active RM educators can still be heard saying, “we had an awesome day, we played with all kinds of stuff.”

Listen

Shhhhh…  Can you hear that?  If you can’t, there’s probably some great learning happening.  Great coaches are the best listeners and are patient with the learning process.  It’s easy to be in a hurry to impart all of the knowledge amassed from training and certification, however without stopping to truly listen, we can sometimes miss the mark altogether.  The great ones sometimes seem to be only listening and simply asking for deeper clarification.

Model

Great coaches unconsciously model the behavior they instill on others.  They arrive earlier than necessary and usually stay later to work on something.  They are positive and calm in the height of pressure or fear.  They respect their peers, surroundings, equipment and environment with the utmost care and always carry themselves in a professional, dedicated manner.  At the same time, they are human and recognize when they have faltered or not been correct in their presentation.  To be humble is not to be weak, but truly awesome with integrity.

 

Excite

Quite simply, great coaches are the people you want to be around.  The ones you want on your team or the ones you want to chill with.  Their passion for the most mundane aspects of the task is absolutely ludicrous at times while at the same time contagious.  They can recognize the smallest breakthrough and feed off that positive energy.  Never phony, the energy is positive and drives us to want more.  Great ones exploit the glimpses of brilliance in us all.

Empathize

They get it.  Great coaches completely understand your frustration.  Why?  Because they remember when it was not so easy for them.  They’ve been down the same learning pathway before and continue to work on their own game.  Because they are learning right alongside of you, there is a team aspect in achieving your objectives.  I’ve never been a fan of the beer fine for falling in uniform because I’ve been known to crash hard in uniform on occasion.  Great coaches sometimes push the envelope to folding and can therefore relate to a little topple along the way.

Focus

Great coaches can eye the prize with such precision and determination that it is scary (in a good way).  Sometimes it can be easy to get learning ADD and bounce around from one task to another when the going gets difficult.  We simply move over to a slightly easier task.  Great ones recognize the focused building blocks of skill development that must be attained before moving on to more complex skills.  This focus, although unnerving at times with our patience, pays huge dividends when advancing to a greater, advanced skill set.

Wait

Wait for it…  Learning happens when coaching and instruction stops.  Huh?  Yeah, I said it.  The great ones know when to stop and simply let the learning flow.  Great coaches wait.  Patience grasshopper!  Sometimes the best coaching doesn’t seem like traditional coaching at all.  The environment is set and then the learning responsibility is placed on the student.  How is this possible?  Aren’t we paid the big bucks to provide the learning?  Nope.  The great ones wait.

Live

The great coaches simply live the code, to share their passion with others.  As teachers, we can all relate to the feeling we get when our peeps “get it.”  No learning process is ever the same, canned or linear.  This mantra is the true beauty of our craft as educators.  At times it is the true horror as well.  How many times have you ended the lesson thinking that you totally blew it, missed the mark and didn’t make any sort of learning connection?  You are then shocked when your student says, “that was awesome, the best lesson ever, I learned so much!  Let’s do it again tomorrow.”  All righty then, what just happened here?  Progress just happened because you lived it, and achieved it together.  This true commitment to learning is what makes a great coach.  I have the pleasure of seeing it happen on a regular basis.

Dave Schuiling, Director of Education

Here are some tips for finding the event you are looking for!

You can view the RM Events from the “Events” tab on the RM Homepage

Don’t forget to log-on using your email address as your username and RM followed by your National ID number for your password (unless you have since changed this) Example: name@psia-rm.org and RM123456

 

*Don’t forget, if you have a $35 Clinic Prepayment, you must submit a paper application instead of registering for an event online.

 

You can view the events in two forms:

1. Calendar View

2. Event Listing View

 

1. Calendar View allows you to view events on a calendar, you can scroll between months and find events you are looking for on a certain date. Events are color coded based on discipline:

• Alpine – Purple
• Children’s – Pink
• Telemark & Cross Country – Green
• Adaptive –  Orange
• Multiple Discipline – Blue

 

To view the event from the Event Calendar, click the color coded box for the event you want to view. This will take you to the event specific page where you can view event details, cost, date and time, location, prerequisites, CEU’s, etc.

To register for the event, click the “Add to Cart” button and then view your cart and Check-out.

 

2. Event Listing View brings up a list of all events, starting with the most recent events. The Event Listing page has search boxes at the top that allows you to narrow your event search down.

1. Event Name: This allows you to search by event name, for instance if you are looking for the Alpine Level 1 certification, you would type “Alpine ITC” into the Event Name and all the Alpine ITC”s being offered this season will pop up. Same thing if you are looking for Snowboard Ride clinics, just type “Snowboard Ride 201” into the box and the events matching this description will come up.

2. Event Venue: This allows you to search by the event venue. Looking for events at Loveland Ski area? Type “Loveland” into the Event Venue box and a list of all events at Loveland will come up.

3. Event Type: Lets you search by discipline and ITC, Event or Exam. Looking for all Nordic Exams? Just choose “Nordic Exam” in the drop down menu all all Nordic Exams will show in the list below.

4. Exam Prerequisite: This feature lets you search for prerequisites for any exam. Click “Alpine Level 3” in the drop-down box for all prerequisites that can be taken for the Alpine Level 3 Certification.

5. Event Date: Use the Event Date drop down menu to search for events on a specific date or date range. Choose “Is Greater Than” to search for events that are after a certain date, or choose “Is Between” to search for events that are between a certain date range.

 

General Event Listing Tips:

1. To view an event once you have found what you are looking for, click the Event Name and it will bring you to the event-specific event page where you can view event details and add it to your cart.

2. Don’t forget to “Clear All Values & Reset Search Form” when looking for events if you want to change the search features.

3. Try and use only one or two of the event search field at a time, when you use too many it narrows the search down and doesn’t bring any search results up.

 

Call the office at 970-879-8335 with any questions.

Mad Skills

By

Dave Schuiling, Director of Education

“Consistency, direction, depth, spin, pace” Coach said to me as I blasted yet another yellow, fuzzy ball against the green, vinyl back drop.  This big green back drop resembles the “green monster” at Fenway Park, but unlike hitting dingers into the cheap seats, this particular monster simply keeps the balls close enough to eventually whack again.  In this game, the goal is to get the ball over the net (consistency) and somewhere in the big, blue rectangle (direction) on the other side.  Therefore in the tennis hierarchy, I often leap frog directly to pace because it is so much fun to haul off and crack the ball.  Or so I thought not too long ago, until I started actually playing matches.  As it turns out, the pace/power first strategy makes for a really short game, and not in my favor!

When was the last time you learned something new?  Expanded your horizons and committed to getting really uncomfortable for a while learning something completely new and out of your comfort zone?  Acquiring new skills can be frustrating and rewarding at the same time.  Because if we push the boundaries past what we thought we “could never do”, we might just take our game to the next level.  It’s easy to just do what is comfy and stay in status quo zone.  But if you truly want to elevate your skills to maddening heights, get out there and mix it up, change gears and be humbled by learning something new.  If it were easy it wouldn’t be so much fun or satisfying!  Here’s a stab at relating the tennis hierarchy above to snow sports.

Consistency

This is a simple concept in tennis.  Get the ball over the net one more time than your opponent and you will be successful.  The “how” this is done is the hard part.  Therefore when practicing or training on the snow, repetitions or “touches” are extremely important for developing consistency.  However, quality must always take precedence over quantity.  As the saying goes; practice does not make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect.  When sliding with your guests, make every turn count.  Never ever get lazy when you think no one is watching and simply get down the run.  Take pride in every turn and never settle for mediocrity.  Some of the best training you will ever do is sliding super slow motion, crafting the ultimate, visual perfection for your guests to follow.  Providing this visual image requires you to bring your “A” game 100% of the time.  When it’s your turn to showcase your skills at an exam, it will simply be the same consistent outcome you provide every day you are teaching.

Direction

Direction refers to control.  Control is the ability to put the ball where you want it or make any task happen on your terms.  The terrain does not dictate the outcome as you are in control of your own destiny.  You’ve developed the consistency in every possible scenario imaginable and you can make it happen on demand.  It doesn’t matter if you are on sierra cement, frozen corral, packed granular or 18 inches of champagne, you are up to every challenge the mountain and Mother Nature throw at you.  Direction can also refer to your special purpose.  Your special purpose is your planned destiny and eye of the tiger attitude toward achieving your goals.  Always slide with a purpose.

Depth

Now that you’re “in it to win it”, go out and learn everything there is to know about your new passion.  Become a sponge and soak up every ounce of knowledge you can to enhance your skill acquisition.  Hitting the ball deep keeps your opponent on the defensive without much room to attack.  Going deep in your understanding of technical knowledge or expanding your versatility through lateral learning will allow you to stay on offense at your exam leaving nothing to chance.  Because of your depth and therefore confidence, your mindset should be to shoot for sixes across the board on your score card.  Set yourself up for that success by going deep.

Spin

Spin refers to kicking the ball away or dropping it out of an opponent’s hitting zone.  Spin can also refer to flair or style by putting your own personal stamp on your presentation of skills.  Therefore, give it your own spin.  Take spin literally and always make sure to learn both directions of rotation including your “unnatural” spin as quickly as possible.  Sliding on snow is poetry in motion so express your individuality with your own pizzazz.  The last thing we all want to do is look like cloned golf carts coming down the hill.  Because the foundation has been set by consistency, direction and depth, you can now let it flow and get a little loose.  This concept is where “slopestyle” got its name by adding artistic impression to competitive sliding.

Pace

Pace is power and speed.  Although I initially found that crushing the ball was very satisfying and often times therapeutic, I didn’t have the fundamental skills to be very successful.  However, once the building blocks appear with some consistency, it’s now time to light it up, pick up the pace and let it run!  With power comes great responsibility and now that you’ve reached the upper echelon of this particular skills hierarchy, you are ready for anything, anybody and anywhere.  The application of skills acquisition allows one to deliver on demand, anticipating and reacting on instinct and confidence.  Power can now be unleashed with a vengeance as careful preparation has set the stage.  There is nothing quite like the feeling of ripping a back hand down the line for a winner.  A similar sliding high is ripping a run in total command of the hill or stomping a trick in the park.  The rush of wind in the face combined with sliding athletic freedom is utterly indescribable.  It’s no wonder we are all junkies for snowsports!

Go Mad

All the very best in the New Year as you yearn for knowledge and work to improve your skills.  Do not be afraid to get uncomfortable and try something new.  You’ll be surprised of the outcome when you return to your gear du jour.  Expanding your horizons broadens and deepens your skills and ultimately makes you more well-rounded, versatile and confident.  No matter what you do, keep learning!  If you enjoy the process then the sky’s the limit.  You are on your way to mad skills.

Here is a link to the Governance Task Force Report: GTF Report

 

Rocky Mountain’s Response

 

September 3, 2013

To: Neil Bussiere – Chair – ASEA GTF and the GTF members

From: The Rocky Mountain Executive Committee Joel Munn, Rick Hinckley and Rick Rodd

 

Please accept our gratitude for the work the GTF has done in compiling the Governance Task Force Report dated Aug. 30 2013.  Clearly all members participated with a sense of responsibility and passion.  We sincerely acknowledge and appreciate their efforts. Additionally, we appreciate the communications stating an understanding that these are simply recommendations as well as the Task Force’s respect for necessary reviews by divisional leadership.

Our response is fairly succinct.  Relative to The Findings section, we can agree with Points 1-5 in principal.  That said, we must clarify our tentative agreement.  Point 1 states: “we need a corporation to coordinate and perform tasks at the national level, including ownership of our trademarks….” 

We have stated since our initial Letter of Intent dated June 2012 our commitment to a national entity or, as Point 1 states, “corporation”.  That said, we see Point 1 as:

1)    A joint venture of the divisional companies.  Lakewood is an administrative and support group, Service and Marketing Center, House and/or Caretaker for The Properties, spokesman nationally and internationally etc.  They work for the “new board” on behalf of the divisions. They are not ASEA or PSIA-AASI.  The 9 divisions are the national entity collectively.

2)   Divisions are the 9 Primary Members of the joint venture as business entities, and thus represent their member owners directly as regional companies. Their divisional members are the financial contributors to a formal and legal national entity among the 9.

3)   The “new board” will have proportional voting weighted by the number of members contributing and therefore the proportional financial support to the joint venture.  Divisional leadership directly represents the members’ and their financial investment to a national entity and must be able to safeguard their investment.

Once these points are clarified within Point 1, we would be in total agreement with Points 2, 3, 4, and 5 relative to the governance of the new corporation.  We sincerely hope this new corporation can be created with By-Law changes to the present ASEA.  The initial step in this direction is for the present ASEA Board to adapt Core Recommendations A and B of the Report.  We strongly encourage these changes be adopted by November 1, 2013.

 

 

 

Ross Matlock, current PSIA National Nordic team member, and Jill Matlock, former PSIA National Alpine team member, will host 5 days of skiing at the Niseko ski resort January 11-18, 2014.

For more information and to sign up visit, www.go-ima.com or call 970-349-0230

PSIA-RM-AASI member school Alpenglow Ski Safaris in conjunction with the American Institute for Avalanche Research and Education is offering a 3-day course based out of the Alta Lakes Observatory near Telluride this February.  The trip will include two days of PSIA/AASI credits as well as the Avalanche Level 1 and is open only to PSIA members.

Dates: February 8-10^th  2014.

Cost: $750 dollars per person.

Price includes: all course materials, instruction, two nights at the Alta Lakes with breakfast and dinner included.

This trip will have two course instructors and be open to ten participants.

Contact: Alpenglow Ski Safaris

PO Box 947 – Telluride, CO – 81435

Tel. +001 970 728 6481

Toll free in U.S. 888 586 8365

www.alpenglowskisafaris.com

Email: globalski@alpenglowskisafaris.com

August 18, 2013

The leadership of Rocky Mountain (RM) wants to state clearly that the email you received from Peter Donahue was sent without the RM Division’s knowledge.  Peter’s perspective comes solely from his seat on the National Board, and although his position is called the “RM representative,” we remind you that he was appointed by the National organization and does not directly represent our division. The Leadership of RM feels that his comments incorrectly represent both the issues and the efforts RM has made to clearly define the relationships between the divisions and ASEA.   The fact that you were sent this message without our knowledge demonstrates the core problem that needs to be addressed – the effort of the national group to control the operations of the divisions.

Your RM board is not discussing a “doomsday outcome,” but rather maintains the right to explore a variety of possible scenarios to deal with the national organization’s attempt to force divisional compliance with the threat to remove the use of the PSIA marks and logos. If you reference the recent interview with Joel Munn, our president, you will see that we stated our options with you in an effort to not only keep you informed but to also survey you, the member, for which direction we should go.

We want you to know the certification you receive from RM as a member of the RM division is not in jeopardy.  We remain actively involved in a process to resolve our differences. We are seriously concerned about the timing of Mr. Donahue’s email and feel it has been used to misdirect your attention from the positive and well-intentioned process we are committed to on your behalf, and are directly addressing it to the national leadership. If you have any questions or concerns, your Board of Directors and Executive Director are more than willing to talk with you to provide accurate information and assurance that we are working most diligently to provide the best possible organization and structure for our membership.

Joel Munn, RM President Interview with Dave Schuiling, Director of Education

Last winter I interviewed our President, Joel Munn. The interview received so many compliments and support that we have decided to have a follow up conversation.  With so many articles and reports being sent out via our various levels of social media such as Facebook, LinkedIn, the Scoop and the Community, we thought it was time to check in on the state of the division and what’s happened since last February.  

Scoop:  Joel, great to catch up with you again.  We did our last interview in February. Many of our members said the interview brought a good deal of clarity on some complex subjects.  Thanks for sitting with us.

Joel:  Thanks Dave.  It’s great to have the opportunity to speak directly to our members and The Scoop is a forum I appreciate.  I get around quite a bit during the season and visit some of our groups on the mountain.  There are always some great things going on, however everyone is wrapped up in the fun and learning or focused on a cert exam. Other than a quick chair ride with a few people here and there, I don’t get to speak to a lot of people in depth.

Scoop; Well, with all that’s been going on since we spoke last on this forum, how are you feeling about our current situation regarding interactions with ASEA and the other divisional companies?

Joel:  The past 6 months have been eventful yet, relatively speaking, non-productive from a partnership/affiliation perspective.  I think what is important right now is how our members feel about the situation.  My personal take is that our members are happy with how Rocky Mountain (RM) is being run from an administrative standpoint and judging from the participation and enthusiasm we see in our educational events, it would seem we are in a great place.  The overwhelming feedback we get supports this positive viewpoint.  We do however have continuing issues regarding ASEA, (National) relative to their insistence on having us sign their proposed Affiliation Agreement.  The present ASEA sponsored and facilitated Governance Task Force (GTF) has unfortunately turned out to be another move promoting the affiliation agreements.  The RM Board of Directors has pointed out realistic problems with the structure and organizational model that negatively affect our ability to move RM into the future.  I feel that no other division has been more engaged, creative, and transparent in the entire process than RM.  Yet our attempts to find resolution have been fruitless.  We are, and have been for over a year, at an impasse.  We have some irreconcilable differences.  As our recent Board Report to the RM members indicates, the time has come to stop the costly, non-productive and counter-productive arguments, and potentially “agree to disagree.”

Additionally, the time has come for our RM leadership, in support of our membership, to make some very difficult decisions.  We’ve spent enough time, money, and human resources on this matter.  Unfortunately, as negotiations stagnated, RM became the target of a negative PR campaign which is causing undeserved damage to the reputation of our division, our administrative staff, and volunteer leaders.  The RM board has studied every side of the situation; we have sought legal and professional advice, and worked with three other divisional boards with common viewpoints.  The four non-signing divisions are RM, East, Intermountain and Northwest who represent 74% of the entire membership.  We have a very good understanding of our options both legally and procedurally.  Now before moving forward we must have the additional viewpoints and opinions of our engaged members as soon as possible.

Scoop:  Wow, that’s quite an opening statement!  Let’s focus on a few key aspects and go into more depth to help better our understanding of the issues.

Joel:  That’s why I’m here. I’m going to speak in my normal frank and direct style if that’s alright.  The points I make are agreed upon by our Executive Committee, as well as our internal task force on this issue; which is just over half of our board.  The rest of the board is in tune with the information, and as I continue to check for understanding, in general agreement.

Scoop: Fair enough.  Ok, for a starter, let’s focus on what you call “irreconcilable differences.”  What exactly does that mean?

Joel:   This is as simple as I can describe it:  We want to be a partner in a national organization. The present organizational model that ASEA believes in is a top-down model and they are trying to solidify this model by having all of the divisions sign the affiliation agreement.  RM wants to be partners in a collaborative national association.  They want, and assert they have, ultimate control.  People should make no mistake as they assess this subject; this is about control.  The very existence of RM, in the way we all know it, is at stake here.  Our independence in all of what we do is at risk.  We have always been a culturally rich, proud, successful, and visionary division.  We have an incredible depth of talent, and a passion for constantly improving ourselves which is, in my opinion, unmatched.   The success of divisions comes from their ability to manage their own businesses.  Part of that management is based on the divisions’ ability to connect and communicate with individual members as well as the schools.  Our Administrative and Educational Staff have historically had a sense of ownership in the organization they are directly responsible for; this is what fuels their passion and creativity.  The by-product of that passion is the culture which develops and drives the values, belief systems, and behavior which gives a division its unique and specific identity.  As this board looks at the “mother ship” model (top-down) being promoted, we feel it is not sustainable financially, practically and procedurally, and most importantly from a human resource perspective.  Why does ASEA continue to need dues increases, have an infrastructure that is limping, and a turnover in their staff which is staggering?  I encourage all members to take a close look and start asking some serious questions.

Scoop:  Where does the assertion of ultimate control come from?

 Joel: Well first I would ask people reading this interview to read all of the earlier links posted to the scoop on our web site.  They need to get a greater perspective on history and the maneuvering than I can provide in this timeframe.    But to answer your question, the ASEA owns the Marks, Logos, and Intellectual Properties which we use in our RM business model. The ASEA Board and their attorney Mr. Walters have repeatedly stated that because they own the Properties, they must have ultimate decision-making power over anything concerning those Properties.  That can, and over time most likely be applied to almost everything we do within RM.  This statement positions ASEA with control in a top-down, authoritarian model.  Our attorney has explained to us very clearly that signing the present agreement is akin to signing over RM. Our administrative group would come under ASEA directive in many ways, our Education Staff would be progressively directed and monitored by ASEA, and many decisions which could affect financial stability and the versatility of our business model could be made by the ASEA Board and directly and indirectly by the ASEA Executive Director.  The fact of the matter is our Board most likely cannot even sign the present agreement legally; at least without a By-Law change amended by the board and adopted by the membership.  We also believe we cannot sign it ethically.  When we say we want to be partners we are serious.  They continue to tell us we are an affiliate of them; not in affiliation with them.   We respectfully disagree!  Since we are an independent non-profit corporation we have every right to do so.  In many ways, this move on the part of the ASEA can be interpreted as an attempted corporate take-over.  Our Board is sworn to a “duty of care” of this organization.  It is impossible for us to sign the proposed agreement, and at the same time meet that duty.   It is just that simple.

Scoop: What would you say is the primary difference with what RM is proposing and the position of ASEA and the 5 divisions that have already signed the present Affiliation Agreement?

Joel:  At present the ASEA is a tenth, and for the most part, a separate corporate entity in a “national” organizational model which we believe should be nine or less.  There are no legal ties between the divisional companies and the ASEA other than the 1986 Licensing Agreement.  Our attorney argues that ASEA actually has no members.  There are the “divisions” and there is the ASEA; it is not one and the same.  Before 1971 there were only divisional members.  Pros had the option of joining PSIA (now ASEA); a separate organization.  Since its inception, PSIA was intended to be a marketing, publishing, and at times facilitator between the divisions; these were the services they were formed to provide.  Those services were and still are, to varying degrees, necessary.  In the late 60’s it became apparent that the dues collected were not sufficient to keep PSIA financially viable. Thus the divisions, in order to keep PSIA afloat, agreed to have members join both organizations. The divisions, as business entities, were not then, nor are they now, members of PSIA (ASEA).  Therefore, and unfortunately, the divisions cannot directly represent their members or business entities.  Decisions are made without member or divisional recourse by the ASEA Board; and ultimately their Executive Director and administration.

Our proposal is relatively simple:  We believe the divisions should be the sole members of what is now called ASEA.  In essence the divisions would be ASEA.  The existing ASEA office and infrastructure would continue as it was intended; a Service Center to the individual members and to the divisions who supply the members.  ASEA would “house” the Properties, and when we get there, the National Standards.  The present Lakewood group would essentially be the “headquarters” of the new alliance or partnership between the divisions. Management would report to the new Board of Directors.  The Board would consist of one Board Member from each of the divisional companies, and thus finally be a “National Board.” Each Board Member would directly represent their respective, contributing company, yet certainly have responsibilities for the welfare of the entire group.  At present from the advice of our attorneys, this structure is the only structure which would allow us to directly represent our members and the company they own, within a national organization.

We also feel it is imperative that voting within this Board, on most if not all matters, needs to be proportional to the number of members, and ultimately the financial support, each division is contributing. At present, the ASEA is providing administrative assistance to some divisions. It may be argued, and is by some, that they are being at least partially subsidized by the dues of members of the other divisions. One might conclude that this is a contributing factor for some of the divisions that have signed the present Affiliation Agreement.

We believe our suggestion is not only for fairness and practicality, but to make the entity financially sustainable; something which is in question as it exists today.  At present there are 3 divisions that in total do not have the same amount of members combined in the next smallest division.  For their best interest, and the best interest of the new national entity, we suggest they consider combining with each other, or perhaps partner with their nearest geographical neighbor.  This would make the national entity either 6 or 7 divisions.  We believe this would make a new national organization less cumbersome, allow for more equity in voting, consistency of process and standards, ease of movement forward on issues, and as I mentioned, financial stability.

Scoop:  Ok, you’ve laid out the present situation very clearly.  With all of this in mind what do you and the Board see as our options going forward?

Option 1: First I would say we need to decide whether RM wants to be part of a top-down national organization. We have stated unequivocally we want to be part of a “national entity.”  With that said, we continue to insist it be a partnership, not a top-down model.  We’re asking for feedback from our members as soon as possible.  We are being forced on a number of fronts into making a decision.

As for the Board of Directors of RM, we feel because of our fiduciary responsibilities to the survival of RM, it is not possible for us to sign such an agreement. Yet, should the overwhelming majority of our membership tell us they don’t agree, we have to give serious consideration to signing the Affiliation Agreement, along with whatever governance model.  So, what I’ll call Option 1 is to sign the Affiliation Agreement.

Option 2.   This is a choice that in essence would be a transition period.   We feel we have tried in every way to offer a best case scenario for this issue to come to resolution.  Yet it is obvious that ASEA will continue with its refusal to allow the divisions to be the members of ASEA and ultimately be ASEA.   We are now moving on and simply “agreeing to disagree.” When I say move on, we will state our intention to ASEA to continue with business as usual.  We will continue to set standards, educate to those standards, and verify that education through our certification programs.  We will use the Marks, Logos, and Properties as we always have and will continue to collaborate with our divisional partners.  With that said, note I said “transition.”  Every indication we’ve seen from the ASEA Board and their attorneys is that if we do not sign the Affiliation Agreement, they will subsequently pull our right to use The Properties.  Their attorney, Mr. Walters, put it very simply.  He stated “if you don’t sign, you will be in violation of the 1986 Agreement and will have essentially given up your right of use.”  From his perspective and that of the ASEA President Mr. Sheckleton, anyone not being a member of the ASEA should not wear PSIA or AASI pins.

That leaves us with Option 3.  If and when the ASEA decides to pull our use of The Properties, we would be forced to transition into a newly named company. We would manage our affairs under a new logo and seek legal means to continue use of what they consider “their” Properties.  RM educational units would continue to be valid and we would negotiate reciprocity with the other divisions.  How the ASEA would handle this is unsure, yet they have stated they would “come into” RM and conduct educational and certifications events.  Our members would have the option to join both RM and the ASEA, yet as things stand right now, unless the ASEA adapts another By-Law change, could not join the ASEA solely because you can only become a member of the ASEA by joining a division first.

I do see an Option 4.  That would be the ASEA Board giving up on the ultimate authority they are pursuing and join a collaborative process to design a completely new paradigm as I proposed earlier in this conversation.  They can do that with us, or if not, we can take the lead alone and invite our divisional partners to move in a direction without the ASEA and form a new paradigm.

Scoop: Thank you very much Joel for your continued passion, dedication and perseverance through this process.

Please check out last winter’s interview in the winter edition of The Instructor to Instructor on our website www.psia-rm.org.  You can also find historical documents in earlier posts on The Scoop.

 

 

 

 

Dear Fellow Ski and Ride Pros:

As members of Rocky Mountain, we all share a commitment to teaching and service to our guests and our sports.  As true professionals, we dedicate ourselves to learning so we can experience growth, change, and improvement for ourselves and for our students.   As board members, our learning has to extend even farther, to the organization itself.  As your elected representatives, we are committed to and responsible for ensuring Rocky Mountain’s health, growth, change, and improvement, and we need to share some very important information that directly involves your organization’s future.

You may be aware of communications over the last year regarding the effort of the divisions and the national organization to more formally define their relationships.   The attempt to create a document with input from the divisions went from draft form to final form without suggested revisions, and most importantly, without a fundamental shift in the ability to determine our own organization’s direction.  The final Affiliation Agreement that Rocky Mountain did not and will not sign was thoroughly discussed in the boardroom, and included the advice of our organization’s legal counsel.   Here is a summary of the reasons on which we based our decision:

1. The agreement gives ASEA complete control over the logos, marks, and intellectual properties that have been developed through the combined efforts of the divisional memberships.  We do not object to their registration of the marks, etc., but rather to the fact they can be used to require compliance with whatever policy ASEA sets.  As a separate company, we as board members are unable to put the responsibility for RM’s health in the hands of another.  We develop the education and certification to suit the needs of our guests, members, and member schools.  We have and will continue to work with other divisions to share best practices, explore new information, and improve exam processes.  This has been and can be done without the oversight of ASEA.
2. There are concerns about potential financial and operational risks to RM.  Without a direct voice in how budgets, dues, and management are handled, the integrity of our own business is in jeopardy.  Operational decisions made for the whole may create challenges for the separate businesses.  Again, having the fate of your organization in the hands of an outside party was not the outcome intended.  Our goal was to have the divisions in charge of their own destinies while sharing the logos, the commitment to educational excellence, and the provision of benefits to their respective memberships (shared marketing, pro deals, and the like)
3. We have a long history of excellence in RM and a sense of ownership of the processes we’ve created.  We want to maintain the flexibility to evolve, grow, and change in ways that serve our unique demographic and geographic membership base.  Most importantly, we want to create opportunities that maximize the talents of the people who make up our division.  We want to show support for the depth of our education and office staff whose efforts contribute to our collective sense of pride in our profession as RM members.   As leaders and learners, Rocky Mountain wants to continue and exceed its past efforts to make progress and contribute at its most creative and efficient pace.

We want to remind you that there were other divisions who chose not to sign the Affiliation Agreement. A separate effort was made to address other areas of concern to the divisions, in particular the area of governance and the ability to have real representation at the national level.    This effort was meant to be distinct from the Affiliation Agreement that we repeatedly told ASEA would not be acceptable to us. A Governance Task Force was created, and while there has been some productive discussion, Rocky Mountain continues to be singled out as unwilling to compromise.  Our belief is we share differences in what compromise means.  We have done our best to be consistent in communicating what would work for RM, and there is no flexibility on the part of ASEA.  We are described as the unchanging party when we have suggested all along that the process has proceeded from one point of view – that of ASEA in control of the divisions.   Despite the initial sense that having more divisions sign the agreement was not part of this effort, recent discussions suggest they are moving the effort in that direction. Keep in mind that at this point, the five divisions that signed the agreement only represent 26% of the total membership in divisions nationwide. We believe we are at the point where we must agree to disagree and will turn our efforts to running the RM business to create a great 2013-2014 season for all of us.

The Rocky Mountain Board of Directors

Most of you reading this have been members for 5+ years so you know how good it was, when it changed and just how frustrating it became. Because of this, Rocky Mountain decided to go back to their own database. On July 1^st we made the switch to CiviCRM. While we appreciate the effort on ASEA’s part to have one central system, unfortunately, it just did not work. After three exhausting and expensive years on the ASEA (aka National) database, we knew it was in your best interest to make this move.

The three main reasons:

1.      Cost savings: The new system will cost 1/3 of what we were paying ASEA, that’s a $10,000 annual savings! So not only will we not need to raise dues next year, we will be able to continue to fund scholarships, expand our curriculum and better serve you, our members.

2.      Ease of use: The new system is cleaner, slicker and way easier to navigate through event sign up and dues paying. In fact if you haven’t paid your dues yet – go to https://members.psia-rm.org/ and see for yourself just how easy it is!

3.      We care: We embrace Rocky Mountains Divisions’ unique needs and demographic differences from the other 8 divisions, so this allows us to support you, our members, better.

Unfortunately the national database system went down on June 28^th, therefore if you paid your dues you may still appear to be unpaid on the ASEA database and webpage, limiting your access to benefits. If you paid via the RM office or website we have processed your dues and are updating the national office with your info. Please be patient, they are actively working to resolve the issues and back log to restore the accuracy of your membership profile and benefits.

We would like to personally thank Tyler Barnes of Popstar Digital for designing and implementing a system that works for you. Our launch went off without a hitch and we look forward to reaping the benefits of the new system as event registrations begin in the fall.

Please don’t hesitate to call our office if you have any questions or comments on the new system. 970-879-8335

July 9, 2013 A member’s Response to Eric Sheckleton Posts on Linkedin

Governance and Credentialing

For more information and to comment on the discussion, please go to the Linkedin PSIA group

http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=56609&trk=hb_side_g

GOVERNANCE

First, I want to thank you Eric for your time. I want to make sure that all of us, even though we

may disagree, do appreciate and thank you and the rest of the volunteers of PSIA-AASI for their

time. I also understand that all of our volunteers have been sincere in their efforts to do the best

job they can for the benefit of our organizations.

I will post governance comments here and credentialing comments on that thread.

In summary, here is what I hear you saying:

– You believe that ASEA is serving the divisions and can’t and won’t do anything unless the

divisions agree

– You believe that ASEA is responsive to the divisions

– You believe that ASEA has been communicating with the members appropriately regarding the

current issues

– You believe that the GTF was properly conducted and that everyone at the meeting agreed

– You believe that the Affiliation Agreement is appropriately crafted, in line with the purpose of

ASEA and the divisions, that protects the interests of the divisions and that all should sign it

First a general comments:

Regarding informing the members – Posting something on ASEA website pretty much assures

that not many members will see it. Publishing something in 32 Degrees means that many will

read it, but it might be dated and not relevant. Emailing it assures that more people will read it

and it will be timely. Publishing something any place that only represents one side of an issue, is

biased and not good reporting. This has unfortunately been the case in all the ‘informative’

emails that ASEA has sent out. The email sent out to RM members regarding their withdrawing

from the CRM was condescending and written to create questions in the minds of their members.

IMHO, it was inappropriately phrased. It seems that ASEA has room to improve regarding

communication if ASEA truly wants to be responsive to the needs of the divisions.

1. ASEA BOARD ACCOUNTABILITY: The underlying premise that the divisions are ultimately

in control and that ASEA is there to meet their needs is flawed. Our current system of governance

is in conflict with that premise.

Currently, ASEA is governed by a board that is not representative of the divisions, but which

claims to represent all the individual members. Therefore, the divisions actually have NO SAY in

the governance of ASEA. Originally, national was the partnership of the divisions. It no longer is.

National was originally created by the divisions to help them do together what is better done

together. Starting back in 2007, the divisions were eliminated from the governance of ASEA. The

ASEA board representatives do not represent the divisions, but rather the members at large.

Therefore, the divisions do not have any direct vote on what the ASEA board decides to do.

July 9, 2013 In Response to Eric Sheckleton Posts on Linkedin

Governance and Credentialing2. AFFILIATION AGREEMENT: I find it difficult to understand how you and others can still be

so supportive of it when the divisions, representing 74% of the membership of ASEA, had their

attorneys review it and on professional legal advice, they did not sign it. The simple fact that it

was not signed by all should be enough evidence, that it needs to be revisited instead of simply

hoping that some re-education will compel the rest of the divisions to sign it. Please do not

continue to quote parts of the Affiliation Agreement as if it is some wonderful, albeit

misunderstood document, that is enforceable. It is not. If it were, it would have been signed by all

the divisions.

Regardless of how many times, you or others repeat that it is the divisions, etc. who are

important and running the show, the only logical conclusion of this current stand-off is that

ASEA has not been responsive to the divisions. Had ASEA been responsive, we would not have

non-affiliated divisions, a Joint Resolution (representing 74% of the membership) or a GTF.

3. ASEA EMPOWERED: It is obvious that the divisions have not been the ones in control, but

rather that ASEA has evolved to be the 10th organization that is separate and apart from the

divisions. THIS is the an issue with governance and THIS was not the intent of the original

organization. ASEA is not PSIA-AASI (except in the d/b/a’s).

4. JOINT RESOLUTION: IN addition, look at the Joint Resolution and the GTF. If ASEA is truly

being run by the divisions and is responsive to them and they are making the decisions, why did

you have divisions representing about 74% of the members object? Why did they have to meet

and create the Joint Resolution in order to be heard by ASEA?

5. MEMBERSHIP: That ASEA doesn’t think there is an issue with the current concept of

membership is illogical. If ASEA were a membership organization, then someone could join it.

They can’t. One first has to join a divisions to be able to join ASEA. Certainly the concept of dual

membership is confusing and should be cleared up. Membership is at the heart of the Joint

Resolution Group which wants to see us move to a clear definition of ASEA having the 9

divisions as its members. This would make it more of a partnership. However, this was barely

given air time at the recent GTF. Why?

6. GTF: IN regards to the GTF, clearly we have a problem with our current system of

governance. If our governance did not need changing, then we would not have the GTF. Contrary

to what the Agenda of the GTF meeting implied, it is not a matter of simply “educating” the nonaffiliated divisions. That idea was insulting.

Meetings can be organized and run that do not give all the participants freedom to truly say what

they believe. Look at the agenda of the GTF, look at the recommendations and look at RM’s

report. Had the GTF meeting been run in a more appropriate manner, RM would not have been

compelled to issue the report that they did.

ASEA has a track record of organizing such meetings. Tony Brown lamented the fact that often at

meetings everyone is in agreement, but afterwards that seems to fall apart. If this happens, I

would suggest you look at how the meetings are run and organized. That is an earmark of what

some refer to as kool-aid meetings.

7. INFORMATIVE REPORTS VERSUS RECOMMENDATIONS: There is a big difference in a

meeting report that could be issued immediately following a meeting and conclusive

recommendations. The fact that the GTF issued recommendations that were not supported by all

is very sad indeed. The fact that you say that everyone agreed, (that you are trying to use that to

justify the resulting recommendations by the GTF), points to the conclusion that you do not

believe that RM’s report has much to do with the way the GTF was run. Should not the fact that

RM felt so strongly not make you go back and question your evaluation of the GTF meeting and

its recommendations?

(It is odd that a group would want to issue recommendations if it never took a vote after giving

the participants time to reflect over the suggestions with their constituents.)

It seems pretty obvious that since we have the results that we do, the GTF was not run in such a

way to allow everyone to speak their minds. I would look at the underlying ground rules,

premises and format of the meeting. There is no getting around the fact that this current GTF is

not working. You cannot disregard that fact.

8. INTERSKI COMMENTS: The comments we heard at Interski are not hearsay, PJ, myself and

others heard them made. I will let you know privately who said them, one person.

We have a long way to go right now regarding informing the membership about the issue of

governance. So far, the emails from ASEA have only portrayed what ASEA finds favorable. If

ASEA truly thinks it is responsive to all the divisions, this should be rectified.

I would hope that:

1. The fact that we have an unsigned Affiliation Agreement, a Joint Resolution and a crumbling

GTF;;

2. The fact that the divisions are not represented at all in the current structure of ASEA, not even

by the President’s Council;

that these lead to the conclusion that we do have a governance issue. More over, that to solve this

governance issue, the GTF is not the answer.

I would like to suggest that we to enter into a process of re-structuring, reconciliation and

growth such as Horst suggested – a process that would not be facilitated by ASEA, but rather by

the divisions, collectively. ASEA no longer is a partnership of the divisions. By its own creation,

ASEA is an independent organization separate from the divisions with a board that does not

represent the divisions. It is the #10, not a group of divisions. Therefore, ASEA cannot be the

unbiased organizer of any process to reform our structure of governance, especially if such

reorganization may well result in ASEA ceasing to exist in its present form.

Wouldn’t it be great if the executive director and ASEA board called the division leadership

together (presidents, staff and national board members) and ask, “What can we do to better help

you do your job of attracting, educating and serving our collective members?”

CREDENTIALING

First, I want to thank you Eric for your time. I want to make sure that all of us, even though we

may disagree, do appreciate and thank you and the rest of the volunteers of PSIA-AASI for their

time. I also understand that all of our volunteers have been sincere in their efforts to do the best

job they can for the benefit of our organizations.

I will post credentialing comments here and governance comments on that thread.

In summary, here is what I hear you saying:

– You believe that there is an issue with the consistency of the divisions regarding certs

– You believe that outside credentialing might improve the product for the members

– You believe that ASEA has been and has to be responsive to the needs and requests of the

divisions regarding accreditation and certification

– You truly believe that the standards are developed by the divisions under our current system of

governance

– You believe that SEP is working well and is the right program for us to follow

– Until more time is spent pursing the outside accreditations, you don’t know what implications

such accreditation will have on the divisions ability to certify if they don’t comply.

– Until more time is spent pursing the outside accreditations, you don’t know if national would be

in charge or not

– The 1986 agreement enables divisions to use the PSIA marks in conjunction with certification.

First a few general comments:

Regarding informing the members – Posting something on ASEA website pretty much assures

that not many members will see it. Publishing something in 32 Degrees means that many will

read it, but it might be dated and not relevant. Emailing it assures that more people will read it

and it will be timely. Publishing something any place that only represents one side of an issue, is

biased and not good reporting. This has unfortunately been the case in all the ‘informative’

emails that ASEA has sent out. The email sent out to RM members regarding their withdrawing

from the CRM was condescending and written to create questions in the minds of their members.

IMHO, it was inappropriately phrased. It seems that ASEA has room to improve regarding

communication if ASEA truly wants to be responsive to the needs of the divisions.

Discussion:

1. CONSISTENT STANDARDS AMONGST DIVISIONS: The underlying premise that the

divisions are ultimately in control and that ASEA is there to meet their needs is flawed. Our

current system of governance is in conflict with that premise.

Currently, ASEA is governed by a board that is not representative of the divisions, but which

claims to represent all the individual members. Therefore, the divisions actually have NO SAY in

the governance of ASEA. Originally, national was the partnership of the divisions. It no longer is.

National was originally created by the divisions to help them do together what is better done

together. Starting back in 2007, the divisions were eliminated from the governance of ASEA. The

ASEA board representatives do not represent the divisions, but rather the members at large.

Therefore, in regards to credentialing, the divisions do not have any direct vote on what the

ASEA board decides to do. This means that the creation and enforcement of standards is not in

the hands of the divisions, but rather ultimately in the hands of ASEA. We are fortunate that

ASEA has not yet exorcised this power, We are fortunate that there are “good” people involved

with our organizations.

One would assume, that like a good king, ASEA would listen to the divisions, but they don’t have

to. SEP, as it is designed, asks for further empowerment of the national office to carry out the

goals of SEP. SEP does not empower the divisions, but rather the national office.

The reason why the divisions are currently not on the same page is because ASEA stopped the

processes which had brought them together – the 2-3 times a year ed/cert meetings and examiner

exchanges. However, the tasks forces that the national office created to take the place of the ed/

cert meetings did not work. Without the divisions regularly meeting and having examiner

exchanges, they grew apart in their certifications. The fact that SEP was created to solve the

issue of consistency in education and certification is proof that the system set up by ASEA was

failing.

However, instead of going back to a system that had proven to work, SEP was developed to

enable ASEA and the national office to direct meetings by divisional reps as they saw fit. Of

course, those who attended those meetings welcomed them. However, the control of those

meetings was not as it had been, in the hands of the divisions, but rather now in the hands of the

national office. The current SEP only casually resembles the previous meetings of the ed/cert

managers.

2. CERTIFICATION OF THE CERTIFICATIONS: The argument that outside accreditation

would make our certifications more valuable is almost nonsensical. The Divisions and National

were originally established to certify instructors for the industry. It is and has been the industry

standard for years. All the resorts accept PSIA-AASI as the certifying agency and many grade

their pay scales on those certification. PSIA-AASI certifications have been accepted by an

international agency, ISIA. What more can you want? Having an outside accrediting agency enter

into the picture will not increase the pay of instructors or make the certifications more valuable.

There is no logical connection there.

Are we not already CERTIFIED ski instructors. Our certifications are already accepted as

industry standard. Becoming certified certified ski instructors will not improve this, but only will

cost us more and result in less control by the divisions.

IF and when there is accrediting by an outside organization, by definition, there will be set

standards that will have to be enforced. Even if you truly believe that ASEA is responsive to the

divisions; even if you truly believe that the divisions created the standards; it will still be ASEA

who will be responsible for enforcing those standards. By definition, that control will rest with

ASEA. The divisions will HAVE to comply or else their certifications will not be valid. Right

now, compliance is voluntary.

Why do you see the need to add that strong arm option of enforcement via an outside agency?

Don’t you believe that the divisions will comply if the standards are valuable? With valuable

standards, there would be no reason to not comply, so why do you see the need for an enforcer?

Don’t you think that there is another path to more consistency and excellence in our

certifications? We all agree that they could be improved and become more consistent amongst the

divisions.

I would rather see the divisions comply not by force via outside credentialing and enforcement

via ASEA, but rather by an ongoing mutually agreeable set of standards that are free to evolve

and that represent best practices and which are of value and work. This is a different route to

arrive at more consistency amongst the divisions. It is less rigid and more adaptable. We used to

be more consistent, so we know that it worked in the past. For a while, everyone even used the

same score sheet!

There is a big difference between facilitating, servicing, supporting and controlling. SEP is

designed and has been implemented to empower national, not to service and support the

divisions, but rather to service and support ASEA. While the underlying idea of getting the

divisions together is great, I believe we need to look revise the current mechanism, SEP, for

doing this.

Why is the board and executive director so opposed to allowing the divisions to once again

organize and work together? Financially, I am certain we could make this happen again.

We have a long way to go right now regarding informing the membership about the issue of

credentialing. So far, the communications have only portrayed what ASEA finds favorable. If

ASEA truly thinks it is responsive to all the divisions, this should be rectified.

Underlying this operational issue with credentialing is governance. The governance issue needs

to be rectified first. I would like to suggest that we to enter into a process of re-structuring,

reconciliation and growth such as Horst suggested – a process that would not be facilitated by

ASEA, but rather by the divisions, collectively. ASEA no longer is a partnership of the divisions.

By its own creation, ASEA is an independent organization separate from the divisions with a

board that does not represent the divisions. It is the #10, not a group of divisions. Therefore,

ASEA cannot be the unbiased organizer of any process to reform our structure of governance,

especially if such reorganization may well result in ASEA ceasing to exist in its present form.

Wouldn’t it be great if the executive director and ASEA board called the division leadership

together (presidents, staff and national board members) and ask, “What can we do to better help

you do your job of attracting, educating and serving our collective members?”

 

Please click the link below to view the GTF Recommendations Report from July 3, 2013:

GTF Recommendations Report

Rocky Mountain Response to the GTF Report

July 3, 2013

In response to your request for feedback, the PSIA-RM-AASI Board of Directors begins by providing three points to reference as you review our comments.  Those comments will specifically address each recommendation, while these core principles form the backbone of our reply.

1 – The PSIA-RM-AASI Board has said and continues to say we are not signing the existing Affiliation Agreement.  It seeks to formalize a relationship in terms we do not accept, and while not intended to be a part of the GTF, seems to be inherently so. We endorse and will only accept an organization that has Divisions at its core and in control, one that grounds itself in the belief that we can collaborate and create results as a collective of independent member groups. Our form of a national organization serves to fulfill our needs, and not the reverse. We share a past that demonstrates that the value of the marks, logos, and intellectual properties are the direct result of Divisions and their members’ efforts to pursue excellence in education, certification, and service.

2 – We understand the governance model and structure the report suggests to be formalized.  We believe it is a model of top down organization and control created through:

• The redefinition of ASEA as an individual membership organization.(See detail in comments on Clarity of Purpose and Recommendation #1)
• The registration (effectively the ownership) of the marks, logos, and intellectual properties.  Efforts from the individual members of divisions created the value of each of those items as working ski and ride professionals.
• The focus on accreditation (See detail on comments on Recommendation #2).  This topic does not seem germane to the governance theme and was not included in the agenda.

The Governance Task Force removed other models from the table without the kind of “extensive consideration” your report suggests, and the kind of discussion that might both foster creativity and yield as yet unknown possibilities for our organizations to work together as our profession moves forward.

3 – We are committed to having a national organization and remain willing to discuss other possible models.  We are unable to continue those efforts within the context of the Governance Task Force until those models are given a fair hearing.  Given the results of this report and its recommendations, the outcomes seem to us predetermined, the group’s purposes redefined, and the recent process compromised by its very design and facilitation.  PSIA-RM-AASI will continue to run its business and fulfill our responsibilities to our mission and our members, and await further conversation based on the feedback we are providing to you.

Feedback section by section:

Introduction: The report’s introduction ends with a statement about the Task Force being “proud to acknowledge that all of the issues/concerns brought forth from the SLC meeting received extensive consideration, and that the recommendations below substantively address those topics.”  Following conversations with our GTF Representative, reviews of the SLC discussions, and items in your workbook, we do not believe that statement accurately reflects the proceedings.  From our perspective the issues and concerns from the SLC meeting were more substantively dismissed.  A sense of pride in the work as a group suggests everyone is in agreement, but the report does not describe the mechanism by which each representative indicated acknowledge of that consideration.  Further, although dissenting opinion was solicited, it was not acknowledged.  Our recommendation of a Minority Report was disapproved in favor of a single report of implied yet erroneous unanimity.

1. Clarity of Purpose and Recommendation #1:  The GTF Report lists “Defining the purpose of PSIA-AASI vis-à-vis the Divisions” as a key issue relative to the groups task. Defining it as you have reinforces ASEA’s position over the divisions; the singular model you addressed.  With the affirmation of a new purpose of ASEA, it appears the GTF suggests something we believe to be contrary to the existing Articles of Incorporation.  Those, of course, can be changed like bylaws, all within the existing structure where divisions and members currently have no real representation.

What was the mechanism for affirming this new statement of purpose?  We all want to recognize the importance of our respective organizations’ members, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that our members become ASEA members only and directly through their divisions.  That raises the possibility that ASEA has a clear motivation to make Recommendation #1 continue “dual membership”. Does that mean members have to pay for services they don’t require?  The need for dual membership acknowledges some desired service needs, but we respectfully suggest those may be more in the realm of pro-deals and publication purchases than education and certification.   At present, members may want different marketing campaigns, and more effective management of administrative costs.  The mention of “affiliated Divisions” in the ASEA bylaws is an odd way to affirm your commitment through automatic dual membership. We are pursuing the option for members to join whichever organizations they choose and will seek to allow division-only memberships.  Further we do not recognize ASEA as a certifying or credentialing body.

2.  National Board of Directors Structure and Recommendations #2A-B-C-D: We do not believe this section addresses “all major concerns pertaining to National representation, accountability, and voting structure.” 2A – says members can vote through their divisions, and then places those reps. in the divisions’ board rooms.  This continues to muddle the “clarity and understanding” of representation of a Division, and keeps all conflict of interest concerns in play. ASEA’s defining the nomination and election process asks the division to supply the needs of that board, not their own.

Discussion of options for voting was a move in a good direction, but remained within the current structure with nine divisions.  Other Structures might include having smaller divisions merge with larger ones, but time spent doing the math as we currently elimited other possibilities from the discussion.  We note that proportional representation was discussed and this could be fulfilled under the Divisions as Members Model, but it is disingenuous to discuss it and then instituting a Super majority that effectively negates proportional representation.   The Rocky Mountain Board will nominate, vet and approve any representation of their members to the national organization and maintains its right to terminate that representative with or without cause.  The report also does not include comments about the impact to the budget with the recommended increase to the size of the board as in #2B.  Again, the number of board members is less the issue than the failures to more thoroughly address the duty of loyalty and role of representatives in Recommendation #2C.

Reminding representatives to advocate for their divisions is noted, but the proposed change to the PSIA-AASI Board of Directors’ Duty of Loyalty policy statement does nothing to remove the fact that they must continue to recognize “that the National board has the ultimate duty to the best interests of PSIA-AASI’s total membership”.  More disturbing to us is the inclusion of the phrase “for the benefit of its membership”, which re-affirms our belief in the attempt to change the organization’s purpose and claim the divisions’ memberships as ASEA’s own. Finally, Recommendation #2D is less significant, given how the report ties it into the other three and their more seriously flawed logic.

3. National Standards and Certification, and Recommendation #3: The topic of education and certification is absent in this report’s introductory list of key substantive issues, and seems out of place in this process; yet here it is. We believe the pursuit of accreditation suggested in this context is a precursor to assuming control over our divisions’ business: the business of educating and certifying. We state this particularly because you recommend Divisions “specifically acknowledge” their representatives can advocate for the division while honoring the duty of loyalty to the national group, tying this back to Recommendation #2C. The past and present collaborative efforts made on the part of the divisions demonstrate their interest in their mutual membership without having to direct any of that effort from above. It is one thing to speak of a “member-focused purpose”, but quite another to leave us uncertain about any general call from the memberships for giving “priority to conducting due diligence regarding pursuit of accreditation of PSIA-AASI Certifications”.

4. Presidents Council and Recommendation #4: This section falls in line with our stating that the framework for the GTF discussion took place under the ASEA top/down model. We would not want to affirm commitment to a council under this model. If the divisions were the members of a newly structured organization, the presidents would be the board and have no need to bring their agendas to any other organization’s attention for consideration. In one sense it is encouraging to see the desire to affirm commitment to the Presidents’ Council if it is meant to formally acknowledge past failures and limitations on its power. Allowing the Chair to sit on the ASEA Board and Executive Committee without vote does not change that Board’s duty of loyalty, and clarifying “the open invitation” to ASEA Board meetings goes no further in addressing that fundamental issue any more than the previous recommendation on that topic. There have been issues with past Council Chairs regarding representation of Divisions’ interests and failure to communicate important information. Questions have been raised about the ability to keep the Council Chair role clear of ASEA influence.  This is fundamentally a “feel good communication” recommendation and does not have any tangible or practical role in governance.

5. Leadership Development and Recommendation #5:  The PSIA-RM-AASI Board recommends that leadership development programs be requested by their own members, board, and employees, and discussed as a need collectively among the other divisions.  Other structures would allow us to have a choice of collaborators.  Governance can be strengthened without the direction of the present “tenth” organization, as is demonstrated by the process and facilitation of the latest attempt to address our concerns.

Summary, Rationale, and Next Steps:  There are problems with our accepting many of the premises shared in these sections of the report.  Our feedback raises fundamental questions about the overall concept and we find many issues needing more than refinement.  We have purposefully limited both length and details in our feedback here because we believe we have contributed significant amounts of information, clarification, and participation for some time in the evolution of the governance issue.  Our energies have been devoted to collaborating in the search for the creation of a new national snow sports’ organization and its purpose.  We continue to find ourselves being offered opportunities to discuss within a process that does not truly allow for points of view that differ from ASEA remaining as the player in control.  The opportunity to affect and essentially take over our purposes is not the opportunity we want to formalize as healthy for our future.  We are well aware our comments may raise questions and doubts about our motivations and past participations, and that our collective board and individual members’ integrities will be criticized,  but ultimately, the reason for our commitment has always been to protect and promote the rightful place of the Divisions as the core of a self-determined and self-directed group of professionals.  RM does not claim supremacy over any other group, but we are proud of our history as educators and volunteer leaders in managing our region’s success and we plan to continue our pursuit of excellence.

Next Steps:  Somewhere in the midst of all the philosophical and practical differences we each are driven to pursue, we all remain a group of people in the snow sports profession who share a rich history and potentially promising future.  We submit the following for circulation and further discussion as an attempt to shift perceptions back to how much we might agree rather than disagree.  Across the country, standards or no standards, we all use the core educational system we’ve developed collectively.  Might we all also agree to a Code of Ethics that speaks internally and externally about integrity in our work?  We all want services provided like some type of buyers’ club and marketing.  Yes, we’d need a structure, a way to define agreement, but the focus here is just to start talking about what we might agree on.  Envision an organization where:

1 – We agree* to use the collectively developed educational materials that fall under ATS.

2 – We agree* to uphold these collectively created ethical guidelines.

3 – We have a members’ buyers’ club and marketing group.

*There will have to be a new governance structure, voting that defines agreement.

Compliance with 1 and 2 gets you the use of the logos and marks because that is the core of their value: an educational philosophy and behavior that demonstrates we are professionals in service to guests and the industry as a whole.  Use signifies agreement with an educational system in the spirit of the founding members’ desire to have a recognizable and more consistent experience for people across the country who participated in our sport.  That is a different kind of spirit than controlling it. Independent groups can share agreement with behaving in a professional, ethical manner as a member of the profession. We believe creative (and creating) organization structures can be loose, collaborative, and far less about control, power, and money, and more about pride in the quality of our products, our people, our sports, and our passion for teaching and helping people learn to love these sports.

We are proud of RM’s contributions and commitment throughout our history together.   The feedback we have contributed should telegraph our intent to withdraw from the Task Force process until the format changes from one that is being controlled to one that seeks to explore all possibilities for change, renewal, and healing.   We are not alone in continuing to work towards a future that serves our members better than the current state of affairs.  We know what we’ve done, we know we disagree with your model, and we remain willing to pursue a national organization for the benefit of all in a forum where opposing ideas and alternatives to the ASEA model are the basis of the discussion, rather than topics to be dismissed because those controlling the process will allow for nothing less than capitulation to their own idea.

 -PSIA-Rocky Mountain-AASI Board of Directors

Rocky Mountain Response to the GTF Report (Short Version)

At the recent ASEA sponsored and facilitated Governance Task Force session on June 2 and 3, 2013 recommendations were proposed.  The PSIA-RM –AASI Board of Directors would like to relay our response to these recommendations.  The core principles we stand on are:

• The PSIA-RM-AASI Board continues to hold that we are not signing the existing Affiliation Agreement.  We desire an organization that has the Divisions as its members and is there to serve its membership needs.
• We believe the model of governance recommended is a structure from the top down inserting control by 1) redefining ASEA as an individual membership organization, 2) taking ownership of the marks, logos, and intellectual properties, and 3) clouding the process by focusing on accreditation.
• WE ARE COMMITTED TO A NATIONAL ORGANIZATION and remain WILLING TO CONSIDER different models of governance.  PSIA-RM-AASI will continue to run its business of providing education and certification programs and fulfill our responsibilities to our mission and our members.

The PSIA-AASI governance reform report leads you to believe that those in attendance were in agreement, when in actuality, there was not a vote or process to confirm any type of agreement.  Our recommendation of a Minority Report was disregarded.  The report also lists “Defining the purpose of PSIA-AASI vis-à-vis the Divisions” as a key issue for this group.  The only model entertained was one that reinforces ASEA’s position over the Divisions and recommended the concept of “dual membership”.  We feel at this point we must remember that to become an ASEA member you must first be a member of the Division.  Thus we feel a more ideal model would be one in which the membership of ASEA would be the Divisions.

While addressing the National Board of Directors structure and recommendations, options for proportional representation and voting were discussed, but were negated by the proposed super majority.  With the “Divisions as Members Model” the RM Board could nominate, vet and approve any representation of their members to the national organization and maintains its right to terminate their representation.  In the changes recommended for PSIA-AASI Board of Directors Duty of Loyalty policy statement we find the inclusion of the phrase “for the benefit of its membership”, a ploy to claim the Divisions’ membership their own.

The Divisions are in the business of education and certification.  We feel that discussion of accreditation further shows intent by ASEA to control the Divisions and their business.   Further issues of accreditation cloud the horizon of ASEA’s role to the divisions.  We recommend that the divisions maintain their collaborative efforts to develop shared standards in this regard.

In summary we find many points in the stated recommendations that need refinement and raise questions that contradict our core principles.  Let’s look at a concept that we, as a collective group of snowsports professionals, can agree upon.  “Envision an organization where:  1) We agree to use the collective developed educational materials that fall under ATS.  2) We agree to uphold these collectively created ethical guidelines.  3) We have a members’ buyers’ club and marketing group.  Compliance with 1 and 2 gets you the use of the logos and marks because that is the core of their value:  an educational philosophy and behavior that demonstrates we are professionals in service to guests and the industry as a whole.”   We feel this can be achieved—

If you would like to read the complete PSIA-RM-AASI response to the PSIA-AASI Governance Task Force see RM response to GTF report in the scoop at www.psia-rm.org

We welcome your thoughts, input, and questions regarding these issues.

 

-PSIA-Rocky Mountain-AASI Board of Directors

Questions and Comments from “The Snow Pros Community”

Comments from RM Board Member Rick Hinckley

From the Snow Pros Community (earlier this year), here are Questions and Statements from Pat Ronan of Alaska Div (in Bold) and answers and comments from Rick Hinckley. (italics)

Questions asked:

Who makes the budget for the divisions and national? The Budgets are put together and tracked by each separate organization. All nine divisions and ASEA (aka National) are separately incorporated organizations with only one legal organizational tie between them; The 1986 Agreement to use the Logos and Marks.

How are the dues split up? Dues are set by each separate organization. So, a member of a given Division will see the fee from their division, which does vary, and the now $61 fee from ASEA.

Who hires the National staff? The National staff is hired by “National” (ASEA); the divisions have no say in who that is.

Who is in control of the nine divisions and national? Each separate organization is under their own control from a business perspective, with the exception of the 1986 Agreement for use of the Logos and Marks, and any division that uses the CRM database must sign a contract with ASEA.

I have read many replies opinions etc. about this discussion. There are some things I would like to see discussed:

1. Who has the authority to insure that a Division is providing equal certification/training to its members? What happens if they do not? I receive my certifications and training from my division, not National. There are Divisions that are woefully inadequate. You have hit on a core aspect of the matter here: The proposed Affiliation Agreement, which has not been signed by four divisions (E, I, NW, & RM), threatens to take away the use of the Logos and Marks, including associated intellectual property (IP), if a division fails to use them accordingly. This could greatly affect the ability of a division to provide the training material and delivery, certification, and continuing education to meet their member’s needs (individuals and schools). If a division is lacking, that is one thing, but if a division were to be reprimanded for exceling, that would be a completely different matter. If the IP and the resulting Standards were managed proportionately by the divisions, then the inconsistencies could be fairly dealt with if they occurred. Currently, ASEA is drifting towards dictatorial governance that ignores the collaborative approach that PSIA was founded upon. ASEA does legally own the Logos and Marks, but they did the registration and other legal aspects of defining those on behalf of the divisions so that the IP could be gathered, used, and preserved. The Logos and Marks are worth nothing without the IP, or content, that the divisions have developed over time.

2. Why do I have to belong to two separate organizations, Division and National? Back in the 1960’s, a person became a member of PSIA after they achieved Full Cert and then voluntarily paid the dues; basically in order to keep their PSIA pin. I believe all divisions (probably seven at that time) had their own pins and names then too (RM was RMSIA). The membership became mandatory in about 1969 (per Bill Lash historical letter) and it may have varied a bit through the 1970’s, but we think it has been mandatory since at least the 1980’s. The basic thinking is based on why PSIA was started in the first place; to help all of the divisions with consistency in certification and to share info, not to control or serve in an oversight role. In order to help across the board, fees to do so would come from the membership across all of the divisions.

3. Everything I do comes from my Division. It is mostly run by volunteers. Any volunteers at National, National reps, are furnished by the Divisions. (First question) Why don’t National leaders like Divisional Presidents work on a volunteer basis? We have 31,000 plus members. $50 times 31,000 equals $1,550,000; $60 times 31,000 equals $1,860,000. (Second question) Why does National get more money than all the Divisions added together? I suggest about $300,000 out of the total pot should be good for National. I want my money to go to the place I am serviced from. You have hit on another core issue here too, and it is another of those areas that the divisions really don’t have a say in due to the ten organizations (nine divisions and ASEA) all being separate from one another. As an RM BoD member and VP, I put plenty of time in as a volunteer leader. However, it isn’t a full time job, even with all of the organizational debating that is going on now. (First Question) The ASEA BoD are all volunteer positions, but the office staff, including the Executive Director are full or part time employees, similar to most divisions. The employees of ASEA, or of a division, are there to provide the services to the membership, and the BoD’s are there to enable the employees and make sure it is being done within the means of that organization. (Second question) ASEA sets their budget based on what they want to “provide” the members. The programs do cost money, and currently they are not vetted through the divisions or the general membership before implementation. Your last dues increase from ASEA was due to programs and strategies that they wanted to implement and they ended up needing $11 x 31,000=341,000 to do that (that was after a sizable endowment was gifted to them). Again, each division sets their dues and budget based on their needs (members, business, etc.) and their vision for the next season.

Statements made:

I see periodic updates to the GTF project. I read many good ideas etc. What I do not see are details. Details should be available soon. The divisions are supposed to be putting together their responses to the preliminary report from the GTF before it gets released to the membership in early July. As of July 2, RM is the only div that has turned in a response to the first GTF report.

A policy and procedures manual. This is where the details live. ASEA does have By-Laws, articles of incorporation, and some Policy statements. One of our RM BoD members has asked to see some sort of ASEA P &P manual and they were told that it is an internal document. We are pushing for an Ethics Manual/Code too.

PSIA does not need more fluff in its verbiage. The members need details. We are hoping to be able to freely and openly communicate to the membership soon on what we are proposing in terms of a structure for PSIA and the associated governance. Our attempts to date have basically been blocked by ASEA because we are opposed to a Top-Down structure.

We do not need to work on a grandiose vision. We all have that. We need work on the details to make that vision come true. Please continue to be patient; we are working on those details. The only problem is that ASEA has a different set of details than some of the divisions. ASEA wants a Top-down structure that violates the original precepts of PSIA. Three or Four divs, two thirds to three quarters of the membership, want a structure based on the original precepts of PSIA with some added formality to deal with IP and Standards, tax law changes, etc.

I read the report of the meeting to map out a collective path. There were 35 participants. With airfare, hotels, meals, hiring a mediator the total bill was probably $50,000. What I gathered from the report is that they got together to talk about talking about things in the future. I saw nothing concrete that helped me the member, any ski school or division. I have read that the average term of membership for new members is 3 to 4 years. If that is true we will have a complete turnover of members by the time we are done talking about it. You are very astute; I agree with you and share your frustration. I also feel that the issues are very straight forward yet we keep getting pushback from ASEA because we refuse to become a franchise in a Top-Down structure.

PSIA has pockets of brilliance and pockets of complete ineptitude. I have firsthand knowledge of both. There are divisions out there that actually are blocking member’s ability to access education and certification. National knows about it but has no authority to correct the situation. That is true, we are hopeful that our proposed structure and governance will provide means to deal with such problems.

For things to be accomplished at National it takes seven of the nine divisions to vote for it. On almost all issues either three large or three small divisions will band together and block it. Nothing of note will be resolved until that is corrected. We agree completely and that was part of the discussion at the recent GTF proceedings.

Thanks for reading, and if there are more questions, please ask…

___________________________________________________________________________

 

INTRODUCTION

The October, 2012 Joint Resolution of the Eastern, Rocky Mountain, Intermountain and Northwest Divisions called for substantial reform of the governance of ASEA which we see as lacking accountability to individual members and the Divisions.  This document provides a framework for how needed reform may be accomplished.  We Divisions see reform as imperative to restoring trust and confidence in ASEA governance.

 

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The Revised Colorado Non-Profit Corporation Act provides structure for nonprofit governance but also allows substantial leeway for organizations to divert from the default procedures as most provisions of the Code end with “Unless otherwise provided by the Bylaws”

Taking advantage of this provision in the last several years, ASEA’s bylaws no longer contain many of the protections and safeguards for the membership, leaving the ASEA board largely unaccountable for its actions.

One area that cannot be changed by the bylaws is the duty of directors to the organization.  Colorado law is very clear in requiring directors and officers to fulfill their duty of care by (1) acting in good faith, (2) with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise in similar circumstances, and (3) in a manner the director or officer reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the nonprofit organization.  The bylaws need to be adjusted to be sure that the interests of each Division are protected in the voting process.

 

PURPOSES OF ASEA

The current Bylaws of ASEA describe its purposes as:

The purposes for which the corporation is formed shall be to provide programs, materials and services for member education and professional development; public snow sports education; promote snow sports instruction by snow sport instructors; address problems of common concern to the snow sports teaching profession; conduct promotional activities, including advertising and publicity; and engage in any lawful activities which will enhance efficient and economic progress of the snow sports teaching profession.

We believe these purposes are largely appropriate and in line with the original intent for PSIA when it was formed.  We see ASEA as a service center for the Divisions.  However, we believe ASEA is being managed as a trade association rather than an individual membership association, and that ASEA is perceived by its management and Board as a “governing body” over the Divisions rather than a service provider to the Divisions.  Accordingly, there is a need to expand the statement of purposes with plain language stating a primary purpose of ASEA is to service and support the Divisions.  By way of illustration only, language that could satisfy that need includes:

Because virtually all programs, services and educational training that is provided to snowsports instructors is delivered by the Divisions, one central purpose of ASEA is to provide service and support to the Divisions; or

Because all individual instructor members of ASEA are first identified and trained by the Divisions, a primary purpose of ASEA is service to the Divisions and promoting the health and strength of each Division; or

The primary purpose of ASEA is to provide support and assistance to each of the Divisions to help insure the success of the programs, services and educational training provided by the Divisions; or

In addition, the following language is needed in order to protect the Divisions from arbitrary action by ASEA:

ASEA has been designated by the Divisions to maintain, promote and enhance the value of the trademarks and logos developed over the years by ASEA and with the content behind those marks, or intellectual property, having been developed by the Divisions.  These marks are the primary identifiers of the Divisions.  As guardian of those marks for the Divisions, ASEA shall guarantee to each Division the right to continual usage of the marks and logos for an indefinite term.  The right to continued usage may be terminated only for License’s egregious misconduct which materially and adversely impacts the Marks or the associated goodwill.

 

MEMBERSHIP

In addition to the current membership of ASEA, we propose making each Division a member of ASEA (“Division Members”), with the powers and responsibilities set forth below.

 

ASEA DIRECTOR CHANGES 

We propose that future ASEA Directors be elected for three year terms by the Board of Directors of each Division which shall have the power to remove its director at any time for any reason.  The Board of ASEA shall have the authority to remove a Director for cause, with “cause” involving matters of financial impropriety or ethical lapses.

 

VOTING AND OTHER BOARD PROCEDURES 

We Divisions have certain specific proposals with respect to ASEA Board procedures and, in other areas, we have strong concerns that can best be expressed as principles that can be satisfied by any number of specific procedures.

1.  We propose an end to the current “supermajority” voting requirements, relying instead on basic principles of majority rule coupled with proportional representation.

2.  We are deeply concerned with the complete absence of any relationship between the size of a division and the “weight” of its vote.  At the same time, we are respectful of the interests of the smaller divisions that would be left virtually voiceless with any voting system that is largely proportionate to membership.  Accordingly we propose a number of non-exclusive alternative voting systems, that include both proportional voting and simple divisional voting, but with each element using a simple or enhanced majority rule.

A.  Maintain the current composition of the ASEA Board but assign each Director two types of votes.  Type one would be a single vote, as exists currently. Type two, would be a proportional vote based on the size of the division, i.e., the Divisions of those directors voting in favor of or against a proposition would need to represent a majority of the total membership.  For any measure to pass, it would need a simple majority or each type of vote cast; or,

B.  Maintain the current composition of the Board but assign each Director a proportional vote as described in example A.  Require any measure to pass by simple majority; or

C.  In a variation of A above, proportional votes would be assigned to each Division in a manner designed to give the Division at least one (1) vote as a minimum and more if justified by the proportion of their membership to the membership as a whole.  An example of such a determination is attached hereto.  In order for a proposal to pass, it would need a super majority of the proportional vote and a simple majority of one (1) vote per Division ballot.

 

EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES

Any Extraordinary proposal coming before the ASEA Board shall be presented to the Board and the Board of each Division no less than 6 months before it can be voted upon.  For any extraordinary measure proposed, a Division, if it chooses, may instruct its Division representative(s) voting at ASEA how to vote with respect to the extraordinary measure.  A measure shall pass only upon receipt of three-quarters (3/4) of both the Type 1 and Type 2 votes cast as contemplated in above.

Extraordinary Measures include any proposed change in the Articles of Incorporation of ASEA, in the purposes for which ASEA is organized, any change in the composition of the ASEA Board, any change in the voting procedures for the ASEA Board and changes to the Bylaws proposed by this framework.

 

CONCLUSION

The framework outlined on the foregoing pages identifies the broad areas of governance that we believe must be addressed in order to reaffirm the mission of the organization, the operating nature of the organization as an association of independent members and an equitable governance structure that promotes the relevance and economic viability of the organization.  While the details of how to fix our concerns are subject to negotiation and compromise, the need for change is clearly demonstrated and long overdue.

 

Interested in 2013 New Zealand Rookie Academy courses?

Want to develop your skills and gain qualifications this summer in beautiful Lake Wanaka, New Zealand? Contact info@rookieacademy.com for more information.

PSIA-RM-AASI Board Update re: ASEA Negotiations

Dear Member,

In our continuing effort to keep you informed concerning the ongoing negotiations with ASEA, the Board of Directors of PSIA-RM-AASI, offers this brief update:

• We continue to work with our counterparts from PSIA-NW, PSIA-I and PSIA-E to find common points of agreement concerning the future of our organizations and our relationship with ASEA and the other 5 regions. In mid-April, the Division Presidents, selective BoD members, and counsels for the four Divisions that make up the Joint Resolution will convene in Salt Lake City to continue to develop our understanding of the issues before us and to reaffirm our commitment to the group that represents over 70% of the ASEA membership. We are committed to finding new pathways to a National Organization with an unquestionable form of representational governance for all ten entities and the associated Marks and Properties.
• Recently, ASEA initiated a Governance Task Force and chose a facilitator to steer this group of yet to be determined regional representatives. ASEA has just received a letter from the facilitator as to his recommendations for the approach and the make-up for this ASEA Task Force. It seems to be universally agreed that a solution is wanted before the early activities for next season begin.
• We will continue to act in the interest of our membership as a volunteer Board with a spirit of openness and cooperation, and will continue our good faith effort to reconcile the issues before us.  We will provide another update following the Salt Lake City meeting, and remain available by email for any questions or comments you may have on this topic.

 

If you have any questions, please contact Joel Munn at joel@psia-rm.org.

February 20, 2013

Optimistic Negotiation Update

Since the interview with Joel Munn, President of the Rocky Mountain Board of Directors and the update about recent negotiations with the ASEA, we are happy to report that lines of communications have opened even further.  The Joint Resolution Divisional Partners consist of Rocky Mountain, Eastern, Inter Mountain and Northwest and have consistently stated that the affiliation agreement proposed by the ASEA is not something that this group is comfortable signing in its present form.

The ASEA is considering potential alternatives and recently communicated to the Joint Resolution Divisions for clarification on specific points of disagreement.  These divisions are preparing Joint Resolution solutions to hopefully lead us to a path of legal governance clearly defining our greater association for continued excellence.  The agreement looks to address the following.

• Define structure that allows for legal governance between the 10 companies.
• Define representation of the 10 companies to a national entity.  The current ASEA board is accountable to no one but themselves.
• Define governance that allows shared ownership of the brand and not allow one entity (ASEA) to have unbridled authority over the nine divisions.
• Develop a collaborative agreement that creates an effective and representational structure.  The true “National” entity we are all striving for and until recently thought we all enjoyed.

The RM Board is in constant communication with the ASEA Board and Boards from the other divisions.  As stated in earlier communications, the RM Board has been steadfast in its untiring devotion to keep this communication ongoing and to not settle for the status quo.  The membership has been the focus of this commitment.  Please direct any questions you may have to any of the RM board members or simply give them your support and gratitude for their efforts on our behalf.

We will continue to provide updates as they unfold.  Please visit the Scoop at www.psia-rm.org on a regular basis.

Your Rocky Mountain Board of Directors

Joel Munn, RM President Interview with Dave Schuiling, Director of Education

I had the opportunity to sit down with President Joel Munn to discuss current affairs in the Rocky Mountain division. As a member of the administration team I am privy to the discussions surrounding our negotiations with ASEA (aka National) and we both agreed it was important to update the membership on this topic.

Dave:  As President, how do you see the current state of the Rocky Mountain Division?

Joel:  Rocky Mountain (RM) is financially healthy, continues to be an innovative leader, and is evolving culturally.  We continue to grow based on a history we should all be very proud of.  I am humbled when I think how far we’ve come as an organization and leader in snow sports education.  RM is 62 years old and we have always made significant contributions to the reputation of PSIA-AASI as an Education and Verification (Certification) organization.  Our Board respects and recognizes this heritage.  They have made a huge commitment to our administrative group and volunteer leadership with several key initiatives in the last few years.  When the endowment fund goal of $500,000 was attained, they subsequently expanded our scholarship programs significantly.  Additionally, after almost 60 years of renting, they invested in our membership and division by purchasing a home office in Steamboat Springs.  In an effort to support our staff and continue to strive for consistency of our products, the RM Board of Directors supported an employment status change for our Ed. Staff from independent contractors to employees.  This change has allowed us to invest in and support our human resources.  We believe one result of this change has been a visible improvement in the ‘guest friendly” environment within our programs.  Evolving and maintaining this culture within the people who deliver our products is critical to RM’s success, now and in the future.  I’m happy to say that all of the assets and resources we have are stable and healthy.

Dave:  There’s been lots of talk about our national organizational structure over the last year and a half.  Please give our membership an update on the progress of these discussions.

Joel:  The reality of our current situation is that we do not by definition have a “national” entity.  Although hard to fathom, other than a logo use agreement, there are no formal written contracts which define our working relationships as independent yet cooperative business entities.  There are 9 different regional PSIA associations (divisions) as well as the American Snowsports Education Association (ASEA); the office in Lakewood, CO.  Because federal law states Board members cannot have a fiduciary responsibility to separate non-profit corporations, the assumed governance between all these groups has changed significantly. “National Reps” historically appointed by divisional boards to serve on the ASEA Board now have sole fiduciary responsibility to the ASEA.   This may at times be in conflict with financial, administrative, and operational issues which at times even affect the goals and vision of individual divisions. The”National Rep” position which existed for years is no longer valid.  That person represents ASEA members from a particular geographic area but does not represent the business entity of that region.  As an example: Divisional and ASEA dues are individually established, yet collectively collected.  Subsequently, these revenues are credited to the respective division and to the ASEA.  The $11 increase to the ASEA dues approved unanimously by the ASEA Board of Directors in June of 2011 caught many of us by surprise.  This action made it very clear the ASEA Board must vote to protect its own financial stability.  Ironically, and perhaps fortunately, the impact of this dues increase made it very clear to leadership that we have a fundamental lack of structure among the 10 PSIA-AASI entities.

Dave:  Many members inquire “where do my membership dues go?” or “why do I have to join both RockyMountain and the ASEA ?”, “is it required?”  “What are the benefits of joining both organizations?” As a board member how would you best answer these questions?

Joel:  These questions have been asked for decades.  Most members can clearly define what their individual divisions do for them in terms of education and certification.  It is very apparent the divisions provide relevant events, curriculum and promoting of their credentials with the member schools.  Members call the divisional offices on issues regarding their professional credentials and constantly inquire about the professional development necessary to further their careers.  The divisions provide the products and set the standards for teaching, technical knowledge and on mountain performance.  The divisions award the pins proudly worn by instructors across the country.  The ASEA is a “service center” for pros nationwide.  They market the profession, represent it both nationally and internationally, provide an infrastructure for tracking educational credits and certification credentials, deal with nationwide sponsorship programs, compile and publish educational materials, and we would hope, “house”  the National Standards as well as the (Properties)…the logos, marks and intellectual properties.  As for membership in both organizations, this became mandatory in 1970, eight years after what was then known as PSIA.   There are no documents I’ve seen to explain this.   I can only assume it was done to provide them with sufficient funds to perform their role as a service organization which was their intended role.  Additionally, the ASEA Board adopted, perhaps questionably, a by-law change a number of years ago which required members of a division to be members of the ASEA.  These two latter points are issues which are presently part of our negotiations with the ASEA.  It essentially comes down to ownership of the Properties.  Who should have ownership, authority and is responsible for maintaining the consistency and quality of these Properties.  Should it be solely the ASEA or all 10 collectively?
Dave:  Certification Exams are tested in reference to a National Standard.  What does it mean to have a National Standard and how do the divisions maintain consistency with the National Standards?

Joel:  A National Standard is beneficial to both members and member schools in many ways.  As discussed above, the National Standards are born and evolved at the divisional level.  The simple fact is that the divisions set standards, educate to them, and validate this education on a consistent and ongoing basis.  At the same time, the National Standards must be voted on and subsequently approved by the ASEA Board each June.  Since the divisions are directly responsible for the creation, validation and ongoing maintenance of the standards, the validity of this process is questionable.  This relates once again, and calls into question, the fact that there is no current governance to allow “one to one,” nor, as we suggest, “proportional” divisional representation to the voting entity which ratifies the standards.

Dave:  Members have received multiple communications describing current negotiations between ASEA. What is at the root of these negotiations?

Joel:  As I’ve mentioned, we are 10 parts with no legally defined whole.  Each of our 10 companies has different cultures, membership numbers, needs, and resort demands.  All 10 conduct their affairs using trademarks, logos, and intellectual properties (Properties) which were developed primarily through the divisions, for collective use nationally.  Under the understanding of the old governance structure, the ASEA has copyrighted these Properties and calls them the ASEA Properties.   Unfortunately during our present negotiations the ASEA has used their ownership of the Properties in an attempt to leverage us into signing an agreement we do not agree with.  The agreement they propose is, in essence, a franchise structure.  It would give the ASEA ultimate control of many decisions.  As an independent business we have assets which must be protected.  Additionally, we have clear responsibilities to our specific members.  We cannot have one company leveraging another in this manner and we cannot pass the responsibility of protecting RM over to another entity.  It is because of these issues we in RM believe we must share a common ownership of the Properties.  The concept we have proposed, in our opinion, allows for a partnership with the ASEA as well as the other regions, and ultimately enables us to collectively form a national entity with legal and binding governance.

Dave:  If an affiliation agreement is on the table, why would RM or any other division oppose signing it?

Joel:  Well, as I mentioned above, the agreement proposed is a franchise type structure.  Because the ASEA at present owns the Properties, they claim ultimate decision making authority relative to those Properties.  If we were to agree to the ASEA draft, RM would be under the control of the ASEA. They claim they have no desire to control yet we cannot sign anything which would allow use of the leverage of ownership of the Properties now or in the future.  It is important to know we are not alone in this position. There are at least 3 other divisions who have stated unequivocally that they have no intention of being a franchise.  Over the past few months, the ASEA and their attorney have stated clearly that the divisions in their opinion are affiliates of the ASEA.  This is both legally and historically inaccurate and we adamantly disagree.  Since 1962 to the present day RM has always wanted an affiliation with the ASEA and other regional companies.  We never have been and at continue to have absolutely no interest in being an affiliate of the ASEA.

Dave:  As the president of Rocky Mountain what is your number one priority?  What does the membership gain from the potential fierce negotiations that lie ahead?

Joel:  I would emphasize first of all that what we are trying to accomplish is a real national entity which would bring strength and quality to the recognition our profession.  It would also create the stability our organizations have desired since our beginnings.  Relative to RM, our Board and I are dedicated to maintaining the autonomy our business needs in order to sustain growth and maintain the evolution of Rocky Mountain financially and culturally.  The membership gains from a strong national and divisional structure which allows this to happen.  I would hope we can get this done very soon.

As we move forward, if I remain as President of RM, I hope our Board will initiate a relationship with a nationally recognized charity.  As a non-profit company and as professionals who are devoted to helping people, I’d like to see RM members and member schools dedicate themselves to raising $1 million to this charity.  Personally, I think the road this would take us on as individuals and professionals would help all of us realize we are part of a greater whole, that we have a responsibility to our guests and communities, and would move our culture of caring for others to a new level.  In the end, we would earn the greater respect we want for our organization and be able to take greater pride in our profession and ultimately exemplify what we believe in as snowsports professionals.