View Full Version : Proposed LMSC Standard - don't make sense

June 12th, 2016, 09:37 PM
LMSC chairs. Attached is the latest draft of proposed LMSC Standards. The proposed standards are not much better than the last set of standards. I have inserted my comments into the document with my concerns. My main issues as an LMSC chair are:

1. There are 2 levels of standards, Mandatory and Target (which is defined as expected). I don't understand the difference. There should be a single set of standards. Not Mandatory and sort of mandatory.
2. Some of the standards are not within the LMSC control, specifically 2.4 related to events.
3. Some of the standards do not reflect current practices of the online registration system and how money is handled.

I recommend all LMSC chairs review these proposed standards carefully and give your feedback to the at-large Board member representing your zone and your zone chair.

My understanding is these will be presented to the Board on May 20th.

Please provide your feedback

June 13th, 2016, 07:37 PM
I want to make sure that people reading this forum are familiar with the effort that has gone into revising these standards. The process has taken over a year and consumed scores of hours.

Appropriate USMS committee chairs and the National Office were consulted throughout the process.
The concept of mandatory and target standards was approved by the USMS BOD last September.
All LMSC chairs were invited by their respective zone chairs to review and comment on the proposed revisions in March. Some zones held conference calls while others discussed the standards via email.
In early April the zone chairs met and updated the draft based on the input from the LMSC chairs.
In April and early May appropriate USMS committee chairs and the National Office were consulted and the draft was updated again.
On May 16th the LMSC Development Committee met and approved a version to submit to the USMS BOD.

Regarding Eds main issues:
1. The distinction of mandatory and target standards is described in the preamble:

Mandatory Standards are the most critical standards. All LMSCs are expected to be fully compliant with Mandatory Standards. These are subject to a remediation procedure if they are not met. All LMSCs are expected to strive to be compliant with all Target Standards. However, even a highly functioning LMSC may occasionally miss one or more of these standards. In such cases, the shortfalls must be quickly resolved.
2. I disagree with the statement that 2.4 is beyond the control of an LMSC. Article 502 of our rulebook states that an LMSC is a subordinate organization of the corporation with supervisory responsibilities within a specified geographical territory. Those supervisory responsibilities include the authority to issue, withhold, or withdraw sanctions. This standard allows for remediation if an LMSC consistently ignores its responsibility to make sure event hosts follow the rules.
3. The proposed standards do reflect the current registration system and cash flow. The chair of the Registration Committee and the national office both reviewed the standards.

I dont believe that any of these standards are difficult for LMSCs to comply with. Input was sought from LMSC chairs in March to make sure that LMSCs felt that they could comply.

June 15th, 2016, 03:31 PM

I will more background on this thread.

1. I have provided the LMSC Dev committee detailed comments on every draft of the LMSC standards since they were originally created. Most of which were ignored.
2. I believe the LMSC standards are a good idea, but the current and past version were overly broad and unattainable.
3. I have had long and detailed email exchanges with Hugh, Chris and Paige on the current versions over the last few months.

I also want to point out Hugh is adding interpretation to the remediation provisions that does not exist in the standards. No where in the remediation provisions does it say if an LMSC "consistently ignores the standards", there will be remediation. It says if the VPLO receives a notice of violation and finds cause, the VPLO will propose a remediation plan. There is not a provision for let me see if it happens again before the VPLO does anything.

As for the Mandtory vs the Target standards. While the preamble may give some leeway in compliance with the Target Standards, the wording in that section says compliance is expected. Which to me means these are mandatory. I can tell you that in the business world, if you have an employee handbook, you don't have a section of company policies that are mandatory and another section that are optional for employees to comply with. The LMSC standards should be a single set of attainable, mandatory and measurable standards.
Anything beyond the Mandatory standards should be considered more as best practices and contained in another document.

Also, just because the Board of Directors approved the concept of Mandatory vs Target standards, doesn't make it a good idea. I am not sure the board was given an option or logic to have a single set of standards.

Additionally, while a process was followed, it appears an important audience was not directly included, the LMSC chairs. We were only included via the zone chair and not asked directly for our input. That means any input we gave was filtered, expect for anyone who responded directly to the committee like I did.

Again, I urge all LMSC Chairs to comment on this thread. I also urge you to contact your At-large board member from your zone and any board member from your LMSC let them know any concerns you have with the LMSC standards.

Lastly, while this goes against my argument. The requirement to print membership cards is in the Target standards, not mandatory. Does that me an LMSC can decide we are no longer going to print ID cards at all and stop mailing them and the LMSC would not be subject to any remediation. If that is the case, that is exactly what we will do in South Texas if these are approved. Hugh will argue the preamble does not allow this because "short falls must be quickly resolved", which means the target standards are Mandatory. What the preamble gives the preamble takes away rather quickly.

Thanks for reading. I would enjoy some additional commentary from other parties on this.