John Garnjost Wins Highest Award from the International Olympic Committee

When we think of the some of the great Olympic names in the United States we think of Jesse Owens, Avery Brundage, Billy Paine, Bud Greenspan and John Garnjost... yes, John Garnjost! On September 6, in Taipei, Taiwan, John Garnjost became the 53rd American to be awarded The Olympic Order. John joins Jack Kelly and Anita DeFrantz as the other members of the United States rowing community who have won this prestigious award.

The Olympic Order is an award that is bestowed by the International Olympic Committee as the "supreme individual honor accorded.” It was created in 1974 and is awarded to persons who have illustrated the Olympic ideal through their actions, who have achieved remarkable merit in the sporting world, or who have rendered outstanding services to the Olympic cause, either through personal achievement or contribution to the development of sport.

John was awarded this honor as the "father of Taiwanese rowing." During his tenure as president of Bristol Meyers (Taiwan), 1983-89, John was a catalyst in building rowing in Taiwan. He served as one of the first delegates of the Taiwanese Rowing Federation and was instrumental in Taiwan's becoming a member of FISA, the international governing body for rowing.

Accepting this award, John remarked, “While essential, the father’s role in the birth of a baby is limited. In rowing, as in life, there has been countless effort and teamwork (by many others) in the development of this sport in Taiwan.”

Since 1989, John has returned to Taiwan frequently, working with the Taiwanese to host the 1997 Asian Rowing Championships and to develop the I-Lan International Collegiate Regatta. He continues to support and assist the development of rowing in Taiwan.

John’s rowing career began in 1952 as a member of the Columbia University crew. In 1960, he became a licensed judge-referee and obtained his FISA umpires license in 1970. John lives in Stamford, Conn., and remains active as a judge-referee.

Judge-Referee Web Page on USRowing Site

USRowing has expanded its website to include a judge-referee page. Information on this site includes clinics, license information, regatta venue directions, safety checklist, rules of rowing, frequently asked questions, and past minutes. Please visit often at :

http://www.usrowing.org/Membership/judgerefinfo.html

Diversity or How I Learned to Relax and get Along with the Rest of the World

By Bill Howard

As judge-referees, our common goal is to deliver leadership and a positive image to our constituency. Our constituency is the rowing community: rowers, local organizing committees, and other officials. Sometimes however, because of our ideas about others and their ideas about us, it is difficult to meet this goal. These biases, lack of sensitivity, or prejudgments can cause us to treat others, or vice versa, with less respect than expected. In each of these instances we have a challenge to meet. This article will discuss these challenges and hopefully you will have a better understanding of the challenges you face, and those that others face, as we work across our differences.

Things have changed greatly over the years. In the fairly recent past, ethnic jokes were the norm; humor was cutting and used a great deal. Diversity issues were then simply called prejudice and we rarely spoke out against the practice. Now, when someone mentions diversity issues, we talk mainly about our differences. Differences. What comes to mind when you read that word? How can we work across differences when we haven't defined what they are? Race, nationality, gender, age, ethnicity, physical ability, sexual orientation, profession, and style are differences to name just a few.

Today, we are confronted more and more with the need to behave in a reasonable and proper fashion at home, work, or play. How can we change things? Start with three basic steps:

• Change Attitudes
• Change Behavior
• Confront Intolerant Behavior

Changing Attitudes

The initial step in understanding diversity is to understand your own values, beliefs, and background. It is important to see how these beliefs make YOU "different." However, you must be ready to recognize that others may not see things the same way you do. Thus, the more that you also understand other people's values, beliefs, and backgrounds, the more you will understand what motivates them. Remember to always look at a person as an individual and not as a part of a group.

To better understand other’s beliefs, backgrounds, and values, try:

• Establishing relationships with people different from you. It is a natural tendency for people to surround themselves with others like them. Connecting with people from different backgrounds helps you learn about the unique contributions others have to offer.
• Volunteering for an organization where you are in a minority.
• Participating in community programs that focus on cultural diversity.

Changing Behavior

Creating an environment of acceptance goes beyond simply tolerating people who are different. People take cues from the environment about how well they are accepted. You should actively welcome and involve everyone.

To create a better atmosphere, try:

• Being available to help anyone who might ask for help.
• Being aware that because of our prejudgments, we often see others and interpret their behavior through our own framework and often that does not allow us to get to know the individual and what they are or what they represent. As a result, we sometimes limit the opportunities we may give them.

Confronting Intolerant Behavior

As judge-referees, we have the opportunity and the responsibility to take the lead in defining what is acceptable behavior. Your actions to discourage and refusal to accept racist, sexist, ethnocentric, and other insensitive comments and behaviors will strongly influence the people around you. Be aware that at times, it can be difficult for you to directly confront this negative behavior, particularly if you are part of the group being belittled.

Learn to recognize the differences between the expressions of differing beliefs or opinions and deliberately hurtful comments or "humorous" sarcasm that is damaging to others. Let me try to give you a few approaches that may help.

• If the comment is subtle or you feel the person did not understand the impact, ask the person how he/she arrives at this conclusion or belief. Then summarize his/her comment and softly comment on the impact the remark had on others and, when useful, on your perception of him/her.
• If the remark is an obvious put down, simply say, "That's not appropriate," or "Comments like that are not welcome here." Then change the subject. This approach communicates that the statement made was wrong and not subject to debate.
• If the person defends his behavior, simply reassert its inappropriateness. Remember your goal is not to humiliate the person but to stop the comments. Tell the person you understand that he/she did not intend to be hurtful or unfair, but that he/she is responsible for changing his/her own behavior.
• Realize that the more controversial the subject the more difficult (and more important) it will be to speak out on. Demonstrate your leadership by clearly refusing to tolerate any prejudicial behavior.

Remember that when you are wearing our uniform, you are USRowing. Your thoughts and opinions as well as your actions, either real or perceived, are considered to be the norm. So if one of us is considered intolerant, we will all be labeled intolerant. In closing let me leave you with a thought:

Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words; they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.

New Referees and Promotions

Since last spring we have seen 30 new Assistant Referees join our ranks. The new Assistant Referees from the Mid-Atlantic region are: Jennifer Ross, Rawles Jones, Kathleen Crowe, Eric Goldman, Thomas Anderson, Jonathan Leete, Chris Chang, Barbara Hickman, Ardath White, Edward Sinkule, Richard Campbell, Michael A. Bergen, Jr., J. Michael Baker, Stanley Wellborn, Linda Goldberg, and Scott Walker. From the Northeast we have Rhea Miller and Richard Branch. From the Southeast region, Paul McLaughlin, Michael Schwarzkopf, Ted Chesnutt, Murfreesboro, and Gary Calvert. From the Midwest, Curt Alden, William Rand, Howard Meisner, Steve Frushour, Edwin Gehring, and Larry Steinberg.

From the Southwest, Win Rumsey and Dennis Hastings.

Since last spring, 10 Assistants have been promoted to Judge-Referee: Bo Denysyk, Christine Livingston, Victor Fiebig, William Fritz, Jr., Tom Lakin, Donna Livingston, Michael Tremonte, Terry Friel, and Scott Woodworth. Congratulations!

From the Referee College

(The annual national referee college was held October 6-8, at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs. The curriculum for this year’s college, organized by Bob Scurria and Julian Wolf, was designed to inform and prepare students for being the chief referee at a major regatta. The instructors assumed that the students were already familiar with the rules, and therefore focused upon the administrative mechanics that go into preparing for and running a major regatta. These issues pertain to staff selection and management, leadership principles, and the assumption of liability risks that are inherent in the operation of any rowing event. In this article we will highlight issues pertaining to safety and liability risks. In the next issue, we will review regatta operations from the perspective of the local organizing committee.)

One of the instructors was Rich Young, legal counsel to the U.S. Olympic Committee whose law practice focuses upon sports litigation. Mr. Young began his presentation with a mock trial. As attorney for the plaintiff, he laid out the case he would present on behalf of a young woman who died after being struck by lightning while competing in a regatta. The defendants included the chief referee. The questions put to the chief referee were pointed and relentless. Why had adequate precautions not been taken which could have prevented this tragic accident? Who bore the responsibility for ensuring that the competitors were not subjected to hazardous and dangerous conditions? Why did the chief referee not take steps to prevent this accident from occurring? The point was made. During lunch, following Mr. Young’s presentation, more than a few students questioned why they would ever want to take on the job of chief referee. A good share of the rest of the college was devoted to specific matters which the chief referee has control over and which collectively serve to maximize the safety of the competitors and at the same time minimize the liability risk for the officials.

Probably the best advice was for the chief referee is to utilize the safety checklist provided by USRowing. Many of us know that this document must be filled out and returned to USRowing after a USRowing registered regatta has been completed. However, the point was made by Bob Appleyard, who discussed pre-regatta preparations, and by Julian Wolf, who went over each of the items on the checklist, that this document should first be looked at many weeks before the regatta. Each item on the checklist addresses a specific aspect of regatta organization and operations that directly impacts the safety of the competitors. Pat O’Connor, vice president of City Securities, the agent for the USRowing liability insurance, told the students that rowing is ahead of many other sports by virtue of having this document and the manner in which it is utilized. Both he and Mr. Young emphasized that it is absolutely vital that adequate precautions be taken to prevent accidents from occurring. However, everyone acknowledges that regattas cannot be entirely risk-free. If an accident does occur, the best defense that the race officials can present if being sued for damages is that adequate precautions had been taken, and the accident unfortunately occurred in spite of these precautions. The safety checklist is just that: a checklist of precautions which should be in place before the first race launches from the docks.

Safety and fairness are the overriding concerns for not just the chief referee, but for all the officials at a regatta. It was repeatedly emphasized that the best assurances for safe and fair races are obtained when the officials and the local organizers work together as a team. It is the responsibility of the chief referee to advise the local organizers ahead of time on specific issues including race centers; the number of referee, marshal, and safety launches that will be required; communications; contingency plans for severe or adverse weather; and support personnel. Prior to the start of racing, the chief referee must ascertain that these pre-race plans and preparations have been fully implemented. The entire team of officials should be prepared to work pro-actively with the local organizers to spot and correct any deficiencies in preparations which could jeopardize the safety of the event. As a last resort, the chief referee must be prepared to decisively call a halt to racing if adequate preparations for safe and fair operations have not and cannot be met.

The basis for all our training is to provide safe and fair races for the athletes. The chief referee is the “point-person” to whom other officials, the rowers and coaches, and the local organizers look when questions or decisions concerning safe and fair operations arise. It is imperative that the chief referee be fully aware of these issues and responsibilities. The position of chief referee may sometimes impose considerable work and stress. But there is nothing more satisfying than completing a full day or weekend of racing knowing that all of the races were run safely and fairly, and with the feeling that everyone worked together to achieve these objectives.

To Chief or Not to Chief

That is the question. For most regattas, there is a designated chief referee. This is a requirement for all USRowing registered regattas. To qualify as a chief referee, one must be fully licensed, and that’s it.

When the referee ranks were restructured in 1996, the Judge-Referee Committee had considered designating a separate endorsement that would have to be achieved before one could be the chief referee at a registered regatta. But for a number of reasons, the committee decided not to include this in the rank structure. Since then, we have heard of more than one instance involving an individual who did not want to progress from assistant referee to judge- referee because they did not want to have to serve as the chief referee at regattas. This misperception has created a few problems, which we would like to correct with this article.

One of the changes adopted in 1996 was to designate the rank of assistant referee as a two to four year apprenticeship for direct, on-the-water training for new officials. Whenever possible, assistant referees should be paired with more experienced officials for one-on-one training and evaluation. Once the assistant referee has completed the required number of regattas and has received a positive evaluation at each of the assigned positions, he or she is to take the promotion examination for judge-referee. Attaining this rank signifies that the person has demonstrated competent performance at each position and is ready to work independently without direct supervision.

The point of this article is to state that, although attaining the rank of judge-referee qualifies one to serve as a chief referee, it does not mandate that one must serve as a chief referee. In fact, if you do not have a particular interest or desire to work as a chief referee, you should not do so. Accepting such an assignment is a voluntary and optional decision.

Our best advice is that if you desire such an assignment, you make your ambition known to your regional committee representative and, in preparation for future assignments, request that you have the opportunity to work side-by-side with an experienced chief referee who you know and trust.

Like each of the other assignments staffed by licensed officials, the position of chief referee requires certain knowledge and skills that are best learned by direct observation.

If you are preparing to advance from assistant referee to judge-referee, but feel nervous about the added responsibilities of being a chief referee, talk to your referee mentor. Focus instead upon building confidence and competency in your referee skills and leave the chief referee assignment to sometime in the future. If you are ready and willing to take on this additional assignment, seek out assistance and advice, and ask someone whose skills and capabilities as chief you would like to emulate to be your mentor.

In closing, there is no formal or specific means to evaluate whether, in addition to demonstrating competent performance as a working referee, an individual is also prepared to do a competent job as chief referee when they are first promoted to judge-referee. At large regattas, there are a number of administrative and leadership tasks that the chief referee must handle that are never formally addressed during the apprenticeship years as assistant referee. The reality is, at this particular juncture in their referee experience, some people are prepared and some are not. Do not think that you have to take on this additional assignment when you are promoted. It’s not a bad assignment, but one that requires the preparation and willingness to accept the additional work and pressure that comes along with the job.

With this issue of The Clipboard, we introduce what we hope will become a recurring feature, the Clinician’s Corner. The Judge-Referee Committee assigns clinicians a key role in disseminating accurate knowledge of the Rules of Rowing and in effectively communicating application of the Rules to candidates, all referees, and the entire rowing community. We believe that communication between and among our clinicians is an important part of that dissemination. This section of The Clipboard will be dedicated to aiding that communication. We hope that you will send in questions, concerns, helpful hints, lessons learned, and amusing stories to be posted in this section. For this inaugural issue, we have two brief subjects to present: the upcoming Clinician’s College in 2001 and administering the assistant referee exam.

Clinician’s College 2001

It is never too early to start planning for a good time! While the dust barely has settled on this year’s Referee College in Colorado Springs, it is time to get ready for next year’s college. When the designation of clinician was first conceived five years ago, the committee hoped that clinicians would attend this college once every six years. The date and the location for the college are tentatively planned for mid to late September in either Colorado Springs or San Diego. As always, space is limited and priority will be given to clinicians, so it would be wise to let us know early of your interest in attending. If you want to be placed on the waiting list for information about the clinician’s college, contact Julian Wolf at 1887 Green Field, Los Angeles, Calif. 90025, 310-478-7577.

Administering the Assistant Referee Exam

One of the single most important tasks a clinician performs is administering the Assistant Referee examination. We would like to review here the procedural aspects of administering this exam.

• Always use the most current revision of the exam. Before you give the exam, contact the committee secretary (currently Bob Appleyard) to be certain that you have the most recent revision.
• The candidate referee needs to present for review the following credentials:
• A completed observation card *Written proof of swimming ability *A USRowing membership card.
• The exam is a written, closed book, no notes exam. Two hours is allotted for its completion.
• Once completed, the exam should be graded while the candidate is present.
• Immediately inform the candidate about their exam results. Review with the candidate the questions that were missed. If the candidate passes, let them know what the next steps are (see below). If the candidate fails the exam, discuss what appropriate actions are needed to help the candidate pass the exam. Was there a particular area of the exam in which the candidate was weak? Does the candidate need to work at more regattas? Do they need a mentor to help them study the rules? Do they need a new mentor? Help the candidate set up an action plan for success.
• Under no circumstances should you let the candidate retain either the exam or the answer sheet. You must retain the exam for your records.
• If the candidate passes the exam, forward a photocopy of the coversheet of the exam, with the exam score noted someplace on the cover, to the committee vice chair. The vice chair will assign the new assistant referee a license number and enter their data into the referee database. This information will be forwarded on to the committee chairperson, who will issue a new license card and send the assistant an inspirational “Welcome to the Fold letter!” enclosed with the card.

If you have any questions, about the topics covered in this issue of the Clinician’s Corner, please do not hesitate to contact us. If you have submissions for the spring issue of the Clinician’s Corner, please forward them to Bob Appleyard or Roxanne Everetts by January 15, 2001.

Boats for Central America Update

(Editor’s note: The following update was submitted by Jean Reilly of Redondo Beach, Calif. who has been acting as the “Chief” for an effort spearheaded mainly by USRowing judge referees to collect rowing equipment for donation to several Central American countries. If you wish to contact Jean, you may call her at 310-418-5447.)

When you’re racing, sometimes the last 100 meters seems to go by in slow motion. So goes it here. A total of nine singles, two fours, one eight, three ergs, 12 blades, four sets of sculls, and 10 sets of slings have been donated and transported to Southern California. Billy Whitford has graciously allowed us to use Newport Aquatic Center as a staging point prior to the trip to South America. The boats have been inventoried and spare part orders are coming in. Many thanks to Peter Zandbergen for coordinating the effort to acquire spare boat parts. Many thanks to Patti Pinkerton for completing our inventory and for coordinating repair efforts in Southern California.

It’s now all about transportation south – basically getting the boats to Central America. A big thanks to John Walker for coordinating everything that’s happened with transportation thus far, and for diligent efforts getting us through the home stretch. Customs policies dictate that the preferred method of transportation is truck and trailer through Mexico City. We are currently looking for a trailer. If you know of anyone willing to donate a trailer or at least lend us one for the trip, please give us a call. We’ve been asked to transport in November. Bob Scurria has generously offered to drive the boats to Mexico City. Once in Mexico City, any necessary repairs will be made during a coaching clinic and boat repair seminar. Involved in the instruction will be Patti Pinkerton, FISA Development Commission and Materials Commission members, as well as Central American coaches and boatmen. From there, boats will be driven to home countries.

Largely due to U.S. Judge-Referee efforts, it looks like two countries in Central America will be able to establish rowing programs in 2001. At the Olympic Games in Sydney, FISA executives as well as representatives of FISA Development, Central and South American countries were amazed and overjoyed with the results of the BFCA campaign. They extend their sincere thanks and appreciation for our efforts in assembly of the inventory, transportation, time, and follow-through in making things happen. Our business model and campaign materials were requested for migration to other countries where like programs are looking to be established. They’ve also asked us to continue our campaign here at home. Anyone wishing to “chief” BFCA in 2001, please give me a call.

On the financial side, a total of $576 of funds raised has been used, all in the transportation/insurance of equipment. We will keep you apprised on the cost of repair materials, spare parts, and transportation to Central America. We will also advise you of when the boats reach their destinations.

Again, thanks to all the following for their time and effort: Dick Alcock, Bob Appleyard, Patricia Bailey, Roger Bailey, Ron Chen, Kathleen Dameo, Karan Davies, Anita DeFrantz, Robert Espeseth, Sr., John Farwell, Martha Ferguson, Victor Gallik, Clete Graham, Martin Greenacre, Jan and Don Harville, Duvall Hecht, Charlotte Hollings, John Iacovino, Margot Jenson, Sara Lopez, Charles Luckman, Val McDermott, Susie Mahan, Phillip Mork, Ron O’Conner, Jan Palchikoff, Patti Pinkerton, Warren Polensky, Jody Pope, Corki Rawlings, Libby Royer, Jean Reilly, Michael Richardson-Bach, Terry Ryan, the San Diego Crew Classic, Bob Scurria, Matt Smith, Bruce Soden, Sheila Tolle, Nikola Vajda, John Walker, Suzy Walker, Bob Walton, Guy Weaser, John White, Bob Whitford, Billy Whitford, Jim Willis, Julian Wolf, Joan Zandbergen, and Peter Zandbergen.

Our sincere apologies if we missed anyone who contributed. Please let us know who you are so we don’t make the oversight again.

New Member on Judge-Referee Committee

Bill Howard, Falls Church, Va., is the new Mid-Atlantic representative on the Judge-Referee Committee. Bill replaces Dr. Dan Thompson who moved to Albany, N.Y., earlier this year. Bill, who wrote the article regarding diversity, works in the hotel industry. He can be reached at wahowardVA@aol.com.

Proposed Rules Changes

Earlier this year, the Judge-Referee Committee clarified the process for recommending rules changes to the USRowing Board of Directors. The objective is to provide greater assurance that the rowing community at large has an opportunity to hear and comment on the proposed changes. The committee normally makes these recommendations during its December meeting. For proposals received in the first half of the year, the committee will take a straw vote on the merit of the proposed changes. If the proposal passes this vote, efforts will be made to publicize the proposed changes, especially to the constituencies who would be most directly affected. The feedback received from individuals and organizations will be considered before a binding vote is taken in December on whether or not to forward the proposal to the board for final action. Only the Board of Directors has the authority to change the Rules of Rowing. For proposals received after June 30, the committee will decide whether to make an expedited review for final action that year, or to postpone action until the following year to allow for more input and consideration.