RRRC Competitions Committee Notes – 9/11/2017

The Red River Competitions Committee will now be releasing their monthly committee call minutes and notes. View all of the archived RRRC minutes or read on for the most recent:

  1. Roll Call
    1. Young
    2. Green
    3. Kolberg
    4. Watson
    5. Kurylas
    6. Tate
    7. Turner
    8. Iker
    9. Hughes
      1. Regrets
        1. Sharpley
        2. Corrigan
        3. Gross
        4. Keuppens
  2. Followups
    1. RRRC Elections
      1. Men’s D1 – No nominations were sent in by deadline. John Dale nomination was well past the deadline.
        1. Tate: I do want to mention that the Men’s D1 clubs make up 25% of all of our clubs and make up the majority of dues paying members. It is only five clubs but when you look at all of their multiple sides they add up to 25%. I do not think it is right that their representation is not commensurating with their membership size. While they didn’t put in nominations in time I don’t know that that is enough to deny them equal representation on this committee. I’m an outgoing member so I’m not going to make a motion. We did discuss this and we had a vote last time but that is my position.
        2. Hughes: I agree with you, however our discussion last time was around allowing a late nomination. I disagree with that, if I’m a D1 representative and I see that no one is nominated then I could submit myself and be let in. If we want to go down this road, we need to open up the entire process instead of allowing a late nomination.
        3. Kolberg: I agree with Hughes, if we are going to allow another D1 rep (which we should), I think we open it up and ask for nominations. If no one does it think time, that’s it.
        4. Watson: I motion that we re-open nominations for D1 rep. We have a week for nominations and then vote the second week.
          1. Young: Can we amend that to follow the current policies? Five business days for nominations and then voting opens.
          2. Watson: Yes, I agree with that.
          3. Kolberg: Second.
            1. Tate: Any discussion?
            2. Young: Why wasn’t this brought up earlier or on our call last month?
            3. Watson: The only discussion we had last time was about a late nominee. We determined it was too late and this is a completely different proposal.
            4. Tate: It was a very heavy agenda last week and I’ve been stewing on this for a month. I’m not going to vote as my term is over but I’m acting as the interim chair.
            5. Turner: Why does it frustrate Jeff so much that men’s clubs are so slow to vote but that we want to re-open a nomination? This really frustrates me, they didn’t get it done by the deadline.
            6. Kolberg: The women were very quick to get their votes in and I applaud that. I personally lobbied the Men’s D1 clubs and that is how we got the nomination for John Dale. Quite frankly I should have done it earlier and I’ll take the hit for that. That doesn’t supersede the fact that we need more representation for Men’s D1.
            7. Turner: Should any votes that we take include the newly appointed reps? Are they on this call?
            8. Young; They weren’t affirmed yet so they weren’t invited to this call yet.
            9. Turner: I don’t think that it is right that they aren’t included.
            10. Tate: We have nine people on the call and eight that can vote.
            11. Young: We don’t have a quorum with this many members.
            12. Tate: Well that complicates some things as we have other items to discuss and potentially vote on. We may need to postpone the call and include the new members. Motion is denied as there is no quorum on this call.
      2. Men’s D2 – Tolar 4; Tate 2
      3. Women’s Rep – Initially tied at Fosco 4 and Watts 4. Run-off results: Fosco 5; Watts 4; Abstain 1
        1. Watson: I move that we ratify the Men’s D2 and Women’s based on the vote.
        2. Kolberg: Second.
          1. Tate: Any discussion? NONE. Any objections? NONE. APPROVED.
          2. Young: I’ve updated the website and will add Karl and Monique to the monthly calls.
    2. Euless
      1. Kolberg: I don’t think we need to vote on this, as of right now they haven’t fulfilled their requirements. I think we just need to notify Robert and Euless that they are not in good standing and will not be included in the competition this year. I wanted them to come through but they didn’t do it.
      2. Kurylas: I agree with Jeff, I met with them multiple times, called them and texted. It was like pulling teeth to get anything from them.
      3. Watson: The stipulations were given and they didn’t meet them. I don’t see any reason for a vote.
      4. Young: I agree it was very clear and doable. They just didn’t come through with what was set forth.
      5. Hughes: I agree, we already set the stipulations and they haven’t followed through.
      6. Iker: I don’t think we need a vote, we set the stipulations and they didn’t follow through.
      7. Turner: No vote needed.
      8. Green: I agree.
      9. Tate: So no vote needed, Euless did not meet the expectations. I can notify Euless or one of the D2 reps can do it.
        1. Young: I think for consistency it should come from you.
        2. Kolberg: I agree.
    3. Schedule
      1. Young: All schedules have been loaded but D4 South (replacement for Battleground?) and D2 North (include Euless or not?).
        1. Tate: We can load D2 North since we’ve determined that Euless will not be included. Travis can work with Wendy to have that schedule re-done. Do we have good news for D4 South?
        2. Hughes: Not so far, I am talking with some teams but haven’t had anything confirmed. We can give them more time or we set the schedule.
        3. Tate: It’s a relatively easy schedule and I think we could add someone in if we needed to. Let’s go ahead and add those games and we can move things around later.
        4. Young: Sorry, add them in with Battleground or with a BYE?
        5. Hughes: Let me re-work it as a four team schedule and I’ll send it to you.
        6. Young: Cool, and then I can load D2 North and D4 South once you re-work them both.
      2. Hughes: Another topic, D3 North only have five teams and I’m sure they want some more games. Those teams can play Fort Hood or Euless as long as they are compliant.
      3. Kolberg: We might have enough for an informal D4 as well and we may be looking for games.
    4. Compliance
      1. Young: Time to start reminding your teams that they need to register with USA Rugby and CIPP their players.
  3. Next Call
    1. Tate: On the next call we need to have the new members present and then we will do elections for the committee appointed positions. That is the Chair and 7s. The 10 electoral reps, Watson (at-large), Green (referees) and divisional reps will appoint a Chair and a 7s rep. Alan Sharpley has stepped down so we know that we are getting a new Chair. Then the Chair can appoint the “others stakeholders” rep. Alan had appointed Luke Gross in that position. Next meeting is Oct 9.
      1. Tate: Do we want to wait until Oct 9 or should we have a special meeting?
      2. Kolberg: I’d like to see a meeting before Oct 9.
      3. Hughes: Yes, I think it’s a good idea to get the committee set for future business.
      4. Turner: I agree, sooner than later is best.
      5. Young: I think we need to give Monique and Karl some time, what about 20th?
      6. Kolberg: What about Sep 25?
      7. Tate: Ok, Sep 25 good for everyone?
        1. Young: I will alert Karl and Monique to the special meeting as well as invite them to the future meetings.
      8. Watson: Shouldn’t we find out if there are members within our group that would be interested in holding the position of the Chair? So we aren’t shooting from the hip?
      9. Tate: Sure, the terms of reference say that the electoral reps can appoint the Chair. It’s not elected by the clubs but you could certainly put out a call for interested persons. Or as a group of electoral reps could nominate people or recruit nominees.
      10. Young: Do we want to put up a post requesting nominees?
      11. Watson: Yes, I think we should do that.
      12. Young: They do need to be a TRU member, so interested parties must be CIPP’d.
      13. Tate: Yes, they must be CIPP’d.
      14. Turner: Can they be CIPP’d at-large?
      15. Tate: Under the terms of reference I think so, but I would have to check. Every club but the Glendale Merlins is a TRU member. I would think that a Chair of this committee that isn’t a member would be troublesome.
  4. New Business
    1. Attendance
      1. Watson: I’d like to talk about attendance to this meetings. We have had members of this committee that have missed many many calls. That only hurts us. The TOR doesn’t include anything about that but does that bother anyone else?
      2. Hughes: We discussed this on an earlier call and threatened to remove those members.
      3. Tate: We did and effectively one of those reps decided to step down. With the appointed reps they can be removed when the clubs want to. Another thing to note is that up until now the Chair has also served as the representative to the USA Rugby National Competitions Committee as well. I will be attending the call on Wednesday but the person that you select as the Chair would be doing that going forward. Or you could appoint someone to represent us on that committee. This is very important as the NCC chooses seeds, waivers and sets competition and we want to make sure we are represented appropriately.
      4. Young: Usually Alan would kick-off the call, do we feel like that is necessary?
      5. Tate: I can be on if the committee would like that.
      6. Hughes: I think it’s a good idea, you can transition us a group to the new year and new group.
      7. Tate: Not a problem, I’ll do that.
  5. Adjournment (9:12pm)
    1. Watson: I move we adjourn.
    2. Hughes: Second.
4 Shares
Share4
Tweet