[cst_2014_board] FW: Re: Procedural question

From: "Andy and Heidi Mechtenberg" <mechtenberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <cst_2014_board@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2014 18:36:38 -0600
Is this the string of e-mails related to the Stoltz family?  I don't think I
ever received direct communication from them.  I've looked and have nothing
from Stoltz.  Could the e-mail have been from a different address?  I feel
remiss if they quit the team and we didn't follow through on a reimbursement
in some way.

I was communicating directly with Amanda Ellis's dad and I think she ended
up staying with the team?

No word from the Thieman's yet.
-Heidi

-----Original Message-----
From: cst_2014_board-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cst_2014_board-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andy and Heidi
Mechtenberg
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 8:55 PM
To: cst_2014_board@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [cst_2014_board] Re: Procedural question

I did some more reading of e-mails after I sent this.  I would like to add
to my previous thoughts:

I think we do have to charge the minimum - not necessarily prorated by # of
weeks  - so that we can cover their costs for coaching and water.  This sets
a good precedence.  I'm not sure whether another $12 ($130 vs $118) would be
enough to sway their own decision though.

I am leaning towards "no" as well, with a thorough explanation of all the
angles we considered.  We want them to know that we took their request
seriously and looked at all the possibilities.  I would like them to feel
like they are important and we are treating them fairly and with care.  If
we do finally decide "no" then we certainly would like them to feel welcome
next year if they can participate more for the year.

It does sound weird, but I would really like to know the two weeks in July
they would be here. I have a feeling it would be the end of the month -
which puts them at City and potentially State.  Allowing their participation
could be construed as playing favorites.

-Heidi

-----Original Message-----
From: cst_2014_board-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cst_2014_board-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andy and Heidi
Mechtenberg
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 8:41 PM
To: cst_2014_board@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [cst_2014_board] Re: Procedural question

I think the reimbursement form would be a great way to handle the situation
where the family has decided their swimmer is not ready yet.  Not only does
it allow for a record, but by providing the address, the bank can cut the
check and we won't have to use one of our printed checks.

Yes, we should codify our policy on proration.  I will write something up
this weekend that can be reviewed.  It seems that there is some agreement
that proration should only be considered when the swimmer is only going to
be there 50% of the season or less and, this needs to be an a case by case
basis.   Otherwise we will be asked by everyone who take a week off during
the summer to prorate their fees too.  

However, in the meantime - we need to consider this particular request.
There is definitely the element of "team" that concerns me.  It may be
important to know what two weeks in July they would be a part of the team.
I seem to remember the Li (Le?) family as having kids that swim very well
and may qualify for state.  There might be some resentment from kids who
struggled all summer and finally made a state time when the Li kids come in
and swim very little, but still have the privilege to swim at state.  It
might appear to them that we are choosing to be competitive for state over
developing swimmers and the team as a whole.  I tell you, I'm really on the
fence about this.  Three weeks seems like a very little commitment to the
summer club experience.  But again, I am loathe to turn away kids that are
having loads of fun with summer club.

Is this the only team the Li family is swimming for?  Are they year-round
swimmers with FAST or Loveland?  If so, having them stay with their
year-round team might have less of an impact on the team experience for
them.

I'm open to more discussion - and possibly a vote.  We have said we are
having a CAPS meeting after the meet on Saturday to recap the meet about
what worked and what did not.  Perhaps this is a time to take a vote?

-Heidi

-----Original Message-----
From: cst_2014_board-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cst_2014_board-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marlene Hutton
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 10:28 AM
To: cst_2014_board@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [cst_2014_board] Procedural question

Hello CAPS,

We have at least one swimmer that will not be continuing on, but have
already paid their fees.  Since it is still during trial week, I don't think
there is any problem with refunding their money, but I'm wondering what
procedure to follow.  John was suggesting we fill out one of Lisa's dandy
reimbursement slips for the amount and go through that channel, so we have a
record.  I can just give back the volunteer deposit check, since it is with
the registration form.  Is that okay, or is there another route you think we
should take?

One thought on the Le family situation--in talking with Carol this morning,
something she said really struck me.  We need to have some written policy,
whatever it is, calling out that this is up to the board's discretion for
individual cases.  I'm personally concerned about precedent, because almost
every family is gone during some part of the swim season and we cannot
prorate everyone, but considering cases where the family is gone for more
than half of the swim season seems a reasonable line to draw.  I did have
someone ask me this morning (on behalf of someone else) about prorating
because they were going to miss the first week!  As Renee so wisely says,
"Can Anything Possibly Surprise us?"

Thanks for your help,
Marlene
[cst_2014_board] FW: Re: Procedural question

Other related posts:
