Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Proposal One - withdrawn prior to the meeting, no vote

Proposal Two (pass) -changing the calculation of yards to meters
Yes -- 100
No -- 0
Abstain -- 2

Proposal Three (pass) -bid in for divisional exchange
Yes -- 102
No -- 0
Abstain -- 0

Proposal Four (pass) at least one team rep on the cover sheet
Yes -- 100
No -- 2
Abstain -- 0

Proposal Five (pass) - alternates/divisionals - not having them
Yes -- 77
No -- 20
Abstain -- 5

The fact that there were NO votes on this is hilarious. WHY?

Given the results, I take it the "alternates for divisionals" proposal prompted the most spirited discussion ... which would also be hilarious!

I want to know the result of the eligibility question. reps "voted" to let the board know their position/feedback not so they would change it.

Anonymous wrote:
Proposal One - withdrawn prior to the meeting, no vote

Proposal Two (pass) -changing the calculation of yards to meters
Yes -- 100
No -- 0
Abstain -- 2

Proposal Three (pass) -bid in for divisional exchange
Yes -- 102
No -- 0
Abstain -- 0

Proposal Four (pass) at least one team rep on the cover sheet
Yes -- 100
No -- 2
Abstain -- 0

Proposal Five (pass) - alternates/divisionals - not having them
Yes -- 77
No -- 20
Abstain -- 5

The fact that there were NO votes on this is hilarious. WHY?

Proposal One - withdrawn prior to the meeting, no vote

Proposal Two (pass) -changing the calculation of yards to meters
Yes -- 100
No -- 0
Abstain -- 2

Proposal Three (pass) -bid in for divisional exchange
Yes -- 102
No -- 0
Abstain -- 0

Proposal Four (pass) at least one team rep on the cover sheet
Yes -- 100
No -- 2
Abstain -- 0

Proposal Five (pass) - alternates/divisionals - not having them
Yes -- 77
No -- 20
Abstain -- 5

What were the proposals? How do they line up to your 1-5?

Proposal One - withdrawn prior to the meeting, no vote

Proposal Two (pass)
Yes -- 100
No -- 0
Abstain -- 2

Proposal Three (pass)
Yes -- 102
No -- 0
Abstain -- 0

Proposal Four (pass)
Yes -- 100
No -- 2
Abstain -- 0

Proposal Five (pass)
Yes -- 77
No -- 20
Abstain -- 5

Pipes at KG had to be replaced so was easy to do since the pool was being torn up anyway

Anonymous wrote:That was a mistype by PP. Kent Gardens is redoing their pool to become a meter pool

yes, my bad, that should have been is NOW a meters pool

Anonymous wrote:That was a mistype by PP. Kent Gardens is redoing their pool to become a meter pool

That is actually awesome. Nice that they have the $ to make that happen.

That was a mistype by PP. Kent Gardens is redoing their pool to become a meter pool

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a rule to change the conversion formula for yard and meter pools. There are two pools in NVSL that are yard pools. It was to bring it in line with the industry standard, but it is now slightly worse for those two pools (it could be argued that those times had an advantage before).

There was a ballot or agreement in line with USA Swimming rules on swimming in your gender assigned at birth if male, but a female can swim as a male.

A rule on when bid ins with seed times need to be exchanged.

A rule of clarification. Apparently some pool last year had an alternate on deck for Divisionals. There was a false start and they wanted to throw their alternate in. It became a thing. So there are no alternates at Divisionals (only ASR and IAS) so a false start is simply a DQ. Throwing some random kid would be advantageous to that team with the kid on deck for that (perhaps a chance to get that kid into IAS). The only fill the lane scenarios at Divisionals are scratches, not for DQs.

A few of these got slightly heated. We will see what the vote turned out to be on them.

Not really as they were never allowed to host Divisionals or relay carnival so times only impacted their internal rosters for meets and not the league as a whole.

And starting this year it will only impact 1 pool as KG has been redone and will not be meters.

the debate on divisional "alternates" was silly. No team is going to line kids up as alternates for divisionals. It is silly enough to see kids there for IAS and ASR, but at least there they get a ribbon for showing up.

So Kent is still a yard pool? (Holmes is the other one)

The divisional alternate thing is crazy. I HATE it for IAS and ASR. It is so awful for the kids to be there in the wings.

Anonymous wrote:There was a rule to change the conversion formula for yard and meter pools. There are two pools in NVSL that are yard pools. It was to bring it in line with the industry standard, but it is now slightly worse for those two pools (it could be argued that those times had an advantage before).

There was a ballot or agreement in line with USA Swimming rules on swimming in your gender assigned at birth if male, but a female can swim as a male.

A rule on when bid ins with seed times need to be exchanged.

A rule of clarification. Apparently some pool last year had an alternate on deck for Divisionals. There was a false start and they wanted to throw their alternate in. It became a thing. So there are no alternates at Divisionals (only ASR and IAS) so a false start is simply a DQ. Throwing some random kid would be advantageous to that team with the kid on deck for that (perhaps a chance to get that kid into IAS). The only fill the lane scenarios at Divisionals are scratches, not for DQs.

A few of these got slightly heated. We will see what the vote turned out to be on them.

Not really as they were never allowed to host Divisionals or relay carnival so times only impacted their internal rosters for meets and not the league as a whole.

And starting this year it will only impact 1 pool as KG has been redone and will not be meters.

the debate on divisional "alternates" was silly. No team is going to line kids up as alternates for divisionals. It is silly enough to see kids there for IAS and ASR, but at least there they get a ribbon for showing up.

There was a rule to change the conversion formula for yard and meter pools. There are two pools in NVSL that are yard pools. It was to bring it in line with the industry standard, but it is now slightly worse for those two pools (it could be argued that those times had an advantage before).

There was a ballot or agreement in line with USA Swimming rules on swimming in your gender assigned at birth if male, but a female can swim as a male.

A rule on when bid ins with seed times need to be exchanged.

A rule of clarification. Apparently some pool last year had an alternate on deck for Divisionals. There was a false start and they wanted to throw their alternate in. It became a thing. So there are no alternates at Divisionals (only ASR and IAS) so a false start is simply a DQ. Throwing some random kid would be advantageous to that team with the kid on deck for that (perhaps a chance to get that kid into IAS). The only fill the lane scenarios at Divisionals are scratches, not for DQs.

A few of these got slightly heated. We will see what the vote turned out to be on them.

I know there were a few rule change proposals that passed.. anyone know what they were?

Besides the seeding, what else happened or was discussed?