Will,

Obviously you and I have slightly different versions of what constitutes "the truth" about this. The following is a copy of an email that I sent out to all of the board members on November 5, 23 days prior to the board meeting:

Quote:
Board members,

I would like to get the state freestyle/Greco tournament on the calendar on a timelier basis than what we’ve done the past two years. If you have any other sites that you’d like to recommend to host this event, please come to the meeting prepared to make the case for your alternative(s). Based on conversations I’ve had with many of you, I expect that the tournament will be held on a Saturday & Sunday in early May. I have already sent an email to Drew Anderson to determine whether Rose Hill is interested in repeating as tournament host.

I have attached a copy of last year’s bid information. You can also find last year’s tournament flier at www.usawks.com/invites/100508StateFSGR.pdf. Other than the change to a 2-day event, other changes and points of emphasis would be:
  • The Kids’ Division has instituted a fee for the use of the printers. This fee is designed to cover the cost of the toner used. The fee would be the responsibility of the tournament host.
  • I have asked Marcie Altman & Cindy Shavlik to come to our meeting to share their thoughts on the state tournament. One of the issues we may be discussing is whether to continue with the use of vertical pairings. If we want to remain with vertical pairings, we need to discuss how to increase the numbers of pairings officials and to provide opportunities for them to learn and develop their skills.
  • The tournament host should be made aware that they will be responsible for the management of the tournament. Although we will have several USAW-Kansas officers at the event, those individuals will also have other obligations to meet. The host club(s) should assume they will have the same responsibilities as with any other tournament they might host, subject to the requirements set by our board. Likewise, any profit from the event will also go to the tournament host.

As I have done in the past, I sent the same information to the prior year's tournament host. This was not an endorsement on my part, simply a continuation of a policy of inviting the former host the opportunity to bid on retaining the event. The notice to Rose Hill was sent the same day as the notice to the board members, and I was told that same day that the bid package was forwarded to other high schools to gauge their interest.

At the November 28 meeting, the only firm bid was from Rose Hill. There was discussion over whether to wait for other schools/clubs to determine whether they could hold the event, and to also find out whether it would be financially feasible at those locations. Based on my experience over the past two years, where we delayed until a very late date to announce the location of the state tournament because we were waiting for schools to make a commitment, I will admit to pushing the board to make a decision. I felt that everyone had a minimum of over three weeks to determine whether they wanted to and could afford to host the tournament, which should have been sufficient time to bring forward their bid. However, we have plenty of strong opinions on our board (including yours), and my opinion was only one of those expressed.

“The truth,” as I see it, is that the majority of the board felt that there had been an open and fair bidding process and, based on the bids presented (including bids containing contingencies), decided that the best course was to establish the location of the state tournament so that people could begin planning for the event. The tournament will be available for bid again next year, and I would encourage you to solicit those locations you believe would make a better location to prepare their bids for presentation to the board at the end of November.