The Clipboard

Volume 9, Issue 2

CONTENTS

• Newly Licensed and Promoted Officials
• Keeping Volunteers
• Ombudsman – A New Name, an Old Job
• Assistant Referee Evaluation Forms
• 2001 Reflections
• Recap of the Referee School
• 2001 Chief Officials

A Message from Kris Grudt

Kris is stepping down after four years as the chair of the Referee Commission.

Ten years ago I was asked if I was interested in running as the Northwest Regional Representative to the Judge-Referee Committee. As I write this now, I am preparing to attend my last meeting as a member of the now Referee Commission. At times like this, we all have a tendency to look back at what has been accomplished during one’s tenure. But instead, I would like to look forward.

The last ten years has seen the rise of the NCAA Women’s Championships, a significant increase in masters rowing and the start of the MRA, a restructuring of the ranks of referees, increasing numbers of regattas, and even the debut of this newsletter, to name just a few changes. What will the future hold? As a person working in the semiconductor industry, I can tell you more and increasing change. The one thing that I am certain of is that the need for trained referees is going to continue into the future. And the Referee Commission is going to be faced with engaging all of us to meet this growing need. But the Commission cannot do it alone. Each of us is needed to help in recruiting, training, and retaining officials, and I encourage every one of you to help in meeting this task.

I also challenge each of you to consider becoming a part of the Referee Commission. You do not have to be the best official. (I know that I fall far short of that goal.) You do have to be willing to dedicate time and effort. And most importantly, you have to be ready to grow and learn. I have learned a great deal in the past 10 years, and I know I still have a great deal more to learn. However, I feel very strongly that the more people we have who have the chance to grow through being a part of the Commission, the better for USRowing and for all of us. The Commission also will grow in having a greater diversity of individuals who serve on it.

I invite you to consider what you can do to help the referee corps prepare for and meet the increasing need for officials in the future. Whether it be as a member of the Commission, as a clinician, recruiting a new official, or working regattas, I encourage you to be engaged in the process.

What’s In a Name?

By Kris Grudt

Earlier this year, the USRowing Board of Directors changed the name of the Judge-Referee Committee to the Referee Commission. With this, our title also changed from Judge-Referee to Referee and from Assistant Judge-Referee to Assistant Referee.

Some of you may have noticed that the Committee had made a recommendation to the Board last year to change its name from Judge-Referee to Referee. For a number of years, a group of officials have advocated that the name “Judge-Referee”, while being a direct translation of the original French Juge-Arbite, gave the impression of a schizophrenic role. Their proposal was to call us either “Judge” or “Referee.” It was decided that the primary image to present to the rowing community is one of refereeing between crews as they determined the winner of an event, rather than presiding as a judge over them.

The change from “Committee” to “Commission” was made to reflect our functional role. A Committee by the classical definition is advisory in nature. A Commission has additional administrative functions. While the Referee Commission does serve in an advisory role to the Board (e.g. when considering changes to the Rules of Rowing), it also is tasked with the active administration of recruitment, training and licensing of USRowing officials in the United States.

Does this mean that we all need to rush out and buy new Referee gear? No! The new name will be phased in as we replace old gear with new. The Commission will advise suppliers to change the logo to reflect the new name. However “Judge-Referee” and “Juge-Arbite” will continue to be accepted as valid components of the uniform.

Even though the name has changed, the function remains the same. As one advertisement states, “the same quality people and service that you have grown to depend on, but now with a new name.”

Keeping Volunteers and Referees

By Tom Mannle and Kathleen Dameo

Yesterday we got our thank-you t-shirts from the Charlie Butt Scullers’ Head of the Potomac Regatta. On the back, below the American flag, was emblazoned “remembering September 11, 2001.” The shirt was a reminder of the call to volunteerism that is so strong today in our country. Keeping volunteers after the crisis has abated will be another challenge for all organizations, big or small.

Volunteerism is what we referees are all about. Recently a substantial effort to recruit volunteers to become referees has been successful. But, this impressive accomplishment in initial recruitment will be lost if we as the referee corps fail to keep our new colleagues over the long term. This article describes some things that all of us can do to keep referees—full referees as well as new assistants—active and involved in the sport. What are some of these points to consider? Simple things, really…

* Communications. Every organization needs more communication than it usually gets, and our community is no exception. The Clipboard is a good example of informed, top-down communication, at regular intervals, and when accompanied by the minutes of the Referee Commission meetings (what, we’re a Commission now?), it gives us a pretty good idea of what’s going on from the USRowing perspective. We’ve heard that, in the past, communications at the local level were uneven, or infrequent, or un-informative. With the growth of the referee corps, more frequent clinics and other chances for interaction, the growth of the sport in general and the profusion of modern communications technologies (thank you, email), there’s little excuse for referees not knowing what’s going on in their local areas. But the mere existence of the technologies isn’t a panacea. If you get a piece of information (regatta details, clinic arrangements, etc.), check around to make sure that those you know, know what you know. If there’s someone who should be on an e-mail list, but isn’t, make it happen. Stay connected.

* Tips, how to’s, inside dope. There’s a lot of “stuff” about being a referee that is not, for want of a better term, found in nature. Like, where do you get your megaphone fixed after you drop it in the river? (For that matter, where the hell do you get a megaphone?) Or, what can I deduct, or not, from the payments I have to make to Uncle Sam every spring? We all have a tip, a trick, a favorite method or technique, a gateway into the hidden knowledge of the sport. If you know something good, or get something good, pass it on. By the way, John White is the resident guru on IRS issues and deductibility. See, that was easy.

* Mentorship and Comradeship. All new assistant referees have an assigned mentor, to contribute to and monitor their specific development on the path to plenaryism (a term coined by a current assistant). Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn’t. Regardless of whether a formal mentoring relationship has been established, any referee should feel free and be encouraged to reach out to our colleagues, to assist them in their particular needs and concerns, and make them more involved in our community. Criticism, while necessary, may be painful, so discretion is critical. We talk sometimes of the referee “corps”, but this means little if we don’t work at maintaining its esprit.

* Fun. Like many volunteers, people become referees initially from duty or responsibility; some of us are involved not because we were rowers, but because our kids were. However, there’s no way we’d still be involved as referees if it were all work and no play. Find opportunities for fun and get others involved. Spread the word about which regattas have high fun quotients.

* Appreciation. Few if any referees expect to be compensated for working a regatta. A small honorarium, though, when offered, is a token of appreciation that is welcomed by most referees—and makes them come back next time. More than money, however, are the “little things” that a regatta can do to demonstrate its appreciation to its officials: a parking space close to headquarters, schedules printed in “referee” order, coffee and perhaps a decent lunch, plenty of water, drivers who know their business, and working radios. And if at the end of the day, there’s a “thank you” and maybe an official regatta T-shirt; it’s a bonus. Appreciation works two ways. It is our obligation to show appreciation for a regatta well done. Make your needs as well as your applause well know. The Chief cannot do it alone.

We love being involved in this sport and want all of our fellow referees to feel the same. Volunteers need to be rewarded and it should be our goal, no our duty, to help each of us find the way to both reward and be rewarded. As long as it feels good to volunteer, referees will continue to volunteer, just ask Bill Fritz or Julian Wolf.

Ombudsman - A New Name, an Old Job. Some Musings and Results of a Survey

By Bob Walton

A growing number of regattas are assigning a referee to serve as an ombudsman, although this assignment does not appear in the Rules of Rowing. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ombudsman as: (1) a government official appointed to receive and investigate complaints made by individuals against abuses or capricious acts of public officials; (2) one that investigates reported complaints, reports findings, and helps to achieve equitable settlements.

In a regatta, the ombudsman is the person who first receives and handles a protest, a near protest, or merely a gripe. It is the ombudsman's assignment to discuss the problem with the unhappy person(s) and to find an agreeable resolution, which avoids conducting a full jury hearing. A fair outcome and not having to convene a jury are the goals. Chief Referees and regatta directors have done this kind of conflict resolution for years. What is new is to assign this specific task as one referee's primary duty at the regatta.

This past summer, an inquiry was sent out to gather referee’s opinions about the ombudsman role. About half of the respondents expressed some reservations or had never been to a regatta that used an ombudsman. But half thought that having an ombudsman was valuable. Below are some representative comments.

As regatta director for EARC regattas, Clayton Chapman has used ombudsmen for many years. He wrote a strong endorsement: "We've had great success in using this position. We always stress to the coaches and coxswains that a protest that has been registered properly on the water will receive an ‘informal hearing’ by an ombudsman as soon as the crew is off the water. The ombudsman serves, in this instance, only as a ‘moderator’ and will attempt to resolve the protest so that it is mutually agreeable to all parties involved. If such mutual agreement is not possible, then the protesting crew is still free to file a formal protest, which would then be addressed by the jury. Many times, the issue is resolved by the ombudsman when a crew simply misunderstood a rule and is given the proper ‘read.’ Other times when the ombudsman outlines the options available for a resolution, all parties will agree that none of the options are viable and that there is no need to pursue the matter further. Still other times, the ombudsman may offer a judgment on the merits of the protest, giving the crew a more informed understanding of the likelihood of the success of a formal protest.”

He lists the primary benefits of the ombudsman as: Sorting out the 'facts' while they are still fresh in everyone's mind; discussing the applicable rule(s) and their correct interpretation(s); and timely resolution of potential protests that are found to be unwarranted, avoiding disruption of the regatta in progress. “Time and heartache are saved when decisions don't await the convening of the jury at the end of the day, especially if the decision turns out to be one that the protesting crew would have agreed to earlier."

Positive comments were also received from other referees:

"It has been most effective in avoiding jury trials and getting people to discuss and resolve their issues one on one. Any reasonably sized regatta which uses this approach has an excellent chance of being ‘trial’ free."

"There are some things an ombudsman can help with, and there are some that he can't. But if the staff is available, it never can hurt to have a gray eminence act as an informal mediator and try to come to a common sense solution first."

"Staffing the position with a gray hair who has the background, who is known by and has the confidence of the coaches, can be beneficial since the process can run as the regatta continues without having to convene the whole jury. I think it is a good spot to staff."

"They are very helpful in taking up some of the Chief Referee's burden. They have the time to answer questions and to develop rapport with the competitors and coaches who can get a rapid answer for their problem without feeling ‘put-off’ by an over-stressed Chief Referee."

"Mediation or arbitration are definitely the wave of the future. ‘Jury’ trials take too long, as they often do in the court system, which is why so many courts now use mediation and arbitration. Ombudspersonning is a GREAT way to go!!"

However, other Referees expressed some reservations:

"It can improve the regatta, provided that the ombudsman is a reasonable and tactful person."

"Ombudsmen seem semi-useful. On the other hand, they are a way for umpires to avoid deciding something on the water as they ought to do."

"The role of the referee contains the role of ombudsman and therefore a separate ombudsman is not necessary. The only time a separate ombudsman would be necessary is in the event the referees are not doing their jobs."

"If you have good officials doing their job the right way, you don't need another layer of management. Sounds like more bureaucratic RED tape."

"At most regattas, the job of ombudsman can be rolled into control commission. But at VERY large regattas, it helps as it frees up the Chief Referee to be able to do more ‘chiefy’ things."

"In our area, we are lucky when we have enough referees to fill the key positions and seldom would have an extra referee for that job. Each regatta already has an ombudsman - the Chief Referee."

"I oppose the use of an ombudsman, which adds unnecessarily to the staffing and cost of an event and generally usurps the authority, responsibility and accountability of the Chief Referee."

"A responsive regatta director can serve the same function."

And, one referee asked an excellent question, which surely needs study:

"As a mentor, how would you train someone to be an ombudsman and how would you monitor their performance?"

Assistant Referee Evaluation Forms

There has been some confusion expressed in recent months (Okay, years!) about what to do with the Assistant Referee Evaluation form. This article will try to answer some basic questions about the form.

First—where do you get the form? It’s located on the Referee Commission web page under referee documents. You should download it, print if off and make as many copies as you like. Assistant, full and clinician referees alike may download the form. While it is up to the Assistant Referee to provide a copy of the form for the evaluating referee to sign off on, it never hurts to have a spare copy or two to hand out to folks who find themselves without the form. Besides, everyone knows we need to carry just one more item in our bags…

Second—what do you do with the form? Assistant Referees are to collect these forms after every regatta at which they work. The forms serve two functions; verifiable objective evidence of meeting the requirements to advance to plenary status and objective feedback from the observing official to the assistant with regards to their progress.

Third—who is supposed to fill out these forms? Again, this is a joint effort…the assistant should complete the reference information, Assistant Referee name, regatta name, date and location; indicating what positions were worked would be helpful. The evaluation should be completed by the observing official(s). This is important, the form does not HAVE to be completed by the Chief Referee or a clinician…it is entirely reasonable that the observing official is any Plenary Referee at the regatta. It is preferable to receive evaluations from those who actually observed the work than from the very busy Chief Referee.

Fourth—who is supposed to keep these things? The Assistant Referee should retain the completed forms until he or she takes the Plenary Referee exam. At that point, copies of the Assistant Referee’s evaluation forms should be submitted to the evaluation team reviewing the assistant for advancement. The Assistant Referee should keep the originals. The forms should not be sent to the Commission with the annual data letter response.

Fifth—do I have to fill out these forms at the regatta? While it is preferable to provide the Assistant Referee with immediate and candid evaluation, there are times when there is just too much going on at the end of the day to take care of paperwork. It is perfectly acceptable to take the form home and complete it later and send it to the Assistant Referee; JUST MAKE SURE YOU DO IT. Nothing is more frustrating for an Assistant Referee than to not have all their forms so they can track their progress.

Sixth—what if I can’t give the Assistant Referee an excellent or outstanding rating? This is a tough one. No one wants to be the heavy, but everyone wants to make sure that we are training and mentoring good referees. A delicate balance has to be made. Everyone is a volunteer and they are all valuable. However, if the only feedback an Assistant Referee receives is that their performance is OUTSTANDING, when in fact it is really only average, then that official has been done a great disservice. If areas for improvement are not pointed out, no improvement is going to be made. If the evaluator doesn’t provide correct and corrective feedback, how is the Assistant Referee supposed to know improvement is needed? Handing out ‘outstanding’ ratings for the sake of ‘being nice’ is really not all that nice at all. Constructive criticism can be made in a positive manner—that’s why it’s called ‘Constructive.’ Everyone will benefit from honest and constructive evaluations.

Newly licensed and promoted Referees

2001 has been a productive year, with 42 newly licensed Assistant Referees and 23 assistants who were advanced to fully licensed referee. Here are the Assistant Referees, by region:

Mid-Atlantic: Rob Reali, Suzanne Lyons, Michael Gonzalez, A. Patricia Gonzalez, Russell A. Fink, Cindy Ching, Nancy Hiteshue, Tim Kerr, Claudia Luehrs, Richard Califf, Doug Jones, Richard Fitzgerald, Frank Rowland, Lloyd McDonald, Anne Miller, Lloyd Paradiso, Brian Roman, Dennis Smith, Kevin Carrabine, Bob Lieber, Michelle Kirk, Michael Martinko, Kathleen Crowe, and Jennifer Ros. Midwest: Vicci Simpkins, Richard Arnest, John Crego, and Mark Schuster. Northeast: Wayne Butler. Northwest: Bill Woodman, Donald Geddes, and Blake Rohrbacher. Southeast: Ginny Dixon, Thomas Ham, Gerald T. Jannik, and Ross Fox. Southwest: Michael Paulovich, Shirley Doell, Catherine Kemper, Charles Luckman, Christine White-Shannon, and Jeff Rieger.

Congratulations to the newly advanced referees:

Mid-Atlantic: E. David Miller, Edward F. Wells, John Pelkey, Joseph Carlson, Eugene Barnes, Ryszard Obuchowicz, Thomas Mannle, Jr., James Hill, and Martyn Greenacre; Midwest: Terese Friel; Northeast: Laura Kunkemueller, and Dennis Streebel; Northwest: Rachel LeMieux, and Warren Polensky; Southeast: Saralee Lamb, Jo Ellen Iacovino, Teresa A. Wright, George J. Fry, Jr., Ted Chesnutt, Barbara Sanchez-Salazar, Beth Marten, and Patricia Bailey; Southwest: Win Rumsey

Reflections

By Ted Chesnutt

This has been a wonderful year to experience the growth of rowing in all regions of this outstanding country. The spring sprint season saw new faces stepping forward to challenge for the honor of being national champions. Yet, grand old clubs like Riverside of Boston were able to continue showcasing their programs, like women’s lightweights, and building their traditions that have made them a destination point for individuals striving to become the best in the world.

This past year also has demonstrated significant gains in the number of new officials in each region of the country, as new volunteers stepped forward to make each regatta “safe and fair” for those competing. As rowing continues to grow, it becomes more important for each referee to fully embrace, and properly execute, the Rules of Rowing at each regatta they work at. The way to support and promote this is through continual education. Here are some recent examples of how people are meeting this challenge:

Activation of clinicians to help with “on the job” training during regattas. For example, instead of taking a standard assignment at the USRowing Youth Invitational this past June, Peter Kay was assigned to move from one position to the next to observe and work with the other officials, to provide advice and encouragement.

Senior officials mentoring the junior officials. There is an abundant wealth of knowledge in our community, based upon the experience of individuals who have committed a large portion of their lives to the development of this sport. The Bill Fritz’es, the Mamma Z’es, the Julian Wolf’es, Larry Tolle’es, Bob Scurrias, and a huge host of other individuals that I know and don’t yet, but would like to know. I always enjoy traveling to other locations in the country to sit and listen to the stories and pointers told by these individuals, derived from their many years of officiating.

Clinics. These can be great sources of encouragement. Roxanne Everetts, Kate Godwin, Patty Wilson, Jim Buckalew, Victor Gallik, George Bangs, Ray Duff, Father Mike, and the many others who are actively hosting these times for education and sharing of experience. Clinics have been a great tool in the past and must again come to the forefront for referees to stay in good form so that we can consistently give to the athletes the best execution of “safety and fairness” at all regattas.

Sharing of information. At the NCAA Championships last June, Bob Whitford advocated the publishing of jury decisions so that other referees would have a precedent to refer to when confronting jury decisions on future cases across the country. USRowing has the capability for mass distribution of information via e-mail and its web site. This could be an outstanding opportunity for monthly information, updates, and dialogue.

Standardization of execution. One can still experience culture shock when traveling from one region to another. It helps to have big ears and to be prepared to soak in the how-to’s when working at a new regatta for the first time. Chief Referees need to be especially sensitive to variances in procedures and practices, so that the athlete will not become confused while competing. The Chief Referee College, arranged by Julian Wolf and Bob Scurria and supported by the Referee Commission, should play a big role in helping to alleviate this concern.

It is easy to list suggestions. I am committed to helping where I can, and I know that each who reads this will also step forward in the years to come to contribute to our need for continuing education. Be alert, this will become more important as time progresses, due to the dynamic nature of competitive rowing. For example, the NCAA Women’s Rowing Committee is reviewing specific rules that it may want enforced during future women’s collegiate meets and regattas. So, please step forward to help educate and communicate. I am confident that each member of the Referee Commission would welcome the helping hand from eager volunteers in this endeavor.

News from the Southeast Region

By Patty Wilson

The Southeast Region has experienced a rapid coming of age in the rowing world. This year, a number of major regattas were held, some even on the same day with the Southeast referee corps stretched to its limit. We are happy to say that we are rising to the challenge. A regional clinic was held in February in Jacksonville with 25 attending. We have licensed six new candidates as Assistant Referees: Ginny Dixon, Ross Fox, Tom Ham, Charles Huthmaker, Tim Jannik, and Amelia Packard. Nine new fully licensed referees have also joined our ranks: Tricia Bailey, Ted Chesnutt, George Fry Jr., Jo Ellen Iacovino, Saralee Lamb, Beth Marten, Auggie Merolle, Barbara Sanchez-Salazar, and Teresa Wright. And, Jorge Salas is about to complete his requirements. There have been long hours spent by countless others who have served for years trying to perform at their best for the sometimes demanding and critical L.O.C.s, coaches, and spectators. We all strive to do better through experience and education. We are therefore scheduling a second Regional Referee Clinic in Jacksonville February 9-10, 2002. We hope that many more can make it this time and will invite anyone interested from other regions to attend as well.

From the Referee School

The annual National Referee School was held at the U.S. Olympic Training Center in Chula Vista, Calif., September 21-23. Twenty-four referees from around the country attended. All were either already Clinicians or had an interest in extending their knowledge and skills so that they could also help to instruct others to better serve the rowing community as officials. Through two and a half days, presentations and discussions were directed towards how to conduct clinics, and most importantly, how to instruct others on becoming competent referees, based upon a fundamental and thorough understanding of the Rules of Rowing.

The goal of referee training has always been to provide an adequate number of officials who are individually competent, and who also operate according to a national standard, so that an athlete may enter a regatta anywhere in the country and experience the same procedures and commands while they compete. Some of us who have “been around for awhile” can name one or two individuals who played a key role in mentoring and inspiring our continued participation as a volunteer official for rowing. But, while this system of one-on-one mentoring and training has served us well, the demand for competent officials to staff the growing number of regattas is causing us to consider new approaches to provide more extensive and systematic training. This is the primary reason why the endorsement of clinician was added to the referee rank structure in 1996, to provide a larger pool of experienced and qualified individuals to assist in the tasks of training new officials. The need for training is so pervasive, the Judge-Referee committee decided at that time to dedicate every third Referee School towards preparing more individuals to serve as a clinician.

When the referee ranks were revised in 1996, the goal was to establish a system that would better support the development of competent officials. What qualities define “competency” as an official: Thorough knowledge and understanding of the published Rules of Rowing, to be certain. The ability to perform the skills and mechanics associated with each of the standard assignments, such as flagwork, launch positioning, and the prescribed issuance of particular commands. Judgment, which is the ability to interpret and respond to situations commonly encountered, and which can be further defined as the proper recognition of which rules apply to particular situations and circumstances. Finally, there are the more intangible aspects of officiating, which involve the ability to respond to situations in a manner that always preserves and promotes safety and fairness, while projecting an image of confidence and decisiveness, without appearing overbearing, condescending, or “officious”.

Hopefully, this year’s Clinician’s School helped to motivate and energize each of the participants to better contribute to the needed effort to further grow and develop the corps of USRowing officials. Basic training for new recruits, and continuing education for everyone with an active license, is the key to fulfilling the mission of the USRowing referee corps towards ensuring safe and fair competition for rowers across the country.

2001 Chief Officials

Thank you to the following officials for acting as chief officials for USRowing’s registered regattas this year.

USRowing National Championship – John White

Zurich Scudder Masters National Championship Regatta – Stan Shawl

Dick Alcock, Bob Appleyard, Bill Bachman, Roger Bailey, Mike Bergen, Mike Chambers, Ron Chen, John Childs, Bill Collins, Rob Connelly, Polly Cooper, Joe Creed, Bob Cummins, Sam Dempsey, Martyn Dennis, Kevin Doyle, Ray Duff, Miles Durfey, Roxanne Everetts, Ken Ford, Terry Friel, Bill Fritz, Tom Fuller, Victor Gallik, John Garnjost, Gayle German, Kate Godwin, Kris Grudt, Bob Hart, Bill Howard, Ron Hudson, Patty Hyatt, Jo Ellen Iacovino, John Iacovino, Jim Kelly, Chip Kerby, Sandy Killen, Laura Kunkemueller, John Kowal, Robert Kubal, Ren Levy, Chris Lang, Don Langford, Matt Ledwith, Rachel LeMieux, Christine Livingston, Hank Miller, Phil Mork, Albin Moser, John Musial, Stu Neffeler, Robert Petersen, Paul Phillips, John Quinn, Kay Quinn, Paul Schugsta, Bob Scurria, Stan Shawl, Bruce Soden, Bob Suter, Norm Thetford, Jean Thomas, Dan Thompson, Harry Todd, Larry Tolle, Robert Uhl, Nikola Vajda, Bob Walton, Amanda Watlington, Mal Watlington, Robert Weiss, John Welchli, Marty Wiener, Bob Willenbring, Bruce Wilson, Patty Wilson and John Wylder.

Thanks again for a job well done.

Contribute to Your Newsletter

The Clipboard dates back to 1993, when the Referee Commission first decided that a newsletter would facilitate communication and sharing of information among licensed officials throughout the country. It has since been published on an annual basis, with either two or three issues per year. The Commission has continued to serve as the publishing board and expenses for printing and mailing are a line item in the Commission’s annual operating budget. Many individuals have made contributions over the years with articles and information. Presently, there are two primary sources for input and material. The Clipboard continues to serve as the primary means for the Referee Commission to disseminate information, notices and, news that it wishes to share. There has also been an ongoing effort to recruit contributors from outside of the Commission, to reflect the observations, concerns, and opinions of working officials “in the field.”

On the whole, the feedback we have received over the years has been positive and our sense is that most people would like to see The Clipboard continue. If anything, people have asked that we consider sending out an additional issue each year or that we pack more information into each issue that is sent out. People are beginning to request that we also consider an electronic form of the newsletter, which perhaps could be added to on a regular basis. Hopefully, these requests can be met!

There is, however, one resource that is always in critical demand. People have great ideas, but it takes work and effort to translate these ideas into substance. More volunteers are needed to help make future issues of this newsletter a reality! Over the next few months, the Commission will consider a proposal to recruit additional people to edit future issues, both to share the workload and also to broaden the point of view that this newsletter presents. We want to actively solicit new contributors, as reporters and feature writers, and as editors to help put the raw information together. If there are things you would like to see in this newsletter, contact someone on the Referee Commission and offer not only your good idea, but also the information needed to turn it into copy. If you prefer to have assistance in the final editing, just ask, and it will be provided! And, if you are asked to contribute, give it a try!

Thanks to those who contributed to this current issue: Ted Chesnutt, Tom Mannle, Kathleen Dameo, Bob Walton, Mike Bergen, Patty Wilson, Roxanne Everetts, and Kris Grudt.