The meeting convened at 9:00 am at the New Haven Hotel.  The purpose of the meeting was to hold an extended discussion on three topics identified at the March 19 Technical Planning Meeting (For information about that meeting see  Technical Planning Minutes for 3/19/98 ) and to help establish an agenda for the committee for the next 12 months.

Topic 1: The relationship between Connecticut Swimming & the CIAC:

The coaches present expressed the belief that high school swimming was a valuable activity which offers many benefits, including some that are difficult to provide in a USS club setting or through USS competitions.  They would like to see swimmers able to take advantage of all the opportunities presented by HS and club swimming rather than being forced to choose between them.  Current CIAC regulations, however, present several major impediments to the development of senior swimming excellence in Connecticut by forcing swimmers and coaches to choose unnecessarily between HS and USS or Y participation.  The coaches cited three major concerns:
 
1. CIAC rules that regulate "outside competition" during the HS season restrict the ability of swimmers swimmers to compete in USS meets as they see fit.  They force swimmers to choose between school meets and USS opportunities in ways that reduce their opportunity to swim appropriate events, to swim against appropriate competition, and to attend important qualifying or national caliber meets.
2. CIAC rules that prohibit swimmers from representing their clubs at USS competitions during the HS season destroy the ability of USS clubs to field relay teams, thereby eliminating an important motive for swimming and making it more difficult for swimmers and their teammates to attain national qualifying times or national recognition in relay events.  Rules that prohibit HS swimmers from representing their USS team reduce the camaraderie of the USS club and make it appear a mere subsidiary rather than a peer of the HS program, thus making it more difficult for clubs to explain to parents, the press, and community leaders the goals and character of the club program.
3. CIAC rules that prohibit HS coaches from working with their athletes out of season restrain the ability of coaches to pursue their trade and force them to choose between HS or club coaching.  The regulations make it more difficult to coordinate in a thoughtful, cooperative manner HS and club swimming.
The coaches present believe that it is imperative for Connecticut Swimming to work to eliminate CIAC regulations that restrain the activities of swimmers and coaches outside the HS environment.  A majority expressed willingness to pursue legal action.  Some cited the case of the Roche family who, while their son was a member of the Wilton Y Wahoos, successfully pursued a case in New York courts against restrictions that had been imposed by the New York State High School athletic commission.

George Miles reported on conversations he held with two lawyers, Peter Lafeber of Wiggin & Dana in New Haven and Tom Groark of Day, Berry & Howard in Hartford.  Each attorney suggested that two legal avenues might exist.  First, an athlete (and his or her family) might sue the CIAC claiming that the regulations infringed their civil rights.  Such a case would have to be brought by an athlete attending a CIAC school and would probably have to begin in state court.  Second, a coach (or coaches) might sue the CIAC claiming that one or more of the regulations represented an illegal restraint of trade that infringed upon their right to pursue their profession.  Such an anti-trust case might carry treble damages under current laws and might be pursued in federal rather than state court.  Neither attorney felt that either approach was a certain winner and each emphasized that in civil cases such as these the courts expect plaintiffs to attempt to obtain their goals through negotiation before the courts would be inclined to grant an accelerated hearing.

The discussion closed with George Miles agreeing to explore the history of the Roche case with Leanne Spletzer and/or Paul Cieurzo, to call USS headquarters at Colorado Springs to learn what ideas and approaches they might share, and to speak with a third Connecticut attorney recommended to him by Tom Groark.

Participants reached consensus that Connecticut Swimming should seek to achieve the following five goals.  Some ways of measuring success were identified as well as ideas and topics for further exploration.
1. Promote (or "grow") the sport of swimming.  Success might be measured by membership numbers &/or by press coverage.  We might attempt to identify reasonable goals for absolute numbers, for annual growth rates, or for members as a percentage of the state's youth population.  We might consider establishing goals concerning retention rates based on national trends in swimming and regional trends in other youth sports.
2. Promote technical knowledge among officials.  Success might be measured by numbers of  certified officials and by the number of officials eligible to officiate at National caliber meets.
3. Promote technical knowledge among coaches.  The number of educational  programs provided by CSI is one measure of success, but a better measurement might be to link success to the nationally recognized ASCA certification program or to similar programs offered by USS.  Numbers and levels of certified coaches could be compared yearly.
4. Promote excellence at the national level among swimmers.  Success here must be measured by swimming success compared to the best swimmers in the United States.  As in promoting technical excellence among coaches, educational  programs and LSC sponsored teams (e.g., the Zone Team) should be seen as means to an end not ends in themselves.  We should explore ways of measuring the level of our "excellence" and establish benchmarks by which to evaluate ourselves.  How do our swimmers distribute across the new USS percentile time standards?  How does our percentage of senior swimmers qualifying for National Championships compare to other LSCs?
5. Organize competitive opportunities for members.  Success might be measured by the number of meets offered as in the LSC schedule &/or by attendance relative to registration, but how can we best evaluate whether we are meeting the varied needs of different ages and ability levels?  Beyond the "meet schedule," what is CSI's role in creating/administering "all star" competitions such as the Zone team?  Where does CSI responsibility begin and end relative to the responsibility of member clubs?
The meeting regarded all five functions as vital, but felt that Technical Planning's  responsibilities were most connected to the final three functions as listed above.  Discussion was held concerning each.

In regard to promoting technical knowledge among coaches, suggestions were made to establish a mentoring program in which coaches whose swimmers have achieved National Championship times might be compensated in some fashion for agreeing to work with LSC colleagues.  Mentors might permit coaches to observe their practices, meet with coaches to discuss how they organized their programs, their training cycles, their tapers, etc.

A second suggestion to promote coaching excellence was that CSI sponsor formal educational programs such as those offered by ASCA in addition to or in place of traditional "coaching clinics."  The large number of pools in Connecticut make it likely that at any given time the great majority of CSI coaches will be "part timers" who pursue other careers as well as swimming.  They are unlikely to attend the ASCA World Clinic or USS clinics in Colorado Springs or ASCA classes in Florida.  CSI suffers when its coaches are ignorant of basic issues of swim organization and administration; CSI benefits as they become more aware.  CSI might underwrite a portion of the costs associated with holding ASCA certification classes in Connecticut on a regular basis.  In addition, CSI might consider a "carrot & stick" approach to encourage coaches (and teams) to pursue education: A) Expand its educational incentive program & B) Discounting team memberships fees for teams whose coaches present certification credits or evidence of continuing education.  There was consensus that educational programs for coaches should be open to coaches of all sorts: USS Club, High School, YMCA, Rec Teams, Summer clubs, etc.  The broader the base of knowledge within the state the better it will be for all involved with the sport.

The suggestion of sponsoring ASCA certification classes led to two related suggestions:  1st, might CSI arrange for ASCA reps to attend Age Group Championships to publicize their publications, services and programs?  2nd, might CSI sponsor ASCA Club Administration Seminars in Connecticut?  The education of parents benefits not only the individual clubs but CSI as a whole: the more parents who understand how swimming works at its best, the sooner CSI can move on to more ambitious projects.

The discussion of coaches education closed with George Miles agreeing to speak with ASCA and USS concerning their education programs and what they could offer within Connecticut.

The discussion of promoting swimming excellence at the national level emphasized the importance of creating an integrated program that carries swimmers through all stages of their careers.  Excellence at a national level is not a senior swimming issue; it is a swimming issue that must be addressed by a program that provides appropriate developmental opportunities at all stages.  In this vein, the meeting endorsed the current motivational camp program as successfully cultivating enthusiasm and spirit among young age group swimmers and their parents.  There was also strong support for continuing to hold an Elite Senior Camp at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs on a regular (probably every 3 year) basis.  There was strong sentiment for providing an annual Elite Senior Camp in state and Al LaPrino, in his role as Senior Chairman, reported his intention to conduct such a camp next year.  There was brief discussion about the value of general educational clinics (classroom rather than training sessions) for older swimmers on broad issues confronting teen age swimmers: e.g., nutrition, swimming in college, strength and flexibility issues.  These classes would not be aimed at elite swimmers but at the general population of teen swimmers.  There was a sense that this might be more appropriately a part of the Age Group Committee's program for older swimmers.  (There was a sense in the meeting that "Senior" swimming is best defined not by age but by quality.)

The discussion considered how we might better help "age group" swimmers move to the "senior" level as part of an effort to raise the quality of senior swimming within Connecticut.  As a supplement or replacement to the present White Camp program, it was suggested that CSI consider establishing a "Connecticut Junior Team Program" that would provide regular training, education, and motivation sessions for swimmers aged 11 through 14.  As with the OTC camp, swimmers would have to meet demanding time standards (perhaps the 94th or 96th percentile quadrennium times) to join the program.  The "team" of 40 to 50 swimmers might gather 4 to 6 times a year for joint training sessions followed by classroom sessions designed both to educate and motivate them about the transition to "senior" swimming.  It might be possible to hold education sessions for the parents and coaches of the swimmers at the same time.  It would, in any case, be essential to involve their coaches in the process.

The discussion of the "Junior Team" led into consideration of Connecticut's approach to the Zone Championships in general and the Short Course Zones in particular.  No consensus emerged about the Zones, but most people at the meeting reported dissatisfaction with the present situation and would like to see a fuller discussion of the current program and alternative approaches.

The organization of competitive opportunities was seen as an important component of promoting swimming excellence; Connecticut Swimming needs to assure that its members have regular appropriate opportunities to compete during the season and excellent championship meets. The LSC should, for instance, make certain that each swimmer will have an opportunity to compete in a full range of events once a month.  At the same time, it was felt that CSI's role should be to coordinate, not dictate regular season schedules; CSI should avoid micro managing what teams, coaches, and swimmers want to arrange.  If the member clubs appear to be failing to meet certain needs, such as distance freestyle meets, the LSC might offer incentives to increase the likelihood of their being conducted.  It was suggested, for instance, that rather than force teams to conduct "Age Group Qualifier Meets," CSI might waive or reduce sanction fees or surcharges for such meets relative to those imposed on "Invitationals."  Concerns were raised that the policy of opening all 1998 long course meets to out-of-state teams was a mistake and that too many Connecticut swimmers were finding it too difficult to find competitive opportunities this summer.

Time constraints led to a decision to abbreviate our discussion of championship meet scheduling and conduct. The idea of progression was discussed with different opinions expressed about whether our meets should be designed to encourage progression within the single season (that is week to week within the championship cycle) or across the seasons (that is using one season's meet to qualify for the next level meet in the following season).  A brief discussion was held about what the appropriate "lead times" were if the goal was to foster progression within a season - if, for instance, the chief goal of our Senior Championship is to help swimmers qualify for AND swim well at a national level meet, is our meet best held just before the entry deadline or as much as a month earlier?  As chair of Technical Planning, George Miles asked Al LaPrino (Chair of the Senior Committee) to convene a committee with Tim Murphy and Ellen Johnston that would submit to Technical Planning a report laying out what they believe the goals and purposes of a Senior Championship meet should be.  The report is due by the end of August.  George intends to appoint a committee to prepare a similar report concerning Age Group Championships.  We expect the championship meets, including issues of "Regional" (aka Silver)  and Bronze Championships, to be a major topic on the agenda of the next Technical Planning Committee meeting (see below).
 

The final portion of the meeting concerned how best to organize and conduct the affairs of the Technical Planning Committee and how best to influence the technical direction of Connecticut Swimming.  All present believed that Connecticut Swimming should adopt a four year planning horizon within which the first 24 months should be planned at a detailed level with years three and four laid out in a more general fashion.  As a year unfolds the planning process should flesh out the details for "Year 3" so that we are always thinking 24 to 36 months ahead.  Along with this planning horizon, CSI should implement and publish an annual committee meeting schedule, accompanied by a general set of meeting agenda that identify the principal topics to be discussed at each meeting.  That is to say, if Technical Planning intends to meet quarterly, it should be able to say what recurring topic(s) it will address in its first quarter meeting, which topic(s) will come up at the second quarter meeting, etc.  Furthermore, it is essential for all committees to publish detailed agenda a month in advance of their meetings so that other committees can coordinate their business.  In particular, Technical Planning needs to be informed at least a month in advance of the agenda for the Senior, Age Group, and Program Development Committees so that Tech Planning can provide timely information and advice to those bodies.  Finally, it is essential that CSI as a body remain faithful to its own structure and that issues and decisions flow consistently through appropriate channels.  While CSI should respond to member concerns in timely fashion, it should not short-circuit its own process by having the CSI board or any individual committee take actions before proposals are thoroughly considered by appropriate committees.

The Technical Planning Committee will meet again in early September (probably the week of Labor Day).  A date, time and location will be set before the end of July and distributed with a formal agenda to all coaches and team representatives.  It is expected that the principal topics of business at that meeting will be:

1. A report from George Miles on CSI-CIAC research
2. A report from George Miles on coaches education programs through ASCA &/or USS
3. A report from Al LaPrino concerning the goals and purposes of a Senior Championship Meet
4. A discussion of the "Championship Season" at all levels.

Coaches and volunteer members of CSI are encouraged to submit additional agenda items via e-mail to George Miles, george.miles@yale.edu or by US mail to George Miles, 27 Fir Tree Drive N., Branford, CT 06405.