California District Proposal

[smurfgirl]

To minimize volunteer workload and prevent burnout, ideally we would have unique VCs for each District Event in California. Being a VC is a lot of work, especially for brand new events.

Also, if/when we switch to Districts in CA, if we bring events to new locations not currently near any regionals, and we involve mentors/volunteers from those areas in the event planning committees, we should be able to tap into new pools of volunteers. I know there are a lot of people here in the Antelope Valley, for example, who would be great key volunteers. I am sure the same applies to other areas around the state.

[Pauline Tasci]

Just a note, VC is a very difficult job that involves a lot of work, constant updating, and constant push to get more volunteers. For OCR, we had a new VC, (who did an amazing job and got us everyone we needed) but I wish she would have people under her so it was not just her trying to facilitate everything. That's actually something we plan to implement on the RPC. I would really love to see more than one VC at one event. Taking an intense load off one person and spreading it out makes people more likely to help out. And that fact is true with most large volunteer roles.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Pauline Tasci

Just a note, VC is a very difficult job that involves a lot of work, constant updating, and constant push to get more volunteers. For OCR, we had a new VC, (who did an amazing job and got us everyone we needed) but I wish she would have people under her so it was not just her trying to facilitate everything. That's actually something we plan to implement on the RPC. I would really love to see more than one VC at one event. Taking an intense load off one person and spreading it out makes people more likely to help out. And that fact is true with most large volunteer roles.

Great feedback, it seems like VC's working in a vacuum can be burdensome. While doubling up (or more) is one good way to go, it seems like some top level support (especially to arrange KV's, etc) could also help lessen the load.

Not saying doubling up your OCR VC is a bad idea, just proposing that the model other regions operate could produce similar results.

Both seem like fair options, the obvious challenge of the "double up" approach is finding more KVs. Please let us know how 2+ KV's works for OCR!

In general, I'm hoping we can organize a push to double up KV roles at 2017 CA Regionals, or at least have a KV and one or two "shadows" in each role. We can grow our Volunteer base in preparation for the transition, but growing the pool in general seems like a healthy goal no matter what. This 2+ KV approach that is OCR is taking seems like a great way to grow the volunteer base.

Thanks!

-Mike

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Pauline Tasci

Just a note, VC is a very difficult job that involves a lot of work, constant updating, and constant push to get more volunteers. For OCR, we had a new VC, (who did an amazing job and got us everyone we needed) but I wish she would have people under her so it was not just her trying to facilitate everything. That's actually something we plan to implement on the RPC. I would really love to see more than one VC at one event. Taking an intense load off one person and spreading it out makes people more likely to help out. And that fact is true with most large volunteer roles.

If you can't find additional people to serve as VC "assistants" (we have a few of those here in MN helping our primary VC with each event), recruit your key volunteers to help the VC. While a VC may be in charge of the entire event, having the LRI, Head Ref, Field Supervisor, and other such positions actively helping with recruitment can go a long way. I personally maintain a list of people that have inspected in MN in the past few years so I can approach them again this fall when our 4 events are scheduled. From past experience, that is usually good enough for ~80% of our inspector needs - recruiting the last 1-2 people for each event is a lot easier than coming in and seeing a need to recruit 10!

In addition to the list I keep, as an LRI I get to interact with a TON of mentors in the pits, and actively help recruit new volunteers from those interactions - I've found plenty of inspectors and CSA's that way!

[Deetman]

To elaborate on Libby's post, FIRST Mid-Atlantic continues to work towards having a "coordinator" for each of the key volunteer roles (FTA, Field Supervisors, Head Refs, LRI, etc) that helps take some of the burden off of VCs by identifying volunteers, spreading them out to events, and working training of new individuals in the roles. We're far from perfecting it, but it does seem to be helping so far.

One additional "role" that isn't traditional for FRC and I'm not sure if any other areas do it is the "MAR Equipment Representative (MER)". MERs are volunteers with a thorough knowledge of all of the MAR equipment and assets. These personnel share some responsibility with the event FTA for supervision of equipment unloading and load out as well as field set-up and teardown. By having this, the burden on local event committees and the FTA is lessened and allows more work to be done in parallel (ex. MER is loading cases in the PODS outside while the FTA is finishing packing and OKing cases inside). This role is especially important for our offseason events as they do not always have the same volunteer level of experience as official events.

[jpetito]

Distillation of points:

* What we do now in the CA is pretty good, with provisos.
* Going to the district model means we do more of it, to equal high standards, meanwhile acquiring the volunteers to make it so.
* The District model in the CA will be idiosyncratic, in that it will probably not conform to what's happening in the MI., MA, IN, etc. It will be helpful that those there understand that we (not the exclusive "we") must make the thing work in our weird environment:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...nap-story.html

Variables and outstanding obstacles:

* Corporate sponsorship: educate my ignorance-- teams go to two District events for the same entry price. Do the fees paid by teams fund their two venue plays, and the event contracting and facilities costs are covered? Or is there need for more cash, thus more fundraising?
* Going after sponsorship, as was done for the last few years for the LA Regional in Long Beach-- how do we coordinate not stepping on one another's outreach entreaties while we grub for the cash? The money pile is so enormous that I can visualize districts competing with one another for sponsors, not conducive to the Gracious Professionalism we aspire to.
*Event scheduling globally (within CA., with input by NV., AZ., HI., Chile, MEX) so as to avoid conflicts. These western states have their own ways of doing things...

We all despise more meetings. Looks like we have to have more meetings.

Joe Petito
Wind Turbine Mechanic

[RoboMom]

Wow. Usually bringing up the role of the Volunteer Coordinator is a thread killer.

There is actually an "official" role for Districts with the title of "Senior Volunteer Coordinator". The position description from HQ leaves a lot to be desired (doesn't take any planning into account for starters). Attached.

I spent hundreds of hours doing this role.

What I discovered going into the roll out of FIRST Chesapeake this past season was that documentation from other areas was sparse, other District VCs were generous to share, and that everyone was doing things a bit differently. What works for a single Regional doesn't for Districts. Communication and "pitching in" around volunteer coordination to help across each of the events to benefit the District as a whole is vital. The VCs really do need to work together.

I recruited and trained 4 VC's (3 local events and District CMP) for Maryland/DC which was my assigned territory. Truthfully not sure how it was done in VA where I had a counterpart. Merging MD/DC/VA this year had a lot of positives, especially for the teams. And some major heartache for those of us tasked with planning HOW to do things, organizing, documenting and especially communicating across 2 regions who had been doing their own thing quite capably for years. (Shout out to Anne Shade who documented the whole process for roll out of our District events in MD/DC.)

I brought all the VC's together once in-person and we had phone meetings on a regular basis. The VC's worked in partnership with other "Senior" positions for their assigned District event- Senior Head Ref(s), Senior LRI, Senior Judge Advisor(s), FTA pool. Recruitment was a team effort between me, the Seniors and the VC's. The Seniors signed off on any key position before any assignment was made and we utilized shared document files and lots of color coding as we moved along. And like MAR we had "Equipment/Logistics" role - someone designated to be the lead for all the stuff. For MD/DC events we also had Event Managers who worked together on some things across the events - like a common caterer for volunteer food.

I have a lot I could write here. I learned a tremendous amount this past year. In Maryland, I am the overall Volunteer Director where I work with all 4 programs and cross-program volunteering is something I pay attention to. (Note: one of the VCs actually came from the FLL world where he was a VC. Two were FRC alumni and the 4th had worked with me on the Chesapeake Regional and agreed to cover the District CMP.)I do lots of broad level recruitment with companies and organizations, and I offer the total "buffet" of programs. There are so many factors that go into a decision where/when/what to volunteer and we need to think outside of the current pool.

I think it is important to have a Senior VC(s) for a District. Sometimes it is hard keeping up with all the conference calls and updates coming from HQ and the job starts in Sept. so good to have one person covering. And I dealt with all the issues with the VIMS/VMS.

It is also important to have one person be the "heavy". For example, one of the unexpected challenges was gearing up positions for 7 District events all leading into one District CMP meant not everyone could have the job they wanted/deserved at the CMP. I had to turn away over 30 volunteers. It was very stressful, and there are volunteers who yelled at me and criticized me in public and in feedback. I took this on, but it was hard. My idea of the perfect volunteer is the one who checks their ego at the door and says "assign me as needed". And means it. You will get the adult beverage of your choice from me and my gratitude. I have stories! About team players and about prima donnas (definition: a very temperamental person with an inflated view of their own talent or importance".

But I digress.

We used the offseason Battle O'Baltimore last year to train a VC as well as some other key positions.

It is gratifying to see this conversation. Happy to answer any questions.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by jpetito

Variables and outstanding obstacles:

* Corporate sponsorship: educate my ignorance-- teams go to two District events for the same entry price. Do the fees paid by teams fund their two venue plays, and the event contracting and facilities costs are covered? Or is there need for more cash, thus more fundraising?
* Going after sponsorship, as was done for the last few years for the LA Regional in Long Beach-- how do we coordinate not stepping on one another's outreach entreaties while we grub for the cash? The money pile is so enormous that I can visualize districts competing with one another for sponsors, not conducive to the Gracious Professionalism we aspire to.
*Event scheduling globally (within CA., with input by NV., AZ., HI., Chile, MEX) so as to avoid conflicts. These western states have their own ways of doing things...

We all despise more meetings. Looks like we have to have more meetings.

Joe Petito
Wind Turbine Mechanic

In the Regional System all of your $5000 initial (and $4000) registration fee goes to FIRST HQ. The actual event costs are payed for with the funds raised by the RD. Note FIRST HQ does act as a back stop and will step in and provide the remaining funds for a Regional if there is a shortfall.

In the District System $1000 of your initial registration fee is given to the District and the district keeps all 3rd play $1000 registration fees.

The typical district event costs between $10k and $30k to produce while the typical Regional starts at $100~200K and can cost significantly more than that in places where the cost of the venue is high. The typical District Championship runs around the price of a Regional

This is what FIRST is talking about when they say that Districts are cheaper than Regionals. So putting on say 10 district events and a DCMP can cost about the same as putting on 2 Regionals. Note this does vary greatly because venue costs vary greatly as well.

Switching to the District System alleviates those stepped on toes since the fund raising is for the entire district instead of for what may be one of multiple Regionals which may have different RDs in a general geographic area. Note you will find that some districts events the host team may find a local sponsor to provide food, coffee, or bottled water for the volunteers.

Concerning scheduling you really only have to worry about the timing of the events in your District and do not have to worry about neighboring Districts or Regionals. Non District teams are not allowed to compete in a District event and the few teams that choose to do an inter-district play just have to figure out what works with the home events they wish to attend out of the available remaining spaces.

In the Regional system FIRST owns the fields so scheduling around other events so that a field is available in the area is important, as well as the desire to allow teams to compete at 2 events if desired. You don't want two Regionals in the same general area to happen on the same weekend.

With the district system the "normal sized" District typically owns two fields and it is common for 2 events to happen the same weekend. Smaller districts like IN will only have one field and one event per weekend while FiM has 3 or more events per weekend and the corresponding number of fields.

[jpetito]

RoboMom & Mr. V---

In my small perspective, two of the most valuable posts. Thank you for your time and effort and the "checking the ego at the door" thing.

Joe Petito
Facilities Maintenance

PS- the photo is what my head feels like sometimes…Very flat, very featureless

[mwmac]

Originally Posted by Mr V

In the Regional system FIRST owns the fields so scheduling around other events so that a field is available in the area is important, as well as the desire to allow teams to compete at 2 events if desired. You don't want two Regionals in the same general area to happen on the same weekend.

Same or adjacent weekends...Last year:
Week 3 UT
Week 4 CO; SAC
Week 5 ID; LV
Week 5* WCan
These events are the closest candidates for second events for teams in the intermountain west area.

[cbale2000]

To add to a few points...

Originally Posted by Mr V

This is what FIRST is talking about when they say that Districts are cheaper than Regionals. So putting on say 10 district events and a DCMP can cost about the same as putting on 2 Regionals. Note this does vary greatly because venue costs vary greatly as well.

This is one of the key things FiM has sought to address with districts in Michigan, by moving to High School venues, most if not all of the venue rental costs are eliminated (as many school do not charge for the use of the facilities), typically leaving only maintenance and staffing costs for custodial and security services. While these costs do also vary by venue, they are still, for the most part, orders of magnitude lower than the costs for a traditional regional venue.

Originally Posted by Mr V

Switching to the District System alleviates those stepped on toes since the fund raising is for the entire district instead of for what may be one of multiple Regionals which may have different RDs in a general geographic area. Note you will find that some districts events the host team may find a local sponsor to provide food, coffee, or bottled water for the volunteers.

Also not entirely true, FiM encourages districts to find local sponsorship for their events and will simply fill in any gaps in funding on an as-needed basis. Most events are geographically far enough away that they avoids overlap in requests for sponsorship, and because the costs are less, it makes more sense to seek out smaller sponsorships from smaller local businesses. Also by placing some of the burden of finding sponsors on the events, it causes district event planing committees to be more frugal with their money, further reducing costs (after all, what incentive do you have to cut costs if you know you're getting a blank check).

Originally Posted by Mr V

With the district system the "normal sized" District typically owns two fields and it is common for 2 events to happen the same weekend. Smaller districts like IN will only have one field and one event per weekend while FiM has 3 or more events per weekend and the corresponding number of fields.

In the case of Michigan, I believe FiM actually owns 1 or 2 fields and rents/borrows the rest from FIRST. This year we had 4 fields in use across the state, and going forwards FiM is already looking at the possibility of getting a 5th field to run 5 events on one weekend (from what I've heard anyways). That said, FiM handles all of the transportation from all of the fields, rather than paying for them to hauled around via Tractor Trailers every week.

[nikeairmancurry]

Originally Posted by cbale2000

In the case of Michigan, I believe FiM actually owns 1 or 2 fields and rents/borrows the rest from FIRST. This year we had 4 fields in use across the state, and going forwards FiM is already looking at the possibility of getting a 5th field to run 5 events on one weekend (from what I've heard anyways). That said, FiM handles all of the transportation from all of the fields, rather than paying for them to hauled around via Tractor Trailers every week.

FiM owns 3 fields. Was looking to purchase the fourth. Still a year or two away from needing 5 fields, especially if inter district play will count for points.

We also have some very awesome people who like to drive big trucks around the state But some good scheduling can limit that. Multiple weekends in a row with west coast events, or northern Michigan events, etc.

[cbale2000]

Originally Posted by nikeairmancurry

FiM owns 3 fields. Was looking to purchase the fourth. Still a year or two away from needing 5 fields, especially if inter district play will count for points.

Well I was close, anyways.

I work with some of the guys who put together the electrical boxes and breakers that come on the FiM trucks, and they had mentioned at one point that FiM had been interested in having a 5th set made, so we may have assumed there would soon be a 5th field.


On a side note,
I think I might be the only person I've seen on CD who's not for inter district play counting for points. IMO, there's a lot of benefit, from a teams perspective, in being able to compete at an event that does not count for points, allowing teams to gain practice or extra out of bag time prior to your in-district events. Granted it might be a bit of an advantage for teams who are financially better off or geographically close to other districts, but the same can be said for a team that would spend the money to attend a regional, which changing the rules for inter district play won't affect at all.

[ASD20]

Originally Posted by cbale2000

On a side note,
I think I might be the only person I've seen on CD who's not for inter district play counting for points. IMO, there's a lot of benefit, from a teams perspective, in being able to compete at an event that does not count for points, allowing teams to gain practice or extra out of bag time prior to your in-district events. Granted it might be a bit of an advantage for teams who are financially better off or geographically close to other districts, but the same can be said for a team that would spend the money to attend a regional, which changing the rules for inter district play won't affect at all.

I don't like the regional loophole to begin with, but if FIRST isn't going to change that, then I guess allowing the same with inter-district play at least sort of lowers the barrier for entry for it.

[jpetito]

"Under the heading of 'How Should One Handle Assumptions:' "

"Perhaps more than anything else, the Walker spy case is a study in assumptions. Time and again, individuals made decisions based on assumptions that proved to be woefully incorrect. In many cases, these assumptions were based on nothing more than wishful thinking, or on the fact that it would be very convenient if certain things were true. There is little or no evidence that decision makers attempted to verify or falsify them, even when such an attempt would be easy to make.

...Another military truism is that successful planners must clearly distinguish between facts and assumptions. All real-world plans will require some assumptions, as information will never be perfect. However, a successful planner will then try to verify or falsify his assumptions, continuing to do so until successful--either proving the assumption true, making it into a fact, or proving it false. 3"

From chapter Educator Bias, in Ditching Shop Class; How Educators Feed the Achievement Gap