California District Proposal, Rev 2

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by EricH

[This part mainly for humor.]
@Sean: The main pass north-south is higher than PA's highest point, by about 900'. I'd say that everything's bigger in CA, but any Texans reading this would probably object. (On a serious note, speaking of Texas, they actually submitted paperwork for districts and they've got a bigger spread/cluster effect than CA. Think we could learn a few lessons from those documents, but I don't recall them being made public.)

The Texas documents aren't public, I haven't seen them. I can tell you we have fewer teams then California but we do have a very big spread problem but also probably more clusters so that may make events easier. The plan was likely 9-10 events. We are using the extra year to get prepapred, hopefully more off-season events (only have 3 this year so far, California has way more) and train volunteers.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

The Texas documents aren't public, I haven't seen them. I can tell you we have fewer teams then California but we do have a very big spread problem but also probably more clusters so that may make events easier. The plan was likely 9-10 events. We are using the extra year to get prepapred, hopefully more off-season events (only have 3 this year so far, California has way more) and train volunteers.

Allen,

Thanks for the insight into Texas.

Do you have any more details on the steps Texas is taking to get more prepared for Districts in 2018?

Thanks,

-Mike

[AllenGregoryIV]

So Officially I know FRIST inTexas is getting more organized. They hired staff which didn't exist before and have have more regular meetings about the transition. The email that said we aren't going to districts mentioned the possibility of new regionals this year to help add more room to register new teams. So if that gets confirmed we'll have more events this year which gives us the ability to train volunteers.

As a community we are trying to get more organized as well. We are transporting the field and elements to off-season events ourselves this year, where in the past we used AndyMark. At all our off-season events we are trying to train a large number of new volunteers, especially in postions of greatest need such as FTA since they will need to get nominated and trained at HQ before doing official events. We started a slack team for TX mentors/volunteers to allow us to talk quickly about details, etc. We are looking into new off-season events possibly even this season to train more volunteers and test potential district locations. I actually just started using something like your volunteer database to unofficially track key volunteer interest. In general we are just to talking to teams and key people and making sure we are prepared as possible for 2018.

[Michael Blake]

I met with the FIRST-in-Texas (FiT) board in-session last week in Austin at their annual meeting to provide info/feedback from the field/teams and have some Q&A.

I was told by the board the key reason the move to 2017 District Model failed after filing for the transition was they didn't meet the financial metrics required by USFIRST (they didn't raise enough $$ and get enough long-term commitments from sponsors to meet the minimum floor to pull-the-trigger).

Had they raised enough $$ we'd _certainly_ be moving to District Model in 2017 and the other areas we're short in, that Allen mentions, would be dealt with and resolved as things rolled out.

After meeting with the Board members I can see their intentions and hearts are in the right place and they're all good and interesting folks who I'd like to get to know more, but I'm not sure their methods and approaches are the _most_ effective and high-yielding IMO.

Hopefully, 2018 is the year we make the move... I offered to the Board to pitch-in raising $$ and anywhere else I can help but we'll see where things go...

--Michael Blake

"Retired Insurance Guy"

Link to me on this new fangled-thingy called The Linkedin and help make me popular or at least appear to be...
https://www.linkedin.com/in/wmichael...ve_tab_profile

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by EricH

I also have some experience along those lines, and have been able to draw from some other persons' experiences as well.

If I had to point to a single thing that would keep districts from happening in SoCal, based on my experience and hearing the chatter... I'll point out three.

1) "Non-team" influences. That would be, as discussed previously, some combination of CAFIRST, school administrations, and other persons or groups that aren't necessarily affiliated with teams but have some stake in how FIRST is run in CA. No need to repeat that discussion. (I think the solution is to educate those folks on the benefits to the teams, and to them.)

2) Disunity (not discord, mind you)--this is more of a "we're not actually pulling together, only in the same general direction" than anything else. I'm only aware of WRRF in NorCal as far as robotics support organizations. I'm aware of SCRRF (LARobotics) and OCRA for sure down this way, and if I'm not mistaken there's another group in San Diego. All three will need to work together, more than simply coordinating when their offseason events happen so there aren't conflicts (they're really good at avoiding each other's event dates). Working together can produce a stronger pull than three individual yanks. I don't see a lot of that. Though there was that one year where the events all scheduled back-to-back and got one field for all the events, everybody pitching in to assist in insurance and moving it around the state--that's what we really need to see, everybody working together for a better experience. (#notajoke: I heard that the rev 1 proposal was the first time that SCRRF was officially aware that CAFIRST owned fields. We've been using the same wooden field for much of the last decade, with repairs of course, and sometimes a metal one.)

3) "Hey, aren't you the same person doing this as the last 5 years?" I'm not sure about the other groups, but for whatever reason, finding new people to fill old shoes isn't exactly easy. Either the new folks disappear after a season or two, or they never show up. Leaves the "incumbents" there, until they suddenly can't make it and somebody has to step up. (I didn't duck quick enough when that happened with the head ref at the Fall Classic a couple years back.) There's also the problem of "what can I do to help" turning into "where'd that volunteer go, he said he'd help?", but that could have a number of factors that aren't obvious and there isn't a single solution to that issue.


I think it can be done... but again, it's got to be together. Let's say we figure on two years as the timeframe. I think the first year would be dealing with a lot of the core issues--see the first two items above--on top of talking the system over with teams to identify where they can help (and maybe they can help with those items too). The second year would be the major push: venues, volunteers, and other similar items, in detail, along with getting the proposal in to HQ for a yea/nay. Am I sure it could be done in two years? Not really. It seems to me like dealing with the second-year stuff is being done first--my point of view, not necessarily accurate--which, while helpful in terms of making it faster later, doesn't address any of the first-year stuff that would need to be handled first. Does it need to be done, sure! Can it be done at the same time, sure! But the question is, are we ignoring issues that could prevent us from moving even faster? If we are, we need to stop ignoring those issues and solve them. Or: What do we not know that could wreck plans?

Eric,

Great thoughts, thanks for contributing once again. I agree, we need to do this together. That belief is what led me to write the Preface in Rev. 2 on "Change". I think the Preface was an important addition to a document that is meant to bring us together rather than further divide our region.

Your point about "first year" and "second year" things is an interesting one. The proposal does address both "first year" and "second year" things, especially in the Next Steps section. But I also agree that getting some "first year" things done will make "second year" items much easier.

So why does the proposal talk so much about the feasibility of Venues, Volunteers and Finances of the District model (aka. "second year" things)? To put it plainly, we have no authority to implement many of the "first year" tasks. I am not a Regional Director, the proposal contributors are not on the California FIRST BoD, none of us are major CA FIRST sponsors, etc.

One purpose of the proposal is an appeal to our local leadership. We will continue to appeal to our Regional Directors with the hope of open communication at some point down the road.

Another purpose of the proposal is education for the community. I am giving a Fall Workshop on the District model at CCC, and will hopefully have the opportunity to promote the District model at other off-season events in NorCal. I'd encourage anyone else invested in seeing the District model come to CA to similarly promote the proposal within their spheres of influence.

Thanks everyone,

-Mike

[Rachel Lim]

With the discussion of 2 districts in California, and how the split would play out, I thought it'd be interesting to map out where the teams at each regional were from. Mapping only teams from California, I found that Los Angeles was the least spread out:



And CVR was the most:



Here are the other regionals if you're interested:
Davis: http://imgur.com/YRICGFu
Orange County: http://imgur.com/XfZfSGL
San Diego: http://imgur.com/6d508PU
San Jose: http://imgur.com/gNlYtrU
Ventura: http://imgur.com/IwDWM4F


(red markers = the event location, dots = teams, larger dots = more teams at the same location)

I'm not sure if there's anything that can really be gathered from this data, but I thought it was interesting to look at anyway. There's a clearer norcal/socal split than I expected, especially with socal events.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I think the point is that CA FIRSTers and its 501c (or plural) need to investigate the impact of any potential state (or other) funding on a "split" state format. That's not to say it should automatically rule out a split state format or that the state of California would be guaranteed not to support multiple partial state organizations, but it's a factor worthy of consideration. Getting blindsided by such as issue would be a definite negative for everyone involved, and especially so for those who hope to create a Michigan-like FRC environment in California.

Also, there's mountains between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, too.

There's a tradition in CA of split state organizations, particularly for HS sports. The Sections run largely independent of the statewide CIF and are quite akin to the state HS federations elsewhere. I follow HS track & field closely and I'm not aware of any other state with a similar geographic split in organizations. (There are states with differences based on type of schools, e.g., public, private, Catholic...) I would expect anyone would look at a N/S split in FRC as being quite similar, and in fact may even expect it.

[Christopher149]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

There's a tradition in CA of split state organizations, particularly for HS sports. The Sections run largely independent of the statewide CIF and are quite akin to the state HS federations elsewhere. I follow HS track & field closely and I'm not aware of any other state with a similar geographic split in organizations. (There are states with differences based on type of schools, e.g., public, private, Catholic...) I would expect anyone would look at a N/S split in FRC as being quite similar, and in fact may even expect it.

It's only 1 state org (MHSAA), but Michigan has separate LP and UP track & field Finals. But most? other sports are statewide i.e. basketball.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Christopher149

It's only 1 state org (MHSAA), but Michigan has separate LP and UP track & field Finals. But most? other sports are statewide i.e. basketball.

The UP being an outlier, Michigan is much smaller and closer together than California.

Traffic is bad in the San Jose/San Fran area, as well in LA/SD. So any southern team going all the way north to compete (or vice versa) has a pretty brutal drive.

[jpetito]

Nice job Mike representing us on Twitch/Spotlight.

[frcguy]

Originally Posted by jpetito

Nice job Mike representing us on Twitch/Spotlight.

+1

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by jpetito

Nice job Mike representing us on Twitch/Spotlight.

Thanks Joe!

All,

I mentioned on the show that I've been studying 990's to try to better understand the finances behind FIRST and Districts. Here are the latest 990's I could find: 990 Forms

Given the information in these 990 forms, I updated the District Cost Estimate further to reflect the need for payroll taxes and travel/hotel reimbursement.

Please note, nearly half of the CA District Budget is for staff salaries and related expenses. I think RD's in CA are concerned about keeping their jobs, so I believe it is important to demonstrate that there is a financial motivation to moving to districts.

Happy to answer any questions.

-Mike

[jpetito]

Look forward to meeting you all in Los Angeles. Round two:

http://teacherweb.com/Blog/CA/Richar...5-6a5e83e1392d

Thank you all for your constructive ideas, comments and suggestions.

Joe Petito
FRC 1197

[jpetito]

The discussion after the discussion:

http://larobotics.org/Workshops2016.html

$100.00 per team, bring all the students & mentors you like, surplus funding goes toward scholarships--scholarship winners announced at LA Regional.

Watch our page after Nov. 21st for the 2017 scholarships link and submit yours.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

The UP being an outlier, Michigan is much smaller and closer together than California.

Traffic is bad in the San Jose/San Fran area, as well in LA/SD. So any southern team going all the way north to compete (or vice versa) has a pretty brutal drive.

California is unusual compared to other states. Until the 1970s "state" championships were the exception rather than the rule; Section champs were frequently the final stop. Even now at least 4 of 23 sports have N/S championships only. http://www.cifstate.org/governance/Playoff_Calendar.pdf