Minutes of Meeting

Gay Fourroux, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 8:00 PM.

Agenda Item 1, “Proposed Procedure for governance of Competition Committee protocols,” was discussed after being introduced by Bill Pryor. The Committee agreed that some set of Guideline was needed to resolve Grievances.

During the discussion of Agenda Item 1, two sub-committees were formed. The first of these sub-committees was a “Movements” sub-committee staffed by Barry Breaux, Marcel Gelpi, Mike Ranson and Bill Pryor. The second sub-committee was a “Grievance" sub-committee staffed by Terry Tarleton, Ski Chelchowski and Bill Pryor.

Agenda Item 2, “Statement of Request by GA#3 to move from Red to White” was addressed by Gay Fourroux, who first asked Bill Pryor to provide an explanation of why each team had been moved for the 2004/2005 JCCA Season. Those Explanations:

Why was GA#3 was moved up when BC#1 was not? With the financial troubles of BC, and the renewed interest in tennis by Chateau Estates, many of the BC White team players were moving to CE to play on the new CE Gold team. Accordingly, BC#1 would be a much weaker team. Additionally, BC had finished the season 3 matches behind GA#3. Thus between the two teams, the obvious choice to move up was GA#4, who had dominated the Division, finishing the regular season as the top team. (See NOTE 1, next page.)

Why was GA#4 moved up? GA#4 had finished second in the Gold Division – and was moved up along with RS#1. RS#1 dominated the Division.

The remaining Division movements were based on the same logic. In general, the logic applied was that the top two teams moved up, and the bottom two teams moved down, unless there was a compelling reason for not following this logic. In the case of the bottom two Red teams, the logic was decree by the Tennis Chairman. In the case of the White teams, the logic is given above. The movement of Gold teams up is explained above, and the movement of the Gold teams down was predicated upon the fact that (sixth-place) BM#2 was almost tied with the next team above them. Similar logic was applied to movement of Blue teams – in fact, the second-place Blue team had one more win than the third-place team, so only one team was moved up. The next-to-last Blue team was left in Blue because they were not that far out of the pack. The top two Green teams were moved up – as requested by the second-place team.

The Committee examined the Rule on Team Movement and found that it stated that the top two, and the bottom two teams of any Division would move, but the Rule also left team movement to the discretion of the Competition Committee. The Committee found that this Rule needs revision.

The Committee then addressed the arguments submitted by GA#3 as reasons for not moving:

“No one is rated higher than 4.0.” The Committee ruled that JCCA has not adopted the NTRP as the basis for team placement – and the argument was thus invalid.

“Two thirds of the team is rated 3.5.” The Committee ruled that JCCA has not adopted the NTRP as the basis for team placement – and the argument was thus invalid, since team movement does not consider the moving team’s NTRP status.

“Two members are over 60.“ The Committee ruled that team movement does not consider the ages of a moving team. In fact, some of the better JCCA players ARE over age 60.

“We won the division only once in the past 3 years.“ The Committee ruled that team movement was not based on a three-year average, but the past season’s results – which GA#3 had clearly won, based on an examination of GA#3’s record over the immediate past season. GA#3’s record was 20 Wins and 5 Losses, which included 5 Wins at 4-0, 6 Wins at 3-1, 2 Wins at 2-2, vs 0 Losses at 0-4, 3 Losses at 1-3 and 1 Loss at 2-2., and 1 Loss at 1-1 (rain-shortened). (See NOTE 1 below.)

“Green Acres dropped a Red team last year because of a lack of 4.5 players.” The Committee did not discuss this argument, as it was not seen as relevant to GA#3’s request to not play the Red Division. (See NOTE 2 below.)

	A motion was made by the Committee Chairman to leave GA#3 in the Red Division as shown on the lineup introduced at the JCCA Captain’s Meeting of August 10.
	Motion carried with only one vote against.

During the discussion of the vote it was pointed out by Barry Breaux and agreed to by Gay Fourroux that there should be a time limit for the entering of a Grievance/Request. No Committee action was taken on this idea.

Agenda Item 3,”Proposal to allow Colonial Club to draw from other teams to fill out their newly-reinstated Green Team.”

	A motion was made by Bill Pryor to grant this request.
	The Committee rejected this motion without a vote because it violated Rule 3 - in fact, Ski withdrew the request.

Meeting Adjourned at approximately 8:55 PM.

NOTES

1.	The following is a DIRECT QUOTE from the JCCA Web site following the 2002-2003 Season: “*Sunrise#1* defeated Green Acres (GA#4) to end a seven-year streak.”
2.	This statement is incorrect in that it is taken out of context. The failure to field the third GA team in the Red Division was not necessarily predicated on “lack of 4.5 players.”
3.	The Competition Committee also discussed the JCCA Rules – which need Revision – and will be in Revision until the Spring 2005 Captains Meeting, at which time there will be a vote to adopt the changes – which will be available via a web forum for comment and preliminary voting.

Hit Counter