The open letter from Palo Alto AYSO accurately addresses the issues, inclusive of the proposed brokering referred to by Bob and Charlie, field managers of the Stanford Soccer Club (SSC) and the Palo Alto Soccer Club (PASC). The meetings to improve the brokering system with Bob and Charlie have made some policy progress, but have only addressed taking brokering priority away from AYSO to give more access to fields by SSC and PASC, and have not addressed any of the other issues. The proposed brokering does nothing to address the overcrowding of our fields by non-residents, the overbooking of our fields by brokered users, and the sequestering of our fields into a private, non-open brokering system.
Yes, the first phase of the brokering proposal for Palo Alto residents is open and fair, but after that is when the damage is done.
To proceed with the proposal at this time would bring harm to AYSO, benefits to the clubs, diminish value to our community, and fix none of the inherent problems of the over utilization of Palo Alto fields.
Here is what the new brokering proposal achieves.
1) removes priority brokering for open registration users (currently only AYSO was such a user)
2) provides equal brokering for users in accordance with Palo Alto participation
3) provides brokering to unlimited number of non-Palo Alto participants (subsidized, harms Palo Alto resident access, requires city to build more facilities for non-Palo Alto residents)
4) provides unlimited sequestering of fields to brokered users (revenue cost, wasteful, harms Palo Alto resident access, requires Palo Alto to build more facilities to address this non-existent need)
Overall, this proposal fails to achieve the following
1) Limit brokering of fields to Palo Altan use. Without such limitation, Palo Alto subsidizes club organizations to bring non-Palo Alto participants in large numbers. This removes the availability of those fields for Palo Alto users, and requires the city to needlessly build more field facilities to address the load.
2) Limit sequestering of fields by brokered users. Brokered users have already obtained the number of fields they are entitled to book, and block other users from gaining access. Some brokered users then sequester fields after brokering, to ensure they have excessive inventory on hand to address poor planning and field husbandry on their part. This overbooking is
- wasteful - many of these slots go unused and are returned to the city just before the actual slot time
- removes inventory from what otherwise could be used by Palo Alto residents
- costs the city revenue - the return of the unused slots is too late for another user to reasonably plan to use them
In short, this proposal delivers on the paragraph in the AYSO Open Letter under the title, Travesty.
Discussion in the subcommittee is such that AYSO is to lose its open registration pre-brokering priority that it has been enjoying. The motivation by the subcommittee is that other brokered user organizations are complaining of a shortage of number and quality of fields. It is a travesty that the user organizations that create that problem through poor practices are succeeding in motivating the city to remove the favored brokering position of the one organization that season after season, executes outstanding husbandry of its fields. It is a travesty that these wasteful brokered users will be rewarded with greater access to our community's fields, and provided even more opportunity to waste prime inventory with excessive booking and sequestering. These parties are being guided by their own self-interest, and that interest does not align with Palo Alto community interests.
In the letter below, from Bob and Charlie of SSC and PASC are some misconceptions. Inherent in their proposal is the idea that by providing brokering based on Palo Alto residents before brokering to non-Palo Alto residents, is fair to Palo Alto. It is not. Brokering to non-Palo Alto residents means that those non-Palo Alto residents are getting priority access, over non-brokered Palo Alto residents. Further, the city is subsidizing them. Further, the brokered parties are acting poorly after brokering to sequester even more fields, removing them from Palo Altan use. Some brokered users have come to regard the open-ended use of Palo Alto fields as an entitlement.
This plan, attached, is not ready to go.
Gordon Short
Regional Commissioner
Palo Alto AYS
The following message was sent by SSC and PASC in response to Palo Alto AYSO's Open Letter
On Feb 19, 2013, at 12:33 AM, Bob Wachs <pascfields@comcast.net> wrote:
|
Palo Alto AYSO Comments to SSC and PASC Letterposted Feb 19, 2013, 8:06 AM by Gordon Short [ updated Feb 19, 2013, 8:07 AM ] |