We just returned from the annual June meeting of the Florida Ski Council, in central Florida. The big
topic, of course, was the joint trips, past, present
and future. A lot of the talk entered around the
FSC 2005 European trip to Andorra. (A year ago,
based on the nformation we had, we chose not to
participate in that trip, and ran our own European
ski trip to St, Moritz, Switzerland and Lugano
instead.) Andorra generated a lot of feedback
from the participating clubs, unfortunately, most of
it not at all positive. Without going into any lengthy
detail, it seems that the trip was organizationally
flawed, the transportation iffy and cooperation
from the local entities underwhelming. It seems
that the Andorra trip will initiate some changes in
the way the FSC foreign trips are negotiated and
organized, and will put our vendors under closer
scrutiny on future trips. This may not have been a
good trip for the Ski Council, but in the long run, it
may serve to improve future foreign trips. One of
the suggestions made by several of the clubs,
was to have the venue selection driven by the participating
clubs, rather than by the FSC vendors.
Another common suggestion was for the vendors
to have better local knowledge, when planning the
foreign trips.
The 2006 FSC European trip to Bormio, Italy is
already contracted, with commitments from the
clubs. For reasons similar to the ones we had a
year ago, we have again chosen not to participate
in that trip, as we will be running our trip to Zermatt,
Switzerland (and Paris). This, by the way, is a decision
we made at the FSC January ‘05 meeting,
based on information received at the November ‘04
FSC meeting in Orlando. Many venue suggestions
were made for the 2007 FSC European trip, and it
looks like Innsbruck, Austria is the favorite.
Certainly a trip we would like to support, and we
look forward to seeing the proposals.
As a follow up to the Andorra discussions, the
question was raised, whether the clubs would
favor price or value. The obvious answer from the
club delegates was: “both”! We maintain, that“value” is very relative, and may have a different
meaning to individual clubs. It has been Miami’s
impression that the tendency of the tour operators
for the FSC foreign trips, is to go off season and
to stay in properties far from the mountain, which
requires a lot of schlepping. While it reduces the
overall price of the trip, we do not see that as
adding value - quite the contrary. So, in the end, it
looks like FSC foreign trips may be heading in a
slightly different direction in the future, and that
the individual clubs will have more of an input,
which we see as very welcome change.
On the domestic side, the Breckenridge ‘05 FSC ski
trip was well attended (620), and well received, as
we can attest.We all expect the upcoming FSC trip
to Snowmass (January 21-28, 2006) to be equally
successful. It is a proven venue, and with free access
to Aspen, Buttermilk and Aspen Mountain, it certainly
offers a broad range of possibilities. The presentation
made to the FSC by the resort made it obvious
that they have their act together, and the trip will go
very smoothly. We are planning on bringing 40 fun
loving skiers, and give the other clubs a run for their
money in the NASTAR race.
For the 2007 ski season, the clubs chose
Keystone, Whistler, Winter Park and Steamboat, to
submit bids for the main FSC January trip. The
resorts picked for the secondary trip were Park
City, Big Sky, Copper Mt. and Crested Butte. We
should be receiving their proposals in time for the
November ‘05 FSC meeting in Orlando, where the
final destinations will be voted on.
The delegates have also approved some changes
in the FSC bylaws. The bylaws committee had
gone through all the resolutions passed at all FSC
meetings, and tried to incorporate them into the
bylaws. Quite an undertaking! Most of the changes
were operational, without much direct bearing on
the individual clubs. There were also changes
made to the Standing Rules, and there was one
minor change we requested. When we receive
resort bids for the FSC trips, the participating properties
will put money into the FSC fund, which is
used for the parties, etc. If a club chooses to stay
in a property not included in the bid, (as we have
done at times) the FSC loses those funds. The
FSC then charges those clubs a fee, to replace the
lost revenue, which is a logical necessity. However,
the proposed wording of the Standing Rules stipulated
that the fee is to “cover” the lost revenue, but
it did not specify it be limited to that amount. We
have asked that the language be changed to specify
the fee to be “equal to”, or “limited to” the revenues
lost, thus avoiding possible arbitrary penalties
to those clubs.We were assured that the final
wording will reflect that change.
Another interesting topic was the position of the
Past President on the FSC. As you may know,
Kim Miller had passed away in the middle of her
President’s term. With Bob Kendall filling the presidency
and the other positions being filled, the Past
President post remained vacant. It soon became
clear that the past president and their operational
knowledge and experience are invaluable to the
current President and the running of the Council. It
was then proposed, that if the Past President position
becomes vacant, it could be filled by the previous
past president (and down the line). Maybe a
good suggestion for the operation of any of our
clubs, as our models are so similar. |
