Attendance Sigs

[Eric Ridler]

The new PRC cards that will be issued in future will have information about card signing (however this may be subject to amendment).

Attendance signatures

1. Present the card to your POST CHIEF at the start of the day
2. The post chief will sign the card AT THE END OF THE DAY
3. Please ensure the post chief makes comments on your performance

Upgrade assessment signatures

1. Present your card to your EXAMINING POST CHIEF at the start of the day
2. Only EXAMINING grade marshals can sign for an assessment signature
3. If the examining post chief is satisfied with your performance they will sign the card and provide written comments AT THE END OF THE DAY
N.B. On rallies the signature must be from an official holding the “Event Official” MSA grade

Training signatures

1. Hand in your card to the event organiser at the start of the event
2. MSA registered trainers may sign for training signatures at THE END OF THE EVENT
3. Ensure you receive a signature for each module completed

[deley]

Originally Posted by Eric Ridler

The new PRC cards that will be issued in future will have information about card signing (however this may be subject to amendment).

thanks Eric

I, and I am sure others, would strongly urge that the attendance signature and who can sign it is examined in more detail as this thread has shown there are concerns and uncertainties today.

The words as you have included them seem to limit the signature to Post Chief which would be more restrictive than the information I had from Chris H with regards to the curent scheme.

I certainly do not imagine that it is the MSA's intention to have people turn up and marshal for a day only to have no record of the fact that they had been there solely because there was no Post Chief to sign attendance (if the words refer to a person who holds the grade rather than a person who is performing the role on the day - eg may be an Experienced Marshal acting up).

Just a plea

Dave

[Terrible-Tones]

Originally Posted by Eric Ridler

The new PRC cards that will be issued in future will have information about card signing (however this may be subject to amendment).

[/INDENT]

Thanks Eric for the input.

As Deley says - there are concerns.

What if you do not have a Post Chief? ie as sometimes happens at various circuits as outlined. Unfortunately this is not an ideal world and this does commonly happen....leading to (mainly Trainees/Track) feeding back to me that they are not happy when they have turned up and not got an attendance signature.

Please can this wording be amended so we have some flexibility - as we have asked in this thread? I think the general consensus is that anyone, providing they hold a grade above the signature seeker, should be trusted to assign for attendance. It makes it a whole lot easier for us.

[warweezil]

It does seem rather petty that a signature that denotes attendance cannot be signed by someone acting up to a senior Grade, As a Relief Railman on the Underground some years ago, when acting up to Station Foreman I was tasked with filling in time-sheets station & lost property logs and incident statements, in fact the job was very similar to PC encompassing man management, H&S, Routine and special admin and general on the spot decision taking.

So signing that someone attended on a given day cant be that big of a deal, especially when we are told by some that the comments section in the PRC can be self completed - it would seem reasonable that attendance could be signed by a lesser grade where acting up to PC - where he/she is effectively of senior grade to the person holding the PRC "on the day".. If they are doing the rest of the PC job.. why not this one small part?

Just My Opinion.... YMMV

[Terrible-Tones]

Originally Posted by warweezil

- it would seem reasonable that attendance could be signed by a lesser grade where acting up to PC - where he/she is effectively of senior grade to the person holding the PRC "on the day".. If they are doing the rest of the PC job.. why not this one small part?

Just My Opinion.... YMMV

Thanks for the support - what I am trying to do is remove the need for the signature to be signed even by an "acting PC". There are circuits where sometimes, due to circumstances, marshals do not work to PC's at all - even "acting" ones. So we need to cover that base as well.

[Steven Humphrey]

Referring to the 'central database' idea mentioned earlier (along similar lines to my point of getting sigs done at sign on) - is there one kept? I was just thinking that, when applying for the GP, we list events attended (minimumof 12 days, IIRC). Surely this must be checked by the club dealing with the application? If not, have I just uncovered a massive flaw in the system?!

[Eric Ridler]

The problem is that everyone seems to be getting bogged down with the term POST CHIEF.

Perhaps the wording should read "Post Chief or the most senior person on post", which is what the ruling is now.

At the moment Chris Hobson and the Marshals Working Group are busy rewriting the PRC cards which will hopeully clarify the situation. However if anyone has any constuctive ideas I am sure Chris would be glad to receive them

[Eric Ridler]

Just realised, the next question will be "but who signs the signers card?". How about asking the nearest post i/c to reciprocate and sign each others card.

[Terrible-Tones]

Originally Posted by Eric Ridler

The problem is that everyone seems to be getting bogged down with the term POST CHIEF.

Perhaps the wording should read "Post Chief or the most senior person on post", which is what the ruling is now.

Is it the ruling now though? I ask simply because Chris wrote this in Post #22;

"but I/Os should remember they can only sign when they are acting as the post chief - not in their usual role."

Which would seem to contradict what you have just said! This is exactly the sort of confusion I am talking about.

I much prefer the wording as you have suggested above - which pretty much reflects common practise now. Can it be changed to reflect that?

As for who signs the "signers" card - yes - issue. I would have to say either get it done by a nearby PC, or ask Chief Marshal or reciprocate with another post as suggested - seems reasonable.

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by Eric Ridler

The problem is that everyone seems to be getting bogged down with the term POST CHIEF.

The current card asks for the signatory's name & role; it's nothing to do with grades. Whatever has been said to the contrary in this thread there is a post chief on every post (leaving out the situation where somebody's alone on a post, as although you are the Post Chief, you can't sign your own card!). Maybe nobody was specifically allocated as post chief, but somebody's got to take responsibility for communicating with race control, writing reports, etc. . . . there's your Post Chief!

Originally Posted by Eric Ridler

Just realised, the next question will be "but who signs the signers card?". How about asking the nearest post i/c to reciprocate and sign each others card.

Another Post Chief, the Chief Marshal, a clerk, the Chief Post Chief, even a steward . . . the list is endless. The job's as difficult as you want to make it.

[The Fat Clerk]

even a steward . . . the list is endless. The job's as difficult as you want to make it.[/QUOTE]

Hey, you're going to wake me up to sign a card?

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by The Fat Clerk

Hey, you're going to wake me up to sign a card?

See you in the bar!

[Steven Humphrey]

Got it! Why don't we just pull over a driver & get him to sign our cards?

[The Fat Clerk]

It would make a change from me signing his

[numbersix]

There's an opportunity here:

***** I'llsignyourprcard.com*******

[Terrible-Tones]

Originally Posted by numbersix

There's an opportunity here:

***** I'llsignyourprcard.com*******

Too late - I've registered the address

[numbersix]

Originally Posted by Terrible-Tones

Too late - I've registered the address

Ah...no. You can only register if you're an XPC or XO. You can half register if you're a PC or a WPC, but not an Intel PC. An IO can register as an EIEIO if he comes from Devon, or Ay-Up if he comes from Manchester. Meanwhile Reds can register if they're on an accredited EIEIO course, but not if they're feeling a bit Uncle Dick in which case they're considered to be green. Examining Whites are liable to arrest if seen in public. If all else fails, a CoC can register if his PRC has been OK'd by an MO.

Hope that's clear.

[Terrible-Tones]

Originally Posted by numbersix

Ah...no. You can only register if you're an XPC or XO. You can half register if you're a PC or a WPC, but not an Intel PC. An IO can register as an EIEIO if he comes from Devon, or Ay-Up if he comes from Manchester. Meanwhile Reds can register if they're on an accredited EIEIO course, but not if they're feeling a bit Uncle Dick in which case they're considered to be green. Examining Whites are liable to arrest if seen in public. If all else fails, a CoC can register if his PRC has been OK'd by an MO.

Hope that's clear.

NumberSix - thank you for explaining the current scheme in a clear and concise way......

[exflagman]

Just hope the MSA doesn't read that post - they might get ideas!

[Terrible-Tones]

Hi Everyone

Just to let you know I have made an error. I have said a number of times that I couldn't find any reference to who could sign attendance sigs in the Guidelines.

An Eagle Eyed membe rof the Nat Council has just contacted me and pointed out (very gently I might add) that that isn't quite correct. Indeed there is mention of it:

It says simply this

"Chief Marshal / Post Chief to sign for
attendance with comments as appropriate

in Personal Record Card"

This was at the very bottom of page 15, of a 15 page document! The document can be found here....

http://www.marshals.co.uk/resources/62032882008.pdf

So indeed I had made an error - what a complete muppet! Just shows that if you are gonna' get on your high horse, better make sure he is standing on firm ground I have however, fed back that I feel that with a system based on attendance signatures the guideleines should outline how to obtain them fairly early in the document.

Notwithstanding the above though, I still think there are issues, based on what has been said here and to me elsewhere. Clearly there is confusion, as what does Post Chief mean in this context? Already Eric has said "don't get too hung up by the actual title inthis context".

Basically what is written does not cover "acting" though sensibly I don't think anyone would take issue with that, but it also doesn't cover the issue with I/Os signing, or the issue with two or three people working in isolation. It also does not reflect present common practice or what we have asked for - which is flexibility.

Clearly I was initially told something different from what was published later, which is a bit aggravating.

I have noted what Eric has said, which pretty much reflects what I had said in post #1, only his version is way more elegant.

With the above in mind I have asked formally that thsi be looked at by the Nat Council and be passed to the MSA. I have been told that that is fine, but not to expect it quickly as the next Council Meeting is in October. I ahve also asked for consideration to some of the excellent ideas that have been put forward in this thread.

Again I apologise for my error, however I don't feel it changes substantively what has been said, or this small thing that we are trying to achieve.

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by Terrible-Tones

what a complete muppet!

Have you had your card for that signed, or are you really a trainee muppet awaiting upgrade?

No worries, it's been an interesting thread. Not least because the reason that was given for changing the system - getting trainees off that dreaded badge as quickly as possible - appears not to have been so successful.

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by Woolley

No worries, it's been an interesting thread. Not least because the reason that was given for changing the system - getting trainees off that dreaded badge as quickly as possible - appears not to have been so successful.

Changes made since its introduction suggest that it was initially too successful!

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by Dave Brand

Changes made since its introduction suggest that it was initially too successful!

indeed, i thought the idea of teh gradign system was to train marshals so we have a good quality of service to competitors, not to be the cub scouts and get as many different badges as soon as possible!

[Terrible-Tones]

Originally Posted by Woolley

Have you had your card for that signed, or are you really a trainee muppet awaiting upgrade?

Well, I have been trying to upgrade for ages, but I cannot seem to get posted with Kermit at the same time the Swedish Chef blows up the kitchen. I have also run into a problem in that Animal and Fonzy have signed half my attendance signatures, but it turns out that they should only have been signed by the two miserable old goats in the audience box....

One day I will be a graded muppet rather than a trainee muppet....

Seriously though, even though I made a mistake, it doesn't really alter the main argument, which is attendance signautres shouldn't be so restricted.

[gachjoel]

Originally Posted by Terrible-Tones

Hi Everyone

Just to let you know I have made an error. I have said a number of times that I couldn't find any reference to who could sign attendance sigs in the Guidelines.

An Eagle Eyed membe rof the Nat Council has just contacted me and pointed out (very gently I might add) that that isn't quite correct. Indeed there is mention of it:

It says simply this

"Chief Marshal / Post Chief to sign for
attendance with comments as appropriate

in Personal Record Card"

This was at the very bottom of page 15, of a 15 page document! The document can be found here....

http://www.marshals.co.uk/resources/62032882008.pdf



Again I apologise for my error, however I don't feel it changes substantively what has been said, or this small thing that we are trying to achieve.

Bit later on down the line, i found this and it's on the MSA site under...
Changes to the MSA grading scheme 2010

It should be emphasised that signatures should only be given at the end of a day’s
marshalling and only by the person acting as the post of discipline chief. This means
that some clubs will have to change their current practice of giving the signatures at
sign on.

so which one is in place ?