Questions about the USFA

[gladius]

What's your opinion of the USFA and the way it handles the sport and the business of fencing? What do you think about how it communicates and interacts with its members? Do you feel that the points in the mission statement are fulfilled? Are you happy with it? If not, what should/could be done to improve?

I don't want to criticize anyone in particular since it is not clear to me who is supposed to do what and how, but what follows are simple observations anyone can make when going to the USFA website searching for information. What follows is published by the USFA on its website at the end of October 2004. Click on the menu and submenus at the left of the USFA web page under U.S. Fencing On Line:

1. Home page

In October 2004, there are two press releases: one about the NAC-A results in Atlanta, dated October 12, and one reporting the updated points standing after Atlanta, dated October 13.

During October 2004 there were several international tournaments in Poland (2), Slovakia, Portugal, England, to which several US fencers, men and women, participated getting good results in all three weapons. Not one tournament is mentioned in the USFA homepage or anywhere else in the official website. Why the silence? Why the delay in reporting what our fencers do in tournaments abroad? Why not advertise who is going to represent the USA in the coming tournaments in November?

2. New to Fencing?

2.a. What is the USFA?

This page is interesting from the historical prospective but appears to have been last updated in 1997. Nothing interesting happened since then to entice anyone new to fencing?

2.b. Contacting us....

Eleven people at the National Office are shown, four of them with a picture, seven preferring to maintain their privacy. Why not having a picture ID for all or no picture ID for all just for the sake of uniformity? Since this page shows the new fax number it was updated probably two years ago or whenever the change took place.

2.c. Joining the USFA...

At the bottom of the page "Sorry, we are not yet equipped to take your membership application online." How long before modernizing?

3. Info For Members

3.a. Latest US Fencing News

You get back to the home page. See comments in point 1. above.

3.b. Agenda and Minutes

The most recent are the Agenda, but not the Minutes of the July 2004 BOD Special Meeting, and the Agenda and Minutes of the July 2004 Congress Annual meeting.

3.c. Contacting us

- Under US Fencing Association National Office, ditto as in point 2.b. above

- Under Officers of the USFA, it still lists the officers of the past administration. No name or contact for the current officers 2 months after the changeover.

- Under USFA Committees, the list is dated November 15, 2003, indicating reporting lines to officers who are no longer in charge.

- Under US National Coaches, the list is not dated and does not reflect the current holders of these positions, according to news/rumors which have popped up over the past few months.

- Under USFA Athletes Representatives, the list is not dated and it is hard to say whether it is current or not.

3.d. Documents

- Agenda and Minutes etc. sends you back to point 3.b. above

- USFA Strategic Plan - document is not dated, but from reading the text one can surmise it was written in or before 2000. No updates since?

- Press Releases: A quick analysis of the archives of the Press Releases shows:

2004 21 press releases to date
2003 44 press releases
2002 53 press releases
2001 34 press releases
2000 27 press releases
1999 32 press releases
1998 45 press releases
1997 26 press releases
1996 9 press releases

- National Newsletter: the most recent (New) is Spring 2004

- USFA Policy Documents

Policy on professionals is an undated document to be submitted at the BOD meeting in September, BUT DOESN'T SPECIFY THE YEAR.

Document on drug testing is undated

Document on Equipment Requirements refers to 1996-7 Season, so presumably it was written in 1996 or before.

Canadian Elite Requirements refers to 1996-7 Season, ditto as above.

FIE Requirements refers to 1996-7 Season

USFA Rule Book is the 2002 Edition, Revision C

Classification Reference Chart is Effective August 1, 2003

Qualification to National Events Path is for 2003-4 Season

USFA Age Eligibility Chart is current for 2004-5 Season

USFA Athlete Handbook is the 2003-4 edition

FOC Study Guide for Referees (2003 Edition)

USFA Bylaws (amended 7/7/2001)

- USFA Membership report is dated July 31, 2003

4. Competitions

4.a. World Cup Schedules 2004-5 shows no competitions at all and the same for 2004-5 FIE Events Schedules

5. Weapon Programs

Of the seven programs indicated, only the women's foil program has had and continues to have an active page. All others (except wheelchair fencing) state "Information will be posted as it becomes available." At least for the past two years no information has been posted, implying that nothing worthwhile reporting happened for the 5 categories WE, ME, MF, WS, MS.

6. Committee Websites

6.a. USFA Parents Committee: it states that the site is still under construction and refers to Parent Guide to Fencing, a document dated October 2002.

Comments:

While some of the points above may not be essential, some most definitely are. What about the flow of timely information on scheduled tournaments worldwide, the results of USA fencers at these tournaments, the list of the upcoming international tournaments where the USA will be represented and by whom, the naming of the national coaches, the outline, at least, of all weapon programs, and last, but not least, the names and contacts for the current officials and officers of the USFA?

Does anybody care?

[mrbiggs]

Personally, I think it isn't perfect by far, but with 18,000 members or so countrywide, I don't think they do that bad.

[noodle]

compounded with the fact that they don't have a webpage person, its just a few ladies sitting in the office who do all of this busywork type stuff themselves.

[Peach]

Actually, the webpage person lives in Virginia and does it as a volunteer job.

Is the web page ideal? No. Is it pretty handy? Yes. Does it need to be redesigned? Yeah, probably. But when the annual USFA membership fees are about what it costs to take my family to the movies, and the membership is relatively small, I don't know that we can afford a bells-and-whistles website, not because of the one-time fee it might cost to design it but for the two or three full-time people you end up needing to maintain one.

[noodle]

rephrase my previous statement: we don't have a full time webpage person to update content and redesign the structure.

and we'd only need one pro to handle it, no problem.

[Peach]

It's the pro part that would be tough. USFA can't pay its staff people much.

[S. Hunter]

The USFA COULD raise more money, ya know. If I recall correctly, they keep focusing or corporate contracts and promoting fencing on TV, but yet the individual contributions have gone down rapidly. Individual contributions beyond membership fees are what feeds the organization, yet they NEVER push for funs. Adidas says that basketball doesn't even turn a profit in the advertising they get, there is NO WAY that fencing will. But then again, they are there and until they collaple, they are all we got.

[bg0687]

I read in another post while the website was down that they were running it on this one volunteer's server. What they need to do do first is to hire someone to run the webpage and back it up from several servers. After completing this then all of the changes to the webpage can be made. They can cover this person's salary by raising certain fees by 1-5 dollars. Over time it will accumulate and will not be a big financial burden on all USFA members.

[hscoach]

Add $2 - $3 per membership and this should be enough to cover a fulltime webperson. Get some sponsorship - add an Adidas or "whatever" logo to website and have them help pay. For extra office help hire some "moms" who only work school hours and you do not have to pay benefits and you have happy workers.

[ls14evar]

Heck get addidias to sponsor, and all they have to do is design and maintain a website for the USFA. They already have people on staff who do that, so Im sure a minor addition wouldnt be a huge deal for them.
-B

[Montoya]

I can't pull up the USFA website this afternoon. It appears they are down again. If our individual fencing clubs have enough revenue to maintain a decent website, I would think that the USFA could afford to do it. And our club actually pays someone to maintain the site - we don't depend on the vagaries of volunteer labor. Maintaining a stable, well-organized, up-to-date web site is not that expensive.

[Peach]

Originally Posted by hscoach

Add $2 - $3 per membership and this should be enough to cover a fulltime webperson. Get some sponsorship - add an Adidas or "whatever" logo to website and have them help pay. For extra office help hire some "moms" who only work school hours and you do not have to pay benefits and you have happy workers.

Nice idea--and something which works (sometimes) for fencing clubs, especialy when you have a coach or supervising board which is clear about its mission. It too often ends up with a marooned website when the "mom" moves on to something else. I've seen abandoned websites. I don't want to be a naysayer, but there's also a difference between a club with a cadre of volunteers and an office like the USFA--they don't have any fencing parents happy to help out. They're a small office which is permitted to have space in a bureacratic maze. Further, a big part of the USFA's problem with its website is its overdependence on volunteer help, which is partly due to its small size and the small numbers in its membership.

Charging more money on the membership might be counterproductive--there are already enough people who object to the fee, and even though they have an unrealistic idea of how much service you can get for that small an amount, that unrealistic idea can result in people deciding not to renew and a net loss rather than a net gain.

The idea of sponsorship has more merit, I think, but having been involved in a number of nonprofits the main problem with that is you really need a full-time, qualified person with a solid budget in order to do development right, when you're talking about a national-level organization with PR and service needs rather than a local organization which needs sponsorship for a tournament. And right now I don't think the USFA pays enough to attract highly qualified people for that--either that or the isolated location doesn't attract the kind of people who would be good at it.

Really, the USFA needs a full-time, highly qualified person (emphasize highly qualified, which means well-paid) to do development.

Problem solved except that I work in a non-profit institution dependent on development for its funding, and I can tell you that the rank-and-file often resent the privileges and budgets allocated for the development people, because they see them as resources diverted from the primary mission.

Never mind.

[edew]

I agree. I am an/the administrator for four fencing related websites, over two separate service providers. I know little more than basic html (but I'm working on getting some cgi knowledge). One of the service providers is gratis and the other I pay $10/month (and I bet I can find something for maybe even half that, but I'm happy enough as it is).

Never went down, news and information are always current and immediate.

[hscoach]

OK, if the help is so little, how can the members help raise money to pay someone to update the website once or twice a week. How much for a sponsor's logo on the homepage of the website? How many of us can get someone to sponsor?

[bg0687]

On the USFA website there is a list of sponsors as one of the menus on the left side of the website. I have never seen any logos or representations of any of these companies at national tournaments. In what ways do they sponsor the USFA? Are they active in supporting the USFA or are they sponsors through the USOC?

[Montoya]

Yet another outage on the USFA website. I don't buy the "USFA is a small non-profit and can't afford anything better argument." Compare their web site to this one:

http://www.msisoccer.org/index.html

This is the website for the non-profit youth soccer league in Montgomery County, Maryland. According to their literature, they serve 15,000 kids - easily comparable in scale to the 18,000 USFA members others have cited. While the fee for the fall season alone is $72, more than the amount we play annually in dues, they do not pay additional fees for the right to compete, whereas we pay an entrance fee for both our local competitions and quite high fees to fence in NAC's, JO's, and Nationals. This is a well-organized web site. It does not have a lot of fancy graphics, but is easy to navigate, up-to-date, and informative - and is even bilingual.

If they can do it, why not the USFA?

And note the link at the bottom of the page - they have used a professional to set up their web site - a company that makes a point of including associations and non-profits among their clientele.

[SupportCrew]

One of the original questions was about the USFA communication with it's members.
For background, my daughter was a competetive member of US gymnastics for years. We got a card and a magazine from them. All communications, entries, etc., were handled by the clubs.

I have been very impressed with the personal service we've gotten this year, via email. Lot's of updates and reminders on the Atlanta NAC. and the same is happening for Louisville.

I'm pretty happy with what I'm getting for my membership dollars.

[gladius]

It seems that we always have an answer for all our problems, namely lack of sufficient funds. Reading the comments following my initial posting, this is the leitmotiv: How can we attract talent capable to handle the many tasks of the USFA without $$$? The more constructive comments are from those who suggest how to raise the funds to pay for this needed talent ($2-3+ per member, i.e., with a base of 18,000 paying members $36,000 to $54,000+).

Compare this with the following excerpt:

The astonishing thing is that the other international teams have entourages of physios, coaches and trainers for each fencer, carbohydrate-rich diets and matching white tracksuits with corporate sponsors emblazoned on the arms of their jackets. The Cubans, in direct contrast, train on a diet of rice and beans with bamboo canes or rust-encrusted foils in a training centre with no air-conditioning. At competition they have to share each other’s masks and often can’t even afford to buy the lamés (special jackets for electrical fencing) that are needed. And yet still they win.

This is from the article "Living by the sword" by Jonathan Green, see link:

http://news.scotsman.com/features.cfm?id=1301482003

Is money the/an answer to the questions I raised at the end of the long analysis of the USFA website? I don't think so. This is just like when we compare our school and educational system problems with the rest of the world. The answer is always we need to throw in more money to compete... with India and China... yeah right!

Money is but a minimal part of the problem. Wrong attitude, laziness, ineptitude, and plain incompetence are the real problems. The Cubans don't have money for the blades and use bamboo canes for practice (at least according to the article) and they still win. No discussions about Adidas shoes, new chips for signaling machines (it seems they don't even have electricity where they train) and yet they produce notable results. Would money help THEM? Definitely YES! Would money alone help the USFA fulfill its roles? Probably NOT!

Rather than engage in fruitless discussions, why don't we identify few and simple problems by providing common sense (Voltaire opinion on common sense not withstanding) solution easy to implement immediately. Here is my list. Anyone is more than welcome to add or subtract from it.

1. List the names of the current officers of the USFA

This cannot be hard to implement. It also should be a practical matter vis-a-vis the former officers so that they are not bothered by members with questions or comments they cannot address any longer.

Suggested solution: one of the 11 employees at the USFA types in the new names and contacts.

Time required: 15 minutes, depending on typing skills.

2. List of international tournaments for 2004-5 season

The information is available on the FIE website.

Suggested solution: Post a direct link to the pertinent page of the FIE website or paste the appropriate pages on the USFA website.

Time required: 5 minutes, depending on how quickly one can access the FIE website.

3. Posting of the results of USA fencers at above international tournaments

This is also available at the FIE website or other more dynamic websites (like Nauhow.net).

Suggested solution: Filter the data and post the results without any additional comments.

Time required: 5 minutes per week

While at it, create and keep updated a page of USA fencers FIE rankings (just paste the appropriate page from the FIE website).

In a second stage, one USFA representative accompanying the teams could be required to write and post promptly a paragraph or two explaining what happened. Nothing fancy, just few lines.

4. Naming of National Coaches

Three months in the new season, the names of the National Coaches should be posted without any further delay. If there are no national coaches for certain programs, state so. It will be a useful reminder as to what needs to be done ASAP.

5. Weapon programs

It is inconceivable that a national federation would not post a weapon program for two+ years for 5 of its weapons (the only current program is for WF). If this is a responsibility of the national coaches, go after them and demand that they do so or else. If this is a responsibility of the USFA person in charge of the weapon programs, ditto.


These are minimum requirements which must be fulfilled pronto. Everything else, can be tackled with a little goodwill and initiative in the months to come. But for heaven sake do and demand that this be done.

I am curious to find out if the many contributors to this forum who seem to know much more about fencing than I do agree with all this or not. Any suggestion is welcome, but the most important thing to help the sport of fencing in US is to speak up and demand some action.

[Inquartata]

Maybe that's why the USFA website is down now---they're implementing those suggestions.

But seriously, the attitude toward the website seems to be that it's "good enough". It soaks up no money, and a volunteer handles it so there's no work involved, either. So why put any resources into it? They can be better used on staff retreats and such, after all...

In that sense, it IS really about money. Or rather, about attitudes toward money amongst the officers.

[sabregrrl]

I think the USFA should make this a paid position. If you are going to make the webpage your primary source of current information (and where else are you going to get the guides, etc), then it should be kept up to date. I get frustrated when I have members ask me as chair what is this qualification path, or this rule and it either the web isn't up, or the answer isn't there. The perfect example is the youth qualifications - the RYC doesn't mention y10 points, however, last year's qualification paths do. It should be consistent if nothing else.