Thwarted by my Division

[Mr Epee]

Today I received notification that my division has scheduled our JO qualifier.

I know this should have been done long ago, but it wasn't.

There was no notification of a bidding process to host the event!

It is scheduled on the same day as the Richmond NAC

The only people that are being notified are the club directors, and not the general membership. There is no provision whatsoever for notification of unattached members.

Per our by-laws, the scheduling of these events is supposed to be approved by our divisions Board of Directors. I am on this board, but was never notified.

Is this type of behavior common, and what can we do about it?

I take this sort of thing very seriously, because it directly effects our expectations of equal opportunity in the competitive arena.

This is so frustrating and makes it very difficult to convince parents and fencers that our sport is worth their time.

[noodle]

tell them exactly what you've said here, if you're on the board.

i get things passed by me. if it comes down to it, you may be able to petition for qualification through the usfa office if you talk to them about it.

[Craig]

Talk to the division heads and the USFA if need be. Can't have divisions going against their own by-laws.

Also - there is no way that a JO qualifier should be held on the same date(s) as a NAC. The top juniors are competing at the NACs!

Craig

[CvilleFencer]

You should really pursue this very strongly. It simply is not done, the holding of JO Quals the same day as a NAC. First of all, a schedule should be made out and published at the beginning of the year by the board, and second of all if they had a meeting and you were not told about it or notified to select the dates of tourneys you have every right to go to the USFA and raise as much of a stink as you want.

I think that for some divisions, especially smaller ones, the JO events are almost considered a hassle and are not given the attention they deserve. In addition to being unfair and shortsighted, it is also a great way to get in trouble with parents and fencers in a division and since they are the ones that will elect you to the board (and may even drag the board to court if they feel particularly raw about it) any board member for your division should have given this whole thing a little more thought. Best of luck and let us know if we can help out!

[esskreemr]

No it's not common. This besmacks of underhandedness. Assuming that the people who pushed this through aren't retarded, they know exactly what they are doing. They should explain their reasons, AND the reasons should be credible, otherwise it sounds like a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise the most competitive fencers of your division.

[Prometheus]

Divisional policy notwithstanding:

While the schedule is poor taste it is apparently allowed. On page 35 of the Operations manual (Section 4 part D) it states that having a qualifier the same day as a NAC is not grounds for a qualification by appeal and the fencer has to chose which competition they will attend.

I have to admit, I find this suprising...

[Mr Epee]

To be honest, I never stood for office for the division. In my defense, I honestly believed that we would be following our own rules, and least try to do what is best for everyone. I assumed that being our club representative to the Board of Directors would keep us in the loop. Apparently not.

Getting out of this predicament seems impossible. The USFA has gone on record as saying they will not involve themselves in Divisional Politics, particularly in our area since there has been a long history of issues.

Certainly, finding legal remedy is an available option. But knowing where to start is difficult, and it could end up being more expensive than it worth.

So it appears that since the USFA doesn't care, and legal resolution may be cost prohibitive, we don't have any option other than to grin and bear the consequences of business as usual.

My favorite part in this is where our Division Chairperson edited our published divisional by-laws to reduce the quorum requirements for directors meetings down to 2 people, without following any of the amendment procedures.

It just gets more and more difficult to convince people that fencing for real, when Mickey Mouse stuff like this is going on around us. Just think, I have a business plan riding on this stuff. How can we be taken seriously?

Luckily I have a good day job!

[oso97]

What idiotic division is this? At least get back at them by publishing the name of the division and the names of the Division officers!

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Yeah well, my division didnt even give out directions to the venue of JO quals. They left that up to us. If I was old enough, I'd run for chair of my division, and do it right, cause right now, its a joke.

[azfencer]

A quorum of two people!?!??!? That's unbelievable and almost seems like grounds to strongly suspect other underhanded dealings in the future! (Is there a procedure for impeachment still?) Is this one of those divisions that has gone beyond reasoning? In some divisions this date conflict could be changed once someone pointed out the problem, I'm sorry if you aren't in one of them.

[hpfencing]

I'm not sure exactly what can be done TODAY to fix your problems but I suggest that you VOTE for better officers in the future. it sounds like you have one or two people who just don't want to envolve anyone else.

Yes I agree that cn stunt or kill a division. NO MORE MICKEY MOUSE STUFF.

[MikeHarm]

If the qualifier is most important can't you just go to that instead of the NAC?

[kro]

you mean there are divisions where the general membership WANTS to be on the divisional board? I am having a difficult time finding 2 people that are interested, I am basically drafting people to keep validity in the structure of the board.

[Victor]

Chances are that you've already lost the battle before it begins. Even though I don't know who the heck you're talking about, I can predict that they probably won't change anything this year ... just because people are stupid and stubborn.

With that said, however, I agree with others' evaluations already posted. You need to make a big fuss over this so that it doesn't happen again. Push hard, even though you might make a couple of enemies (but do it politely/professionally so that more people will be likely to appreciate your efforts). If it comes down to a nose-to-nose petty argument, ask for unbiased mediation.

But again, I suggest you keep an eye on the long-term goal rather than fixing anything this year.

[schlager7]

you mean there are divisions where the general membership WANTS to be on the divisional board? I am having a difficult time finding 2 people that are interested, I am basically drafting people to keep validity in the structure of the board.

In our division, seperate from the officers (Executive Committee), we have a board that is made up of one member each (allow also for alternates) from each USFA member club in the division.

This way, the heads of the clubs can "persuade" someone to serve. It also means the small college based clubs get the same votes as the big for-profit businesses. If they decide they don't want to pick a representative, so be it. Our quorum is based on a percentage (50 % or more) of the participating clubs.

They don't have to participate, but the ball is in their court and it is up to them. All they have to do is send an email to our secretary saying, "Hi, this is so-and-so from whatever club. Joe Blow is going to be our rep on the board." The secretary then emails the existing board members and alternates with the info.

As to the bit about the qualifiers, perhaps this will help:

We had a similar issue. We created a randomly generated sequence of all USFA clubs in out division. The first club on the list was offered the option of hosting our divisional qualifiers to the nationals, the JO qualifiers, our division's contribution to the Southwest Sectional Circuit Cup (I'm in the Gulf Coast Division), or passing. In either case, the club then matriculates to the bottom of the list. Each club, in order, is offered what is available, until all of our "Big 3" events have been picked.

We have about 15 USFA clubs (counting college/school-based groups) and we went through between one-third to one-half of the clubs by the time we had three clubs that wanted (or were willing) to play host.

Also, if a club fails to sign up as for its USFA membership before the one-month grace period (August 1-September 1) it drops to the bottom of the rotation sequence one it renews. New clubs always begin at the bottom (but, as you see, it only takes a couple of years to get the chance to accept or pass on the offer again.

Not everyone can, or wants to, play host, but each gets asked.

Another help is that multiple websites in our division run the division calendar: our official division site, my unofficial site, a discussion forum (similar to Fencing Net, but locally focussed) and a few of the club sites.

[Angry Squirrel]

Move to another division?
Just an idea.

[Mr Epee]

Victor ---

I am starting to believe this season will be a right-off for the Division. I am truely saddened by the prospect.

Mike Harm ---

I am effectively retired as a competitor, so I do not have to choose between attending a qualifier or NAC. But that is a choice that no-one should have to make. In addition to the issue of attending, there is also a question of the ability to get a qualified referee for the event/or even experienced fencers during an NAC event.

Proper scheduling means not having to correct this problem

Angry Squirrel ---

Trust me I would leave this division if I could, but I'm stuck here for now. On the plus side, I am in a position to grow a grassroots fencing program in a city of nearly 500,000 with practically no other clubs in the city.

Schlager7 ---

What you describe is almost exactly how things are supposed to work here, but sadly basic concepts of fairness are not observed. We are mired in a labryinth of secret meetings, and policy announcements (instead of proposal, discussion, resolution).

I am all for open meetings, public involvement, and equal opportunity for smaller non-profit clubs. That's why I like our Executive Committee (elected) + Board of Directors System (Club reps). If actually followed, it is a mini check/balance system. Reducing a quorem to 2 people is bizzaro, and destroys everything.

I do like your host rotation program, and drafted a nearly identical proposal for our last division meeting. Unfortuately, the topic was not allowed to be addressed in our meeting.

kro ---

Well, people want to get involved??? I don't know for sure, but what I have been told is that our division has a long history of well intentioned people trying to get involved, and then getting so burned out by the constant whackiness that they give up.

[oso97]

I repeat my previous question though... where are you? So I know to stay away...