Politics revisted

[Sciurus Rex]

Can someone here please explain the structure of the USFA command heirarchy? Are the Powers That Be elected, born into their positions, or declared in bloody coups?
I've noticed that elected government officials tend to listen to their constituents when they're faced with the threat of losing the next election. But for that to work, the constituency really truly must be prepared to vote them out at the polls. (It helps to have a viable opponent, too.)
I just don't know if such action would be appropriate for the USFA organization itself. Your feedback would be appreciated.

[swordsen]

Some are elected, some are appointed by those who are elected. the last few elections have pretty much been pro forma with only one slate of candidates and very few people voting.

[edew]

The elected people (the president, Stacy Johnson at the moment, vice-presidents Barbare Lynch, Sherry Posthumus, and Ralph Zimmermann, secretary Don Anthony, and Treasurer, Michael Sullivan) have only so much power. They basically chair the committees assigned to them. Look at the USFA org chart to see the committees. It's really the national office (Michael Massik and company) that does the bulk of the day-to-day work. It's also the committees that drive direction as in what new rules to adopt, what will be the new qualification paths to NACs or nationals, etc.

If you want to get something done, find the committee head, be pals with the person, and get him or her to do your bidding. That is, if you can get that person to do your bidding. Usually, they do their own bidding.

The committee members have been there for quite a while, except among the athletes representatives. This can be both bad and good. Good because you like to have the experience there so people don't continuously re-invent the wheel. Bad because some of those people's experiences are fifty years old, and they've not adapted to the times, so they're really out of touch with what's happening out there.

The tournament committee has the most impact among fencers because that's the committee that chooses the venues and does all the work in getting an NAC or nationals up and running.

But for more long-term membership issues, the club and divisions committee is important. At the moment, it's rather dormant, which is bad, because we're right at the cusp of really taking off. If they're not there to help the take off, or worse, become a hindrance by pushing for the status quo when new ideas and proposals should be looked into, then we don't get the change from 15,000 members to 150,000 members.

The officers who sit among the various committees are the ones who have to tie the thoughts and processes developed by one committee to another committee that might be affected by the changes.

For example, suppose we aim for 150,000 members. Ok, how do we get there? The clubs and divisions committee, headed by Jerry Benson, will have to perhaps create some guidelines and provide assistance to bring out effective changes to allow for such growth. At the same time, the tournament committee will have to think about how to hold events that can accomodate a ten-fold increase in attendance. Perhaps just LARGER events, or perhaps regionalize what the NAC currently is, or perhaps set higher qualification paths to the NAC?
Each will incur different costs. What does the budget committee have to say about any of those ideas?

Now, talk to the FOC folks and the armorers committee....do they have enough human resources to run five regional events three times a year, with each regional event being the size of a current NAC? (Personally, I see the main bottle neck is refereeing: until we can get more people into refereeing, which means basically all current fencers, understanding that there will be some amount of drop-off.)

We haven't had any contested elections, which actually is a good thing. There's no reason to treat such a small organization as a governing country. People are free to join and leave the membership (in an effective sense, which is not the case with countries). Because it is still a rather small organization, the people at the top do hear from the day-to-day members. I don't really consider myself to be anywhere near the top of the power heirarchy, but I do speak with Sherry Posthumus with some regularity. I talk to Donald Anthony whenever we meet. I can get my point to Stacy Johnson if I want to, via other sources. And I talk to Michael Massik on many occasions. However, it's still the committee heads who are quite anonymous, yet hold lots of power, that are the ones typical people can't get ahold of.

One other thing, just because someone is the head of a committee doesn't mean he or she holds the power. The real power is one or two persons on the committee who does all the behind-the-curtain work. The committee head may just be there to take the blame or credit, and may be rewarded with some grunt work to make appearances that he or she is valuable.

[135711]

some may be reincarnated!