Petition to recall USFA President

[Schiavona]

This is important because the USFA gets a BIG hunk of its support from the USOC and Athens gold is very important there - IF you make sure they remember it. And those monies influence what the USFA can do for all of us. Secondary issues that things like online registration for competitions has not materialized is an inconvenience to the larger group but definitely of less critical concern.
j.

Sorry, Mr. Jefferies, but I have to comment on this. In a thread Mr. Epee posted (sorry, I don't know how to link to it), the USFA's tax return listed total income as $2,900,000 with money from the USOC as $500,000. Off the top of my head, that's what? 18%? Yes, important money-but the USFA gets a much bigger amount from it's membership and national tournaments.

So, we "inconvenience" the "larger group", those who pay most of the bills.

There was a time when the USFA got most of it's money from the USOC, but that time has passed.

Following your line of thought, the USFA leadership shouldn't piss off the people who bring in the money, right?

[Capt. Slo-mo]

I think Michael Massik is a jewel; we're lucky to have him as ED. However, I think he could be vastly more productive. ....

I don't know the guy personally. He could be a Captain Bligh, he could be a Capra-esque George Bailey for all I know. When I have heard his name come up in fencing conversation, though, it nearly always seems he's being referred to more as a roadblock than a get-things-done kind of guy. I'm not really sure why that is. That's partly what generated my question about his roles and responsibilities. Many of the things that seem to have inflamed the ire of the petitioners deal with failure to get things done in a timely manner. The USFA may need a whipcracker to get things moving. The question would be...is it more efficient to have the hand on the whip be the President's, or the guy we're paying over $90K a year to keep the show rolling?

If only he didn't have to spend the majority of his day taking care of The Department of Ego Soothing and Containment, and dealing with cra* like this proposed recall....

Of course, in a power vacuum, this could be his moment to shine.

As far as ego-soothing, are you implying that the egos in flux are those of the petitioners? Not disagreeing, just wondering what you mean.

[jjefferies]

Sorry, Mr. Jefferies, but I have to comment on this. In a thread Mr. Epee posted (sorry, I don't know how to link to it), the USFA's tax return listed total income as $2,900,000 with money from the USOC as $500,000. Off the top of my head, that's what? 18%? Yes, important money-but the USFA gets a much bigger amount from it's membership and national tournaments.

So, we "inconvenience" the "larger group", those who pay most of the bills.

There was a time when the USFA got most of it's money from the USOC, but that time has passed.

Following your line of thought, the USFA leadership shouldn't piss off the people who bring in the money, right?

My comment was based on a partial conversation this summer with Michael Massik while at coaches college. Truthfully, I haven't ever looked at the exact numbers and I have a feeling that the numbers you are referring to are after a tax accountant has worked them over. I'm sure both of us would be very interested in what the numbers actually are. For instance I wonder how much profit, i.e. money taken in minus expenses, is made from the various national tournaments. I suspect it is a great deal less than you might think just adding up numbers of competitors times entry fee.

Another factor is that the USOC's contribution to USFA is in part based on performance at the Olympics and how strong the USFA's athletes look for the future. My - honestly hazy - recollection of that conversation is that the USOC's contribution amounts to something like 1/3 of the USFA's income. And that it can vary greatly - which is another reason for questioning why more wasn't made of USFA's contribution to the US's gold medal store. But 18% or 33% or even more makes no difference. It's the other part of the contribution, the address at 1 Olympic Plaza, that weighs heavily. Who pays for the offices? BTW, the USFA is not housed on the Olympic village campus but in town. There is an interweaving of relationships which make it difficult for us to clearly discern who and what.

As far as the USFA leadership pissing anyone off, isn't what this is all about?
Leadership and whether or not the leaders live up to promises made, etc?
J.

[Mr Epee]

It would have been extremely foolish for the USFA to be expecting a big cash pay-out after Athens... 1984 was a very unique time for the Olympic Movement and the IOC. Los Angeles, with Ueberroth at the helm, was the first games to report in the black. It was also a very heady time for the USOC.

Flash forward to 2004 - the USOC is no longer in the million dollar payday business, and for good reason.

RE: Post Olympic Publicity.

Quite frankly the public doesn't care. Heck, most fencers don't really care. An individual championship is exactly that... an individual effort. I don't recal Michael Johnson (or his mother for that matter) b!tching and moaning because US Track and Field wasn't doing enough to promote him. He hired an agent, and he promoted himself. Let's look at Peter Westbrook - Good Fencer, Good Guy, GREAT MARKETER of his accomplishments.

The charge of "Not striking when the iron was hot" is not a good accusation.

On a funny side note... I'm sure we've all come across people who are not directly involved with fencing who think that the US earns fencing medals all the time.

[Schiavona]

My comment was based on a partial conversation this summer with Michael Massik while at coaches college. Truthfully, I haven't ever looked at the exact numbers and I have a feeling that the numbers you are referring to are after a tax accountant has worked them over. I'm sure both of us would be very interested in what the numbers actually are. For instance I wonder how much profit, i.e. money taken in minus expenses, is made from the various national tournaments. I suspect it is a great deal less than you might think just adding up numbers of competitors times entry fee.

Another factor is that the USOC's contribution to USFA is in part based on performance at the Olympics and how strong the USFA's athletes look for the future. My - honestly hazy - recollection of that conversation is that the USOC's contribution amounts to something like 1/3 of the USFA's income. And that it can vary greatly - which is another reason for questioning why more wasn't made of USFA's contribution to the US's gold medal store. But 18% or 33% or even more makes no difference. It's the other part of the contribution, the address at 1 Olympic Plaza, that weighs heavily. Who pays for the offices? BTW, the USFA is not housed on the Olympic village campus but in town. There is an interweaving of relationships which make it difficult for us to clearly discern who and what.

As far as the USFA leadership pissing anyone off, isn't what this is all about?
Leadership and whether or not the leaders live up to promises made, etc?
J.

I don't disagree with you, really! I've also heard the 1/3 USOC, 1/3 membership & 1/3 tournaments story.

It's just that I always heard, for decades, that the elites fund the rest of us with the money we get from the USOC-for their international results. And it's not true now-at least in gross income.

Do you disagree that the past and present leadership should at least do as much for the non-elites as for the elites? If it takes 5+ years to get online tournament registration it should take at least a year appoint a National Coach

I've just seen the rank and file of the membership treated as money, "Now be good money and stand over there and be quiet.". I've always felt that it has been a case of the tail wagging the dog. I don't want the international fencers neglected, I just want the general membership get more attention.

By the way, rep points for source of the above quote. Hint-it's a movie.

[Mo]

RE: Post Olympic Publicity.

Quite frankly the public doesn't care. Heck, most fencers don't really care. An individual championship is exactly that... an individual effort. I don't recal Michael Johnson (or his mother for that matter) b!tching and moaning because US Track and Field wasn't doing enough to promote him. He hired an agent, and he promoted himself. Let's look at Peter Westbrook - Good Fencer, Good Guy, GREAT MARKETER of his accomplishments.

The charge of "Not striking when the iron was hot" is not a good accusation.

On a funny side note... I'm sure we've all come across people who are not directly involved with fencing who think that the US earns fencing medals all the time.

It is mind boggling but I really agree with this statement. No one really remembers who won in the Olympics.
This is not true if there is some juicy controversy.
People have to promote themselves. If they want an agent and to make money from their O connection, that may work. Olympic champions achieve their goals through mind boggling drive and work. The average person cannot identify with them.
Remember, for everything else there is Visa.
The "iron" significantly cools off when the athlete is in college under NCAA rules. They can't be handed a kleenex if their nose is running without risking college eligibility.
Mo

[Phincer]

No one really remembers who won any one who won in the Olympics.
Who won gymnastics??
Swimming events?

Well, yes, yes we do. We remember the Olga Korbuts, the Mark Spitz-es, the Mary Lou Rettons...We do remember them. Maybe we remember them b/c they are on every talk show after the event for a while-is it b/c they hired the marketing person before they won or immediatly after? It doesn't matter....I may not remember that the individual won what event, but I do know that Bode is a great skier, Retton a gymnast, etc.

Fencing, like swimming, downhill skiing, tennis, gymnastics, etc....is an individual sport, but it takes a team effort to recognize the individuals who exemplify the finest in our sport and the finest our country has to offer.

But that's my HO and .02 worth.

[oiuyt]

I can't wait for Brad's notes.

Likewise I look forward to Brad's notes and Craig's article.

Ack! My notes? My notes on what exactly? It's not like this is a meeting that I'm going to be at and other people aren't. That said, I'm looking forward to Craig's article as well.

It would have been extremely foolish for the USFA to be expecting a big cash pay-out after Athens... 1984 was a very unique time for the Olympic Movement and the IOC. Los Angeles, with Ueberroth at the helm, was the first games to report in the black. It was also a very heady time for the USOC.

MrE's right. The payout in 1984 wasn't due to Olympic success by the USFA. The LA Games had a huge surplus. Half of that surplus was divided among the various US NGB's. Some spent it in programs then, others put it into long-term investment accounts. The USFA used that money to start the US Fencing Foundation, which then makes annual (mostly) grants to the USFA of a portion of the capital gains. The principal from that original lump sum, as well as various other gifts over the 20ish years since, has been held intact. The money came from the US's hosting a wildly (financially) successful Games, not from athletics prowess.

-B

[Saber-Psycho]

Well, yes, yes we do. We remember the Olga Korbuts, the Mark Spitz-es, the Mary Lou Rettons...We do remember them. Maybe we remember them b/c they are on every talk show after the event for a while-is it b/c they hired the marketing person before they won or immediatly after? It doesn't matter....I may not remember that the individual won what event, but I do know that Bode is a great skier, Retton a gymnast, etc.

Fencing, like swimming, downhill skiing, tennis, gymnastics, etc....is an individual sport, but it takes a team effort to recognize the individuals who exemplify the finest in our sport and the finest our country has to offer.

But that's my HO and .02 worth.

You mention Olga Korbut, a star from 1972. Mark Spitz swam when I did and that was a loooonnnggg time ago. He was in the 1972 Olympics. I came in 7th in the State Championships. (So you know I am not comparing myself to Mark Spitz.)
Mary Lou Retton is such an effervescent person NO one could forget her. She could take it and was on tough kid. She was the Champion in 1984.
Remember that bad guy down hill racer from a while ago. He was pretty famous in his time. What was his name?
Who won race walking in Sydney? Male or female? Who won synchro diving?
What about curling? Some sports give more fame than others like ice skating and gymnastics.
While there are the Mary Lous, Olga Korbut and Mark Spitz, the vast majority of Olympic Champions quickly fade into oblivion.
Mo

[KD5MDK]

Who pays for the offices?

They are owned by the USFA, who, in conjunction with the other NGBs in there, were given the building as a lump sum disbursement rather than having it owned by the USOC and its management be their responsibility.

[Mr Epee]

MrE's right.

Oh yeah baby... J/K...

The USFA used that money to start the US Fencing Foundation, which then makes annual (mostly) grants to the USFA of a portion of the capital gains. The principal from that original lump sum, as well as various other gifts over the 20ish years since, has been held intact. The money came from the US's hosting a wildly (financially) successful Games, not from athletics prowess.

Ok... Great... now the big question....

Last I checked the US Fencing Foundation holdings were only about 433K. Obviously, not the million dollars that is commonly referred to... A combination of deficits and a big time Bear market has torn into this fund.

Mr Epee says: Do not sign this petition...

[oiuyt]

Ok... Great... now the big question....

Last I checked the US Fencing Foundation holdings were only about 433K. Obviously, not the million dollars that is commonly referred to... A combination of deficits and a big time Bear market has torn into this fund.

Mr Epee says: Do not sign this petition...

I don't have the numbers at hand here, and I'm not sure I've ever had them for the USFF. 03-04 there wasn't a grant to the USFA from the USFF because to do so would have dropped the holdings of the USFF below 100% of the principal (it was below that point already due to the bear market, as referenced above). In 04-05 a grant was made. The implication, if not explicit statement, being that with the market rebound the foundation was back above water.

I THINK that I've seen numbers on the USFF, what they've paid out total, and what's currently in the foundation. I'll poke around and see if I can locate that information. IIRC it was released last Julyish.

-B

[oiuyt]

Just for reference, here are the members of the last nominating committee. These people would be the new nominating committee if a recall is successful. They have the option of resigning or declining to serve again. Anyone who declines to serve will be replaced on the committee by someone appointed by the Executive Committee. There are also 3 athlete members of the committee (sorry, I don't have names). They would also be a part of the reconstituted committee, but in their case if they chose not to serve again their replacements will be chosen by the Athletes Advisory Group.

North Atlantic – Greg Dilworth
Metropolitan – George Kolobodovich
Mid Atlantic – Gladys Berardi
South East – Michelle Crosby
Great Lakes – Jim Vesper
Midwest – Ron Herman
North West – Phil Reilly
South West – Bob Fiegel
Pacific Coast—Tanya Brown
Rocky Mountain – Andrea Lagan

-B

[oiuyt]

I don't have the numbers at hand here

Okay, found them (all figures in this paragraph as per a report from the USFF Board of Trustees 1/29/05). The USFF was established in 1986 with money from the LA Games surplus. The USFA share of that surplus was $1,285,218. Since 1986 the USFF has disbursed to the USFA over 2 million dollars and still holds and invests a balance of over 1.5 million dollars. The balance of the USFF as of 12/31/04 was $1,655,708.

It it not mentioned in what I have whether additional monies have been paid in to the foundation, but I believe that this is the case. I seem to remember the Baker (no relation) bequethment from several years ago was put into the Foundation. Mmm, just looked it up. In 2001 $324,717 of the $424,717 left by Jack Baker was transferred to the USFF. (reference: Sept. 2001 BoD Agenda)

Not sure where your $433k figure came from, but it's very different than what the USFF said about a year ago. The memo I have also references the article "U.S. Fencing Foundation Investing in the Future" by Irwin Bernstein published in the Winter 2004 issue of American Fencing. I no longer keep old copies of AF, so I can't go pull the issue and see what was said in that article.

-B

[Sciurus-Rex]

It's amusing how far afield this topic thread can shift in just a few days.

[Mr Epee]

Apparently, I was making things up.

The 433k figure is not accurate, and I don't know why I had that number pop in my head. This is what I get for posting at 03.30 in the morning :-)

Net assets at the end of last year were 1,602,911usd.

Looks like mostly invested in the US Olympic Foundation, with about 25% invested with Merril Lynch.

Contributing to further thread drift... I am attaching the USFF record.

[oiuyt]

Looks like mostly invested in the US Olympic Foundation, with about 25% invested with Merril Lynch.

The USOF funds are from the 1986 (from 1984 Games) money, the Merril funds are from the Jack Baker gift. The USOF is a pooling of monies from NGBs, such as the USFA, that chose to invest the LA Games money collectively. Not sure how many NGBs are involved (undoubtedly you can pull the tax forms and see, if you care to bother).

-B

[oiuyt]

Okay, somewhat more back to on-topic, and just because I thought it was REALLY funny...

http://www.fencing.net/forums/water-cooler/t21084.html

-B

[jjefferies]

They are owned by the USFA, who, in conjunction with the other NGBs in there, were given the building as a lump sum disbursement rather than having it owned by the USOC and its management be their responsibility.

Well we're certainly learning something about "our" organization. From this I take it that the USOC paid for the building or at least originated the funds for the building and that the NGB's housed there pay for the upkeept etc.
and own some share of the building. It looked a bit like a professional building in Marin. Kind of woodsy. The day I hiked over there from the main campus I got there about 5:15 and couldn't find anyone around. I made the assumption that they were gone, there was a holiday or something coming on. Maybe I'll have a chance to go back sometime.

[jjefferies]

I don't disagree with you, really! I've also heard the 1/3 USOC, 1/3 membership & 1/3 tournaments story.

It's just that I always heard, for decades, that the elites fund the rest of us with the money we get from the USOC-for their international results. And it's not true now-at least in gross income.

Do you disagree that the past and present leadership should at least do as much for the non-elites as for the elites? If it takes 5+ years to get online tournament registration it should take at least a year appoint a National Coach

I've just seen the rank and file of the membership treated as money, "Now be good money and stand over there and be quiet.". I've always felt that it has been a case of the tail wagging the dog. I don't want the international fencers neglected, I just want the general membership get more attention.

I haven't observed the rank and file being treated as money. But maybe I'm not as aware. I will say that the focus of the USFA does seem to be international competition. While the USFA has a weapons program which I believe encompasses contact with the local clubs - could have that wrong. I haven't seen or been affected by it to my knowledge. Other than handling national level tournaments which form the qualification path to international tournaments and organizing the US's contribution of personnel necessary to run international competitions the only other contacts that I've had with the USFA are coaches college and the club insurance which they arrange for. This latter is a very important function. And I have a recollection that the USFA president prior to Ms. Anderson had a major push on to support youth programs. I wasn't involved or affected directly so don't know if that was her directly or just her supporting what others did.

All that said what can the USFA do for the rank and file other than be an enabler? Provide for education of coaches, armorers, directors, arrange for insurance of coaches and clubs in the litigous american society, set national standards and make the connections for the US to be represented internationally. Do we want the USFA interfering more with local activities than they already do? I do know that they have occasionally involved themselves in local situations. Not always in a way that I appreciated.
More involvement by the USFA means that they would have more control. It's the proverbial two edged sword.
J.