Petition to recall USFA President

[Feltan]

Originally Posted by dr.lutz

At this stage of the recall process, here is where it stands:

...Hundreds of USFA members have signed the petition to recall Ms. Anderson...

Which, if I understand things correctly, leaves you a few thousand short of your goal.

What troubles me most is the tenor of your post. It is just mean and petty.

The current USFA president may be a bafoon, but your attempt to gain support by using cliche's does not help us understand the issues, nor does it help our sport nor the community that will (must) survive in a post recall situation.

Regards,
Feltan

[oso97]

Originally Posted by dr.lutz

At this stage of the recall process, here is where it stands:

100% of the National Coaches have backed the recall
50% of the SECTION CHAIRS have backed the recall
Most of the Olympic Team has backed the recall
Numerous Divsion Chairs have backed the recall
Numerous members of various USFA Committees and Commisions have backed the recall

Who? Got any specific names that are willing to share their support?

Other than the one's who have indicated that they want their support to stay private?

[dr.lutz]

Dr. Lutz stands corrected and unconditionally apologizes to the one National Coach who has not agreed to the recall. Guilty of unintentional malpractice, sorry about that.

The others are absolutely willing to have their names public, and will do so in a letter to Ms. Anderson asking for her resignation.

As for the amount of signatures needed, it is less that 900.

[DieterS]

As several others in this thread have already noted, there doesn't seem to be anything substantive in the posts against Nancy Anderson. All I've seen are complaints about style and personal attacks. Now, if Nancy was caught misappropriating funds, arranging a "hit" against a political opponent, or having sex with an intern, there might be a case against her. As it stands, waiting for the next election seems like the appropriate level of action.

It also seems to me that we might be better served by two organizations for the sport of fencing in the US: an administrative organization such as the USFA, and a creative, entrepreneurial, promotional one--let's call it "Fencing, Inc." for now. Fencing, Inc. could be chartered to popularize fencing. It would be responsible for marketing efforts, one or more websites, and new ideas for the promotion of fencing. Fencing, Inc. would research, promote, and implement things like

* Fencing exhibitions in malls
* Effective advertising
* Innovative venues
* One-touch epee "grudge duels" between people off the street
* Startup kits for clubs
* A promotional DVD of a recent world cup featuring the most exciting bouts along with intelligent commentary and analysis, slow motion replay, and background information
* Contacts with Hollywood--a "Karate Kid" type movie, more realistic fencing in movies, lobbying for exposure to the sport in a major movie, etc.
* Contract the creation of a sword fighting video game

Thus, some of the energy directed against Nancy Anderson could be channeled into more productive directions.

It is essential, however, that Fencing, Inc. be run by an entrepreneur, not an administrator; that it employs paid professionals following a business plan who are evaluated and retained by results.

Dieter

[whtouche]

Maybe I misunderstand the definition of the word "public" but including these people's names in a letter to the president doesn't make them public.

What I'm wondering, is if all of these important people in leadership positions in sections and divisions around the country, who so emphatically support this recall (privately!) are even willing to sign the petition. Can you sign the petition "privately!" ?

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Well, I guess it depends on what we're talking about. Certainly the seminars I've attended have been very good, and I'm glad for that. However, while the steps from unrated to 9 or so are pretty clear, the steps from 9-6 so far are informal advice at tournaments and "referee more". Which is certainly welcome, but more official publications, newsletters, seminars would be nice, or some other clearer path.

Perhaps we should fission into a new thread if people choose to continue this. Or branch it into specifics of what further materials/actions would improve refereeing education in the US.

From my experience, and that of others I've seen, there is a lot of support for that 9->6 move. Getting informal advice, watching better referees, asking questions and receiving useful, coherent explanations of what the applicable rules are, what to watch for, what any exceptions might be, and other related issues that might not occur to the novice referee is likely the best way to progress through those levels. And I haven't seen any lack in availability of those items. Granted this might be different in various parts of the country. When I started local refereeing I was in Maryland, I've helped or observed people making the 9->6 transition mostly in the various New England divisions. While I'm unsurprised that the Northeast has very high levels of developmental support, my personal experience in the Mid-Atlantic was that there was good support, and this was 8-10 years ago before much of what we have now was in place. Are there parts of the country where this is less available? Undoubtedly.

So what's the solution? Bill Oliver puts out a referee newsletter periodically. What would you like to see in a "second-level" seminar that isn't in the first one? You obviously know about the morning meetings at every national event which act to provide guidance, sharing of experience, reminders, as well as a forum for questions. For the past couple of seasons I've been seeing these meetings extended down to the sectional level (both North Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic, the only two sections at which I've refereed at the championships recently), which should hit more of the 9->6 referees.

An idea that has been discussed and was, I believe, originally slated for implementation this season, but appears to have been either shelved or delayed, is having the FOCs at each NAC fill out a brief comments card/feedback form on each referee (given how much time this would take at the end of a long weekend I can't say I'm surprised that it's been shelved, if that's what's happened). This would provide additional guidance for referees at all levels that work nationally (which includes 9->6 referees as well as 6->4 and 4->3->2->1 referees).

If you have specific ideas for what should be in such materials share them. There are clearly a number of people that are passionate about developing referees -- and the systems to develop referees -- that could probably use the suggestion and ideas and turn them into useful reality. So let's hear what materials SHOULD be available but aren't.

-B

[esskreemr]

Sorry, having seen division politics divide and conquer my division, I'm very wary of actions like this that are supposed to have the best interests of the Organization at heart.

I'm assuming at some point, the names on the petition will be released.

I'm confused about this sentence on the webpage:

The president is in a volunteer position. There is no compensation. The USFA has grown exponentially and has reaped results beyond any previous goals even dreamed of.

[dr.lutz]

The names of the signees will be made public, both on this site and the Save US Fencing site.

The letter is going first to Nancy and her Vice Presidents as a courtesy. In the likely event that she doesn't resign, the letter will be made public.

As to Dieters's claim that nothing substantive has been said, but only personal attacks about Nancy's style have been made, that is not the case.

Nancy's style is not an issue when the following substantive claims have been made:

1) As of today, National Coaches have not yet been officially named or given contracts.
We are a year and a third into the quadrennial.

2) The National Office is generally unreachable and often unresponsive.

3) The USFA still does not provide the service of on-line entries.

4) The NACS are unwieldy and often run well into the night.

5) Both Miami and Albuquerque NACS had very serious seeding issues due to incomprehensible failures of someone in the National Office

6) There still is no resolution to the Jeff Cohen position. That was supposed to be a replacement for what Carla Mae did or something along the lines of a National Training Director.
We're only 16 months into the quadrennial.

7) The USFA website crashes on a regular basis.
The USFA undoubtedly received the most hits ever immediately after the Athens Oltmpic medals.
Only one problem: The website was down for like two weeks!

Yes, we can talk about style and all sorts of other stuff.

Yes, there is plenty of blame to be passed around.

However, at some point, we have to accept that the buck stops at the top, where there clearly has been a lack of leadership.

These were specific, and substantive, examples.

[darius]

1) As of today, National Coaches have not yet been officially named or given contracts. We are a year and a third into the quadrennial.

Is this the failure of Ms. Anderson, or the failure of somebody else? I'm not pricy to selection committee politicking, but *why* have the coaches not been named?

2) The National Office is generally unreachable and often unresponsive.

That was considered to be the case during Stacey Johnson's term as well. My impression of National Office staff (only having dealt with Christine Simmons) is that they're overworked and do what they can. Does Ms. Anderson cause this situation to be worse in some way?

3) The USFA still does not provide the service of on-line entries.

Does Ms Anderson have the budgetary and legal authority to take that matter up?

4) The NACS are unwieldy and often run well into the night.

I've heard that the FOC assigners are to blame. I've heard that the bout committee is to blame. There are slow referees, slow fencers, bad scheduling. And the new timings.

5) Both Miami and Albuquerque NACS had very serious seeding issues due to incomprehensible failures of someone in the National Office

What was incomprehensible about these failures? Did these seeding issues get corrected within the 4-reseed process that occurs at every NAC? Did Ms. Anderson handwrite my name in the #1 place in senior team selections?

6) There still is no resolution to the Jeff Cohen position. That was supposed to be a replacement for what Carla Mae did or something along the lines of a National Training Director.

Why not? Is Ms. Anderson refusing to name one? Is there no suitable and willing candidate?

7) The USFA website crashes on a regular basis.
The USFA undoubtedly received the most hits ever immediately after the Athens Oltmpic medals.
Only one problem: The website was down for like two weeks!

One thing is clear -- given this list of complaints, the next USFA president should be proficient in web design and systems administration. Craig and Peet should fence for it. (Although given the MySQL errors over the past 48 hrs, perhaps Craig should have to fence with his off hand.)

It may sound like I'm making excuses, but there is a logical disconnect between the complaints (most of which I agree with are problems), and the solution of removing the president. The buck often stops at the top, but not always. If you have info privy to the "Why?", please share those details with the rest of the class.

Again, do you have solutions to these problems hidden amongst your pitchforks and torches? Or will a successor be merely more of the same?

darius

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by whtouche

What I'm wondering, is if all of these important people in leadership positions in sections and divisions around the country, who so emphatically support this recall (privately!) are even willing to sign the petition. Can you sign the petition "privately!" ?

With this petition only going to "important people" in sections and divisions, I now know, offically, that our division is not "important". I asked our Division Chair what she thought about the recall and she said, "What recall?".

As the song goes, "Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss!"

[JEC]

Originally Posted by darius

... the next USFA president should be proficient in web design and systems administration. Craig and Peet should fence for it. (Although given the MySQL errors over the past 48 hrs, perhaps Craig should have to fence with his off hand.)

I want to see that

[Mauler]

Originally Posted by Schiavona

With this petition only going to "important people" in sections and divisions, I now know, offically, that our division is not "important". I asked our Division Chair what she thought about the recall and she said, "What recall?".

As the song goes, "Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss!"

I don't think it was so much of a "for VIP's only" type deal. Probably more like a combination of convenience and personal contact than anything else.

Glancing at the mass mailing list of the latest e-mails in question, I recognized immediately that it was same collection of addresses from a totally unrelated mass mailing that went out not too long ago to NYC/NJ/LI "industry professionals" -- i.e. coaches and referees. It was on the subject of local refereeing assignments (rules update on HS league perhaps?) The "Cc:" list, however, was, in fact, a VIP list.

As far as the particular e-mails in question are concerned, I believe it was simply a case of a conveniently available mailing list being incorporated into this new branching of call for support.

It seems that the nature of this "campaign" has been somewhat cautious and covert by design for a while. Quite understably so. Its primary movement was by word-of-mouth. And of course that means the word passed around mostly among those who are closer (in terms of physical proximity, activity and/or affiliation), at least, to the "representative" of the movement -- who resides in NYC/NJ area -- if not the focal point of the movement itself.

Prior to the "discovery" on Fencing.Net, and the sight of physical recall form in Pittsburgh, there was no "official" form of disseminating this information. So rest assured, there probably wasn't any meeting to decide which Section/Division chairs should be notified.

I suspect that the great majority of the USFA membership out there are still completely oblivious to the recall effort. We, the community of Fencing.Net, are not necessarily an accurate representation of the whole USFA. So just because something is obvious here, doesn't mean it should be for everyone out there. At least not yet.

So don't feel bad if it seems like Alaska was left out of the loop. Let me put it this way.....

As it really hit me home in my recent "survey" of the northeastern United States in its concentration of fencing activity (counted 160 professional clubs in an area smaller than a state of Texas), this whole region is bustling with acitivity. Believe or not, these "local" events that I so often referee at, are really not that different than NAC's. It's basically the same group of people that I see halfway across the country after a plane ride. So the "local" culture around here is more or less synonimous with "national" culture.

That means what affects the national level affects the local level. Word travel VERY FAST around here. It's a very active and tight community that, without exaggeration, interacts with each other on a weekly basis.

And yet, only a smallest fraction of this community were even aware of existence of the recall effort.

[Mauler]

Ah~~~~~ The very first long post of the Year 2006. I feel much better now.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally Posted by Mauler

It seems that the nature of this "campaign" has been somewhat cautious and covert by design for a while. Quite understably so. Its primary movement was by word-of-mouth.

Funny story...one of the major proponents of the recall was reportedly calling Division officers and giving them a "heads-up" just before the Pittsburgh NAC...alleging that there would be a new president of the USFA by the end of the weekend.

To quote the late, great Maxwell Smart: "Missed it by THAT much!"

[yeoldearmourer]

I have know Nancy Longer then most of the elite fencers been alive I would like to see the proof of the so call failures of Nancy. There has been a time where there was no National Coaches. Has far as the front office goes if you have never visted the National Office you cant believe how busy they are.
I do agree with on line req. I remenber a time that we were luck if 200 entries would showed up at a NAC. Plus the summer Nationals could be run on 17 strips now it 50. We have grown.

[KD5MDK]

I'd say the failure to have online registration lies with the entire Board of Directors, in so much as it's a very obvious topic, yet there's be almost no communication on what's actually going on with it.

Has an RFP been sent out for it? How many bids were received? Has a final round or preferred bidder been selected? That's the sort of information the Board ought to know, and some of it ought to be publicised, I think.

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by yeoldearmourer

I have know Nancy Longer then most of the elite fencers been alive I would like to see the proof of the so call failures of Nancy. There has been a time where there was no National Coaches. Has far as the front office goes if you have never visted the National Office you cant believe how busy they are.

If you know her so well then how about giving us some background on her. Is she a fencer? And at what level? What is her work experience? I've heard some negative stories about her working for a scholastic testing comparny. But so far no one at all seems to know her well enough to tell the rest of us what she's (personally) done for us, the USFA or fencing that makes her worth keeping.

Originally Posted by yeoldearmourer

I do agree with on line req. I remenber a time that we were luck if 200 entries would showed up at a NAC. Plus the summer Nationals could be run on 17 strips now it 50. We have grown.

What does this relate to?? Are you saying she's soley responsible for the USFA's growth? That's absurd.

BTW I've queried my coaches and no one knows her. The only people I've run across that seem to know her are the ones trying to get rid of her. So if you know her so well then how about standing up and saying what you know. And please do try to be .... shall we say "clear" about what you are saying.

[dsapery]

Originally Posted by Schiavona

With this petition only going to "important people" in sections and divisions, I now know, offically, that our division is not "important". I asked our Division Chair what she thought about the recall and she said, "What recall?".

Which might pose a problem to the recall effort... the Bylaws require not just signatures from 10% of the voting membership, but it requires that there be at least 10 signatures from EACH section and at least 2 signatures from a majority of the divisions in each section.

[keith]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

If you know her so well then how about giving us some background on her. Is she a fencer? And at what level? What is her work experience? I've heard some negative stories about her working for a scholastic testing comparny. But so far no one at all seems to know her well enough to tell the rest of us what she's (personally) done for us, the USFA or fencing that makes her worth keeping.
What does this relate to?? Are you saying she's soley responsible for the USFA's growth? That's absurd.

perhaps for us uniformed sorts you might provide such a comprehensive list for previous Presidents?

I mean actual details of things they achieved from an adminstrative point of few, just so we can compare.

[Peach]

Nancy was at the Veteran World Championships, and I had a short pleasant conversation with her. She does not seem particularly mythical