Petition to recall USFA President

[fluidfencer]

Steve,

I really like your point #5. If there is a failing of leadership in the role of president, the EC has oversight power and should be making sure Nancy does what is required, just as she is responsible for operations at the USFA overall. That's what a Board of Directors would do in a corporate setting. The USFA should be held to the same standards.

What I would need to know before deciding whether or not to sign the petition... and whether to urge my club members and students to sign it or to reject it...
1) Who has signed the letter sent to Nancy Anderson, and what *specific* issues do they cite? When it appears on the Save US Fencing website, let's all read it. Until it appears (or doesn't), let's not ask for names or accuse people of cowardice for not coming forward.
2) If National Coaches haven't been appointed, why not? It can't be simply that Nancy Anderson refuses to appoint them out of spite. Probably there's been a variety of very strong opinions about who should get the jobs.
3) Similarly, if no Director of International Programs has been appointed, why not?
4) What's the actual story on the decision about withdrawing athletes from the World University Games?
5) Most importantly, why isn't it possible for the Executive Committee to step up and take charge -- in other words, cover up for a weak President in order to prevent the USFA from giving itself a black eye?

What we don't need to know is why the website crashes, why there are scheduling problems, why the National Office is overworked, why the Pittsburgh NAC was scheduled to coincide with a snowstorm, and so on,-- all the systemic problems that aren't within the direct control of the President, who is NOT responsible for the day-to-day running of the organization, and that have been problems since I can remember.

What we also don't need is the nasty tone that has taken over this discussion.

Steve Khinoy

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

I don't remember where I read it, but I believe the USFA stated we would have online registration within a few months after summer nationals. Clearly they were mistaken. When it comes to the fact that "The recall will only effect the elite" I agree. So if you're not an elite, why not go ahead and sign it, and make it better for the elites? The USFA should have as little to do as possible with the local level. The focus of it should be on the NACs and weapons programs

[Feltan]

...I don't think anyone expects a major change no matter what happens here. But a small change for the better is still good. Other than getting Sam Cheris as prez, what other possible bad outcomes are people worried about from ditching Ms. Anderson?

I am worried about the precident that will be set.

I won't argue the point that replacing Ms. Anderson *may* improve things incrementaly; however, at what price? Ms. Anderson was elected -- that counts for something. She has not done anything illegal or immoral in office -- that counts for something too. The whole gist of the recall seems to be: if someone else was in charge, things would be better.

That is a tough argument to make, and in my opinion the organizers of the recall have not successfully made that argument. While I am not opposed to a recall in principle, I am opposed to one if it is based on specious or opportunistic grounds.

Dr. Lutz and the organizers have listed some gripes. OK, that is the easy part. How about some who-what-where-when plans for improving things? How about a bill of actions that have been taken -- presumably unsuccessfully -- to improve things within the current framework? In the absence of such a plan, and in the absence of history or evidence of solid action to improve things under the current administration, I find the rationale for the recall specious. There is simply no evidence that the USFA President is solely responsible for the gripes, that the gripes cannot be solved within the current framework, or that a new President would make things better.

The fact that it is cloaked in secrecy is pima facia evidence of the recall being opportunistic. The organizers of the recall have made limiting their liability in the case of failure a prime concern: to me, that immediately raises alarm bells.

If this recall goes through, the precident that is being set is this: a small group of disgruntled members can oust the USFA leader for any perceived slight or display of poor leadership as defined by the disgruntled group; they can make their claims from behind a curtain of anonymity; and, they can succeed while the vast majority of the organization has no idea a recall is in the works.

You ask what outcomes are we worried about -- and I ask you what outcome are you not worried about?

Regards,
Feltan

[Sciurus-Rex]

"The Elites." Sheesh. Sounds like a snotty superhero group.

[ekaihatsu]

"The International Program is a mess, as proven by the fact that National Coaches haven't been named since ATHENS!"



I have read most of the posts about the National Coaches issue and I've done some "investigating" on my own. This is what I've discovered. I just wanted to put my 2 sense in (I did that on purpose).

About the delay in announcing the US National Coaches, I've been informed by the chair of the committee to hire (yes, I said HIRE) the US National Coaches, that it is a VERY different and complicated procedure than it ever has been in the past. For the first time, the US National Coaches are going to be PAID!!! Because of this new aspect of the job, a background check must be run on ALL the candidates that submitted applications. Even the "long shot" applicants were checked. This is a procedure imposed by the US Olympic Committee. US Fencing agrees with this procedure, but it takes an incredible amount of time and effort for the VOLUNTEERS that are doing this process.

Also, there needs to be interviews with the hiring committee and each candidate that was deemed to be eligible. Coordinating these interviews has been a nightmare because of candidate's and committee member's current jobs, practice schedules, competitions, time zones and a million other reasons for everyone not being able to be on the phone or in person at the same time.

I'm not taking sides here, but I did want BOTH sides to be put out on the table before opinions are formed. The more information we have, the better INFORMED decisions we can make as a whole.

[brylanier]

First some background

I have read this thread, the Save US Fencing Website, and the USFA By-laws.
I have some background in serving as president (and all other officer positons) for a volunteer organization, Toastmasters International.

I will not sign this petition, for the following reasons.

1> If as the petitioners stated there is a major problem with the president, they should first pursue impeachment. Congress elects the president, not the members directly. An impeachment proceeding would involve Congress who should better understand the workings of the BOD and EC and its failings.

2> While most of the allegations are worrisome, most are unprofessional, and at least one is completely wrong. The president is not, by USFA By-Law, responsible for preparing agendas. That is the secretary's responsibility.

3> The information about national coaches being paid for the first time causes me some concern as well. I have been concerned that this may be an attempt at mutiny, it could be another motive for someone to desire the president's position.

4> I am also somewhat surprised to not see any official remonstrations against the president represented in the BOD minutes. I would have expected the normal progression of events to have been a private discussion with the president of any concerns, followed by a formal concern addressed in the BOD (with the BOD reprimanding the president), before the dirty laundry was published on the web.

I acknowledge that I am not close enough to the USFA to recognize any issues that have been brought forward. My opinion is that any failures have been a team failure of the EC commitee, the BOD, and the national office.

I hope that the issues are resolved quickly so the the President, EC, and BOD can move forward with the work they must accomplish.

[Feraud]

From the recall website:
"Worst of all, the NO has failed to implement a system for online entries for NAC’s and other national tournaments, despite specific
representations to the Board of Directors that an online entry system would be in place for the start of the 2005-2006 season."

Worst of all?!
Like the world would come to an end if we can’t register online?
Anyone out there not have a fax machine?

From what I understand there are liability and security issues with online tournament registration, mainly that the signed waivers are required by the insurance company.

[Feraud]

The fact that this still appears to be an anonymous online petition gives the recall effort NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER.

This nothing more than something that exists only in the cyber-blog-forum internet world.
For all we know this is being posted by only one person with an axe to grind.

[heretic]

The nominating committee elected Nancy. She ran unopposed, and there wasn't a plebiscite. When did we the people vote for her?


As for the executive committee "stepping up and taking charge," who do you think appoints the members? The Prez. Her buddies aren't going to rock the boat.

[NoFleche]

Anyone out there not have a fax machine?

Or a stamp and a local mail drop?

If the recall group wants to sell us on how they alone will get the USFA on the cutting edge of technology, they may want to first explain why some of us got spammed with 15+ copies of the same recall email when it first went out.

[Feraud]

Yes, after all, just look at how attendance at national tournaments has plummeted without the benefit of online entries!

[jjefferies]

I signed the petition ... as "Abraham Lincoln." He was a great fencer, pastry chef and believer in unity. Will that count?

Speaking of which, I expect that there will be a thorough process to confirm the validity of signatures this group of complainers finally submit, eh?

Yes, it's another expense in time and/or money. Recalls aint cheap.

So let's see if I got this correctly, Sciurus-Rex signed the petition as "Abraham Lincoln" which for all I know may be his legal name though I doubt it. And then having admitted that he has tried to make the petition invalid, complains or in sarcasm expounds "Yes, it's another expense in time and/or money. Recalls aint cheap." Now there is someone who disrespect everyone else's rights.

[jjefferies]

I am worried about the precident that will be set.
I won't argue the point that replacing Ms. Anderson *may* improve things incrementaly; however, at what price? Ms. Anderson was elected -- that counts for something.

Question, did you vote for her? Were you even aware that there was an election?

If this recall goes through, the precident that is being set is this: a small group of disgruntled members can oust the USFA leader for any perceived slight or display of poor leadership as defined by the disgruntled group; they can make their claims from behind a curtain of anonymity; and, they can succeed while the vast majority of the organization has no idea a recall is in the works.

I agree with you that a precedent is being set. And I personally think it is an important and desirable precedent that the president of the USFA can be removed from office for cause. Whatever cause the membership is moved by. As an aside IMHO such occassional actions are extremely useful to prove that the mechanism of the organization work and to help keep the head office aware that people are aware of their activities or non-activity.

Isn't it about time that the vast majority of the organization became aware of what's going on. And BTW Ms. Anderson was elected by a very small group so what's so wrong about a larger group un-electing her and insisting that certain business be taken care of?

You ask what outcomes are we worried about -- and I ask you what outcome are you not worried about?
Regards,
Feltan

What outcomes could be problem? BTW, Sam Cheris who apparently also has his detractors is at least a known. I don't know him personally or much about him but I'll just toss out this little tidbit for your consideration (it was sent to me):

"There was, briefly, an official National Team that was designated every year, based on points after the second NAC. It consisted of the top eight fencers, who were then (partially) funded to a couple of world cups. The idea was to bring some continuity to the team selection; to encourage/force the top US fencers to compete internationally; to build the idea of a team among the top fencers, and to begin to build a programmatic team program. It was a baby step, but it was the first movement in that direction by the USFA, and was certainly the forerunner of everything that is being done even now. BTW, the national team concept was implemented by Sam Cheris, and discontinued after his tenure. Go figure!"

J.

[jjefferies]

From the recall website:
"Worst of all, the NO has failed to implement a system for online entries for NAC’s and other national tournaments, despite specific
representations to the Board of Directors that an online entry system would be in place for the start of the 2005-2006 season."

Worst of all?!
Like the world would come to an end if we can’t register online?
Anyone out there not have a fax machine?

Uh, me. But for the first time ever I did try to register by fax by using my employer's fax machine. I sent in a registration for Reno and have yet to get a response back. The USFA may have faxed back a response - if they have it hasn't reached me. And after something over a week I still don't know if I'm registered or if there was a problem. And this is a prime reason for wanting to have online registration. To be able to do it and have a timely response. Given that the USFA office is so understaffed we either move ahead into the brave new world of online registratin or see a continuing degradation of response times.

From what I understand there are liability and security issues with online tournament registration, mainly that the signed waivers are required by the insurance company.

Duel in the Desert and Long Beach (just to name two recent events) seem to have no problem with that and with getting signed waivers BEFORE or AT the event. So this is would appear to me to be another red herring that someone's dragged out. Possibly because someone doesn't want to have to rethink the necessary operations - which seems likely.
J.

[Feltan]

I agree with you that a precedent is being set. And I personally think it is an important and desirable precedent that the president of the USFA can be removed from office for cause. Whatever cause the membership is moved by. As an aside IMHO such occassional actions are extremely useful to prove that the mechanism of the organization work and to help keep the head office aware that people are aware of their activities or non-activity.

Isn't it about time that the vast majority of the organization became aware of what's going on. And BTW Ms. Anderson was elected by a very small group so what's so wrong about a larger group un-electing her and insisting that certain business be taken care of?

I understand your point, and it is a fair one -- but I have to disagree.

Elections are held for a reason, and her election to office is, as I understand it, not in question with regard to propriety. Removing someone between elections requires, to my way of thinking, something other than performing in a way some people don't like.

If Mr. Cheris is the next President after a recall, do you not think some subset of the organization will not be disgruntled by his actions/inactions? In that case, should they too seek a recall?

Is there some logical breakpoint for you.....where a person who is not performing to your expectations deserves to serve out their term -- or do you insist that it is better for the organization to yank a leader the moment expectation are not being met?

That is really the precident we are talking about. I don't relish the prospect of an organization in continuing anarchy.

Regards,
Feltan

[Schiavona]

I really would rather the Board had handled this-if Anderson really is a problem. I know a couple of members and trust their opinion.

Your statement that the Board would vote her out in a secret ballot says volumes, if true.
It says that;
2/3 of the Board are afraid of hurting her feelings.
2/3 of the Board put themselves ahead of the good of the USFA.
2/3 of the Board won't do their jobs.
2/3 of the Board are afraid of Anderson's Pony Riding Death Squads.
Or 2/3 of the Board don't see the problems you do.

I mistakenly thought that the Board could remove the president with a 2/3 majority vote. Before the petition. My bad.

[Sciurus-Rex]

So let's see if I got this correctly, Sciurus-Rex signed the petition as "Abraham Lincoln" which for all I know may be his legal name though I doubt it. And then having admitted that he has tried to make the petition invalid, complains or in sarcasm expounds "Yes, it's another expense in time and/or money. Recalls aint cheap." Now there is someone who disrespect everyone else's rights.

Oh, buy a clue. I didn't actually sign as Honest Abe, ya big galoot -- I was making a point: Any serious petition drive is going to have to be meticulously confirmed before it can be acted on.

[oiuyt]

As for the executive committee "stepping up and taking charge," who do you think appoints the members? The Prez. Her buddies aren't going to rock the boat.

The current EC:

Nancy Anderson
Jane Carter
Sam Cheris
Derek Cotton
Linda Merritt
Sherry Posthumus
Ro Sobalvarro
Steve Sobel
Edward Wright
Felicia Zimmermann
Staff Liaison: Michael Massik
Advisory members: Stacey Johnson
Donald Alperstein
TC Chair
FOC Chair

Of the people on that list 6 are the USFA officers -- elected at the same time and in the same way as Nancy. Felicia is the Athlete Rep, appointed by the AAG. Jane Carter, Sherry Posthumus, and Steve Sobel were all members of the EC in 2003-2004 under Stacey Johnson as well. Michael Massik was the staff liason then as now. Stacey Johnson and Donald Alperstein were on the EC then as now. The TC Chair (Kalle Weeks) is the same. The FOC chair has changed from Jeff Bukantz to Bill Oliver. Other than that I think the only people not on this EC that were on that EC are some of the former officers (who are no longer in office) and Irwin Bernstein, who was an advisory member for budget-related items and who is no longer with us.

Unless Stacey ALSO picked her EC to be full of Nancy's "buddies" then I'm not sure this stands as a reasonable argument. The composition of the EC changed very little with the change in administration and nearly all of what change there was can be directly attributed to the changes in office-holders, something which the president doesn't select.

-B

[Inquartata]

IThe USFA should have as little to do as possible with the local level. The focus of it should be on the NACs and weapons programs

Great! I look forward to having my membership fees rebated, and to being able to fence for free at non-Div I NACs.

If the USFA is not there to serve me, it has no claim on any revenue from me. Let the elites it serves pay the freight. All of it.

[dsapery]

Nancy Anderson is not up to the job. There is virtually nobody who would say otherwise.

The end result is not in question. She will be recalled.

The only result still in question is how far she will drag down the organization before she is recalled.

I think that the REAL problem is the general apathy of the USFA membership. For the past 14 years, the USFA Officers have been chosen by the Nominating Committee, not by the membership. The committee struggles to find ANYONE willing to step up and take the reins. If I'm not mistaken, the last time that we actually had a MEMBERSHIP VOTE was around '92.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not a big fan of some of the things that Nancy has done in her Presidency. Her actions forced me out as webmaster (and very few people are pleased with the outcome). The duties of the Information Services Committee -- that I chaired -- were usurped by another Task Force that she commissioned. I was removed from serving on any USFA committee whatsoever. Do I hold a grudge? Of course I do.

But what's the best thing for the USFA as an organization right now? And by "the USFA," I mean ALL OF US. Read up on what happened to US Modern Pentathlon and US Team Handball over the past year or two when the USOC decided that the organizations were unable to govern themselves. We are dangerously close to being in the same boat.

Would you like the USOC to require that the USFA be managed by a Board of Directors that contains ZERO people from within the sport? Would you like to see them decertify the USFA as the NGB for fencing? I certainly don't. And it's not as unlikely a scenario as you may think.

So my thoughts are to look beyond the next 2 years. Let's focus on what caused the current situation and fix the PROBLEM, not the SYMPTOMS.

Why do we appoint as President someone who has never served as an Officer in the organization? Yes Nancy has served the fencing community in wonderful ways in the past, but as President, she's in over her head.

Just as we try to groom the young kids into tomorrow's Olympians, we should be grooming the administrators as well.

I think that we should appoint/elect one officer (call him/her the Vice President or the President Elect, or whatever term you want to use). This person serves one term as a sort of apprentice. At the end of the term, this person BECOMES the President of the USFA for the next term. (In other words, we elect/appoint our future President one term in advance so that they can learn the ropes)

It's not such a radical consideration. Many professional organizations do just this. About 1/3 of the US Presidents had previously served as VP.

Why do we need to put such a premium on inexperience?

Just my 6 cents.