Petition to recall USFA President

[Capt. Slo-mo]

"I'm not quite dead yet..."

hmmm...what's its efficacy for getting teenagers to do the dishes?

[jjefferies]

The last thing you’d need at a national tournament is hundreds of fencers showing up the morning of a competition with fees unpaid, memberships unverified and unsigned waivers. That really wouldn’t help run the event smoothly. Remember, minors have to have the signature of their guardian/parent as well, which of course they’d forget to do and then they couldn’t fence. Those a just a few of the reason I’m sure they don’t want this handled AT the event. It would be a logistical catastrophe. It would be a bad thing if the results of the National Championships were ruled invalid because some kid didn’t get his parents to sign the waiver.

You're trying to wiggle red herrings all over the place. We aren't talking about fees, memberships, etc. which are easily noted and acknowledged online. We're speaking of waivers signed. And if you want to handle minors separately you mark them as signed up but still needing a waiver. As far as all the rest (adults) is concerned it's being done all the time including this minute. My registration for DitD is showing "waiver" indicating I have registered, paid but need to submit a signed waiver. If local clubs/divisions/sections can do it then why not the USFA? It's NOT ASTROPHYSICS. It is a simple commercial transaction done millions of times every minute.

[QUOTE=FeraudFrom what I’ve read here, the issue of online registration is that the insurance company will not accept electronic signatures. So it’s a moot point.[/QUOTE]
I agree it's a moot point. It's not a problem. Adults can submit waivers or sign them when they register - we all have to register that we are present before we're allowed to fence. A signature on a waiver is not a big deal. You can be nice and remind them in numerous ways but it's no more onerous than requiring them to bring their USFA letter of registration which is the current requirement.

[oiuyt]

You can be nice and remind them in numerous ways but it's no more onerous than requiring them to bring their USFA letter of registration which is the current requirement.

The current requirement that can also be fulfilled by having your USFA membership card, any form of photo ID, be personally known to one or more people behind the table (my personal favorite method :) ), etc. In other words considerably easier than having toted along a legal guardian.

That said, I don't believe that the insurance company is the current sticking point. I believe that was resolved with the change in companies that the USFA did last summer (as well a a bunch of improvements in services and a drop in cost).

On an unrelated topic (but actually on topic for this thread...), the following is excerpted from the "Letter from the Chair" in the Winter/Spring 05/06 Newsletter from New England Division:

Lastly, there is a petition circulating regarding a recall of the USFA President. I urge you not to sign this petition without ascertaining the facts. This action would be detrimental to US fencing.

So that's another 1600 or so people that will hear about the recall if they haven't already.

-B

[Sciurus-Rex]

My church pastor this past weekend encouraged the congregation to avoid signing the petition, "lest ye face Eternal Damnation."

Then on the way to work today, some mangy bum in an alley asked me for my signature and a buck or two to buy a new epee tip screw.

A police officer stopped me for later, and offered to downgrade my speeding ticket to a warning if I promised to "drive more defensively and not sign that stupid fencing petition."

Oh yeah. The whole world is talking about this. Big, big stuff, me buckos. Big.

[Army Fencer]

Petition Recall Poll

Thread link! (to the definitive recall petition poll)

[Amadeus]

there have been 13 pages of discussion on this, and every point brought up by those in favor of the petition has been at least somewhat justified by those against it.

looking over the facts, i can agree that nancy anderson was a bad choice for usfa president. But i can see absolutely no overwhelming evidence that she is doing a really bad job, and without that overwhelming evidence, she should not be recalled.

[Army Fencer]

"I'm not quite dead yet..."

Like this thread, eh?

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Our scene opens on a village of unbelievable squalor. All the inhabitants are busily raking muck. The street sign reads: Recall-on-the-Thames. A man in a tattered and frayed purple tunic with SC handstitched to the hood is repeatedly thwacking a cat against the daub and wattle wall. In staggers a man in a GO ARMY! sweatshirt, pushing a barrow full of retired Fencing.net threads.

ARMY FENCER: Bring out your Thread!
[clang] Bring out your Thread!
[clang] Bring out your Thread!
DR. LUTZ: Here's one.
ARMY FENCER: Ninepence.
PETITION TO RECALL THE PRESIDENT THREAD (THREAD): I'm not dead!
ARMY FENCER: What?
DR. LUTZ: Nothing -- here's your nine pence.
THREAD: I'm not dead!
ARMY FENCER: Here -- it says it's not dead!
DR. LUTZ: Yes, it is.
THREAD: I'm not!
ARMY FENCER: It isn't.
DR. LUTZ: Well, it will be soon, it's very ill. And besides, it keeps casting doubt on our fine town we've built here.
(Mud splattered villagers run by carrying a bemused looking woman. Fastened over her nose is a list of demands molded into the shape of a carrot. One villager shouts off-screen: "She's a president! BURN HER!!)
THREAD: I'm getting better!
DR. LUTZ: No, you're not -- you'll be stone dead in a moment.
ARMY FENCER: Oh, I can't take it like that -- it's against
regulations. People are still posting in it daily.
THREAD: I don't want to go on the cart!
DR. LUTZ: Oh, don't be such a baby.
ARMY FENCER: I can't take it...
THREAD: I feel fine!
DR. LUTZ: Oh, do us a favor...
ARMY FENCER: I can't.
DR. LUTZ: Well, can you hang around a couple of minutes? It
won't be long.
ARMY FENCER: Naaah, I got to go on to Watercooler -- they've lost
nine threads today.
DR. LUTZ: Well, when is your next round?
ARMY FENCER: Thursday.
THREAD: I think I'll go for a walk with Nancy's pony!.
DR. LUTZ: You're not fooling anyone y'know. Look, isn't there
something you can do?
THREAD: I feel the recall failing... I feel happy.
[whop]
DR. LUTZ: Ah, thanks very much.
ARMY FENCER: Not at all. See you on Thursday.
DR. LUTZ: Right. That Petition Recall Poll has a really nasty cough....

[Mo]

looking over the facts, i can agree that nancy anderson was a bad choice for usfa president. But i can see absolutely no overwhelming evidence that she is doing a really bad job, and without that overwhelming evidence, she should not be recalled.

I don't even see any "facts" that Nancy was a bad choice. It would certainly help if there was any kind of word from the President herself.

Dr. Lutz may not have won his argument, however, through shere repetition has gotten fencers on here to agree that she is a bad choice.
What will he convince you guys of next??
Where is the never ending questioning??
Come on netters, no one gives up this easily.
Momomster

[Sciurus-Rex]

I'm ready to start a new petition to recall the 10 percent who are stupid enough to sign the first petition.

[Mo]

I'm ready to start a new petition to recall the 10 percent who are stupid enough to sign the first petition.

Now that is a petition I will sign. Do it Rex!!

Momonster

[Feraud]

You're trying to wiggle red herrings all over the place. We aren't talking about fees, memberships, etc. which are easily noted and acknowledged online. We're speaking of waivers signed. And if you want to handle minors separately you mark them as signed up but still needing a waiver. As far as all the rest (adults) is concerned it's being done all the time including this minute. My registration for DitD is showing "waiver" indicating I have registered, paid but need to submit a signed waiver. If local clubs/divisions/sections can do it then why not the USFA? It's NOT ASTROPHYSICS. It is a simple commercial transaction done millions of times every minute.


I agree it's a moot point. It's not a problem. Adults can submit waivers or sign them when they register - we all have to register that we are present before we're allowed to fence. A signature on a waiver is not a big deal. You can be nice and remind them in numerous ways but it's no more onerous than requiring them to bring their USFA letter of registration which is the current requirement.

The point here is that this isn’t an issue that warrants the removal of the President. Gimme a break. The fact that it’s even mentioned (“worst of all” says the petition) on the anonymous online drivel shows how bogus the “recall petition” is.

Hey if online registration can be made to work with the insurance requirements, great. If the IRS can accept electronic signatures why not an insurance company?
As for the idea of just bringing your waiver to the tournament?
It’s not too much to ask of people who are attending a national competition to have all their information verified in advance. The organizers don’t need the extra work on the day of the event. Right now all those people working the check-in table have to do is check you off a list.
If every one of the thousands of fencers showing up to compete have some extra form with them, it has to be checked, verified, and filed with their registration paperwork. Who’s going to go then and match up the thousands of insurance forms with the thousands of registrations forms? Forget it.

[fluidfencer]

I really do understand your point. Very good manager + high level fencing experience is ideal. I guess what I was trying to say is that you can be a so-so fencer, and be a great manager, and do a terrific job at running things at the USFA (anyone who stepped up would likely be passionate about the sport). A terrific fencer with international competition/coaching experience, with lousy managing skills, will be a disaster.

Contrary to popular opinion, I've known lots of people who could care less about politics, myself included, and are smart enough to know there is no financial gain, and are passionate about the sport. I think the biggest challenge is finding a good manager, for two reasons:
1. They're smart enough to know the amount of work involved and are keeping their heads down
2. Because they are good managers, they already have tons of other commitments.

OK, here's a darn good question for this thread... Who are some of the people you think would do a great job? I don't know tons of people at the national level, but there are people I respect for what they think and how they accomplish things. I don't know anything about any one of them, however, to determine if they could run the USFA. That would require answers to some pretty pointed questions.

Interesting thing is, I don't know much about politics and history, which I believe is a distinct advantage for me.

Now that I think about it, it is really hard to actually name someone, lest I subject them to endless comments.

OK, I'll try this. I like the way oiuyt thinks. He seems to have a lot of the characteristics I admire in a leader. I don't know everything about him, but would certainly have him on my list. He might be a former Olympian or Coach of the Year, but I don't know that and wouldn't really care. Oiuyt, please don't hit me for using you as an example.

Managing vs. Fencing experience. Those are 2 different things and ideally I think a president of a sports NO should have both, not one and not the other.

I don't know any of the 2 candidates well enough to say which they have, if any, but IMO, it is as important that a president has been a fencer, possibly at a high level, and has strong management skills.

The reason for this are twofold:

1. Someone who has been fencing at a high level is well acquainted with the process of how things are done on the international scene, and has connections with people in the FIE. This is important if US Fencing wants to keep and improve their place in the international world and have a seat that the tables when discussing issues such was which weapons should be represented at Olympic games, timings and rule changes, etc.

2. They are also more likely to be really passionate about the sport and they will not be after the position for some kind of ego trip, or just for the power. It is also very less likely that they will be pursuing things for personal profit, than if they were a parent of a fencer, or someone who had some ties to another group of fencers. Of course that could still happen even if it was the case, but at least the probabilty of that happening would be lower.

[Peach]

Brad has enough common sense (I hope) that he wouldn't want to take the job. This is one of the problems with a job like this. It requires not only ambition, talent, and experience, but it requires a definite lack of common sense to want it in the first place.

[Sciurus-Rex]

A few points regarding the recall process in the bylaws. Specifically the passages

"... petition of not less than 10 percent of the members of the USFA who are eligible to vote in the election for which the petition is intended..."

and

"Upon the authentication of qualifying petitions, the recalled officer may be suspended from office by a two-thirds vote of the Board of Directors..."

The rules require authentication of the petitions, which means those signatures had better darned sure be from current members of the appropriate age. I'll be one of the people demanding a careful, thorough authentication, possibly by a professional, unbiased, third party to make sure this process is as fair as possible.

Secondly, note the specific words: MAY BE suspended. That means it's not a done deal -- even with a few signatures -- anyone is necessarily going to be pulled out of her seat.

Also, the resulting election isn't going to be cheap. We all have to pay for it, via ballot and mailing costs:

"When more than one candidate has been nominated for an office, the Election Committee shall provide for voting by secret ballot as follows: Notice of the contested election and the names of the duly qualified candidates shall be mailed by first class mail to each member entitled to vote therein. ... Such notice shall ... include a form of ballot and a sealable return envelope...." etc.

[fluidfencer]

I know. I guess that's why I said (in an earlier post) that I was more concerned with the NEXT election than the recall, because a new president now would have the same group of others in place. If Brad (just as an example mind you) were president and picked Peach (just as an example mind you) as one of his very competent VPs, and several other excellent VPs and Committee heads, his job wouldn't be overwhelming. Seriously.

I know it sounds idealistic, but those with the ability to help have an obligation to step up when there is a need. And, to be honest, the best people will likely have to be dragged into their roles kicking and screaming, ultimatley knowing it is the right thing to do.

All kidding aside, I'm very serious about these two points.

Brad has enough common sense (I hope) that he wouldn't want to take the job. This is one of the problems with a job like this. It requires not only ambition, talent, and experience, but it requires a definite lack of common sense to want it in the first place.

[oiuyt]

While I appreciate the sentiment, I'd like to make it very clear that I have absolutely zero interest in the position at this time. I believe that to be effective as president of this organization one needs to have considerably more experience with how the organization has run historically, how it interacts with other organizations (both the FIE and other countries' NGBs) internationally, working with the very large number of diverse interested parties that make everything run, and a host of other items, than I currently have.

That said, I think David's orginal point's an interesting one. Who are reasonable candidates for a nominating committee to consider (whether in 2006, 2008, or for a nebulous future date)? Perhaps a new thread? Perhaps let that conversation die until such a point as there's a nominating committee that we can second-guess and play armchair QB with?

As a separate note, I don't know how things actually work with the nominating committee, but at least in theory the President isn't selecting any of the other officers. The nominating committee that selects the presidential candidate also selects the candidates for the other positions. I'd assume that some care is taken to try to make sure that the nominated slate is a group that can function well with each other.

-B

[dr.lutz]

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

Heretic, Nancy was selected by the Nominating Committee by one vote over Sam.

She then ran unopposed, as Sam chose not to contest the election.

[fluidfencer]

Sorry, I hope nobody assumed that you were interested in that position. You were just a good example for the point I was trying to make.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you (and David S. earlier). I'll keep using you as an example for the moment (just and example).

This is NOT rocket science. You could learn, in a matter of days, the nuts and bolts of how the USFA operates, and as it relates to other organizations (a good manager is smart). You use the experience of others to support you when needed (a good manager knows when to ask). You DEFINITELY do not plan to do things the way they have been done in the past (a good manager knows how to evaluate alternatives and make the best decisions based on the facts).

People, nationally or otherwise, are going to respect you for what you do. What the heck does it matter if you were on the men's foil team 25 years ago?! The problems we are facing relate to what is going on now, not decades ago. Be fair, objective, open, and make good decisions based on the facts. Does knowing people or fencing well accomplish this? That would be an asset but it doesn't give you the skills to lead or manage.

Related point... The president does not elect or nominate the vice presidents, but if the EC did not discuss those nominations with the president, they would be seriously falling down on the job.

This isn't directed at you oiuyt... just venting a bit. I don't like the notion of limited candidates, now or in three years, to people who's are qualifications for holding an office is that they fence well, or have been around a long time.

While I appreciate the sentiment, I'd like to make it very clear that I have absolutely zero interest in the position at this time. I believe that to be effective as president of this organization one needs to have considerably more experience with how the organization has run historically, how it interacts with other organizations (both the FIE and other countries' NGBs) internationally, working with the very large number of diverse interested parties that make everything run, and a host of other items, than I currently have.

That said, I think David's orginal point's an interesting one. Who are reasonable candidates for a nominating committee to consider (whether in 2006, 2008, or for a nebulous future date)? Perhaps a new thread? Perhaps let that conversation die until such a point as there's a nominating committee that we can second-guess and play armchair QB with?

As a separate note, I don't know how things actually work with the nominating committee, but at least in theory the President isn't selecting any of the other officers. The nominating committee that selects the presidential candidate also selects the candidates for the other positions. I'd assume that some care is taken to try to make sure that the nominated slate is a group that can function well with each other.

-B

[labelle]

I think if we boot Ms. Anderson we may be going from "bad" to worse. It seems that no one has any viable better ideas. If you do, maybe you would like to take her place?