Petition to recall USFA President

[dr.lutz]

And Jeff was the team captain.

Yes.



As I put this together the time period was short, a couple of days? But no nominations came in from any of the sections? Who else besides Jeff, Nancy and Sam?

Chiz

I think there might have been another name or two, but I forgot.
As far as sections nominating, I don't think that's the way it happens.
Generally, word sort of gets out as to who is interested or who is being pushed by a group.

[Mo]

Not if they want to stay on the committee.



Hay, good question

The story I heard was that Sam declined the nomination and no one else stepped up. This was a last minute thing.

From what I have seen today in the mass email and what I have read on this thread, Dr Lutz posts confirm what I heard last week about her missing the plane. Her basic lack of administrative ability … her actions seem as if a very self-centered, spiteful, child is at the helm of the USFA.

The board does not seem to be in any condition to deal with the situation.

Chiz

It seems to me that the petition people are the actual self centered spiteful child like people in this situation. You guys keep casting aspersions at Nancy and yet you are undermining the USFA for your own reasons, IE elite fencers for the most part.

The other stuff is just fluff.

A group of people wants their way. They are seeing that money will be involved in the choosing of coaches and they want said money. When things like this happen it usually boils down to one of two things. Money or power.

With the coaches being paid, the person in power won't instantly yield to the wishes of those who want the NEW IMPROVED money and power.

Nancy would never be as so rude as to tell people "no you are wrong" like Lutzy. The whole condescending character thing does nothing to improve his/her arguments. A choice between Bukieboy, Sam and Nancy, the only logical person for the job is Nancy.

I've seen Ms Anderson schmoozing at World Championships and Mr Roche seemed quite charmed by the fact that she speaks to him in fluent French. She has not alienated everyone in the fencing world with an elitist pretentious attitude.

The petition people have track records of questionable honor. Nancy doesn't. The charges against her are trumped up bogus BS and not nearly enough to recall her.

The lynch mob mentality is getting annoying.

Unsubstantiated charges repeated over and over ad nauseum are still unsubstantiated charges.

This is hurting fencing in general and should really stop.

"I've heard" all kinds of stories too. This is not fencingsucks. It is better to print fact and not inuendo.

[yeoldearmourer]

I reread the recalled fine it a bunch of BS. I for one never had any problems have my email answer or phone calleds return. I do get a hold of real pepole as well. The National office is busy processing new menmbers as well as renews. I know some of the pepole behind this recalled and they are a bunch of elite snobs who think that they are better then the general menbership of the USFA. I won"t want Sam C as president because he thinks he better then most fencers and I fine this funny since Sam has never fence. Sam is about money and power as a lawyer that all he cares about what would make him look good on the internatioal level. My wife and I have been involed with fencing for 4 Decades now and we see this as nothing but power play by a small group of elites.

[incider]

Save your day by rallying to a cause that will effect real change at the USFA.

From my reading of this thread, it's time to pull back from the petty attacks and the trivial accusations before the mud gets too thick.

If you are sincere about wanting change and are not just pursuing a personal crusade, then take the time to read this letter from the President of US Water Polo to that organization.

http://www.usawaterpolo.org/media/12...ionSummary.pdf

The Water Polo letter is a clear, calm and intelligent call to change (kudos to their president) that will restructure the USWPA to serve its membership and its mission in a modern and streamlined manner. It's a map to change that could serve us well.

So, recallers - please stop trying to replace this volunteer with that volunteer and please start demanding real change - a whole new structure. The good folks at Water Polo and the USOC have provided us with an excellent map (why reinvent the wheel when there's a perfectly good one lying around?). It's all in that pdf posted above.

Let's start heading down(up) a higher road.

Maybe, just maybe, the USFA BOD is already heading in that direction. Does anyone know?

For those of you who don't want to link out, here's a paraphrased taste (all I did was change USWP to USFA) of the Water Polo call to arms:
---------------------------------

"The key change in the new USOC guidelines for NGBs can be expressed as a change of the organization from a volunteer-run sport management organization to staff-driven programs with overall governance oversight by the Board of Directors. This is embodied in the following five points from the USOC recommendations.

• NGBs should be governed by a board which shall have sole responsibility for governance;
• NGBs must have at least the following 3 standing committees: Audit (which shall also have responsibility for ethics matters unless ethics issues are addressed by another committee), Compensation, and Nominating & Governance;
• NGB committees should be of the minimum number and size possible to permit both conduct of the sport and appropriate board governance;
• The role of management and the role of governance should be defined clearly, with each NGB being staff managed and board governed;
• NGBs must adopt best practices for not for profit organizations.

What is this difference?

Historically, the USFA has been a volunteer-run sport management organization. This means that the sport is managed by volunteers for its members. All aspects of the sport are driven by the volunteers who control all aspects of how the organization’s programs are run. In this model, a volunteer, the President, is the chief executive officer of the corporation and the Executive Council, on behalf of the Board of Directors, manages the affairs of the corporation with the assistance of the Executive Director
and other staff. The committees of the USFA run its various programs and have staff liaisons who assist those programs. The responsibility and driving force behind the decisions on running the programs are the volunteers who operate the committees and programs. The staff, however, are not held
accountable for the success (or failure) of the programs.

The system recommended by the USOC differs significantly. The USOC system places all programmatic management in the hands of the paid staff. Governance, which is the setting of goals, objectives, and fiscal policies, is the role of the Board of Directors. However, the day-to-day operations of
the organization are the purview of the staff. Thus, the paid staff has the responsibility of executing the programs of the organization and they can be reviewed on the basis of their individual performances and accomplishments. The Board of Directors, then, selects, reviews, and evaluates the Chief Executive Officer (Executive Director) who then manages the day-to-day operations of the corporation.

What about the volunteers?
By its very nature, our sport cannot survive without our volunteers being an active and integral part of programmatic management of our organization. It is impossible for our sport to survive without zones and without the individual efforts of our volunteers. On a national level, there will be advisory
committees that work with the staff members to create the programs and priorities that will be the basis for staff evaluations by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). On the zone level, there will be an increased presence of staff members to assist the individual zones and zone programs succeed.
The net effect is that the responsibility for the operation of programs is placed on the staff, who will be held accountable for their actions by the CEO, who, in turn, will be held accountable for his/her performance by the Board of Directors. Thus, the expectation is that the national organization will be more responsive to its membership by providing successful programs. It is difficult to hold volunteers accountable if they are unable to accomplish a task, especially if something unexpected arises. However, a staff member is paid to get the job done. If the job is not done, then the staff member has not performed satisfactorily. A staff member who has not performed satisfactorily should not expect to remain employed with the organization.

In conclusion, the new organizational structure increases support to zones and programs by placing accountability on persons who can be held responsible for their performances"

[Repechage]

incider--thanks for the breath of fresh air.

The whole recall effort has bothered me because of its lack of political savvy and this reminds me of what political savvy looks like.

[dr.lutz]

[QUOTE=Mo].


Unsubstantiated charges repeated over and over ad nauseum are still unsubstantiated charges.

Dear Mo,

Exactly which of the charges are unsubstantiated?

Dr. Lutz

[DieterS]

. . . If you are sincere about wanting change and are not just pursuing a personal crusade, then take the time to read this letter from the President of US Water Polo to that organization . . .

Great information, constructive, and a refreshing perspective! Thanks for posting the link. Seems like all of the smaller sports could learn from each other.

Dieter

[Inquartata]

Sounds to me like the real problem was the blind incompetence of those members of the Nominating Committee who voted for such a terrible candidate as Nancy. Maybe we ought to recall them, too?

[Sciurus-Rex]

Well there's no way I could support a presidential candidate pushed through the process by the petty lynch mob personalities we've seen here. (Yes, I know that I'm being petty in response; an ironic "live/die by the sword" twist of fate, eh?) If we're trying to support a semblance of the democratic process, I'd hate to see a new president put in office simply on the sayso of a 10-percent minority steamrolling the majority's rights. So who do we want as the opposing candidate to Sam Whatshisname? I'd like to see Nancy stick it out and win the resulting election, but I'm sure there are other names the committee will consider.

[dr.lutz]

Inquartata][/B]Sounds to me like the real problem was the blind incompetence of those members of the Nominating Committee who voted for such a terrible candidate as Nancy. Maybe we ought to recall them, too?

Dear Inquartata,

Yes, it is the opinion of many that the Nominating Committee really made a serious mistake.

The Chair of the NC actually acknowledged this at the Pittsburgh NAC, but to someone other than me.

Sam Cheris's credentials were so far superior to Nancy's that one has to wonder how this happened?

Was there someone on the NC who swayed the majority to vote for Nancy?

That's exactly what happened, according to more than one member of the NC.

Whatever the case, her performance since August, 2004 has resulted in this recall.

Regards,

Dr. Lutz

That's exactly

[dr.lutz]

[QUOTE=Sciurus-Rex]

If we're trying to support a semblance of the democratic process, I'd hate to see a new president put in office simply on the sayso of a 10-percent minority steamrolling the majority's rights.

Dear Sciurus-Rex,

The 10%, according to the USFa By-Laws, can only recall Nancy. The 10% has no say whatsoever over the ultimate choice of the Nominating Committee.

The "majority" alway retains the right to put up an alternative candidate to the Nominating Committee's, so the 10%, or anyone else, most certainly can't steamroll the majority's rights.

As for Sam Cheris, his credentials are very impressive, as he's a past President of the USFA, past Chair of the USFA's High Performance Committee, past Chair of the USFA's Fencing Officials Commission, current Chair of the FIE Legal Commission, two-time member of the FIE Executive Committee, and current USFA Vice President.

You shouldn't write him off, "and look for another candidate," simply because
someone else suggested him.

That's really petty.

Regards,

Dr. Lutz








So who do we want as the opposing candidate to Sam Whatshisname?

[downunder]

fantastic, he's amazing...

you still haven't given me any reason why your recall is anything but hype...

[veeco]

Well there's no way I could support a presidential candidate pushed through the process by the petty lynch mob personalities we've seen here. (Yes, I know that I'm being petty in response; an ironic "live/die by the sword" twist of fate, eh?) If we're trying to support a semblance of the democratic process, I'd hate to see a new president put in office simply on the sayso of a 10-percent minority steamrolling the majority's rights. So who do we want as the opposing candidate to Sam Whatshisname? I'd like to see Nancy stick it out and win the resulting election, but I'm sure there are other names the committee will consider.

Actually it's technically possible that only 10% of the membership supports this recall, but in order to obtain a 10% minority to vote for a recall, I would imagine that more than 10% of the general membership of the USFA would have to be in favor of that recall.

For example there might be people who support it but aren't aware of it happening, since there are apparently some people who don't support it who weren't aware of it, you'd have to assume it would also work the other way around, no?

Like I said, I don't really know who's behind that recall, what/who the different parties are and what their background is and it does look fishy in some aspects, but you cannot assume that if there are people against the recall who aren't being vocal there wouldn't be people for the recall who aren't being vocal...

[heretic]

Unfortunately, this on-line dialogue is degenerating into a personality referendum and the legitimate issues are dropping off the screen. While “incider” makes excellent points, the type of institutional changes he calls for requires dynamic, determined leadership. Once again, Ms. Anderson has a track record of aimless inaction: no plans, no communication, and no oversight. She is the last person in the USFA with the ability to steward these types of changes.

In fact, I challenge her on-line defenders to list any initiative she has taken. Case in point: she was incapable of preparing a one page “President’s Message” propaganda piece for the quarterly edition of American Fencing.” Her recent “state of the union” e-mail was only in response to the desperate urging of her advisors.

[jjefferies]

Save your day by rallying to a cause that will effect real change at the USFA.

From my reading of this thread, it's time to pull back from the petty attacks and the trivial accusations before the mud gets too thick.

:
So, recallers - please stop trying to replace this volunteer with that volunteer and please start demanding real change - a whole new structure. The good folks at Water Polo and the USOC have provided us with an excellent map (why reinvent the wheel when there's a perfectly good one lying around?). It's all in that pdf posted above. "

Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. I've gone through more re-organizations than I care to remember. From groups, to sections to whole companies. I can't remember a reorganization actually fixing the problems. Usually a re-org just hides problems or give the persons who are the problem a place to hide. Or on occasion give the person directing the re-org a chance to make more money. What we have is a management issue. Good management will find a way to function no matter what the problems. A bad manager will just act like a tick and burrow in until the host is dead or until they find a better host to move onto. Our situation is that we apparently have a poor or non-functioning chief executative. In which case our correct and proper alternative is to remove the person according to the clauses set forth in our charter. Which is what the "recallers" are apparently trying to.

BTW, look at how much controversy recalling a relatively unknown person from office has generated. Now translate that into what a complete remake of the charter would entail. It would never happen.

And I'm still waiting for one of Ms. Anderson's defenders to speak up in her defense and give us her background and a defense of her times in office.
J.

[veeco]

Is anyone interested (Alan?) to look up the FIE bylaws and see if there is a similar provision in them to recall the FIE president? I have had people tell (in jest, I reassure you) that I should be the next FIE president, so I hereby volunteer myself for that position, should there be a recall effort.

I already live in Switzerland, so I wouldn't spend too much money on trips to the office. And I speak French.

I promise to make minimal changes to the timings.

[bvb]

Question mailed to USFA:
--- How much does it cost our organization to hold a special election? Full expenses, including paid work-hours, materials, printing, postage, validation of ballots, etc.

Received from USFA:
--- A rough estimate would be more than $15,000 but less than $20,000. This
would include all of the parameters that are delineated by you. This information was supplied by our Exec. Director, Michael Massik. ... Regards, Nancy Brown, Administrative Assistant

[KD5MDK]

When talking this over with several people I know who have become familiar with this issue, it was described to me as "a choice between the terribly inexperienced and the dishonest". That decided things for me.

[Inquartata]

Ms. Anderson has a track record of aimless inaction: no plans, no communication, and no oversight.

Just wondering...how do you go about proving a negative like "she has no X"?

She is the last person in the USFA with the ability to steward these types of changes.

No, at worst she is second to last. I at least would be an even worse choice. I could name a lot of others I think would be worse, too, but I am sure about myself.

N.B. This is not a "defense" of Ms. Anderson. I do not know her, and I do not know what the state of things are inside the USFA. What it is is a reluctance to buy a pig in a poke, in the form of a costly recall resulting in the installation of another regime that does not seem as interested in telling us how it would do things better as it is in telling us how the current regime is doing things poorly. I do not see the urgency, and I do not see why the "nuclear option" of a recall is better for us all ( as opposed to better for a few ) than simply letting time take its due course.

[Mo]

When talking this over with several people I know who have become familiar with this issue, it was described to me as "a choice between the terribly inexperienced and the dishonest". That decided things for me.

This is perfect. That is exactly it.
Momster