Petition to recall USFA President

[JEC]

Political processes work the best when they involve facts - not speculation - and transparency rather than secrecy. This thread begins by admonishing the current USFA leadership for these failings while, at the same time, instantly replicating the very same errors.

The USFA has problems, and certainly no one disagrees with that. Some of these problems are simply annoying (lack of on line registration for events) and some of them are more serious (the lack of transparency in decisions made by the USFA). A “Secret Squirrel” petition process to remove only one officer doesn’t begin to address these problems, and, in fact, just makes the climate murkier.

My name is on my posts in this forum. This forces me to think about what I say, and make sure that when I say something, I have my facts right. It means that fencers and coaches can look at what I say, compare it to what I do and teach, and come to a conclusion about whether or not I know what I am doing. I respect the decision of others to remain anonymous on this board, but anonymous petitions are a poor substitute for leadership and good ideas. Isn’t that what we need?

Well said, Allen. The only two problems with the petition that I see are the lack of data or facts to back up the argument and the secrecy and lack of names. As of for the proposed replacement, I heard a rumor suggesting that this person brought his son to the coaching booth at the Olympics sending the coach to the stands? If true, is that what we want?

[JEC]

Political processes work the best when they involve facts - not speculation - and transparency rather than secrecy. This thread begins by admonishing the current USFA leadership for these failings while, at the same time, instantly replicating the very same errors.

The USFA has problems, and certainly no one disagrees with that. Some of these problems are simply annoying (lack of on line registration for events) and some of them are more serious (the lack of transparency in decisions made by the USFA). A “Secret Squirrel” petition process to remove only one officer doesn’t begin to address these problems, and, in fact, just makes the climate murkier.

My name is on my posts in this forum. This forces me to think about what I say, and make sure that when I say something, I have my facts right. It means that fencers and coaches can look at what I say, compare it to what I do and teach, and come to a conclusion about whether or not I know what I am doing. I respect the decision of others to remain anonymous on this board, but anonymous petitions are a poor substitute for leadership and good ideas. Isn’t that what we need?

Well said, Allen. The only two problems with the petition that I see are the lack of data or facts to back up the argument and the secrecy and lack of names. As of for the proposed replacement, I heard a rumor suggesting that this person brought his son to the coaching booth at the Olympics sending the coach to the stands? If true (and I do not know if that is the case), is that who we want as a society?

[Sciurus-Rex]

Based on the groundswell of support and the composition of the group leading the recall, sometimes you have to accept the inevitable.

A few people does not a groundswell make, nor do a few titles magically bestow good common sense. But that's the nature of political rabblerousers -- they always feel that Gawd has blessed their cause.

Again: A recall effort is misplaced energy.

[Mr Epee]

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Well... that or fire up the old geocities internet account.

I'm sure glad that Thomas J. didn't have a high-speed connection.

We might still be paying taxes to finance foreign imperial wars.

[achilleus]

May I make a suggestion?

Instead of focusing on the person or people behind the movement, could you please take a deep breath and consider why that movement is being made?

Can you accept that the group is comprised of, or supported by, National Coaches, Parents, Athletes, Athletes Representatives, Board Members, and some members of the Executive Committee?

Stop right there...

I can focus on the facts, only none have been specified except behind closed doors.

I can acceot that the group is comprised of a wide variety of people, yet none have identified themselves.

So, why should anyone on this board trust your anonymous, vague version of the 'facts'? WHy should I believe that the group is comprised of anyone other than a group of people who are against Ms. Anderson? Soter's name is attached, and to be honest that is no surprise, and it does give cause to think heavily before signing...

[epeemike81]

I'm sure alot more people would have a much easier time accepting this if you just told us who you are.
I still don't understand why you're hiding.

you don't understand why a political insider wouldn't publicly identify himself/herself when acting as a whistleblower?

you don't think he/she has a right to fear retribution/loss of access?

Though I don't know who Dr. Lutz is or how accurate their info is, I certainly understand the need to sometimes stay anonymous. while accusations with a name attached may be MORE credible, that doesn't mean anonymous ones aren't somewhat credible.

Additionally, I've heard similar complaints in face to face discussions with USFA political insiders (who I'm obviously not going to name).

do I know the situations behind all this myself? absolutely not. however, I've heard chatter about it from enough people I trust to lend it some credence in my mind.

-m

[swordsen]

May I make a suggestion?


Can you accept that the group is comprised of, or supported by, National Coaches, Parents, Athletes, Athletes Representatives, Board Members, and some members of the Executive Committee?

NO, I cannot accept that without some evidence. Names, people stepping forward. So far the only person to so step forward has been Andrea to say she isn't involved.
Anyone can CLAIM the support of all of these groups but without names, it is merely a claim.

This being said I am mildly amused that after all of the ranting about how the USFA isn't doing enough to (insert your favorite gripe here) so many peole are balking at actually doing something.
but I won't jump on board without some real specifics. She didn't call the coaches is not a good reason.

[heretic]

I had no hand in authoring, nor am I one on the agent provocateurs disseminating the petition. I have had myriad issues with Sam Cheris, Ms Anderson’s putative successor. Never-the-less, if approached, I would sign the petition.

Here’s why:
1. Absolutely no game plan: Shortly after Stacey Johnson became president in 2000, she posted a detailed quadrennial plan on the USFA website which clearly stated priorities, goals and strategies. While I didn’t agree with elements of her plan, at least she put forth a thorough, well articulated platform for all to discus and debate. Ms Anderson has no plan. She never offered anything online; she never distributed anything at BOD meetings (she doesn’t even prepare an agenda); when I queried her directly, she had no response. How could anyone present themselves as president of a non-profit NGB without having some coherent plan to present to the membership? IMO, Ms Anderson has limited understanding of the responsibilities of her position, and is therefore not capable of fulfilling them.
2. Zero communication: I was actively involved in the USFA Youth Committee. With time-sensitive decisions pending, I tried to contact Ms Anderson on numerous occasions requesting some lucid direction. Her sole response was a mass email containing pictures of kittens, with captions like “be nice,” and “take risks.” That’s all she ever sent - pictures of kittens. There are two National Coaches at my club, and when they wanted their issues addressed, they got the kitten pictures too.
3. Bad personnel choices: Without consulting or polling the existing Regional Youth Coordinators, Ms Anderson completely re-stocked these committees with individuals who were expressly opposed to regionalization or with no discernable experience, notably Ro Sobalvarro and Kelly Williams. When many regional coordinators (who were doing 100% of the work organizing and running events) attempted to address these choices (or get some sense of policy) directly with Ms Anderson, true to form, she never responded. Not even with kitten pictures.

I can’t comment on some of the issues raised in the petition, but I can certainly speak from my own experience. Compared with past Presidents, I feel Ms Anderson is unsuited to the job, and should be replaced – even with Sam Cheris. Hopefully, new candidates will emerge for the next quadrennial.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

I have had myriad issues with Sam Cheris, Ms Anderson’s putative successor.

If this recall effort is a thinly-veiled effort to up-jump Sam Cheris into power, count me out. After personally witnessing him in action (during an event in which he had no interest other than as a bystander) a certain adjective comes to mind: megalomaniac.

On the other hand, I bet he'd have no problem kicking down Massik's door and demanding to know what the problem with on-line registration might be.

With time-sensitive decisions pending, I tried to contact Ms Anderson on numerous occasions requesting some lucid direction. Her sole response was a mass email containing pictures of kittens, with captions like “be nice,” and “take risks.” That’s all she ever sent - pictures of kittens.

See, if she'd just sent pictures of Labrador Retreivers, with a "Be Loyal" caption, none of this would be happening.

Along with many of the other posters here, I am most bothered by the "hiding in the underbrush" nature of the petitioners. We need them to have an infusion of John Hancock courage, so we can decide if this is just a naked power grab, sour grapes, or legitimate grievances.

Especially with the National Coaches and monies held back from their programs, there's been some smoke in the air for quite a while...but until the petitioners provide more concrete information--with specifics--we can't tell how big the fire might be.

If this is a palace revolt, then the instigators need to step forward and reap the rewards of the insurrection, or pay the penalties of failure.

Otherwise, this begins to look like a regime change courtesy of the anonymous crossbowman lurking in the tower.

[sabersaber]

New info. is up on the www.geocities.com/Save_USFencing website. There is a flowchart and a page listing specific reasons and incidents.

[nahouw]

Along with many of the other posters here, I am most bothered by the "hiding in the underbrush" nature of the petitioners. We need them to have an infusion of John Hancock courage, so we can decide if this is just a naked power grab, sour grapes, or legitimate grievances.

Especially with the National Coaches and monies held back from their programs, there's been some smoke in the air for quite a while...but until the petitioners provide more concrete information--with specifics--we can't tell how big the fire might be.

I’m not involved in any of this, just reading through this thread, but I don’t think that anybody is “hiding in the underbrush” here. Just by taking a high level outsider’s look without delving into any of the particulars, there is a stark contrast between this and last administration.

Last quadrennial, the President had published upon taking office a detailed roadmap of goals and objectives with timelines and success criteria to be measured against. It was periodically updated to show progress on how the goals she had envisioned were met. Under her leadership, we had a successful (and historic) Olympics with 2 medals in WS, 4th place team placements for MS and MF, and an 8th place finish in ME.

In this quadrennial, the President has not set forth a roadmap for this quadrennial, apparently by threads here, there is still question of who the national coaches are and budget money for weapon programs. Since there is less than 3 years remaining in this quadrennial, it is apparent that we have a problem, and a correction needs to be made before we should just forget about Bejing and start focusing on London.

[sabersaber]

From the reasons to recall the president page " It is impossible to reach a live person at the NO. Voice mails left with the NO are not returned."

I have experienced this myself, first I thought it was just a bad day, etc. I have repeatedly tried to call the office, left messages, emailed, etc. and to-date have not had any return calls or emails. I was trying to get some info. for our group. I reported to our group that I was not having any success maybe just bad luck on my part or that since I'm just a nobody fencer they didn't answer, but then others said they were all having the same experience. Seems now that others at higher levels than me have had this same extremely frustrating experience. Of course with the web server down so much of time maybe they never got any of my emails! Not a good sign.

[occasionalfencer]

I don't know who Dr. Lutz is, but I emailed Paul Soter to ask if he was really involved. He said he did write the petition. He went on to list more problems with the current president, which all amounted to this: she really does not seem to do anything that needs to be done. He says, "No single one of these acts or omissions would necessarily be reason to remove a USFA President from office. Together, the pattern that emerges is one of a President who is not capable of leading the USFA toward international success or domestic tranquility." (I am quoting like this because I don't know computers enough to put in a link, or whatever). He acknowledges the effort and trouble that a recall would be, but says that the current situation is intolerable. He also says "None of this is confidential: feel free to quote me." So I am.

Now I have a question: Is there anyone who opposes the recall on the grounds that Nancy Anderson has been a good president? Can anyone name an action, initiative, decision that has been clearly (or even arguably) good for the sport which has come from her leadership?

[fluidfencer]

Eric,

On a personal note, I have enjoyed reading your posts over the last few weeks. Your many years of experience has really come through in your comments. Have you started practicing yoga? ;-)

My name is David Arias, knowledgeable about some stuff but pretty much a nobody in the grand scheme of things, and a YDC member.

After reading the rules related to a recall by the general USFA membership, it is highly unlikely that a recall will be successful. Also, the people involved should have identified themselves. It would have made sense to have centers of influence within the Divisions organized beforehand as well. The request for a recall during the NAC was probably enough to make the point.

It seems like a more effective strategy would be to identify the best possible people to run the USFA, well BEFORE the next election, then work to get them in place.

I had no hand in authoring, nor am I one on the agent provocateurs disseminating the petition. I have had myriad issues with Sam Cheris, Ms Anderson’s putative successor. Never-the-less, if approached, I would sign the petition.

Here’s why:
1. Absolutely no game plan: Shortly after Stacey Johnson became president in 2000, she posted a detailed quadrennial plan on the USFA website which clearly stated priorities, goals and strategies. While I didn’t agree with elements of her plan, at least she put forth a thorough, well articulated platform for all to discus and debate. Ms Anderson has no plan. She never offered anything online; she never distributed anything at BOD meetings (she doesn’t even prepare an agenda); when I queried her directly, she had no response. How could anyone present themselves as president of a non-profit NGB without having some coherent plan to present to the membership? IMO, Ms Anderson has limited understanding of the responsibilities of her position, and is therefore not capable of fulfilling them.
2. Zero communication: I was actively involved in the USFA Youth Committee. With time-sensitive decisions pending, I tried to contact Ms Anderson on numerous occasions requesting some lucid direction. Her sole response was a mass email containing pictures of kittens, with captions like “be nice,” and “take risks.” That’s all she ever sent - pictures of kittens. There are two National Coaches at my club, and when they wanted their issues addressed, they got the kitten pictures too.
3. Bad personnel choices: Without consulting or polling the existing Regional Youth Coordinators, Ms Anderson completely re-stocked these committees with individuals who were expressly opposed to regionalization or with no discernable experience, notably Ro Sobalvarro and Kelly Williams. When many regional coordinators (who were doing 100% of the work organizing and running events) attempted to address these choices (or get some sense of policy) directly with Ms Anderson, true to form, she never responded. Not even with kitten pictures.

I can’t comment on some of the issues raised in the petition, but I can certainly speak from my own experience. Compared with past Presidents, I feel Ms Anderson is unsuited to the job, and should be replaced – even with Sam Cheris. Hopefully, new candidates will emerge for the next quadrennial.

[oiuyt]

As a side note, I don't believe that the process, as described here and on the Save US Fencing website is quite accurate. In both cases it has been specified that upon the successful recall that one of the VP's (there are three, rather than the four mentioned on Save US Fencing, incidently, Donald Alperstein is not a VP) would temporarily step into the position until the outcome of the special election.

Rereading the applicable section of the By-Laws it appears that while this CAN be the case, if the BoD chooses to suspend the officer, that, by default, the recalled officer remains in the position until the special election has named his/her successor. Without such a suspension I don't believe a vacancy ever exists. The validated recall forces a special election, but does not, of itself, remove the officer from his/her position.

-B

[k9fav]

in the "Moving the USFA Forward" thread Fluid Fencer writes " my second point is absolutely correct, but no effort is being made to structure the USFA for the future.". After reading all the problems that have been brought forward in all of these threads, along with the specifics named in the http://www.geocities.com/save_usfenc...ll-reasons.htm if these things are true (from my own experience I know that the parts about contacting the National office, the website problems, the deteriorating conditions at the competitions are true) then we CANNOT AFFORD TO WAIT UNTIL Ms. Anderson's term ends. If we wait, the frustrations will just build, problems will escalate, we will lose more members, a ship adrift with no rudder and no captain.

THere have been so many excellent suggestions in the threads, its obvious to me that we do have within our membership, talented people. I am optimistic that somewhere within our organization there are several people with the skillset needed to LEAD AND ACT on many of the good suggestions made, include the ideas of the members and act in a professional manner to lead this incredible sport into the future.

The names mentioned through-out are enough to have made me take this seriously - with interest and a little excitement. Some one is actually doing more than complaining! I am seeing this in a positive light, people are trying to change things and change scares many, but with change comes lots of new growth and opportunity to make things better.

[incider]

Most agree that the USFA, like most NGBs in America, needs a radical overhaul to improve its functionality and responsiveness to its members and its mission.

In May of this year, the newly restructured USOC issued a blueprint for change to all the NGBs in the Olympic movement. It's a great document, that once implemented (and it will be implemented - its just a matter of time) will do wonders to move our beloved USFA forward to the promised land of being a modern, professionally managed, stakeholder responsive, not-for-profit organization.

----------------
DATE: May 2, 2005

TO: USOC NGB Council Members

FROM: Jim Scherr, Chief Executive Officer

RE: Assembly Follow-Up Communication

Below is a copy of the preliminary National Governing Bodies (NGB) Governance Guidelines approved by the United States Olympic Committee’s (USOC) Board of Directors. The Board has asked management to work with NGB’s to apply these guidelines on a case-by-case basis to those NGB’s who wish to implement them. We look forward to discussing these guidelines further at our June meeting. Again, the sole objective is to ensure the USOC and NGB’s implement good Governance practices to strengthen the Olympic movement in the U.S.

The USOC will eliminate base funding for National Governing Bodies effective 2006. To ensure there is no misunderstanding about what this means, we want to be clear. While it is true NGBs will no longer receive guaranteed funds in the form of a base dollar amount, the dollars still remain for NGBs in a pool format. Under the new system, NGBs will be awarded funds based on the USOC’s review of the NGB’s performance and programs. In some instances NGBs will receive more dollars, and in other cases less, but all funding decisions will be based on a thorough review by the USOC.
************

USOC Preliminary NGB Governance Guidelines

Process
The review of NGB governance and compliance will be a cross-functional staff managed review process, using the resources of the following USOC divisions: Audit, Sports Resources, Legal, and others on a case-by-case basis. Management’s cross-functional working group will fully review each NGB at least once during a quadrennium, and will address any more urgent issues as they arise. Receipt of USOC resources will require satisfaction of appropriate standards of fiscal and managerial competence, as determined by management and the Board. Most NGBs will be audited once every two years by the USOC’s internal auditors to determine the appropriate and effective use of USOC funds, and financial and managerial competence.

Basic Standards and Governance Guidelines
The USOC Board has approved the following:
• NGBs should be governed by a board which shall have sole responsibility for governance;

• NGB boards should generally be between 7 and 12 in membership;

• NGB boards should have at least 20% independent directors as well as at least 20% athlete directors;

• NGB boards should have staggered term limits;

• 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 be financially and operationally transparent and accountable to its members and the USOC;

• NGBs must adopt best practices for not for profit organizations; and

• NGBs must comply with all of the requirements for membership as defined in the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, USOC Bylaws, and any USOC Board policies.

---------------------------------

The USFA needs the kind of sructural change outlined above. The recall effort, while perhaps beneficial as a catalyst for change, falls far short of what is really required and diverts energy from more fundamental reforms that would make a sustainable difference.

And not to beat a dead horse, but the recall of a duly elected volunteer without substantiated "cause" by an anonymous group and without a proper replacement plan could be seen as mean-spirited, excessively divisive and curiously motivated - by both internal and external individuals and groups (ie USOC, potential sponsors, etc.). Or at the very least, that's how I see it.

[dekko]

I am not going to claim that I know a great deal about this subject but after reading the posts it seems to me that all the things Nancy is accused of need more than just a president to make happen. Seems as though everyone on the board, officers, etc should be taken to task for the listed 'offenses' not just the president. I know when things are good the president gets the dredit and when they are bad....

Based on what I have seen listed as problems for her removal, if you believe these are all problems that are extremely serious, then she needs help to make these things happen. "From the outside looking in", seems as though the reasons given could be used for removal of any officer not just the president.

Has she done something that would directly prevent these things from happening? If so, what were they? These would be the reason for removing someone from office or position not some broadstroke reasons that have been problems for years.

[Epeecurean]

I would lke to be clear that Gary and I are not involved in this action, or have any more knowlegde about it, other than what has been publicly circulating.

My apologies for an incorrect supposition.

Cheers,

Epeecurean

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

• NGBs should be governed by a board which shall have sole responsibility for 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 be financially and operationally transparent and accountable to its members and the USOC

I think these are probably the ones that need to be looked at the most. The first one, especially. It basically defines who's neck should be on the cutting block.

Let me add that, even though I may not neccasarily agree or disagree with Save US Fencing, it does come off as very unprofessional. Its almost hard to take the website seriously. Having some well known names (Dan Kellner, Paul Soter, Jeff Bukantz, basically anyone who knows what is going on behind the scenes) to back up these claims would help alot. But as of right now, the level of amateurism present within the SUSF movement makes it appear as a joke.