Petition to recall USFA President

[eze]

Exactly.

Usually when someone wins a medal, IE Michael Phelps, they hire a publicist for promotion. I don't think it is up the the particular governing body to do so.

Followup question: Did the USFA have a publicist or marketing firm in 2004? If so, were they suddenly dropped after the Olympics?

[dr.lutz]

Dear All:

If I may, please let me restate the reasons the Committee to Save US Fencing went forward with the recall.

This thread had lapsed into name-calling, over-hyped concerns about the USOC, and gotten off message.

The Committee to Save US Fencing has made it very clear as to why it has gone forward with the recall. In fact, for those who have not yet gone to the website, I strongly suggest that you do this afternoon:



http://www.geocities.com/save_usfencing/



And, while you are there, please download the petition and send it in today.

We are getting closer to our goal every day, but the sooner we remove Nancy, the sooner the organization can get back on track.


Nancy Anderson has been USFA President since the Athens Olympics, let's say August, 2004. For all intents and purposes, she actually was President-elect for many months before that, so she had ample time to prepare and plan for her administration.

She was repeatedly asked to come to Strategic planning meetings by the then President Stacey Johnson. Stacey, who is extremely organized, wanted nothing more than an orderly transition. She tried with Nancy, but Nancy didn't attend.

So, from August, 2004 until January, 2006 (let's say it is basically a year and a half, or 38% of her term), Nancy has had ample time to ramp up her administration. That doesn't include the months leading up to her official taking of office.

I agree that it is not fair to blame Nancy for everything. She inherited some major problems, specifically with regard to the Executive Director and his turf-war with regard to everything about the National Office.

The Executive Director is ultimately responsible for the:

1) The incredible failures of the USFA website, particularly the regular crashing of the server.

2) The overworking of the USFA staff with handling the never-ending stream of NAC entries, which results in members rarely being able to get anything other than a recording when they call the National Office.

3) The failure to get us up and running with online entries, despite the USFA Board mandating such by the beginning of this season.

Ultimately, however, someone has to be responsible for providing proper oversight to the Executive Director.

I guess that the Board and the EC have to share in the blame here, but the President is the leader, and Nancy MOST DEFINITELY DID NOT LEAD IN THIS AREA.

A year and a half into the post-Athens quad, National Coaches have just been named and given budgets. But, amazingly, not all of them yet. And, not publicly.

The Chair of the ISPC, Jane Carter, is a decent, honest, hard-working person who is trying very hard to get the International Program back on track.

But, it can't be ignored that Jane Carter was not informed by Nancy that she was named as Chair of the committee for eight months after Nancy made her the Chair.

Subsequently, the entire USFA International Program fell into the abyss. Thankfully, the coaches kept on coaching, the fencers kept on training, and the parents kept on paying.

[B]But, one can't overlook that the program fell behind specifically because of Nancy Anderson's failure to notify the Chair that she was the Chair for eight long months. IT IS CLEAR THAT NANCY DID NOT LEAD IN THIS AREA.[/B]

As you probably have seen recently on this thread, we found out by accident that Mike Morgan is the Chair of the Fundraising Committee. Actually, he found out by accident, as well.

Again, Nancy never told Mike that he was the Chair. In fact, and Mike has confirmed that in his own postings, he was never even asked by Nancy if he could assume the position. IT IS CLEAR THAT NANCY DID NOT LEAD IN THIS AREA.


Think about this for a second:

Probably the three most important areas of the USFA are:

1) The National Office (service to the membership)

2) The International Program (our mission statement says so)

3) Fundraising (that's how non-profits survive, let alone thrive)

There's plenty of other things, but to keep it to these three main areas, it is clear that Nancy has not done an acceptable job in her year and a half in office.

It is obvious and undeniable that NANCY DID NOT LEAD IN ANY AREA.

The "lynch mob" includes many people within the organization who have been directly affected by Nancy's failures, whether they are National Coaches, fencers, or parents.

Not one of them is looking for political position as a result of this recall. On the contrary, many of them have made enemies within the organization for having taken a stand.

Everyone has a right to disagree with the premise that Nancy must go or the recall process itself, but it must be noted that those behind the recall are doing what they believe is in the best interests of the entire USFA membership.

There are very few people who dislike Nancy. Nobody wants to hurt her, and she was given numerous chances to resign gracefully.

But, we feel that it is in the very best interests of the USFA to remove her from office as quickly as possible.

Some want to leave her in office as a figurehead. She'd be the President, but with no portfolio or power.

While that suggestion is questionable, at best, it would be unquestionable that for Nancy to accept that option would further illustrate that she is more concerned about her political position than anything else.

What self-respecting person would accept the position of USFA President when every single aspect of the decision-making would be 100% stripped?

That's not going to fly. Sometimes you have to make hard decisions and not try to cover up a gaping wound with a bandaid.

My warmest regards to all,

Doctor Lutz

[chiz]

Chiz it is nice to see you have some kind of restraint over whom you will insult. Attacking Nancy is fine, a sarcastic commment about a recallee isn't.
Momster

Mo,

You caught me. And you are correct this debate should not be about insults.

Chiz

[eze]

Yes, please repeat the same exact 5,000 word rant for the 50th time. I've seen spammers get kicked off message boards for less cut and paste repetition.

My warmest regards to all,

Doctor Lutz

[heretic]

Fundraising and procuring of sponsorship is based on the PR and the media exposure of a specific sport (or cause). The fact that some posters would conflate capitalizing on individual results at the Olympics with self aggrandizement (see wheaties box crack) is either naive or just plain insulting – or both.

[Feltan]

..Everyone has a right to disagree with the premise that Nancy must go or the recall process itself, but it must be noted that those behind the recall are doing what they believe is in the best interests of the entire USFA membership...

Dr. Lutz,

From what I have read, and from those with whom I've spoken, I believe this to be true.

Hopefully you will respond to a previous post of mine about the end game.

This recall has three phases:
1. Fullfilling the mechanics of the recall and getting the current USFA President removed.
2. Appointing or electing a new President.
3. Operations of a new President.

For a moment, let's look at number three. So, what are you for? We know you want the current USFA President out, but what is next? What is the recall for, other than removing Ms. Anderson?

You have a bill of goods that affect the very best among us, but what for the vast majority of the membership?

I am not trying to bait you, I simply think it is reasonable to ask you to paint a picture of a post recall environment. What, if it can be divulged, should the average member of the USFA expect should you succeed?

Regards,
Feltan

[Goofy]

We get it. In fact, most of us got it with the first post in this thread.

You want Nancy Anderson out of office as USFA president.

We concede that this is your request, as well as your resolution to the problems you continually list in your posts. Believe it or not, we also concede that the administration of the USFA has a lot to answer for concerning their performance in recent years.

However, until you, or someone else driving the recall process, or one of the influential signees of the petition, propose true resolutions to the problems of the USFA the answer to your request...

Dear All:

If I may, please let me restate the reasons the Committee to Save US Fencing went forward with the recall.

This thread had lapsed into name-calling, over-hyped concerns about the USOC, and gotten off message.

The Committee to Save US Fencing has made it very clear as to why it has gone forward with the recall. In fact, for those who have not yet gone to the website, I strongly suggest that you do this afternoon:

And, while you are there, please download the petition and send it in today.

My warmest regards to all,

Doctor Lutz

...is 'No'. Why should a drive to replace a problem with an unknown quantity be supported? Change simply for the sake of change, especially without knowing what is to come, is a fool's errand.

If you, or one of your contemporaries, are able to propose resolutions to the problems other than 'it has to be better without Ms Anderson' we are willing to listen. Otherwise, more harm than good is being done for your cause with the repetitious rhetoric.

[Sciurus-Rex]

Dear all,

As the good Dr. Lutz has been so kind a to repeat his post in its entirety yet AGAIN, it seems an appropriate time to repeat other more valid perspectives as well:

Many USFA members feel the recent efforts by a vocal minority to force a petition recall of the current president are misguided and harmful to our organization.

The recall "movement," such as it is, has gained little ground, and slowly, on its way to securing a ridiculously low 10 percent support of the full USFA membership. The reason is simple: Those who initiated this action must convince others to sign because their allegations are insignificant or otherwise would not be apparent.

By vociferously petitioning a recall of the president of the USFA, a few malcontents hope to force Nancy Anderson to step down. Their objective is to put in place a new president who will cater to their specific desires regardless of the larger membership, at any cost. A closer examination of their identities will reveal their true, selfish affiliations.

Unfortunately, this lynch mob continues to gloss over certain truths that they don't find palatable, not least of which is the $15,000-plus price tag attached to a special election if they are successful. Additionally, this petty infighting casts the USFA in a bad light for consideration by the USOC and harms leadership relationships within our organization. Also, no evidence has been provided to suggest this action will lead to specific corrections to serve the greater fencing community.

In the simplest terms, any imagined or real problems within the current USFA leadership structure are the result of many people who have failed to communicate clearly with each other and have abdicated that basic responsibility in favor of playing a game of blame. This has been true of volunteer organizations in the past and it will undoubtedly be true in the future even if a president is recalled. The more reasonable majority body of the USFA membership realizes these issues would evaporate if petitioners put their energies into working with the system instead of forcing a wholesale change that offers no promise of improvement.

Finally, many members at large have stated they are also resentful of the fact that a mere 10 percent of our membership can usurp a democratically chosen leader to serve their own purposes.

Regardless of your feelings about specific political figures, you should be aware that if you were coerced early in the recall drive to give up your signature -- whether it was a matter of subtle peer pressure or simply a lack of information at the time -- YOU CAN RESCIND YOUR SIGNATURE. This petition process is not irreversable, nor can it be allowed to drag out forever. You need not fret about your good name languishing on a piece of paper for months while you change your mind.

Simply write "I rescind my signature on the current recall petition," sign it again, and mail the letter to
... United States Fencing Association
... One Olympic Plaza
... Colorado Springs, CO 80909-5774

Do NOT find yourself in a remorseful position by signing a costly petition only to admit later you didn't appreciate what you were supporting. Be aware of your rights; don't let a few bullies trick you into believing this is a done deal.

And, finally, ask yourself: Are these complaints worthy of a full recall? No. ... Work with the president, not against her.

Thank you.

[oiuyt]

Our original regionalization plan did not restrict competitors from entering events outside of their region. The primary objective is utilitarian: to create the greatest number of accessible, large events and increase opportunities for all USFA members (particularly in among developing youth fencers).

One concept that the current Youth committee has abandoned (or overlooked) is using points to induce attendance.
<SNIP>
To capitalize on “point demand,” I proposed development of a national point formula that would apply to all regional youth events (not just Super Regionals). This would compel greater attendance throughout the country (not just the already established regions like NY or CA) and facilitate grassroots development.

A couple of comments on this.

I don't believe ANY of the regionalization plans so far offered have included a limitation on cross-region fencing.

But the point I was more interested in addressing was the one with regards to giving out national points for every RYC. This was overwhelmingly opposed at the Board level a year and a half ago. At that time a proposal was made that every RYC offer national points. The vast majority of those present were against this idea. Many of the RYC events (especially a couple of seasons ago) in lesser-populated areas were NOT high-quality events. Giving out national points -- even if WE know they're meaningless -- for a poorly-run 6-person event is a joke.

I attended and refereed a SRYC event in 03-04 in one of the more populous parts of the country and was somewhat concerned about how low a standard was required to make points at THAT event (the top people were good, but by the time you dropped to the 32nd person.... mmmm, less so). The idea that events an order of magnitude smaller were giving points.... And then with some of the stories coming out about how they were run, basic rules violations, etc.

I don't think it was a failing of Nancy's that there was widespread resistance to awarding of national points to tournaments with minimal national standards or oversight. In the original plan (well, one of the "original plans" anyway), points were to be awarded starting in 04-05. The Board, which Nancy had minimal control over the composition of, was strongly opposed to this course of action. Feel free to blame the board of the time -- of which I was a member and present at the meeting, as well as, I believe, yourself, although not present at that meeting -- but as a whole.

Since that time minimum standards have been put into place for SYC status -- as well as a procedure for designation. Somewhat lower, but still considerably higher than previously, standards have been made for RYC events, as well as more designated people to provide guidance and oversight.

Even with these improvements (opinion, not fact, I understand that there's some disagreement over whether or not the system has improved), I would still be fairly reluctant to support giving national points for RYC events at this point in time. And that has absolutely nothing to do with who is in the President's chair.

-B

p.s. Note that there are a host of additional arguments -- avoiding points chasing as 12-year-olds fly around the country targetting mini-RYC events that are perceived as weaker, concerns with the idea of a national ranking list of 10-year-olds in the first place, etc., etc. that I don't even need to start including before I'm already at a point of opposing the suggestion that all 30+ RYCs should be awarding national points.,

[fluidfencer]

First, the idea of allowing people from any one Region to compete in any other Region has always been a part of the RYC program. I would be crazy to do restrict that.

Regional point are part of many Regions but it is not mandated. As we have both said (Eric and I), flexibility is critical to developing the RYCs and youth fencing. If your Region wants to put a point system in place and have a way to do so, and communicate that to the fencers, and provide meaningful awards at the end of the season, that is a terrific idea. Not all Regions did so in the past, and not all do so now. That's an aspect of RYCs and regionalization that will change when/if doing so in the future will benefit the overall program and not siginificantly harm/benefit one Region over another.

Some of these decisions are not easy given the very unequal level of fencing around the country. I sincerely believe you know that. I will also repeat the statement that you (Eric) and I (and the YDC) are very close in our ideas about the RYC program. What has hurt that relationship is the WAY some things have been done, not the decisions themselves (except that you fell the Super Youth Circuit requirements are too strict/overbearing).

As long as the decision-making can be fair and transparent, I believe the youth/RYC program will work well. I just wish it was not just an island with the USFA strategy but a part of it.

Our original regionalization plan did not restrict competitors from entering events outside of their region. The primary objective is utilitarian: to create the greatest number of accessible, large events and increase opportunities for all USFA members (particularly in among developing youth fencers).

One concept that the current Youth committee has abandoned (or overlooked) is using points to induce attendance. The primary raison d’etre for most national point systems is team qualification. Since there are no national teams for the Youth categories, point systems sole relevance relates to seeding. Never-the-less, parents, coaches and kids crave points more than heroin addicts hunger for a fix. To capitalize on “point demand,” I proposed development of a national point formula that would apply to all regional youth events (not just Super Regionals). This would compel greater attendance throughout the country (not just the already established regions like NY or CA) and facilitate grassroots development.

R & D for this concept ended with Nancy’s Presidency and her committee appointments. In the original plan, points for RYCs could have been in place by 2005-6.

Insipid leadership = visionless committees + no long term plan

[oiuyt]

Nancy Anderson has been USFA President since the Athens Olympics, let's say August, 2004.

Just as a (VERY) minor nitpick, since this assertion has bothered me every time it's been made, Nancy became President in September 2004. Doesn't affect the content of the claims at all, but just to be completely accurate we might as well have the correct date.

Side note: At the time the transition was repeatedly stated as being the day after the Closing Cermony of the Games. From reading the By-Laws (something I've been doing considerably more this past month than in the several years preceeding), it's clear that it's the earlier of that date (which, IIRC without looking it up, was ~9/2/04) or Sept. 1st of the year in question. So that means that Nancy's term began 9/1/04.

Sorry for the interlude that has no bearing on the flow of conversation. Just a minor correction that I'd like to see made in future posts/discussion.

-B

[heretic]

QUOTE=oiuyt]


I don't believe ANY of the regionalization plans so far offered have included a limitation on cross-region fencing.
That is true, and I was addressing the concern of the poster
But the point I was more interested in addressing was the one with regards to giving out national points for every RYC. This was overwhelmingly opposed at the Board level a year and a half ago. Largely because it was not presented in a finished form. As I stated, we were in the R&D phase At that time a proposal was made that every RYC offer national points. The vast majority of those present were against this idea. Many of the RYC events (especially a couple of seasons ago) in lesser-populated areas were NOT high-quality events.Plus ca change. If you check the current attendance numbers you will still see the majority of re-structured regions (again the brainchild of the current committee) with more small lower quality events Giving out national points -- even if WE know they're meaningless -- for a poorly-run 6-person event is a joke Not if it leads to a significant increases in overall attendance.

I attended and refereed a SRYC event in 03-04 in one of the more populous parts of the country and was somewhat concerned about how low a standard was required to make points at THAT event (the top people were good, but by the time you dropped to the 32nd person.... mmmm These events are about giving beginning young fencers a chance to gain experience without incurring huge traveling expense. The cream will always rise to the top, less so). The idea that events an order of magnitude smaller were giving points.... And then with some of the stories coming out about how they were run, basic rules violations, etc that's what regional coordinators were supposed to handle. If a tournament suffered myriad complaints and bad management, it should lose subsequent designation .

I don't think it was a failing of Nancy's that there was widespread resistance to awarding of national points to tournaments with minimal national standards or oversight Unfortunately, you were not present when Stacey Johnson endorsed some of our national policy requests, like mandating attendance at RYC as a pre-requisite for competing in a YNAC. The President can and does make a difference. In the original plan (well, one of the "original plans" anyway), points were to be awarded starting in 04-05. The Board, which Nancy had minimal control over the composition of, was strongly opposed to this course of action. Feel free to blame the board of the time -- of which I was a member and present at the meeting, as well as, I believe, yourself, although not present at that meeting By that time, the committee was being run by Ro. All prior plans were summarily tossed aside.-- but as a whole.

Since that time minimum standards have been put into place for SYC status -- as well as a procedure for designation. Somewhat lower, but still considerably higher than previously I have heard numerous complaints regarding "new improved SYCs" from many parents and coaches, so maybe these new procedures haven't exactly worked out, standards have been made for RYC events, as well as more designated people to provide guidance and oversight.

Even with these improvements (opinion, not fact, I understand that there's some disagreement over whether or not the system has improved), I would still be fairly reluctant to support giving national points for RYC events at this point in time. we need to discus this in depth elsewhere. If the correct formula is developed, it can answer most of your objections And that has absolutely nothing to do with who is in the President's chair Compare what was accomplished under Stacey vs. Nancy.

-B

p.s. Note that there are a host of additional arguments -- avoiding points chasing as 12-year-olds fly around the country targeting mini-RYC events that are perceived as weaker, concerns with the idea of a national ranking list of 10-year-olds in the first place, etc., etc. that I don't even need to start including before I'm already at a point of opposing the suggestion that all 30+ RYCs should be awarding national points.,All of these issues can be minimized by setting point policy properly.[/QUOTE]
We need to chat

[fluidfencer]

oiuyt,

That was exacting the thinking of the YDC. National points were counter to what the RYCs were intended to promote. Regional points are fine, because they can provide an incentive to do well but aren't so valuable that people fly around the country trying to earn them.

The YDC shouldn't try to strictly control RYCs and, accordingly, nobody should assume that a tournament with national points on the line should be in place with a low level of oversight or requirements.

National points at the Super Youth Circuit events or Youth NACs might not have more practical value than just for seeding, but that ignors the competitive nature of fencers competing at a higher level, and that these will be the people willing to travel to a Super event for the opportunity to improve their experience/skills. My 11-year-old son doesn't "need" to go to a SYC, but he might want to and this is one of VERY few opportunities for him (being form the Southeast) to get that level of competition. In his specific case, he is not interested in doing so, but we do plan on competing in a number of regional RYCs. Perfect for us, and accomplishes exactly what the YDC was intending.

That said, it is NOT a perfect system and we will always be seeking input on ways it can be done better for the program as a whole. I can't promise that we won't stumble along the way either, but I think it's on the right track.

Sorry, I'm having trouble avoiding thread drift... although that might not be a bad thing.

A couple of comments on this.

I don't believe ANY of the regionalization plans so far offered have included a limitation on cross-region fencing.

But the point I was more interested in addressing was the one with regards to giving out national points for every RYC. This was overwhelmingly opposed at the Board level a year and a half ago. At that time a proposal was made that every RYC offer national points. The vast majority of those present were against this idea. Many of the RYC events (especially a couple of seasons ago) in lesser-populated areas were NOT high-quality events. Giving out national points -- even if WE know they're meaningless -- for a poorly-run 6-person event is a joke.

I attended and refereed a SRYC event in 03-04 in one of the more populous parts of the country and was somewhat concerned about how low a standard was required to make points at THAT event (the top people were good, but by the time you dropped to the 32nd person.... mmmm, less so). The idea that events an order of magnitude smaller were giving points.... And then with some of the stories coming out about how they were run, basic rules violations, etc.

I don't think it was a failing of Nancy's that there was widespread resistance to awarding of national points to tournaments with minimal national standards or oversight. In the original plan (well, one of the "original plans" anyway), points were to be awarded starting in 04-05. The Board, which Nancy had minimal control over the composition of, was strongly opposed to this course of action. Feel free to blame the board of the time -- of which I was a member and present at the meeting, as well as, I believe, yourself, although not present at that meeting -- but as a whole.

Since that time minimum standards have been put into place for SYC status -- as well as a procedure for designation. Somewhat lower, but still considerably higher than previously, standards have been made for RYC events, as well as more designated people to provide guidance and oversight.

Even with these improvements (opinion, not fact, I understand that there's some disagreement over whether or not the system has improved), I would still be fairly reluctant to support giving national points for RYC events at this point in time. And that has absolutely nothing to do with who is in the President's chair.

-B

p.s. Note that there are a host of additional arguments -- avoiding points chasing as 12-year-olds fly around the country targetting mini-RYC events that are perceived as weaker, concerns with the idea of a national ranking list of 10-year-olds in the first place, etc., etc. that I don't even need to start including before I'm already at a point of opposing the suggestion that all 30+ RYCs should be awarding national points.,

[eze]

I'll repeat my question (someone must know this): Did the USFA have a publicist or marketing firm in 2004? If so, were they suddenly dropped after the Olympics?

[heretic]

Are you still waiting for a response on this as well?

It's misfortunate that Mariel Zagunis didn't make it onto every wheaties box in the land-but hey, maybe general mills just wasn't interested.

[eze]

The Wheaties people said they were already looking into it...

Are you still waiting for a response on this as well?

[heretic]

The Wheaties people said they were already looking into it...

Congrats!! The first bona fide PR someone related to the Anderson administration has undertaken! Wow, you really are more than ad hominem rhetoric!

[Feltan]

Ok you two, knock it off or its a red card for the both of you.

Regards,
Feltan

[eze]

Thanks, that means a lot coming from an avowed master such as yourself.

Wow, you really are more than ad hominem rhetoric!

[eze]

Got it.

Ok you two, knock it off or its a red card for the both of you.

Regards,
Feltan