Petition to recall USFA President

[dr.lutz]

[QUOTE=Capt. Slo-mo]Which is why, in the interest of fairness, you've decided to gather not just 1000 signatures, but signatures from 51% of the eligible voters from the USFA membership, just to show that the rank and file truly believe a regime change is in order.

That's very noble of you.

Dear Capt. Slo-mo,

In the interest of fairness, we are complying with the By-Laws.

If you have a problem with that By-Laws, try to get them changed.

Interesting that you now favor an outright majority vote now, but stayed quiet when a Nominating Committee of 10-12 people made the choice of Nancy for the entire organization.

If you are against the recall, don't sign the petition.

There's nothing unfair about that, is there?

Have a nice day.

Regards,

Dr. Lutz

[chiz]

Your position is understandable though. You've got a child going to world cups, its imperative for you that they look at you in a favorable manner. I'd kiss the current administrations *** too, if I were you.

D+,

Keep in mind, if you want to coerce your opponent, first put him in a more unpleasant situation than the sacrifice you require him to make. But that difficult situation must appear to be long term. So, if kissing up is the current situation (not so bad for some), making a change to that may require more effort (an accepted fencer having to requalify for a position on the team), resistance is understandable. I sympathize with anyone faced with that situation.

Chiz

[yeoldearmourer]

I went back and reread the by-laws and the Job Descript of the President which is very limited in what the person can do. The real power is in the BD
and I also know why they didn't go though the Congress to impeach because they couldn't get the require 2/3 votes because their case is not that strong after rereading the by-laws. Congress can be called into a special session.

Don't take their word or mine for it [B][SIZE="6"READ THE BY-LAWS AND MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION. They hoping that you all don't READ THE BY+LAWS

[epeemike81]

When you criticize Nancy, in reality you are criticizing the people that work in the USFA office in Colorado Springs. There are not many of them but they communicate well.
If I were them I would lose your paperwork you send in, forget to file your rating changes, all kinds of things. They are however a lot more professional than I am.

Which is why I, for one, am happy that you're not. Say what you want about the efficiency of the NO, I'm quite confident that they wouldn't do something this blatantly unproffesional and actionable.

-m

[hpfencing]

[QUOTE=dr.lutz]

Looks like she is doing something now, maybe things have changed?

Dear Coach Matt,

Of course, something has changed...Nancy is facing a recall.

She had time to draft this fluff memo, but couldn't find the time to write her quarterly column for the magazine?

If she has changed and is fixing the situations that have problems then I don't think the re-call group can win.

Has she made mistakes, YES but if she has learned from them and is pushing foward and trying to fix things.... I respect that.

She cannot undo her pre-vious actions but maybe she can FIX others beofre they happen and address the concerns of the recall group which would benifit the entire USFA body, even if she is removed at some point.

[oiuyt]

This was brought up in the thread specifically about the survey, but not, I believe, in this thread. The survey is in no way a reaction to the recall movement. The Tournament Task Force predates the recall movement and the survey is an action of the Task Force that would have taken place with or without a recall movement.

-B

[hpfencing]

Cool then thigs were going on befrore the recall to improve the USFA.....

[dr.lutz]

[B][QUOTE=hpfencing]

If she has changed and is fixing the situations that have problems then I don't think the re-call group can win.

Has she made mistakes, YES but if she has learned from them and is pushing foward and trying to fix things.... I respect that.

She cannot undo her pre-vious actions but maybe she can FIX others beofre they happen and address the concerns of the recall group which would benifit the entire USFA body, even if she is removed at some point.

Dear Coach,

I respectfully disagree.

Enough of the membership has seen her ineffectiveness for a year and a half.
While there are plenty of those who don't want change for whatever reason, there are many who do.

Nobody likes change for the sake of change, especially with something so big as the USFA Presidency.

So, there have to be strong beliefs that the change is necessary.

Nancy hasn't done anything to change those beliefs. Writing a memo about the tournament structure doesn't quite do the trick.

Her failures in the areas of the National Office, the International Program, and the Fundraising Program have been well documented.

The setback to the Regional Youth Circuit can't be ignored, especially considering that the largest area of new members has been negatively affected.

While missing a flight to the FIE Congress and a quarterly deadline to the magazine are comparatively trivial, they certainly can't be ignored, as they are examples of her sloppiness.

That Nancy needs three former Presidents to get her through Board meetings is also relatively trivial, but certainly something worthy of noting.

There really isn't much she's done right, but plenty she's done wrong.

Sending out flowery memos every now and then are cute, but convenient to her current situation.

If Nancy was so concerned about communicating, she would have followed up on her promise to get back to the National Coaches last April.

They are still waiting for her promised return call.

And, Mike Morgan is still waiting to be asked to Chair the Fundrasing Committee, despite being announced publicly as such.

Nancy is evidently very selective in her communication, even after promising to do so.

Don't be snowed by her sporadic memos.

Nancy is a nice lady who fell into a position way over her head.

As a result, our beloved organization has stalled or gone backwards since 2004, when we had our best Olympic results in history.

Even her closest advisors admit it. Why can't you?

Please reconsider.

Regards,

Dr. Lutz

[heretic]

Yes, the earth hasn't stopped rotating on its access since Nancy took office. The NO is being run by the ED; various committees are performing at differing levels of effectiveness, based on the personnel staffing them; Dues are being collected; NACs are being held and fencers are still fencing.

Yet the basic functions of the USFA President: Policy formation; Fundraising; Monitoring/evaluating the NO and ED; rudimentary Communication; are not being fulfilled.

Nancy still (and IMO will always) falls short in each of these areas.

In her last American Fencing editorial (she failed to write one in the most recent edition), Nancy use my letter to the editor (which was submitted immediately after the 2004 Olympics as an article and rejected on the grounds that "the mags editorial policy is not to accept op-ed pieces") as a touchstone for her column. She asserted that her administration was addressing every point, and even offered praise for my overview.

What follows is what I wrote. Does anyone really believe she has addressed any of my points?

Where Do We Go From Here? Notes on the Future of US Fencing
Eric Rosenberg (submitted October 2004)

Future sports historians may describe the 2001-2004 Olympic quadrennial as the Renaissance of US Fencing. Led by an outstanding array of Olympians, Juniors and Cadets, Americans in the established weapons came of age, confirming our country’s place as a legitimate player on the international stage. Stacey Johnson’s aggressive campaign to include the nascent women’s saber event at the 2004 Olympics paid significant dividends, with unparalleled media exposure resulting from the medal-winning performances of Mariel Zagunis and Sada Jacobson. USFA membership doubled and new Clubs opened all over the country; top Cadets and Juniors equaled or surpassed the benchmarks of their illustrious predecessors; and the talented core of the 2004 Olympic team has already begun preparing for Beijing. All in all, a palpable momentum seems to be driving American fencing forward. So how should the USFA capitalize on this publicity, competitive impetus and overall growth? Where do we go from here?

First and foremost, our leadership and paid administrators must prioritize fundraising and securing sponsorships. Conventional wisdom holds that the primary task of any not-for-profit corporation is to raise sufficient capital to pay for its programs. Whatever initiatives the USFA’s “alphabet soup” committees have undertaken, there has never been enough money available to provide the necessary support and follow through. For the last two quadrennials, local clubs, private foundations and the athletes themselves (with the help of dedicated family and friends) have taken the lead. The bedrock financial assistance for the majority of successful international competitors and training programs came from grassroots individual and group efforts. Our new administration, which has a golden opportunity to profit from fencing’s 2004 Olympic notoriety, must assume leadership in soliciting and providing new sources of funding. Previous committees of volunteer “experts” have had little to show for their efforts. Let’s get serious and hire real professionals to get this job done right. At least, the USFA should recognize, facilitate and actively buttress the ongoing efforts of those currently carrying the load. This single defining function continues to be our national association’s monumental hamartia.

The USFA must set a target goal of increasing total membership to 100,000. Even with approximately 20,000 current members, we are still off the radar screen of deep-pocket sponsors and advertisers. Demographically speaking, fencers and their families could be a very appealing population to commercial interests: highly educated; relatively affluent; active consumers. Unfortunately, there are simply not enough of us to warrant significant targeted marketing (and the commensurate sponsorship dollars) by large corporations and advertisers. With 100,000 as the magic number, the USFA should make every effort to sell more memberships - from price cutting, restructuring and broadening dues categories, to aggressive, incentive-laden marketing to schools and other institutions. The ancillary benefits of large scale increases in membership would include the growth of our competitive talent base as well as adding new intra-organizational sources for fundraising. This simple equation should come as no surprise: a larger talent pool plus increased net funding levels yield more Olympic medals.

The USFA has growing fiscal and management problems stemming from a top-heavy organizational structure. National committees (staffed by well intentioned but frequently under-qualified appointees), impose policies that time and again have costly and problematic outcomes. Along with the professional bureaucracy in Colorado Springs, their decisions are not market driven, resulting in a lack of fiscal discipline and bottom-line effectiveness, as well as limited accountability. The USFA must begin to decentralize administration and some decision making authority by establishing a regional organizational structure. This reform is critical to effectively serve our membership, especially if growth rates are comparable to that of the last quadrennial.

I had hoped that the template for decentralization would emerge from our efforts in the area of regional youth competitions. The RYC program, while still a work in progress, made significant steps forward, situating large tournaments in the backyards of huge segments of the fencing population. As market driven events, they were far more cost effective (for both fencers and the USFA) than comparable YNACs, and stimulated the development of local infrastructure throughout the country. Central to the RYC movement was the designation and empowerment of qualified regional coordinators, whose tasks involved oversight, evaluation and facilitation of events within their territories. Regional coordinators would teleconference periodically, discus both current issues and those germane to the long term plan, and then formulate appropriate policy. The system was working; then inexplicably, a regressive centralized committee supplanted the regional coordinator group. With the competitive season well under way, this new committee failed to develop, disseminate and implement time-sensitive, necessary policy. This has led to delays, confusion and frustration among tournament organizers, parents and coaches.

The benefits of regional decentralization in the context of our national tournament structure are especially profound. The NAC system is dysfunctional. No fencers - anywhere in the world - pay higher entry fees for national events than we do. Yet even with escalating registration and entry costs, these competitions are at best, marginally profitable. Year after year, the Fencing Officials Commission (FOC) submits massive bills for air transportation, housing, food and per diems; the price tag for underwriting the labors of an itinerant stable of overworked referees. Dedicated competitors continually incur costly annual travel tabs, because hosting NACs proximal to the major metropolitan centers where they live and train is prohibitively expensive. Clearly, the need for sizeable regional competitions at every level – from Youth through Veteran – is blatant. As an economical pathway of experience-appropriate competitions for developing fencers, Regionals should be the logical stepping stone to leaner, meaner elite national events. Supported by regional FOC groups (established to develop qualified pools of local referees), these events could accommodate our growing need for ubiquitous, cost-effective, quality competitions. The USFA National office staff is already overburdened by North American Cups, Junior Olympics, Summer and Division 1 National Championships. Saddling them with the task of organizing and administering a nation-wide regional program would require a significant (and costly) increase in personnel. Centralized committees have proven ineffective, apropos of the current RYC debacle. The best solution is decentralized, autonomous regional organization.

At least twice a week, I receive a call or email asking if I know of a coach or instructor available to work at some club or school. Regrettably, most of the time I have no constructive response to these inquiries. The demand for qualified coaches has far outstripped the supply. The USFA, perhaps in conjunction with the United States Fencing Coaches Association, the Coaches College and our National Coaches, must promote regional opportunities for rigorous professional development. The French, Italians, Russians, Hungarians, Poles, etc., all support training programs for coaches, run by veteran Fencing Masters using well established pedagogical paradigms. We must train a generation of coaches to meet the growing demand for quality instruction. Top clubs and coaches in every region of the country should be designated and incentivized to begin this training process.

So where do we go from here? Our new administration has yet to put it’s imprimatur on any specific blueprint for the 2008 quadrennial, so the jury is still out. Perhaps the initiatives I have outlined might spark some dialogue among the powers that be and result in constructive movement. Whatever happens, that expanding group of fencers and families, clubs and private foundations - acting independently - will advance the path that was blazed over the last four years, pressing forward with this renaissance of competitive success. Maybe this is the real question: will the USFA help clear the way for this advance?

[Sciurus-Rex]

... our beloved organization has stalled or gone backwards since 2004, when we had our best Olympic results in history.

You are to be commended for your masterful skewing of details to make something innocuous sound omniously horrific. Rather than cut and pick at every odd comment you've made in this thread, this latest should serve as an effective generalization -- and, after all, isn't that what you try to do to President Nancy's actions as well?

To point: using the 2004 Olympics as a high-water mark for an overreaching negative comparison. Apples being apples and not oranges as they are, one must wonder how the heck you can infer a backward slide from 2004 Olympic results when we haven't even reached the 2008 games. ... Not that the president had anything to do with the 2004 results to begin with.

Most of your comments here have served the same purpose. Smoke and mirrors.

[Sciurus-Rex]

What follows is what I wrote. Does anyone really believe she has addressed any of my points?

Funny thing, that. Because I wrote a letter suggesting the USFA needed to provide lots of soft, furry puppies at national competitions to help soothe the tortured athletes' souls. She said she was addressing my points as well.

My wife later pointed out to me that executives say things like that because they're too considerate to be more specific: "I'm addressing your VALID issues and ignoring your self-inflated egotistical opinion of what and when you BELIEVE should be accomplished."

You shouldn't feel so hurt that Nancy hasn't addressed YOUR points. Just be satisfied knowing that you're so very, very brilliant.

[hpfencing]

[QUOTE=Sciurus-Rex]

[B]

You are to be commended for your masterful skewing of details to make something innocuous sound omniously horrific. Rather than cut and pick at every odd comment you've made in this thread, this latest should serve as an effective generalization -- and, after all, isn't that what you try to do to President Nancy's actions as well?

Your post has my name on it Quote in bold but I did NOT write those words. I don't know WHY my name is there

I think those are dr.lutz words but I cannot find the original post becuase this thread has gotten very, very long.

I am not about smoke and mirror and those are not my veiws or thoughts in that quote box.

[Wingate85]

OK, I for one have no personal stake in all of this except for the fact that I love the sport of fencing. I see nothing here that makes any concrete sense other then what Dr. Lutz and Eric R. have put forth in these pages.

I think we can all agree for example that the youth circuits have been the best developmental program initiated in recent years. This was not just an idea or opinion it was designed and directly implemented by Eric. I see this program sliding backwards under Ms. Anderson's leadership. Furtheremore, I see no new initiatives that would set course to a better future for American fencing. Other then the youth circuits the next step which needs to be taken is what Eric has proposed which is the idea of a REAL coaches college. In short, it seems to me that this is the kind of person the membership should support. He has proven to be not just a person of ideas and opinions, but one that is willing to work hard and follow through.

2008 is right around the corner. Let's not wait--WE NEED A NEW PRESIDENT.

[heretic]

And this, my friends, is the epitome of the dialectic offered by the premier anti-recall proponant.

Funny thing, that. Because I wrote a letter suggesting the USFA needed to provide lots of soft, furry puppies at national competitions to help soothe the tortured athletes' souls. She said she was addressing my points as well.

My wife later pointed out to me that executives say things like that because they're too considerate to be more specific: "I'm addressing your VALID issues and ignoring your self-inflated egotistical opinion of what and when you BELIEVE should be accomplished."

You shouldn't feel so hurt that Nancy hasn't addressed YOUR points. Just be satisfied knowing that you're so very, very brilliant.

Sticks and stones, but you can't stick to the issues.

[oso97]

I think we can all agree for example that the youth circuits have been the best developmental program initiated in recent years. This was not just an idea or opinion it was designed and directly implemented by Eric.

How interesting to see this view coming forth again. Both California and Texas had functional youth circuits before Eric came onto the scene. And while Eric may have been a member of the origional YDC, there were others who played just a crucial a role. Eric is many things, a lot of them positive, but the sole champion of the RYC effort he is most assuredly NOT.

[heretic]

How interesting to see this view coming forth again. Both California and Texas had functional youth circuits before Eric came onto the scene. And while Eric may have been a member of the origional YDC, there were others who played just a crucial a role. Eric is many things, a lot of them positive, but the sole champion of the RYC effort he is most assuredly NOT.

No argument there. Without dedicated individuals like Wendell, or Eric Dew, or Linda Merritt, etc, regionalization would never have happened. We were the ones to band together to make this national policy and promote its growth through some level of long term planning.

I started regional competitions in the North East in 1991; two years before your profile indicates you began fencing.

[Sciurus-Rex]

And this, my friends, is the epitome of the dialectic offered by the premier anti-recall proponant. ...

you can't stick to the issues.

I'm "premier" now? Cool! Thanks.

The reason you imagine certain people (me included) can't "stick to the issues" is because ... Well, we keep trying to explain this to you and you keep blithely ignoring it ...

THE 'ISSUES' ARE ENTIRELY YOUR OWN MAKING! There's nothing to stick to.

Sheesh.

[heretic]

Dear Sciurus-Rex

Since you are the avowed champion of Ms Anderson, why don't you you step from behind your nom de plume (or should I say nom de guerre) and share your identity with the viewing public? Only then can we fully appreciate your fencing curriculum vitae.

[Wingate85]

Nom de Plume sounds about right.

[Sciurus-Rex]

Why don't you you step from behind your nom de plume (or should I say nom de guerre) and share your identity with the viewing public?

Because you wouldn't know me anyway, silly. I'm pretty sure my legal name would mean zilch to anyone on this message board. And it would only provide you with something else to attack.

Once again, you fail to recognize the subtle differences in the dynamics of this argument: The original lynching mob members have very personal, petty motivations behind their attacks on Nancy, which become apparent (and reduces the validity of their demands) once their true names are revealed -- their identities are truly a factor to consider. But most anti-recall proponents like myself (who, by the way, have never met Nancy) are merely working against the misguided petition effort; we are not supporting a particular personality. So we lack the requisite selfish element necessary to identify our motivations by name.

That my value in this increasingly monotonous argument has increased in your eyes is a compliment I savor. But you have ascribed far too much importance to an average USFA member who's simply fighting against recall abuse.