Petition to recall USFA President

[Sciurus-Rex]

The time presented for Ms Anderson's shortcomings has usually been a year and a half. Taking into account the 'confidential' request for her resignation that time shortens closer to one year. ...

Another good point, something that has been conveniently slopped over from the beginning. The period gets stretched into PLENTY of time when one alleges inaction, but the actual period the lynching instigators waited before making their move was much shorter.

[chiz]

...And in the meantime, some of us will keep reminding the larger membership of how such a small special interest group can push this through with the expectation of seating their own man without opposition. ... And of how flimsy their allegations are to begin with.

...Upon recall, a special election shall be conducted promptly in accordance with the election procedures provided by these Bylaws, with such appropriate modifications to the dates and schedules there stated as the Board of Directors shall prescribe. The recalled officer may be a candidate for the vacant office if nominated by the Nominating Committee or by meeting petition requirements provided elsewhere in these Bylaws.

There is no assurance who will be elected. Keep the democratic process alive, support the recall to have a fair election.

Chiz

[jjefferies]

This is a good point. How did we get into the situation where the President is chosen in a classic "smoke-filled back room" scenario, where, if there is no dissent, the Presidency is presented as a done deal?

That being said, it seems unfairly easy to overturn the Presidency of a 25,000 member organization with merely a 1,000 signatures. I know, it's in the bylaws.

But so is the impeachment method--with a much more stringent requirement for support. Yet they chose to go the route that required the least amount of acquiescence from the rank and file. That speaks volumes by itself.

And if you were the kind of person who would deal with hard thorny problems, you would of course, choose the hard route. COME ON Gimme a break. You're busting me up here.

[dr.lutz]

The time presented for Ms Anderson's shortcomings has usually been a year and a half. Taking into account the 'confidential' request for her resignation that time shortens closer to one year. If the recall is successful, this timeline opens up two questions:

Dear Goofy,

Nancy was called in mid-December. She was in office for about 15 and a half months at that time. She was President-elect for months before that.

In six months, we knew, as did Nancy's closest advisors.

By the September Board meeting, Nancy's closest advisors agreed she was beyond help.

While they chose to say this behind Nancy's back and do nothing, we decided to say it directly to her face and do something.

There has been more than enough time for Nancy to emerge as a leader; unfortunately, she hasn't done the job.

Regards,

Dr. Lutz

[jjefferies]

Also being in the division where quite a few of the people on the recall committee reside, it does happen here. It happens a lot. People are coerced, pressured and blackmailed into signing the petition or choosing one club over another for events.
Division rules are followed as long as it benefits a particular club. It is ugly.
To think of this happening nationally gives me indigestion.
Momster

Just a point of curiousity but which division are you in??
And have you actually witnessed any coercion? Care to fill us in? I'm always curious when I hear of fighting men and women being coerced. Seduced I can believe. But coerced? Makes me wonder.

[Sciurus-Rex]

In six months, we knew ...

Six months. There ya go: the amount of time it takes for a clique to determine they don't like so-and-so and start planning to take her down.

Six frippin' months, during which time the instigators in this nonprofit, stretched-nationwide tableau played their own part in failed communications.

Six. ...

[dr.lutz]

Six months. There ya go: the amount of time it takes for a clique to determine they don't like so-and-so and start planning to take her down.

Yes, that is that amount of time it took for Nancy's own advisors to come to that conclusion.

We happened to agree.

Two Board meetings, bad committee appointments, everything in the International Program at least six months behind, no National Coaches, no budgets...

Everyone wanted to see if she could turn it around in the next six months.

She couldn't.

We chose to try to right the sinking ship. Her advisors prayed for her resignation,, but wouldn't ask her for it.

DL

[Goofy]

Nancy was called in mid-December. She was in office for about 15 and a half months at that time. She was President-elect for months before that.

In six months, we knew, as did Nancy's closest advisors.

By the September Board meeting, Nancy's closest advisors agreed she was beyond help.

While they chose to say this behind Nancy's back and do nothing, we decided to say it directly to her face and do something.

There has been more than enough time for Nancy to emerge as a leader; unfortunately, she hasn't done the job.

So the window for success being set here for the next president of the USFA is six-to-fifteen months?

It could be even less than that. With any large organization one must play 'what if' when making drastic change- what if the recall succeeds, a new president is appointed, and 30 days into the new administration a recall supported by 1000 signatures takes place because online registration (which has been listed as the most grievous problem, and therefore would constitute just cause) has not been implemented?

Before any anti-Nancy sentiment is given as a response, realize that I am neither defending nor condemning individuals in the current USFA administration. I am only trying to establish a sense of what might happen should the recall succeed. Because if it does succeed then a very dangerous precedent is being set.

In my opinion the tact to be taken in the USFA at this time is a public plea for policy changes, not administrative changes. Publicly list any grievances, and publicly call for action by the current administration by petitioning signatures from the membership so that the administration knows what people want. THEN, and after a resonable amount of time (to be determined based on the problems), publicy take drastic measures against the administration should those pleas be ignored. In the current situation the only public action has been a recall attempt.

I hope there is change in and for the USFA, but not in the way you are asking for it.

[striker]

Six months. There ya go: the amount of time it takes for a clique to determine they don't like so-and-so and start planning to take her down.

Six frippin' months, during which time the instigators in this nonprofit, stretched-nationwide tableau played their own part in failed communications.

Six. ...

Scirius-Rex,

I am trying to understand both sides before making a decision. Here is
a suggestion. You seem to know enough about what the current USFA
president did or did not do to defend her on a public forum. It is ok
and I do not see anything wrong with presenting your point of view.
However, this thread was once closed by the moderators (an rightly so)
because the whole discussion turned into yet another shouting match.

Here are the facts. The opponents will go ahead with the recall with or
without anyone arguing on this forum. They have created a web site
to present their point of view and spread information. If you and the
opponents of the recall are so passionate about your cause I suggest
that you create a web site and answer each and every point that they make.

There are two key web pages.

http://www.geocities.com/save_usfenc...ll-reasons.htm
The reasons are listed here. It would be instructive to see the answer
to each and every point.

http://www.geocities.com/save_usfencing/letter.htm
The letter to the current president and a list of people who support
this recall. I would like to see the list of USFA athletes and coaches
who are against the recall.

[Sciurus-Rex]

Yes, that is that amount of time it took for Nancy's own advisors to come to that conclusion. ...

We chose to try to right the sinking ship. Her advisors prayed for her resignation, but wouldn't ask her for it.

Dude (or Dude-ette, as the case may be), you've gotta stop speaking for other people as though you know what's going on in their heads and hearts. Your constant references to how her advisors came to such-and-such conclusion is a blatant ploy to manipulate the casual reader.

And by the way, who exactly are the members of Nancy's shadow cabinet of trusted "advisors" that you keep speaking of? We assume you've been adopting liberally from Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends.

[Sciurus-Rex]

((most of original text self-deleted to correct inappropriately strong response to Striker))

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

[Philistine]

This is a good point. How did we get into the situation where the President is chosen in a classic "smoke-filled back room" scenario, where, if there is no dissent, the Presidency is presented as a done deal?

Probably because its an unpaid position, that requires a pretty significant time committment, lasts for 4 years, requires running herd over a bunch of individuals with.... strong.... personalities, and involves dealing with a number of competing interests all vying for very limited funds.

I can see how people wouldn't want to go through the hassle of a campaign for this plum of a job....

When was the last time there was a contested election for President? Does anyone know what percentage of members ended up actually voting in that case?

That being said, it seems unfairly easy to overturn the Presidency of a 25,000 member organization with merely a 1,000 signatures. I know, it's in the bylaws.

I don't know--it's more like 10,000 voting members, though. Also--the first point above probably feeds into the ease of getting signatures--the feeling of "well I didn't get the chance to vote for her."

Personally--I haven't seen a whole lot warranting a recall (IMHO, most of the issues show a lack at all levels, not just the President, so that just switching Presidents doesn't seem like it'll do much). YMMV.

One thing though, again tying together the fact that officers are selected, not elected, and the recall process--perhaps it would be in order to reduce the term of office to two years--which would thus require a "vote of confidence" by the nominating committee in the middle of the current 4-year term. This would most likely make the recall process superfluous, as by the time an officer's perceived shortcomings became obvious, it would make more sense for those seeking a change to get the lower # of signatures for a nomination, and present their own candidate in an election.

--Philistine

[epeeisky]

snip..........
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.

snipity snip snip

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.

Actually, SR, they way that Dr. Lutz et al. have campaigned has tunred me against their movement. I am always open to different people's opinions, but the way that Dr. Lutz "yelled" and tried to bully his opinion onto others without specific examples turned me away to his ideas. Since the leaders of any group are often quasi-representative of the attitude of said group, it has showed me that they will communicate just as well as they claim Nancy Anderson has done. Although I cannot yet vote in the recall, by the time the election will happen I will be eighteen and will vote against the movement.

[striker]

[I]By the way, Striker, if you keep reposting the links to those documents -- or reprinting them in full here, as Lutz so enjoys doing -- you'll see someone against the recall do the same.

We all know where they are already, and it's obvious that you're trying to win converts by repetition and shere exposure. Save space and stop pulling that stunt.
.................................................. ...

By the way sir, relax. Nobody is trying to pull a stunt on you.
I have posted only once on this thread and saved everyone plenty of space.

I have not submitted any signatures yet. You seemed to be
in the know about the current USFA president. So, I asked you if you
could be more specific about why the charges are invalid
and provide more specific information such as the names within the
USFA hierarchy who are opposed to the recall. I would like to see
specific names.

Anyhow thanks for taking the time to reply to my post. I think
what you have posted is enough for now.

[Sciurus-Rex]

Anyhow thanks for taking the time to reply to my post.

And likewise, thank YOU.

I like it when we're all friends.

[striker]

And likewise, thank YOU.

I like it when we're all friends.

No problem. I read your reply again and I think I have a clear idea what
you do or do not know about the present USFA president. By the way, I
have not heard anything official from the opposing camp within the USFA
except what I have read on this forum. Probably we will hear more
in due time.

[dr.lutz]

So the window for success being set here for the next president of the USFA is six-to-fifteen months?

Dear Goofy,

I'm sorry but you've missed the point here.

It is not the timeframe that really matters. Rather, it is what Nancy has or hasn't done that matters.

If it doesn't bother you that National Coaches weren't appointed for the first 17 months of Nancy's term, I can't help that.

If it doesn't bother you that the Fundrasinig Committee will have no report (nor Chair) for the February Board meeting, which is basically a year and a half into Nancy's term, I can't help that.

If it doesn't bother you that despite Board mandate, Nancy has not overseen the National Office to ensure that the membership had the benfit of online entries, I can't help that.

It is not the timeframe, but rather that time has stood still in the USFA since Nancy took office nearly a year and a half ago.

Regards,

Dr. Lutz

[Inquartata]

But too allow a 10 percent-supported recall -- based on allegations that are NOT apparent and require extensive explanation and signatory recruitment -- is opening a door to bigger problems later on.

Oh, not to worry. One suspects that this will be one of the first things the New Regime changes, lest they be cut with their own weapon.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

And if you were the kind of person who would deal with hard thorny problems, you would of course, choose the hard route. COME ON Gimme a break. You're busting me up here.

Shoe. Fit.

Heat. Kitchen.

You get the picture.

Seriously, there was another path in place to achieve the same result: impeachment. The Presidential opponents chose to take the easier way. If the alleged Presidential malfeasance was so indisputable, why not go about it in a way that seems far more aboveboard?

Otherwise, we're free to draw our own inferences.

[counterattack]

Oh, not to worry. One suspects that this will be one of the first things the New Regime changes, lest they be cut with their own weapon.

Uncharitable and doubtful. Why would you think this would be true?

Also, I have to say that though Dr. Lutz's methods annoyed me, SR and that lot are actually turning out to be much more obnoxious. Sciurus-Rex has taken the same approach that Alan took to the foil timings. And really it is no better the second time.