Petition to recall USFA President

[heretic]

No anti-Nancy "cabal" was plotting her removal since she assumed office. Most of us had near-identical experiences. We would attempt to contact her to discus general policy or committee appointments, and she would not respond. We began comparing notes and realized that this was Nancy's universal modus operandi. We asked previous Presidents to help advise her and address the growing leadership issues – to no avail. Only then was the recall option broached.

Several individuals have commented that since the recall was initiated, Nancy has made more public pronouncements; the VPs are more active; and this committees more productive. No one can deny that the evil fringe of plaintiffs campaigning for her removal has shaken her administration out of its complacency and forced some level of action.

IMO – too little, too late. Nancy is not capable of providing the basic level of leadership for the USFA.

[jjefferies]

Hi!
Bold emphasis added by me.
No, I for one do not know your identity. Care to reveal it to us still in the dark?
Have a nice time!
Peter Gustafsson, posting under his real name.
BTW: Dr. Lutz posted that he disliked being called all sorts of names in this thread. Dr. Lutz: You have my word as a fellow fencer that I will not call you anything else than your given name, under the sole condition that you reveal it.

Hello Peter,
Likewise I find it peculiar talking with all these nameless opionates. Almost like some horror movie. One wonders why the need to cloak their identities.

[oso97]

No anti-Nancy "cabal" was plotting her removal since she assumed office. Most of us had near-identical experiences. We would attempt to contact her to discus general policy or committee appointments, and she would not respond. We began comparing notes and realized that this was Nancy's universal modus operandi. We asked previous Presidents to help advise her and address the growing leadership issues – to no avail. Only then was the recall option broached.

Several individuals have commented that since the recall was initiated, Nancy has made more public pronouncements; the VPs are more active; and this committees more productive. No one can deny that the evil fringe of plaintiffs campaigning for her removal has shaken her administration out of its complacency and forced some level of action.

IMO – too little, too late. Nancy is not capable of providing the basic level of leadership for the USFA.

Okay, so then please, please, PLEASE! present us a plan for what differently you want to have happen that Nancy and the VPs have not done in the past six months. If a coherent plan can be put together, and it involves replacing the entire national leadership with different people, who have a specific agenda and working plan, then I'll sign a recall for the whole adminstration, top to bottom, for the president, the vice-presidents, and the other officers. Otherwise, my response to you is, sorry, you'll have to wait until 2008, and the follow the normal protocol for removing poor leadership.

That is, unless you wish to convene a special session of Congress (or do it this summer) and bring specific malfeasance charges against a specific officer.

[Sciurus-Rex]

It's hard to let go of a grudge.

[Mr Epee]

Another perspective:

A graduate of Bryn Mawr College, Nancy Anderson has an MA in comparative linguistics from New York University, where she also has done doctoral work in Spanish literature and linguistics. A frequent presenter for regional and national meetings of foreign language associations, she was recently honored by the New York Chapter of the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese (AATSP) for "outstanding contributions to Hispanic Studies." She is the author of Spanish textbooks, translator of various publications, and associate editor for the Simon & Schuster Bilingual Dictionary. Weisbuch described her as “...wonderfully inventive regarding program ideas and equally capable at turning ideas into programs.”

http://www.woodrow.org/newsroom/rele..._programs.html

[heretic]

I have my own vision of what the USFA Strategic Plan should include, but as I said, the recall movement is not monolithic. Many of us have distinctly different views on what should be done. What we share is the common experience that Nancy is doing nothing at all.

I do know that given a marginally responsive leader, all of those calling for recall will have a fair hearing, and the basic tasks of the President would actually get done on a timely basis.

Every time we raise issues like supervising/evaluating the ED/National Office, naming National coaches, fundraising, etc, all we get from the other side is the Ronald Reagan "there you go again" redux (or a Sciurus-Rex/eze attack ad hominem).



The status quo is unacceptable.

[jjefferies]

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.

"What you do or do not know" is interesting. My assumption so far is that he knows nothing and is merely an old "flamer" on the net.

Speaking of what is or is not known about Ms. Anderson, I have asked in this forum if anyone knows anything about Ms. Anderson's background for the job as USFA president. No one on this list made any response although YeOlde Armorer says he knows her well. So I've gone and asked off the list. I would still like to know more about Ms. Andreson - good or bad. And while I'm in favor of the recall effort I'm not above changing my stance if evidence or information warranted. Flaming opinions from Rex's count as neither. But what I've "been told" is that
1. Ms Anderson may have been a recreational fencer briefly in the 70's or 80's when she was married to Michael Sebastini who had a club in Houston.
2. She has never fenced competitively at any level and has never been a coach or director.
3. I am told she has acted as a bout committee "functionary". One description <obviously from a fawning fan> was that she was "particularly officious". [note I wasn't there and have no information of my own]

But back to the subject of getting hard information. If anyone here knows then please enlighten us, if or what "in" she has or can claim with the FIE or the USOC. I vaguely remember someone saying that she did have some sort of inside connection.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Why did she even want the job?

[Sciurus-Rex]

My assumption so far is that he knows nothing and is merely an old "flamer" on the net.

Riiiiiight. And where were you 80-some postings ago before your fencing.net birthday?

Keep your "merely an old 'flamer'" dismissals in your pocket and stick to the issue at hand: The still-questionable need for a recall is outbalanced by the questionable legitimacy of the allegations, the inability of the accusers to admit their own part in the tableau, and the large cost to the general membership for a subsequent election.

[veeco]

Riiiiiight. And where were you 80-some postings ago before your fencing.net birthday?

There used to be this thing before Fencing.Net even existed, called newsgroups. They were around before the WWW. There was one newsgroup, called rec.sport.fencing, on which several of the current Fencing.Net members were very active before. Among them were PeterG, EDEW, and Mr. Jefferies.

[jjefferies]

Riiiiiight. And where were you 80-some postings ago before your fencing.net birthday?

Fencing.
BTW, Sciurus-Rex what are your current point standings? I haven't been able to find them though I see you registered as an a04. Do you have students? What fencing positions have you worked in? I'm just curious about the background to your opposition.

Just as an aside, I did register with fencing.net about when it started but work kept me from spending much time. Though I have followed rec.fencing and posted there for some years.

Keep your "merely an old 'flamer'" dismissals in your pocket and stick to the issue at hand: The still-questionable need for a recall is outbalanced by the questionable legitimacy of the allegations, the inability of the accusers to admit their own part in the tableau, and the large cost to the general membership for a subsequent election.

Again I see you trying to obfuscate the issues while hiding your identity. A major issue is whether as citizen/members we have a right (or rather a duty) to question leaders, demand accountability and even recall them. In this case some of us have. Apparently in your eyes this constitutes some violation of ?? something (your view of natural order perhaps??). But as a free citizen and a member of the USFA I take this recall seriously and see it as a means of correcting what I see as a problem. Maybe it will do that. If it doesn't then at least we tried.

OBTW, regarding flaming I still have my three digit DOD license to flame on the net. By which I mean I can recognize a "flamer" when I read one.

[Sciurus-Rex]

BTW, Sciurus-Rex what are your current point standings? I haven't been able to find them though I see you registered as an a04. Do you have students? What fencing positions have you worked in? I'm just curious about the background to your opposition.

Again I see you trying to obfuscate the issues while hiding your identity. ...

Curiosity is good. Maybe we can discuss my personal life some day when it's an issue in its own right.

But you're obfuscating the recall issue by focusing on my identity. Ironic, eh?

A major issue is whether as citizen/members we have a right (or rather a duty) to question leaders, demand accountability and even recall them. In this case some of us have. Apparently in your eyes this constitutes some violation of something ...

Nope. You misunderstand: I find the recall petition to be a violation of common sense and a costly ego-soother. It's your right by the bylaws, but your basis for doing so is unbalanced against the cost of doing so and the end result.

[Sciurus-Rex]

There used to be this thing before Fencing.Net even existed, called newsgroups. They were around before the WWW. There was one newsgroup, called rec.sport.fencing, on which several of the current Fencing.Net members were very active before. Among them were PeterG, EDEW, and Mr. Jefferies.

So nice of him to come back to his common beginings and mingle amongst the common folk once more. Perhaps we need more recall petitions to drive up message board involvement.

[fluidfencer]

No no... I'm not upset. I don't even know that we disagree very much. You took part of what I wrote and used it to support a viewpoint or conclusion that wasn't really the point I was trying to make on the whole. I just wanted to clarify that.

This has been a tough issue for me, since I know people on both sides very well. I guess a lot of us do. I don't mean that in terms of personal friendships, I mean philosophical/business views on how the USFA should be run going forward. I am not a wishy-washy kind of guy but I can't take a firm stand either way given the weaknesses in both positions. I don't like people who complain but don't offer any concrete solutions. I have plenty of complaints but I don't have the knowledge (yet, anyway) I need to make solid recommendations. Frustrating.

I appreciate the comments by you and many others.

???? I agreed with your direct quote and then expounded on it with my own thoughts. I did not put words into your mouth.

Or are you just concerned that we could be in agreement even for a moment? It's OK. Don't fret so. We all know you're still tough on crime.

[fluidfencer]

And me. Believe it or not, that's how we found our two extraordinary coaches. Summer of 1998. Amazing.

There used to be this thing before Fencing.Net even existed, called newsgroups. They were around before the WWW. There was one newsgroup, called rec.sport.fencing, on which several of the current Fencing.Net members were very active before. Among them were PeterG, EDEW, and Mr. Jefferies.

[Feltan]

I have my own vision of what the USFA Strategic Plan should include, but as I said, the recall movement is not monolithic. Many of us have distinctly different views on what should be done. What we share is the common experience that Nancy is doing nothing at all.

I do know that given a marginally responsive leader, all of those calling for recall will have a fair hearing, and the basic tasks of the President would actually get done on a timely basis.

Every time we raise issues like supervising/evaluating the ED/National Office, naming National coaches, fundraising, etc, all we get from the other side is the Ronald Reagan "there you go again" redux (or a Sciurus-Rex/eze attack ad hominem).

The status quo is unacceptable.

Heretic,

If the status quo is unacceptable to you, your response above is unacceptable to me and probably quite a few others. It is not your fault; however, if the recall movement has no vision, no plan, no idea of the next step then it will stumble to gain support. Even if the necessary number of signatures are obtained, I do not believe it will ever have the backing of the membership nor appear legitimate.

I have a real fear that once this Queen is toppled, the infighting among the conspiritors will start in earnest. After all, no one knows what the next step is going to be. I will venture to guess that a number of people who signed the recall petition will be saying, oh, about a year from now: "....that isn't why I signed the petition, I thought the new President would __________ ."

Regards,
Feltan

[dr.lutz]

Dear All:

The following rebuttal from the Committee to Save US Fencing will be posted on our website within a day.

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





Rebuttal to “The Potential Effect of a Recall on USOC-USFA Relations”


At first glance, the implications presented in the 12/26/05 memo authored by former Presidents Sobel and Johnson appear disconcerting. Yet they openly acknowledge their analysis is not meant to “provide [definitive] conclusions”, but to suggest a possible course of action on the part of the USOC. In no part of their exposition or conclusion sections do they suggest that they consulted directly with any current authoritative source at the USOC to substantiate their worst-case scenario. While both served on the committee in the past, as a result of the radical 2004 restructuring, by their own admission they are no longer “in the loop.” Consequently the conclusions presented are opinions – not facts – and should be regarded as such.

The following addresses the implications and key issues presented in the memo:

1. The recall could possibly result in USOC intervention in USFA affairs; loss of USOC funding; and decertification of the USFA as the national governing body for fencing.

The USOC has given no indication that it would move against a National Governing Body (NGB) whose finances are in order, simply because of an interim change in leadership carried out in accordance with its Bylaws. Typically, the USOC has taken action against NGBs with issues of financial or administrative malfeasance. The USOC has no inherent interest in assuming control of an organization with a membership of over 20,000 athletes.


2. Those who oppose the recall (out of fear that it will result in a USOC takeover) have greater insight with respect to the workings of the USOC than recall proponents

The recall proponents include the two most recent Olympic Team captains (since 1984); five Olympic Team coaches; and six members of the Athens Olympic Team. Our contacts with and knowledge of the USOC are at least equal to those of the recall opponents. Our understanding is that an orderly change of Presidents in accordance with the Bylaws of a national governing body is not cause for USOC intervention.


3. Those who oppose the recall think the USFA president is doing a good job and should stay on.

The authors of 12/26/05 memo have privately admitted that the USFA is currently not functioning at an adequate level, specifically due to Ms Anderson’s failings.


4. The recall would negatively impact on US fencing’s international results

One of the major reasons for the recall movement is concern that the current administration’s lack of action diminishes the hard work and structural improvements that led to our results in Athens. The overwhelming support by the majority of National Coaches is based on the fact that it is the current leadership - not the recall - that threatens our ongoing international success.


The recall movement was advanced based on two primary issues: the President’s mishandling of the international program; and her mismanagement of basic services that support USFA membership.

Ms. Anderson’s performance has made this recall an overwhelming necessity.


Regards,

Dr. Lutz

[Inquartata]

I'm still not seeing any constructive platform offered by any of those favoring the recall.

While it may be true that they are not a unified group with a uniform set of plans for the USFA, Dr. Lutz has let us know that so far the short list of replacements for Ms. Anderson consists of Mr. Cheris, Mr. Cheris and Mr. Cheris. Perhaps Mr. Cheris has a programme of concrete steps which he could share with some of those recall insiders who post here? Perhaps they could pass the information on for our edification?

Or perhaps individuals involved in the recall who do have some specific ideas of their own could give us their ideas, whether they ae likely to be adopted or not? Just to reassure us that there ARE some specific ideas out there, rather than just "First let's get her recalled, and then we can figure out what do do to make things better"?

N.B. I am not talking generalities like "Answer emails promptly" or "Get on-line registration in place within X months". I am talking actual, perceptible, bite-sized steps toward the accomplishment of broad gaols like these...

An ounce of that will go much farther than a ton of unsubstantiated assurances from recall advocates that "There are these broad problems, trust me, I know, I've seen them, and we must address them by recall" to convince some of us.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Random thoughts on Nancy's interview with Craig:

One of the criticisms laid out against Ms. Anderson is her failure to get to the FIE Congress in Doha. She stated that there was extensive traffic on the NJ Turnpike that was not anticipated and that caused her to miss her flight to Doha and she took a later flight and got there later in the Congress.
Fair enough, but not a total excuse. I travelled over 35 weeks last year and didn't miss a flight; but I had a number of close calls. In other years, I have missed flights in spite of leaving plenty early. It happens. One missed flight is a gimme. 10 missed flights on her part would indicate a problem.

She admits that she did not go to the 2005 World Championships, mainly because she had started a new teaching job and had already used vacation time to attend the Pan American Congress. "I am a volunteer," Nancy Anderson stated, "I couldn't ask for another 10 days off from the school. It would not be fair to my employer."
Unless we're willing to hire a retiree or an independently wealthy dilettante, this will be a perpetual problem. Maybe we have a utopic vision of a steely-eyed whipcracker prowling the halls of the USFA on a daily basis...but that's not the reality of the situation.

By the way, how many days off does Sam have to devote to full time oversight of the USFA? He apparently wasn't available to pay attention to many of the issues now laid at Nancy's feet.

Nancy pointed out that she had taken the time to go to the Pan American congress and was able to put together a coalition to support US Fencing interests going into the FIE Congress.
Any dispute about the validity of this?

On the situation with the National Coaches (snip) she had committed at the Jr. World Championships to get them information on budgets and funding. The USOC, however, had not provided an allocation for budgets and that caused her to have no information to share. Rather than go back to the coaches with nothing, she chose to hold off on any communication until she had the budget news to report from the USOC.
In retrospect, and in general, a bad plan. A regular phone call to the coaches saying: "I got nuthin' yet from the USOC" is far better than silence.

Charges have also been laid out that Nancy Anderson has provided no strategic plan for the USFA in this quadrennial. Ms. Anderson counters that at the February board meeting she had provided a preliminary strategic plan to the board based on Stacy Johnson's plan and received no comments. At the July board meeting the plan was reworded with input from the board and at the September meeting there was an attempt to finish the plan. The board will meet in February and we will receive an update then on the status of the strategic plan.
Anyone of the BoD present at all of the listed meetings dispute this version of events?

What of the "Olympic Bounce"? Ms. Anderson points out that the USFA web site was down for 3 weeks right after Mariel Zagunis and Sada Jacobson won the gold and bronze medals. Ms. Anderson attributes this as a consequence of the executive committee and executive director (Michael Massik) choosing to go with a smaller development firm that would provide some opportunities to one of the United States' top fencers rather than going with a larger firm with more dedicated staff. (The fact that the webmaster / maintenence is a volunteer/nonpaid position was not brought up.)
Regardless of who points the finger at whom, I think we can all agree the current website is an improvement, but still needs work, including a paid webmaster whose paycheck is dependent on performance.

There also was not a marketing plan put in place by the prior administration for follow-up after winning a medal. That being said, Nancy Anderson went on to say that "I'm not so sure that we didn't capitalize on it. Mariel and Sada did a lot of press work - interviews and TV appearances."
I saw a lot of TV and print time as well. Was it enough? Obviously certain members of the recall coalition didn't think the medalist(s) were fawned over nearly enough. Those same members haven't been exactly forthcoming with what they could have done differently, had they been in power, with the same budgetary and website limitations.

[foilz]

I'm still not seeing any constructive platform offered by any of those favoring the recall

This whole debacle has gone way beyond that, Inq. It's even gone way beyond fencing. It's not about fencing. It's about one faction of blood-lusted critics slamming away at ... Nancy? No, not even Nancy. They are waging war on this forum against their critics! The craziness has exceeded the flashpoint of idiocy. It has its own bizarre reality. FORUM WAR!

I respectfully suggest that ALL PARTIES RESIGN, and immediately before they do, they appoint a commissioner to orchestrate new elections to install a completely new administration, absent everyone who has been an official part of this misery, in any capacity.

Can anyone truly imagine ANY of these rabid participators effectively representing the sport?

I've served on many not-for-profit boards. The whole idea of participating on a non-profit board is ... to help others.

None of which applies at today's USFA.

It's sickening.