Petition to recall USFA President

[dr.lutz]

Originally Posted by Sciurus-Rex

A simple question, really. A yes-or-no question. ... Assuming you can acquire the 10 percent of member sigs necessary to enact the recall clause of our bylaws, do you really expect that Sam should be allowed to succeed Nancy without a followup vote by our full membership?

After Nancy is recalled, there is a process.

But, although this has been covered many times on this thread already, I will spell it out again.

1) The recall succeeds

2) The Board may immediately suspend the President by a 2/3 vote.

3) If that happens, the EC chooses one of the current VPs to serve for a 90 day interim period.

4) The Nominating Committee reconvenes and nominates a candidate.

5) If the nominated candidate is not opposed in a contested election, that candidate becomes the new President.

That's how Nancy got in. Ballots were not sent out, as the election was not contested.

Actual notification can be made in American Fencing magazine, as it was in Nancy's case.

By failing to put up an opposition candidate to whomever the Nominating Committee nominates, the membership basically rubber stamps the election.

If there is only one candidate, the one nominated by the NC, there is no need for a vote.

DL

[Sciurus-Rex]

sidestepped. figured as much.
thanks.

[dr.lutz]

Originally Posted by Sciurus-Rex

sidestepped. figured as much.
thanks.

Not sidestepped.

Instead of giving an irrelevant opinion, provided you with the facts.

I do not disagree with the process, do you?

In an uncontested election, what difference does it make if we actually vote?
It can't change the outcome.

Our vote is tacitly given by our failure to put up an oppostion candidate.

In other words, if any member of the USFA doesn't like the candidate of the Nominating Committee, they can run themsleves or try to put up someone else.

What else do you recommend?

[fleuretrogue]

Sciurus-Rex -

Are you just willfully slow witted here? The process is the process and several things may occur. Dr. Lutz has no impact on the outcome. He does have impact on the recall in that he is a proponent of the recall and argues accordingly.

so here you go...

Assuming the recall effort meets all requirements:

1. The BoD may not vote to suspend Nancy. Nancy Stays.
2. Assuming that the BoD does vote to suspend Nancy, the EC may or may not choose Mr. Cheris. There are two other VP's.
3. The Nominating commitee, assuming that the BoD has suspended Nancy and the EC has chosen one of the VP's, may nominate anyone they think will be fit for the position. Heck, they might even nominate you. They might nominate Mr. Cheris. They might nominate Stacey Johnson. They might nominate Nancy Anderson (how's that for irony). They might nominate someone with whom you are unfamiliar and if so, then it is your duty to research and decide if that person is acceptable to you.
4. If no one else steps forward as a candidate, thus creating a CONTESTED election, the nominating commitees candidate is automatically the president.
5. If you don't like the nominated candidate, then you are perfectly able to nominate someone according to the bylaws (the process for doing so I am not familiar with. I'm sure you could find it though).

IMHO Dr Lutz answered your question perfectly.

Now if you were to ask if it were Dr. Lutz's OPINION that Mr. Cheris be allowed to just stay in place after the recall, that would be a different question and one on which Dr. Lutz could comment ad nauseum as it is OPINION.

Let's not pretend that you don't understand the process. You seem smarter than that.

In truth, it's you who are sidestepping here.

Originally Posted by Sciurus-Rex

sidestepped. figured as much.
thanks.

[Peach]

fleuretrogue- One of my ADD moments: Are you aware that you refer in your post to women by their first names and men (or those you assume are men) by "Mr." and their last names? Why is that? What makes one person "Mr. Cheris" and another "Nancy" or "Nancy Anderson?"

[Sciurus-Rex]

Originally Posted by fleuretrogue

Are you just willfully slow witted here? The process is the process and several things may occur. ...

Step back, oh angry alleger of slow-wittedness. The question still stands unanswered:
"Do you really expect that Sam should be allowed to succeed Nancy without a followup vote by our full membership?"

As posed, it strikes right to the heart of the matter -- the recaller's EXPECTATIONS of the process. Because I get the feeling they expected a quick turnover from Nancy to Sam on just their sayso alone. Instead, they're facing the likely obstacle of securing 51 percent agreement in a full election.

Gotta look at the bigger picture.

[fleuretrogue]

Damn my fingers...

In truth, I didn't notice and will endeavor to change that the next time.

Mr. Cheris will become Sam, and Nancy will become Ms. Anderson. Then the next time, both will be called by ther first names and the next time they will be called by their last names.

Nothing like equality.

the rogue..

equality does not result in equity. Equity is attainable, equality is not.

Originally Posted by Peach

fleuretrogue- One of my ADD moments: Are you aware that you refer in your post to women by their first names and men (or those you assume are men) by "Mr." and their last names? Why is that? What makes one person "Mr. Cheris" and another "Nancy" or "Nancy Anderson?"

[fleuretrogue]

Actually, my question was are you WILLFULLY being slow witted here. And you answered by pointing out that you were looking for expectations. As such, your post is annoying, but okay as it is soliciting opinion. My bad. Humblest apologies.

I'll answer it if you don't mind..Assuming that the recall succeeds, I expect that Sam will be appointed as interim President. After that, I cannot predict what will happen. I hope that we get a slate of candidates worthy of a good election and that the membership gets to vote (since we didn't with Nancy's nomination and I feel robbed).

Though this would cost the much bandied about amount of 15k. Perhaps it's better for the election to be uncontested.

Originally Posted by Sciurus-Rex

Step back, oh angry alleger of slow-wittedness. The question still stands unanswered:
"Do you really expect that Sam should be allowed to succeed Nancy without a followup vote by our full membership?"

As posed, it strikes right to the heart of the matter -- the recaller's EXPECTATIONS of the process. Because I get the feeling they expected a quick turnover from Nancy to Sam on just their sayso alone. Instead, they're facing the likely obstacle of securing 51 percent agreement in a full election.

Gotta look at the bigger picture.

[heretic]

"Do you really expect that Sam should be allowed to succeed Nancy without a followup vote by our full membership?"

Assuming Sam is nominated (and this is not written in stone) post-recall and no one opposes him, you feel the USFA should spend $15,000 on a plebiscite?

If Nancy wants to contest, she simply has to file her petition on a timely basis - which would be the first thing she ever did on a timely basis.

[Peach]

Originally Posted by fleuretrogue

Damn my fingers...

In truth, I didn't notice and will endeavor to change that the next time.

Mr. Cheris will become Sam, and Nancy will become Ms. Anderson. Then the next time, both will be called by ther first names and the next time they will be called by their last names.

Nothing like equality.

the rogue..

equality does not result in equity. Equity is attainable, equality is not.

Thanks. My dissertation advisor, an eminent research professor who holds an endowed chair and heads a department of a university as well as serving as president of my field's national research association, was repeatedly called "Marilyn" by our department's administrative assistants while her colleague (a very nice guy but not nearly as distinguished) was called "Dr. Larkin." It started to sting after a while, which is one of the reasons the department she chairs is somewhere else entirely.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by fleuretrogue

I hope that we get a slate of candidates worthy of a good election and that the membership gets to vote (since we didn't with Nancy's nomination and I feel robbed).

I would be very surprised if the nominating committee returned more than one name. Whether or not other people would be nominated via the 2% signature requirement is a separate question.

-B

[fleuretrogue]

As would I.

Originally Posted by oiuyt

I would be very surprised if the nominating committee returned more than one name. Whether or not other people would be nominated via the 2% signature requirement is a separate question.

-B

[Philistine]

When is the last time that there was a contested election for USFA president?

--Philistine

[Sciurus-Rex]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

I would be very surprised if the nominating committee returned more than one name.

That perspective surprises me. Several of the recallers themselves have hooted about how they were cheated out of a full vote on Nancy; it would be harsh irony that they would be allowed to seat Sam on the same basis. And I would expect the board to know that by now and act on it.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

I would be very surprised if the nominating committee returned more than one name. Whether or not other people would be nominated via the 2% signature requirement is a separate question.

-B

And I would posit that this means the Nominating Committee is failing in their duties.

It has been reported in this thread that in 2004 the Nominating Committee held their own little run off election between Anderson and Cheris - prior to submitting only a single nomination to be approved unanimously by the general membership.

This is awesomely inappropriate.

[Feltan]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

I would be very surprised if the nominating committee returned more than one name. Whether or not other people would be nominated via the 2% signature requirement is a separate question.

-B

You are probably correct, and that outcome would be disappointing. Support it or not, the recall is going to cause a rift within the USFA, and that rift is not going to be healed by appointing an uncontested candidate.

Regards,
Feltan

[Sciurus-Rex]

I assume at least one member of the board would be aware of our extensive discussions here, and would raise the issue with his peers.

To be on the safe side, however, I s'pose we oughtta write a few letters to remind them of the situation and our expectations.

Now I gotta look up the names and addresses... (mumble mumble)...

[striker]

Originally Posted by dr.lutz

I hope that those close to Nancy who know she "is not up to the job of President" urge her to resign.

Cheers,
Epeecurean


Dear Epeecurean,

And in my opinion, herein lies the main, if not sole, reason why Nancy has not yet resigned.

For the last six months, her closest advisors were well aware that a recall was brewing. We begged them to try to get her to resign.

Privately, each one agreed that she was not up to the job. They wanted to give her time to get her sea-legs to see if she could grow into the job.

But, as time went by, it became clear to them that she was beyond help.

About six weeks ago, we again literally begged this select group to ask Nancy to resign. They were told that we were coming to them as a last resort prior to proceeding with the recall, as we felt that if Nancy would listen to anyone, it would be them.

We were told, "Bring us the necessary signatures and we'll then go to her."

Obviously, that was not what we were hoping to hear, as that would leave us no choice but to go public with the recall in order to get the signatures.

The end result was that while these close friends/advisors wouldn't tell Nancy to resign, one of us called her on the Saturday prior to the Pittsburgh NAC and asked her.


Seeing the USFA go backwards since Athens has been frustrating.

Being called all sorts of names and being accused of power-grabbing has been frustrating.

Having to go forward with the recall has been frustrating.

But, the most frustrating part of this has been to see well-meaning, intelligent, and altruistic USFA volunteers and friends/advisors of Nancy privately agree that she must go ...but then do nothing to get Nancy to resign.

Unfortunately, what we both hope for is not likely to happen until all the signatures are in. Then, and only then, will Nancy resign, unless her friends/advisors have a change of heart.

Regards,

Dr. Lutz

Dr. Lutz,

Here is my 2 cents. In my opinion this post is one of the most critical pieces
of information. I would like to ask you if you could confirm that these events
have indeed happened. I would like to be sure. Have these events actually happened ?

You are stating that the president's "closest advisors" agreed that the
current president is not up to the job. Is the current president aware of
what is going on around her ? Something here does not add up. If the
president knows that she has lost the confidence of those who are
driving the petition (among whom are Olympians and national coaches)
and if the president's "closest advisors" have lost faith, then what is
the purpose of holding on and continuing like this ?

In every organization that I have seen, a leader could loose the trust
of the rank and file but he could still hold on and execute. As long as
those second and third in command or those closest to him
still have confidence in him, the leader can still hold on. This does not
seem to be the case here. I am not trying to imply that the rank and
file do not matter but in this particular case it looks like this is
a management crisis at the highest levels.

Are you able to shed any light on this situation ? Also, for those
of us such as me, who are not familiar with the management organization
of the USFA, can you please explain what is meant by the president's
closest advisors ? Are you referring to what is known as the USFA's Board
of Directors ?

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Sciurus-Rex

And I would expect the board to know that by now and act on it.

The Board doesn't have a say in the matter per the procedure outlined in the By-Laws. The nominating committee -- as elected by the Congress -- can nominate candidates. The general USFA (voting) population -- via petition with signatures of at least 2% of the voting population -- can nominate candidates. The Board does not have this power, nor does it have oversight over either of these two processes.

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

And I would posit that this means the Nominating Committee is failing in their duties.

It has been reported in this thread that in 2004 the Nominating Committee held their own little run off election between Anderson and Cheris - prior to submitting only a single nomination to be approved unanimously by the general membership.

This is awesomely inappropriate.

I would suggest that you take that up with either the members of the committee directly (former members now, the committee is an ad hoc committee that ceases to exist after fulfilling its duties unless/until a vacancy forces it to reconstitute), or with members of congress in the process of electing a new committee next year for the next regular election cycle.

It would be interesting to see how other equivalent organizations typically handle these situations. If I had to guess without doing any preliminary research first, I would say that most similar NGBs also generally have non-contested elections.

-B

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Sciurus-Rex

I assume at least one member of the board would be aware of our extensive discussions here, and would raise the issue with his peers.

To be on the safe side, however, I s'pose we oughtta write a few letters to remind them of the situation and our expectations.

Now I gotta look up the names and addresses... (mumble mumble)...

I can guarantee that at least one member of the board is aware of the discussions.

Trust me, there are a number of Board lurkers on the board, in addition to the few that occasionally post. These discussions are not going unnoticed. This is especially true these days with the recall going on, but is generally true as well.

-B