Petition to recall USFA President

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by dr.lutz

None of these people have any yearning for political power, but have taken a great personal risk in order to help the athletes, as well as the entire membership.

I'm still checking with various sources to verify some of the complaints leveled against Ms. Anderson, but I can tell you that the above is wrong. I know several of the movers (mentioned and unmentioned), and they are all politically very savy and into fencing politics, and getting what they want.

Trying to come across as a innocent is ridiculous.

Of course, while their motives may be questioned, it doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't right in this case. Nor does them being right about her lack of action mean they can do it better..

[iamverylonely]

Ok, I seem to get the feeling (forgive me if I'm wrong) that most people aren't sure whether what has been said about Nancy Anderson is actually true or not. I'll be the first to say that if you're a "rank and file" member of the USFA, chances are that your suspicion is justified.

One of the things to consider is that, if you're not an international level fencer, you probably have very little reason to be acquainted with the USFA's top office. I, through no fault of my own, was at Linz, Austria and am personally acquainted with all of the coaches present there. If all of them say that there was an unfulfilled promise by Nancy Anderson, then I'd be inclined to believe them.

And, frankly, let's look at all of the things that are glaringly apparent to anyone, whether you compete Internationally or not. The United States won a fencing gold medal at the Olympics in Athens for the first time in exactly 100 years (the United States won a gold medal in the 1904 Olympics in Single Sticks, something that, surprise, no longer exists). As an ordinary joe, where the flip was our marketing plan?

Even if it was unexpected, somebody should have been crawling all over that nearly immediately. But for the record, every weapon in the USFA suffered from lack of funds before Athens with the exception of women's saber.

That's all for now. I have no agenda, I just want a national coach.

[eze]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Here is the latest as of 12/16/05. Paul Soter is apparently taking a
lead in this drive. I will attach a letter from him. But it is not just
Soter. Apparently all or most (can never be sure if it's all) of the
national coaches are supporting this drive. . And BTW, P. Soter
was the national men's epee coach in Athens and runs
Golden Gate Fencing Center.
In his day he was on the national epee team and has been active in
USFA for the past 30+ years (I'm guessing here)
former PCS Chair, USFA VP, and USFA Secretary.

Sorry to be nitpicky, but I don't think Soter ever made a national team. He won nationals one year-but I don't think he qualified for a team even in that year.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

Dude, its the USFA. Nobody leaves the USFA office wealthier.

And you know this, how? Are you the USFA's auditor? Are you the accountant for all of the ex-officers? There are loopholes in the financial reports that you could drive an armored car through. "Staff retreats", indeed!

In any event, the "wealthier" bit mostly went with the analogy: political office. If you wanted the USFA version, it'd probably be something more along the lines of: enjoy exercising power, want the ego satisfaction of "putting my brand on a bit of history", etc.

[edew]

Originally Posted by achilleus

I'm still checking with various sources to verify some of the complaints leveled against Ms. Anderson, but I can tell you that the above is wrong. I know several of the movers (mentioned and unmentioned), and they are all politically very savy and into fencing politics, and getting what they want.

Trying to come across as a innocent is ridiculous.

Of course, while their motives may be questioned, it doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't right in this case. Nor does them being right about her lack of action mean they can do it better..

Many of those are politically savvy and are want to get what they want. But none really wants to be the USFA president.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by edew

Many of those are politically savvy and are want to get what they want. But none really wants to be the USFA president.

Of that I'm aware. But if they want to be the (wo)man behind the (wo)man, this still makes it a power grab on their part.

[KD5MDK]

Who does want to be USFA president, and have we disqualified them like prudent people would?

[Sciurus-Rex]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Aw come on now. Lets not color you a naive virgin.

Is that a new Crayola crayon color?

(By the way, I posted the above comment at great personal risk.)

[AllezCat]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

Besides full disclosure of identities of the massive cabal of petitioners ... conspicuously missing from their paperwork is what they would have done/would be doing differently from President Anderson. For example:

(snip a whole bunch of really good points)

My 2c worth -- this is the real problem with this petition.

As I see it, the USFA has three basic groups of people whom they have to serve:

Group A are the politicians. This includes the Board of Directors; the Executive Director; the members of the various Committees; our representatives to the various FIE Commissions; the National Coaches, people who think they should be National Coaches, and people who think certain others shouldn't be National Coaches; certain Olympic fencers and some of their relatives; and so forth. Note that I explicitly don't include Division and Section officers in this group. Most Division officers don't care about the organization of the National office, they just want it to work so they can send in their qualifying reports.

Group B are the general membership. This includes people who compete in tournaments; people who enter National tournaments; people who are interested in the results of National tournaments, and the national rankings; people who run Sections, Divisions, and clubs.

Group C is the world at large. This is mostly people who aren't directly involved in fencing at all. The interesting people included in this group are people who might want to start fencing and join group B, and the media, who can generate interest in fencing and help people start.

If you look at the real grievances in the petition, they're almost all group A complaints -- political complaints. President missed out on valuable schmoozing time at the World Championships, that sort of thing. USFA politicians are unhappy with the political environment created by the current President.

Unfortunately group A is far too small to recall the President by themselves, so they're trying to recruit group B to help. Group B doesn't care about the politics, so the petitioners are bringing up some of group B's (quite valid) complaints and blaming them on the current President.

The USFA website has always been somewhat makeshift. David Sapery did a great job with it, for a volunteer with not a lot of time. Dan Kellner is doing an OK job with the new version, for somebody who's got far more important things to do. The website has never been as functional as it should have been, and its shortcomings are not due to the current President.

Online registration seems to be a hot issue right now. I wonder if people realize just how long it's been cooking. I remember a member of the Board saying in a Congress meeting, "We are excited about the prospect of online registration, and hope to have it working in time for the January 2000 NAC." No, that's not a typo -- 2000. We waited for this all through Stacey Johnson's term. Why are we blaming it on Nancy Anderson now?

For that matter, we can go back a few years to when it was impossible for a Division officer to get hold of any copy of the USFA Operations Manual. I pestered them for three years because there was important information I needed to know in order to address things going on in my Division, and I couldn't get anything -- not an electronic copy, not a paper copy, not a draft, nothing. This was back when Nancy Anderson was just a nice lady on the bout committee.

In other words, the USFA has always had huge problems addressing the real needs of Group B, its main membership. Replacing the top politician is no guarantee that all of these problems will suddenly be solved. Come up with a plan to solve them, then figure out the leadership needed to get the job done.

-- Greg Jones, Western Washington Division

[AllezCat]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

If the petition pulls through, I hope the new president has the nuts to fire every last person who deserves it. The kind of person who will learn html and code us a new frickin website by himself if need be.

I realize that you probably weren't entirely serious, but this is in fact a huge problem with the USFA. There is a cult of volunteerism carried to ridiculous extremes. Work is not done by the best people for the job, but by whoever is pals with somebody at the National Office and thinks they can do it the cheapest.

The USFA is a big enough organization that it needs a website that can really address the needs of all its members. This is far too big a job for a volunteer. It's far too big a job for a guy who should be concentrating on training for the World Championships. It's certainly far too big a job for the President of the USFA, even if they already know HTML.

The USFA's website should be built and maintained by a professional company which is capable of translating the organization's needs (online registration, searchable database of results and rankings, downloadable Division mailing lists, etc., etc.) into a professional, reliable product. It's far too important to be left to amateurs.

[DieterS]

Very nicely put, Greg!

Somehow, I get the feeling that the USFA is not structured optimally for group B. In my opinion, the president, officers, and other workers should be paid for their work: operate like a business with a high level of professionalism (publish a yearly "report card" from group B), and group B should expect to pay for enough employees to make the USFA a smooth-running, responsive, and effective organization.

For those who disagree, consider this. Imagine the company you're currently working for, or the university that you're attending becoming a volunteer organization operating on donated time. What would happen? No really. Just imagine it.

See what I mean!

Dieter

[Mo]

Originally Posted by AllezCat

The USFA's website should be built and maintained by a professional company which is capable of translating the organization's needs (online registration, searchable database of results and rankings, downloadable Division mailing lists, etc., etc.) into a professional, reliable product. It's far too important to be left to amateurs.

The thing that bothers me is that Peet is not doing thE USFA website.
The reason he isn't is (this is something I put together by talking to upper yukies in the USFA) when he first had Askfred people allegedly could get into his system and change things. They "should not have been able to do that."
Yeah well get over it. He is the best thing going for fencing registration at tornaments no matter how large. ( love ya Peet )
The FOC uses askfred and it is well organized, easy to read and has always been there when I needed to find refs. They are sorted by state and Division and there is a list, all easy to find in a fast and highly accessable page.

The USFA has a lot of old time thoughts that will not go away. They need to go away. A clean slate policy will help this. Everyone starts in the same place.
Items presented for discussion should be name free and evaluated for the value of the topic, not what happened 5, 10 or even 15 years ago.
I don't think the people who are actually named in the petition would add any improvement whatsoever to the USFA.
Many of them have pretty bad reputations with the people that know them well. Not good team players at all.
Another thing I would like to know is if there is some kind of time limit on the petition so the people in the BIG office can get back to work and not have this in the back of their heads.
Happy Holidays to all!!!
Mo

[Craig]

There have been a number of calls on this thread for comments from Nancy Anderson, her supporters, or the national office.

I've had the chance to talk to people on both sides of this issue and I'm working to compile my notes together into something of a readable article. My intention was to already have that up, but end of year fire drills at my Real Life tm job and general Christmas mayhem have prevented that.

My goal is to have some time this weekend to get it all together and publish the article for "dead week" between XMas and New Years.

I apologize that I won't be able to get it out sooner.

Oh, and don't expect any comment from the National Office. The NO, correctly, has a policy of not commenting on developments such as this.

Thanks,
Craig

[heretic]

FYI, the single largest expense line item in the USFA budget is the operational cost of National office in CO, which item principally consists of salaries. The budget for the FOC (referees) is in second place.

We spend significant $$$ on what is presumed to be professional management. Most non-profits are directed by volunteer policy making/fundraising boards who work with an Executive Director (ED).

Our problem right now is weak leadership. Unlike her predecessor, Ms Anderson has set no policy, does not adequately oversee the ED or National Office, fails to communicate with any constituency and is oblivious to and incapable of fundraising.

The USFA needs a marginal level of leadership simply to maintain the status quo. We aren’t even getting that.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by heretic

The budget for the FOC (referees) is in second place.

Unless you are combining a huge number of items from throughout the budget this simply is not true. The FOC line item is WAY down the list.

"General Office Administration" is the largest line item, and certainly should be. Moving out one level of granularity "Total Summer Nationals" edges out "Total Member Services" and "Total General Administration", followed up by "Total Seniors Programs" and "Total Weapons Programs" (these last two are completely separate categories). Ranking based on 2004-05 actuals. 05-06 budget has "Total Weapons Programs" as EASILY the top category, followed by "Total Summer Nationals".

-B

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Here's a question: where are the duties and chain of command details for the ED listed? In an admittedly brief perusal of the USFA bylaws, I don't see an Executive Director listed anywhere.

Does Massik serve solely at the pleasure of the president, or is he hired/fired by the BoD? Since he's the highest paid individual in the organization, I can't help but wonder if there's a "yeah, I'll get right on that" response with a surreptitious when a proposal comes around that he doesn't personally support...especially if he feels some degree of political invulnerability.

It would explain some of the institutional inertia at the USFA.

[Mo]

There has to be a hellofalot more of this than is apparent to the average person in the fencing community.
How does anyone know if Ms Andersen has set policies or not??
The meets are all going on, and fencing is thriving. There are so many people at NACs now days that it is getting more and more difficult to keep up with the numbers.
Fencing is growing like crazy. Until the organization in general can keep up with the numbers, there is going to be some difficulty.
The people behind the recall represent for the most part, 30-40 fencers. They are concerned about elite fencing. While this is a concern, there are also the remaining what is it, 40,000 or so??
I can't wait for Brad's notes. It will be enlightning and clear up some of the muck.
Mo

[Mo]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

Here's a question: where are the duties and chain of command details for the ED listed? In an admittedly brief perusal of the USFA bylaws, I don't see an Executive Director listed anywhere.

Does Massik serve solely at the pleasure of the president, or is he hired/fired by the BoD? Since he's the highest paid individual in the organization, I can't help but wonder if there's a "yeah, I'll get right on that" response with a surreptitious when a proposal comes around that he doesn't personally support...especially if he feels some degree of political invulnerability.

It would explain some of the institutional inertia at the USFA.

I have had to contact Mr. Massik on several occasions for things that were not earth shatteringly important but important to my kid. I seriously did not want to bother him with mundania.
He has always responded quickly and took care of problems for me. If he could not take care of the problem he sent me to the person who could.
All this speculation and casting of aspersions is annoying me....
Mo

[millsisland]

I think Michael Massik is a jewel; we're lucky to have him as ED. However, I think he could be vastly more productive. If only he didn't have to spend the majority of his day taking care of The Department of Ego Soothing and Containment, and dealing with cra* like this proposed recall....

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by Mo

The people behind the recall represent for the most part, 30-40 fencers. They are concerned about elite fencing. While this is a concern, there are also the remaining what is it, 40,000 or so??
I can't wait for Brad's notes. It will be enlightning and clear up some of the muck.
Mo

I would agree with this but see it with a slightly different slant. There is a continuum of skills and interests from the bottom level recreational fencer who never fences outside of their own salle (what is the ratio of USFA members in your club to non-members), to those who are moderately competitive locally, to those who will do whatever including travel in order to compete, to those who will do that and are successful. This very tip of the pyramid are the 30-40 fencers that you are referring to. In almost every sense these are the most (normally I would say most important but that is an emotionally charged phrase that doesn't convey what I want to say) most influential members of our chosen group. Because their success, and the way they do it influences how we all do this thing, fencing. We all use them as a metric and to greater or lesser degree emulate what they do and how they do it. They don't have to go out and say "hey you, do it my way". I was often in the same salle as Eric Hansen when he was number 1 epeeist. People would come from all over to fence him. And I know of at least one young man who chose his college so that he could be close enough to train against him. I watched fencers conciously or subconciously emulate/mimic with greater and lesser success his style.

One critical charge against Ms. Anderson is that under her leadership the USFA has held back this group by not executing its duties properly. Another important charge has been that the USFA has not capitalized on the US gold in fencing in Athens. This is important because the USFA gets a BIG hunk of its support from the USOC and Athens gold is very important there - IF you make sure they remember it. And those monies influence what the USFA can do for all of us. Secondary issues that things like online registration for competitions has not materialized is an inconvenience to the larger group but definitely of less critical concern.

Point, if you aren't intending to be competitive then the USFA really has little or no importance to you. If you are competitive then what happens to the top level of competitors is probably of concern/interest.

Likewise I look forward to Brad's notes and Craig's article. And despite my posts, in my own mind I am trying to take a balanced view of this recall.
j.