February 2006 BoD Meeting

[oiuyt]

Attached is the agenda. Comments? Concerns? Questions?

-B

[KD5MDK]

Very interesting. It seems substantially more complete than the last Agenda I recall reading, as more committees and officers have reports in.

Motion 1: I suppose the Board is expected to know or look up these things, but what are the current distinctions between Senior and Div I Team events? Also, has there been any interest expressed in Veterans Team events?

Motion 2: What consequences will result from a failure to sign such a document? Will the qualifier events be voided, the officer removed from their position?

Motion 3: Sorely needed. Have there been any particular proposals about where to source additional strips and apparatus?

Motion 4: This motion appears to remove the exception that I believe previously existed for fencers on the Y14 National Points List. Is it his intention to remove that exception or should it be added?

Appendix D: How many coaches will be in the "Coaches Advisory Group"? Will there be enough to supply sufficient diversity, or too many to accomplish anything?

Appendix G: Lots of questions.
a) How does the sponsorship deal with Duellist USA replace or interact with any previous sponsorship deals? Specifically, I recall Absolute Fencing claiming sponsorship of the Men's Foil Team, and I think Women's Epee as well.
b) What does the Membership and Credentials Compliance Review entail and is the USFA at any risk because of it?
c) Online Registration:
i) "Murat Yorukoglu, Technical Project Manager," - Who is he, and how was he selected?
ii) If the vendor has been selected, who is it? If not, who are the contenders, and how were they selected?
iii) Why is the USFA purchasing a server from eBay? (Is it being bought at auction on eBay, or is it formerly owner by eBay and being purchased directly through them?)
iv) What do they mean by "implement plans to incorporate professional webmaster"? Is this an ongoing position, or a consulting or contract job? Does it have any connection to the current USFA website, or is it concerned with online registration only?
v) To what degree will operating the online registration system in tandem with the existing one stress the office staff in the time before Summer Nationals?
vi) Is there any chance the online registration site will require a particular browser or operating system?

Appendix H: Any further details available on this investigation by a federal law enforcement agency?

Appendix I: What was the final number on entries at Houston, and what was the increase amount after the first deadline?

Appendix I1: Can we get the handouts presented at the Board Meeting posted afterwards (or whenever available) and a summary of the oral report when possible?

Appendix J: How are the referee ranks when it comes to breakdown of levels? Are referees progressing in skill at appropriate levels or has the majority of the growth come at the Divisional referee level?

How is referee availability per weapon? Are all three weapons adequately supplied by refs, or is there a relative shortage in one or more weapons?

Appendix K: What is the role of the Quad Captain?

Appendix M: Is Paul Soter's involvement in the PET project related to his position as Women's Epee coach? Will he stay involved since resigning?


Finally, will the other committee's reports be available before the meeting, or soon afterwards?

[oiuyt]

I'll touch on most of your questions here. Many of the answers will likely have to wait a couple of weeks until after the meeting.

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Motion 1: I suppose the Board is expected to know or look up these things, but what are the current distinctions between Senior and Div I Team events? Also, has there been any interest expressed in Veterans Team events?

The only differences that I'm aware of are the scheduling and the seeding mechanisms. The qualification paths are the same (and generally the qualification event is the same event). The Div I Team event is held in conjunction with the Div I individual events (whether in April or July), the Senior Team events are always held in July. The seeding for D1Team uses only D1 individual results, the Senior Team uses only DIA, DII, DIII results.

I have not heard any mention or suggestion of cadet or veteran team events.

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Motion 2: What consequences will result from a failure to sign such a document? Will the qualifier events be voided, the officer removed from their position?

Hopefully reproachful letters from the national office. I intentionally did not include any specified penalties. The idea is to further encourage divisions to actually comply with the rules, policies and guidelines, which does not currently always take place. As mentioned in the rationale, this motion was initiated because of some complaints that were brought to my attention from this season's JO qualification process. In theory there are all kinds of sanctions and penalties that the USFA could use. In addition to those that you mention, the USFA can also withhold the annual dues rebates (this is the penalty generally used when divisions/sections fail to return the annually required financial statements). I'm sure there are other penalties that could be used. Again, the idea here isn't to start setting out a penalty structure, but rather to more clearly emphasize the expectations of proper operations.

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Motion 3: Sorely needed. Have there been any particular proposals about where to source additional strips and apparatus?

I believe the intent of the motion is to trigger such contingency plans to be made in the event that they are needed.

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Motion 4: This motion appears to remove the exception that I believe previously existed for fencers on the Y14 National Points List. Is it his intention to remove that exception or should it be added?

I do not believe that it was his intent to add any additional limitations, but rather to expand what is allowable at the divisional level. This motion is in response to the recent email from the national office on the topic. The exception that you mention is actually for fencers on the JUNIOR points list, rather than Y14 (DI, II, III (and the omitted IA) are senior events).

There is an on-going email discussion among Board members on this topic that has resulted in at least two rewordings of the motion already.

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Appendix D: How many coaches will be in the "Coaches Advisory Group"? Will there be enough to supply sufficient diversity, or too many to accomplish anything?

I believe it specifies which coaches will be eligible. I suspect that this is a relatively large number when you look at the fact that it includes every coach with a top-16 fencer in Y14, Vet-Combined, Vet-50, and Vet-60 (in addition to Cadet, Junior, and Senior, which tend to cluster from a relatively few coaches). Personally, I think that the definition should be expanded to include any coach with an athlete in the previous year's NCAA top-16 (or even any athlete at NCAA nationals (top-24)) as well. Whether a huge group means that it cannot accomplish anything or not depends greatly on how the group is structured and what is expected from the group (a source for comments/feedback/suggestions, or a body that can meet and work cohesively (I suspect the former, in which case there is little problem with having a fairly large group)).

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Appendix G: Lots of questions.

Appendix H:

Appendix I:

I don't have answers to any of these questions at this time.

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Appendix I1: Can we get the handouts presented at the Board Meeting posted afterwards (or whenever available) and a summary of the oral report when possible?

Almost certainly yes to both. The report will primarily be a summary of the results from the survey that the USFA just finished conducting asking people about what they want and get out of national tournaments. The Task Force will, as mentioned, be meeting the day prior to JO's to craft this interim report. A more complete report, which will presumably include recommendations, is due at the July meeting.

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Appendix J:

Lots of information about referee numbers can be obtained by looking through the list of referees (http://foc.askfred.net/Referee). I believe the cadre is expanding at all levels, but that it is hard to keep up with the growth of the active fencing population, especially at the upper levels.

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Appendix K:

Appendix M:

No answers for you on these either, sorry.

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Finally, will the other committee's reports be available before the meeting, or soon afterwards?

Some might be, but I would expect a number of the committees not to report. Most, if not all, of the reports that will be made that were not included here will only be available in hardcopy.

I will post a report here with my comments and notes from the Board meeting. There are a couple of other Board members that frequently post their comments and notes elsewhere online (Paul Soter and Joseph Streb both come to mind in this category). When that happens links to those other locations are frequently included in the discussions here.

-B

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

I'll touch on most of your questions here. Many of the answers will likely have to wait a couple of weeks until after the meeting.

Thanks. At the very least, I hope these questions help you see what one member is interested in hearing about. I've cut a lot of your responses when they're all I need to hear.

In theory there are all kinds of sanctions and penalties that the USFA could use. In addition to those that you mention, the USFA can also withhold the annual dues rebates (this is the penalty generally used when divisions/sections fail to return the annually required financial statements). I'm sure there are other penalties that could be used. Again, the idea here isn't to start setting out a penalty structure, but rather to more clearly emphasize the expectations of proper operations.

As long as there is some kind of existing setup for sanctions to be applied that's available, I think everything's fine.

I do not believe that it was his intent to add any additional limitations, but rather to expand what is allowable at the divisional level. This motion is in response to the recent email from the national office on the topic. The exception that you mention is actually for fencers on the JUNIOR points list, rather than Y14 (DI, II, III (and the omitted IA) are senior events).

Hmm. Are there any fencers under the age of 13 (in that "competition year") who are on the Junior Points List? That is, as I understand it, they're on the Y14 Points List to be able to compete in Cadet events, the Cadet Points List to compete in Junior events, and have achieved sufficient results in a Junior event to obtain points in it? That's an extremely precocious young fencer.
I would think that a more lenient exception (perhaps the Cadet or Y14 points lists) would suffice, since they've already been judged capable of competing with other fencers eligable to compete in Opens.

I believe it specifies which coaches will be eligible. I suspect that this is a relatively large number when you look at the fact that it includes every coach with a top-16 fencer in Y14, Vet-Combined, Vet-50, and Vet-60 (in addition to Cadet, Junior, and Senior, which tend to cluster from a relatively few coaches). Personally, I think that the definition should be expanded to include any coach with an athlete in the previous year's NCAA top-16 (or even any athlete at NCAA nationals (top-24)) as well. Whether a huge group means that it cannot accomplish anything or not depends greatly on how the group is structured and what is expected from the group (a source for comments/feedback/suggestions, or a body that can meet and work cohesively (I suspect the former, in which case there is little problem with having a fairly large group)).

It does, but I don't have the abilty to look up who the coaches are for all these events. 7 categories with 6 weapon/sex combinations leaves us with... 42 points lists and 16 fencers on each is... 672 places. Now, a lot of those will have the same coach, but still probably something like 80+ members. At this point, is there any particular reason to have a limitation on membership? I suppose it gives you a defined set of people to send surveys and invite comments from, but it still seems unwieldy.

Lots of information about referee numbers can be obtained by looking through the list of referees (http://foc.askfred.net/Referee). I believe the cadre is expanding at all levels, but that it is hard to keep up with the growth of the active fencing population, especially at the upper levels.

There's a lot of information about the current supply of referees. However, there's not much on the increase in referees of various levels over previous time periods, and nothing on what the demand for referees at the national level is.

Some might be, but I would expect a number of the committees not to report. Most, if not all, of the reports that will be made that were not included here will only be available in hardcopy.

Is there any particular reason committees don't report? Do some of them only have tasks at certain times of the year or when assigned?

[oso97]

Okay, here's my comments.

III.B. (first hearing motions)

1. Yes, sounds appropriate.

2. Absolutely indeed! And about time. More is needed on this front, I'd say even.

3. By all means. But can the venue and the current contract for the venue support it?

4. NO! Sorry, this is just another case of "my son/daughter/student is better than everyone else and should be accorded privlidges." The modification to the rules that I've seen presented and I think that actually makes sense is to allow youth on the Y14 national points lists to compete in Div. I, Div. IA: note this is MISSING from the list!!!!, Div. II, Div. III, Junior and Cadet, any qualifying competitions there to, or an otherwise unrestricted divisionally sanctioned competition. "Open" needs to be specifically clarified to mean "open to all classifications, and competitors who have acheived age 13 by Jan 1st, or qualified by virtue of being on the Y14 national points list."

Of course, if we had a good regionalization program in place, we could do more .

IV. Good and Welfare.
It would be nice if they'd schedule the Congress meeting for the SECOND weekend of Nationals, for a number of reasons.

Appendix A.
This all looks pretty good, but there is one line in here that sticks out for me, "The finances of the USFA are on strong footing and we are no longer relying on cash flow from membership dues to meet our obligations." If this is the case, then what exactly are membership dues being used to do?

Appendix G.
What is a "USOC Membership and Credentials Compliance review" and what is the impact of such a review?

Appendix I1.
Since this is going to be an oral report, can we get a recording of it and the handouts that will be presented? Hey, I'll provide the recording apparatus myself, and hold it myself.

Appendix J.
3) Why is the FOC Discipline committee solely focused on behavior at National Competitions? Is it not within their perview to investigate matters at other competitions? Recent focus on having appropriate referee staffing of Divisional and Sectional Qualifiers would seem to indicate that the FOC is taking an active interest in these competitions, and thus, should accordingly monitor Black Cards given at these events.

[hpfencing]

Looks like a lot of issues ARE being dealt with that will help the USFA as a whole. I am inpressed that most of the corcerns that I have heard, seem to be addressed in this agenda.

In the past it seems like less "public good" has been in the agendas!

Appendix G: "USOC Membership and Credentials Compliance review"
I'm not sure this sounds good, what does it mean?

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by oso97

4. NO! Sorry, this is just another case of "my son/daughter/student is better than everyone else and should be accorded privlidges."

not at all.

the new clarification would STILL apply the same rule to ALL individuals, it would just allow the local division to make the rule. what's wrong with that? If you don't think that kids of 12-13 can compete (or that coaches and parents can be trusted to make the decision), then feel free to support a rule reflecting the current national interpretation for your division. Given the number of 11 and 12 year old kids I know who do just fine at adult events, I would NOT support such a rule in MY division.

I also know many 11 or 12 year olds who are NOT ready for adult competition, and their parents/coaches keep them out of those competitions.

There are things which clearly need a national standard instead of a local one. this isn't one of them.

-m

[Philistine]

Thanks for posting the agenda--especially the Appendices. It's great to have them available.

One minor question--what was on the 1st 24 pages? Minutes of the last meeting?

--Philistine

[hpfencing]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

not at all.

the new clarification would STILL apply the same rule to ALL individuals, it would just allow the local division to make the rule. what's wrong with that? If you don't think that kids of 12-13 can compete (or that coaches and parents can be trusted to make the decision), then feel free to support a rule reflecting the current national interpretation for your division. Given the number of 11 and 12 year old kids I know who do just fine at adult events, I would NOT support such a rule in MY division.
-m

I think it should be the SAME policy for everyone in the USFA, this is going to confuse youth and parents. Might also cause political tensions in a lot of divisions.

Example: "Well son, you can fence in NM division this year because they allow it but our local events don't because they don't like kids"


Just something to think about!

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Hmm. Are there any fencers under the age of 13 (in that "competition year") who are on the Junior Points List? That is, as I understand it, they're on the Y14 Points List to be able to compete in Cadet events, the Cadet Points List to compete in Junior events, and have achieved sufficient results in a Junior event to obtain points in it? That's an extremely precocious young fencer.
I would think that a more lenient exception (perhaps the Cadet or Y14 points lists) would suffice, since they've already been judged capable of competing with other fencers eligable to compete in Opens.

I don't believe there are currently any Y12 fencers on any junior points list, but I believe Becca Ward managed to do so. July 2003 she placed 5th at Div I Nationals. IIRC she had just turned 13, so she would have been 12 that season by fencing standards. In July 2002 she won Y12WS and placed 3rd in U19WS and 6th in DIAWS, so certainly she had managed it then. Obviously she is an exceptional case. Brendan Meyers (2001, 1st Y12MF, 37th D1MF) is another example.

I would be unsurprised to see this motion spark discussion that results in revisions to the current system, if not what the motion proposes.

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

There's a lot of information about the current supply of referees. However, there's not much on the increase in referees of various levels over previous time periods, and nothing on what the demand for referees at the national level is.

Bill Oliver has touched on growth (in both supply and demand) in the past in FOC reports and Referee Newsletters. It would take tracking them down to be able to get these answers, but they are periodically presented. Looking at the information displayed on FRED it appears that historical tracking is on the "to do" list. Depending on how that is implemented it could be more or less difficult to use it to generate your own stats (possibly requiring automated page grabbing and scrubbing to extract the data, or more easily asking Peet to run some stats on the data that he has in more friendly form).

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Is there any particular reason committees don't report? Do some of them only have tasks at certain times of the year or when assigned?

Some because they haven't done anything (frequently because nothing needed doing in their domain), others because they don't have a report ready in time, others, who knows. The YDC doesn't have a report in the agenda, but historically they have been very good about always reporting. I would expect to get a report from them. Many of the others might or might not report. In theory every committee should at least submit a placeholder report that nothing of import occurred, and sometimes this is done (I've seen at least 1-2 reports that basically just consisted of a 1-2 sentance statement that the committee hadn't met between the two Board meetings and had nothing to report), but frequently it is not.

-B

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Philistine

One minor question--what was on the 1st 24 pages? Minutes of the last meeting?

I noticed that too. This was the complete document distributed. The minutes from September were in a separate file. I don't really have a good answer.

-B

[incider]

Originally Posted by hpfencing

Looks like a lot of issues ARE being dealt with that will help the USFA as a whole. I am inpressed that most of the corcerns that I have heard, seem to be addressed in this agenda.

In the past it seems like less "public good" has been in the agendas!

Appendix G: "USOC Membership and Credentials Compliance review"
I'm not sure this sounds good, what does it mean?

Let's hope it means that this is the beginning of a USOC effort to help the USFA restructure its by-laws to comply with the new USOC guidance on corporate governance. That would lead to very healthy organizational change and would be a good thing.

At the end of that process, the USFA will have:

a. a smaller BOD, with 20% outside directors (bringing fresh ideas and energy) and 20% athletes (bringing current fencing expertise), that is properly focused on governance (goal setting, strategic planning, fund-raising and oversight) and does not interfere with the day to day management of the organization. and

b. a CEO who reports to the BOD and who will be fully responsible for and accountable for the day to day management of the organization (including all staff members). and

c. a modern set of by-laws that will require more than 10% of the members to intiate a recall (to protect the organization from gadflies); mandate staggered term limits for Board members (to protect the organization from slow starts every four years); eliminate the current role confusion between the EC and ED over management and require outside directors (to provide the organization with greater balance and perspective).

[fluidfencer]

Something has come up that will prevent me from attending JOs. Could some of you make this very important point (below) at the meeting, and maybe find out whether the USFA intends on putting a new structure in place by the 2008 vote? I will work my tail off to push this idea forward. It really makes the recall issue irrelevant, since proper structure and oversight will address many of our collective concerns.

Please let me/us know.

Originally Posted by incider

Let's hope it means that this is the beginning of a USOC effort to help the USFA restructure its by-laws to comply with the new USOC guidance on corporate governance. That would lead to very healthy organizational change and would be a good thing.

At the end of that process, the USFA will have:

a. a smaller BOD, with 20% outside directors (bringing fresh ideas and energy) and 20% athletes (bringing current fencing expertise), that is properly focused on governance (goal setting, strategic planning, fund-raising and oversight) and does not interfere with the day to day management of the organization. and

b. a CEO who reports to the BOD and who will be fully responsible for and accountable for the day to day management of the organization (including all staff members). and

c. a modern set of by-laws that will require more than 10% of the members to intiate a recall (to protect the organization from gadflies); mandate staggered term limits for Board members (to protect the organization from slow starts every four years); eliminate the current role confusion between the EC and ED over management and require outside directors (to provide the organization with greater balance and perspective).

[schlager7]

I get 80 more members when I add the division subtotals together in Apprendix F.

(18,044 versus 17,964)

[KD5MDK]

That's the Illuminati Division, they're unlisted.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

That's the Illuminati Division, they're unlisted.

But quite influential... FNORD!

--Philistine