For everyone planning to attend a tourney in North Carolina

[Beowulfman6]

The Idea of having some official presence at tournamnets I like. What I don't like is that all the divission officers are in the Greensboro, Raleigh area and I'm not sure any would be willing to drive to Brevard even once or twice a year. It looks like clubs in the far corners of the state (Brevard College, ASU, Wilmington, Cape Fear) are going to realy get the short end of the stick with these changes.

There is a lot of interest in fencing in the western part of NC, and Me and my clubmates are trying hard to develop the area beyond our school (we already have a few community members who come to practice regularly). I think this possibility could hurt the development and growth of the sport in NC.

I think if the divission wants to do a policy like this they should also have "districts" or something (West, piedmont, east???) and have a requiremnt for a minimum number of officers from different parts of the divission. Even having an officer from Charlotte would be a huge help since we alwayse have charlotte fencers at our tournamnets.

[1e1hfppe]

Now, in my opinion if this policy is in force in the future, I'm not sure that the division can accomodate the current schedule load. After a quick count just using the calendar posted on ncfencing.org, I see 54 tournaments between the start of this season (last Aug 1) and today. That's not tournament days. If an event lasts two days, I just counted it once. So, in just under 10 months, there were 54 tournaments. Sometimes with 3 tournaments on the same weekend in different parts of the state. A few tournaments were also scheduled for a Wednesday or Thursday evening.

If we have so much fencing going on that Division officers can't possibly preside over all of them, can the division be split into multiple divisions like florida? It would seem that this might handle the explosion of tournaments across the state. Say a Coastal NC and Piedmont NC split right down the middle.

Is this feasible?

[Frank Pratt]

The Idea of having some official presence at tournamnets I like. What I don't like is that all the divission officers are in the Greensboro, Raleigh area and I'm not sure any would be willing to drive to Brevard even once or twice a year.

You guys have just as much right to a tournament as any other club. After more than 100 messages in this thread, I'm still not sure exactly what happened to cause this action, but if the division has been ordered by the USFA to monitor every event, then the division needs to do whatever they have to to ensure that an officer makes it to each club in the corners of the state at least once or twice per year. If I were an officer, I would feel that it would be my duty to drive a few hours once or twice during my term to monitor a tournament. I would do my duty, no matter what, but I would not complain about it if the division paid me a nominal stipend and reimbursed for my gas. If I could not (or did not want to) perform this duty, I would not run for office. Granted, the current officers didn't know they would have to monitor events when they were elected, but a nice stipend might ease the pain a bit.

[Frank Pratt]

If we have so much fencing going on that Division officers can't possibly preside over all of them, can the division be split into multiple divisions like florida? It would seem that this might handle the explosion of tournaments across the state. Say a Coastal NC and Piedmont NC split right down the middle.

Is this feasible?

Well, that's an extreme measure for a fairly small division (as far as fencer population goes.) Just for starters, it would dramatically increase the number of JO and Summer Nat. qualifiers from the state. Furthermore, if the problem is solved, they probably won't have to send an officer to each tournament for very long.

[oso97]

One idea might also be for there to be a committee charged with "tournament certification." Have a number of people on it, from different corners and places. Require them to have a certain set of qualifications (perhaps a referee rating or USFA Technical Committee training). Publish the list and then say that in order to have a tournament certified, someone from that committee must verify the event.

[dekko]

To Frank, I said that very thing to the division officers and they don't seem to agree and since they had not planned on attending any of these other events any way, they will not bother or be bothered to come out to any of the remaining events and see that they are sanctioned.

To 1e1, boy does that open a can of worms. NC is actually one of the largest geographical divisions and 7th, I think, in total membership in the USFA. So the idea that NC has a small fencing population, someone is not educated. This idea has come up a few times but no one really wants to pull the trigger and sponser this idea all the way through. Besides, too many side issues to deal with(ie money, where to split), to make this happen anytime soon. The edict from upon high would have to come down to make it happen.

Oso, not sure the committee would satisfy the requirement. I think only elected officers can do this but then again maybe not, hence another issue with this very new policy.

[bigdawg2121]

North Carolina may have a decent number of total fencers, and is certainly very large geographically, but there's no way splitting it down the middle would really do anyone any good outside of the increase in number of qualifiers. I think all one has to do is look at the events schedules and results to realize that outside of the meets designated as Circuit Events most people stayed relatively close to home. For those events where there were a a few that chose to travel you weren't particularly likely to find a strong event. There are two places in the state that have strong tournaments with any regularity: Charlotte and Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill. As to how Charlotte managed to grab no officer positions I don't know b/c that would probably make most of this a moot discussion point, but if we had two divisions would it change the fact that tournaments outside of these two hubs are almost always weak, or would it just allow people to have more tournaments?

[Craig]

To Frank, I said that very thing to the division officers and they don't seem to agree and since they had not planned on attending any of these other events any way, they will not bother or be bothered to come out to any of the remaining events and see that they are sanctioned.

There should be a solution. Officers or some other designated observer should be able to get to any event in the Division. It has been done in the past.

As Mr. Epee has stated, I doubt that the problem is unique to NC.

Craig

[RebelFencer]

If this is an issue then couldn't the Division appoint "tournament supervisors" or something and make it just a supplemental office. Maybe have the division pay their gas if they aren't fencing in said event and elect someone from each part of NC so there's no insane distance for tournaments?

[Goofy]

If this is an issue then couldn't the Division appoint "tournament supervisors" or something and make it just a supplemental office. Maybe have the division pay their gas if they aren't fencing in said event and elect someone from each part of NC so there's no insane distance for tournaments?

Don't make sense, Reb. This is, after all, America, and making sense just doesn't work.

[KD5MDK]

I suppose it depends on exactly what the National Office has told the Division officers. I have seen Divisions arrange things so that there is one person held responsible for certifying that the tournament was run according to USFA rules, although that person is not required to be a Division officer. This was done I believe after it was found impractical to send Division officers to every tournament planned. (That is, tried, and found to be an excessive burden.)

On the other hand, such a solution wouldn't work if the National Office has told the NC officers that they must personally account for all the tournaments held in their Division, or required that it be an officer who attends. For that matter, creating such Tournament Supervisor officers would, if they are to be officers, presumably require a bylaws change, which takes time to do.

[Phrogger]

I think if the divission wants to do a policy like this they should also have "districts" or something (West, piedmont, east???) and have a requiremnt for a minimum number of officers from different parts of the divission. Even having an officer from Charlotte would be a huge help since we alwayse have charlotte fencers at our tournamnets.

This idea has merit. I don't think NC is big enough to split into 2 divisions. That would just water down the division's influence and collective experience.

If they are going to do this "unsanctioning" with tournaments left in the season (whether ordered to by the National Office or not), they have got to have someone at every event. If they can't, they better hold a meeting soon and make some new officers who can. Why penalize everyone for the sins of a few? If the division allowed it to come to this, then they are responsible for making it right without hosing the smaller clubs in the process.

[Beowulfman6]

If this is an issue then couldn't the Division appoint "tournament supervisors" or something and make it just a supplemental office. Maybe have the division pay their gas if they aren't fencing in said event and elect someone from each part of NC so there's no insane distance for tournaments?

I suggested this very thing to the divission chair.

[Padawan]

Same thing was brought up to Stephen P. (one of the officers) at the RYC. Audit procedures can be put in place to ensure compliance.

[jenoldc]

I think it is great there is this discussion forum. It is obvious to me there needs to be a safe place to openly discuss the real issues at hand. I propose that this type forum be opened on the NC Division website to all current NC members who wish to join.

Craig,

If you are reading, is there a way to develop a private forum on fencing.net? It would be a great tool for divisions.

Jen

[Philistine]

I don't know about private--but on the list of forums, you can see that there are sub-forums for the NYC area and the Rocky Mountain Section, and Craig offers to host others. The note says to send him a pm if interested.

--Philistine

[Mr Epee]

Craig,

If you are reading, is there a way to develop a private forum on fencing.net? It would be a great tool for divisions.

Jen

Private forums are a pretty good way to kill a healthy board.

[i am fluffy]

Maybe North Carolina could secede from the US and start their own country with their own rules and rating requirements ... much like they tried in 1861.

[Mr Epee]

Maybe North Carolina could secede from the US and start their own country with their own rules and rating requirements ... much like they tried in 1861.

And then they could recruit Bruce Vail to their events, beat him, and jumpstart an inflationary trend in their rating system.

excellent. yes...

[swordsen]

Bit of slamm on Bruce there huh? Not really called for at all.