April Board meeting?

[arc]

At JO's, it was indicated to me that rather than hold the ordinary special meeting of the Board of Directors, a decision had been made to move the meeting back to the last weekend of April. Since then, I understand that there has been some dissent from having this meeting, in part because of the conflicts entailed.

Does anyone out there, particularly a member of the Board (i.e., Brad) know whether a final decision has been made on whether this meeting will take place?

[oiuyt]

As of today, it was announced that the April meeting would not be held, but that we will meet as normal in July. Some members of the Board had expressed a problem with missing section events (usually Junior Sectionals, possibly in some cases Senior).

-B

[KD5MDK]

Is there any particular reason the meeting wasn't held at JOs to begin with?

[arc]

Ausgezeichnet. Just heard the same from another source. Thanks much ...

[oiuyt]

There had been discussion of moving the meetings away from tournaments. Rationale is that many Board members are involved with the tournaments in some function -- athlete, coach, referee, BC, etc. already and this results in double-booking of time. Examples include high-level coaches skipping meetings to warm up their athletes, athletes skipping meetings to warm up, cutting out of meetings early in order to make a close of check-in (*raises hand as a named example of someone who did this, missing discussion of a motion I had submitted, resulting in the motion being deferred to a later meeting*), etc.

While that discussion hadn't come to resolution, Nancy decided to try it for this meeting.

When the April date was announced (actually, the second time it was announced) some objections were raised. Board members were asked whether a) they were available, b) they were available, but only by conference call, c) they were not available. There were a significant number of non-responders, which meant that the totals in the first two categories were sufficiently small that the meeting was scratched completely. My sense is that there were only a couple of category-c responses.

Regarding the multiple roles that Board members play, it has been expressed as a positve thing. We should encourage/enable those who are actually involved with the sport to be on the Board and responsible for the governance. While, clearly, another solution would be to pack the Board with people who AREN'T conflicted at tournaments, it's hard to believe that solution isn't worse than the current problem. Whether moving Board meetings away from National tournaments will encourage greater participation of those involved on a daily basis with the sport is considerably more questionable, in my opinion.

-B

[DJ Apostrophe]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

There had been discussion of moving the meetings away from tournaments. Rationale is that many Board members are involved with the tournaments in some function -- athlete, coach, referee, BC, etc. already and this results in double-booking of time. Examples include high-level coaches skipping meetings to warm up their athletes, athletes skipping meetings to warm up, cutting out of meetings early in order to make a close of check-in (*raises hand as a named example of someone who did this, missing discussion of a motion I had submitted, resulting in the motion being deferred to a later meeting*), etc.

While that discussion hadn't come to resolution, Nancy decided to try it for this meeting.

When the April date was announced (actually, the second time it was announced) some objections were raised. Board members were asked whether a) they were available, b) they were available, but only by conference call, c) they were not available. There were a significant number of non-responders, which meant that the totals in the first two categories were sufficiently small that the meeting was scratched completely. My sense is that there were only a couple of category-c responses.

Regarding the multiple roles that Board members play, it has been expressed as a positve thing. We should encourage/enable those who are actually involved with the sport to be on the Board and responsible for the governance. While, clearly, another solution would be to pack the Board with people who AREN'T conflicted at tournaments, it's hard to believe that solution isn't worse than the current problem. Whether moving Board meetings away from National tournaments will encourage greater participation of those involved on a daily basis with the sport is considerably more questionable, in my opinion.

-B

How about the solution of having the meetings in the evening, as opposed to the morning.

I'm guessing a meeting at 7PM would have less conflicts than one at 7/8AM.

Granted there would still be some conflicts between referees/coaches/BC/athletes at something like Summer nationals, but at smaller events (JOs, some of the NACs) the day is pretty much wrapped up at that point.

-w

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by DJ Apostrophe

How about the solution of having the meetings in the evening, as opposed to the morning.

I'm guessing a meeting at 7PM would have less conflicts than one at 7/8AM.

Granted there would still be some conflicts between referees/coaches/BC/athletes at something like Summer nationals, but at smaller events (JOs, some of the NACs) the day is pretty much wrapped up at that point.

-w

That was suggested as part of the discussion in September.

Evening meetings were how it was handled prior to about 3-4 years ago. Conflict comes from those that need to get to sleep before 2am due to needing to be up (and functioning) the next morning. And, unsurprisingly, people making poor decisions just to hurry the end of a meeting in the wee hours.

-B

[eac]

Why can't the Board set up a private chatroom or mailing list for itself, and then hold Board meetings electronically? Does the Board gain something by being face-to-face?

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by eac

Why can't the Board set up a private chatroom or mailing list for itself, and then hold Board meetings electronically? Does the Board gain something by being face-to-face?

Has also been discussed.

-B

[Peach]

The Veterans Committee meetings are often scheduled for evenings. Unfortunately, events go late, people pack up to leave or haven't arrived yet, teammates are still fencing, and half the people don't show up at all just because they get talking to someone and forget it's being held.

[KD5MDK]

Does this apply mostly to the Veterans Committee members, or to the veteran fencers you'd like to have attending?

[Peach]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Does this apply mostly to the Veterans Committee members, or to the veteran fencers you'd like to have attending?

Both. Some of the committee members are also competitors who have a shot at making the team and have competition conflicts with the meeting. Some aren't. But it's fairly rare we have a quorum. We often don't have much attendance of non-committee members either. It's not that people don't care--veterans are vocal, opinionated, active, and interested--it's just that scheduling meetings in the evening of a competition presents problems.

Not that it would be much better during the day. Is a problem.

[Inquartata]

But at least scheduling meetings mornings or middays would not interfere with the drinking.

Well, not for most people.

As much.

[notalent]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

But at least scheduling meetings mornings or middays would not interfere with the drinking.

Well, not for most people.

As much.

Only the non dedicated ones

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by oiuyt

That was suggested as part of the discussion in September.

Evening meetings were how it was handled prior to about 3-4 years ago. Conflict comes from those that need to get to sleep before 2am due to needing to be up (and functioning) the next morning. And, unsurprisingly, people making poor decisions just to hurry the end of a meeting in the wee hours.

-B

Meeting of the Regional fencing organizations in Sweden are AFAIK always held after the regional championship, either team or ind. The championship is wrapped up by 16:00 or maybe a bit later, and the meeting commences shortly thereafter. Never heard about no-shows because of conflicts with the just finished events. In one case, I heard of a meeting taking part with a t least one member (busy professor) being present via conference call. Did not hear about problems due to that.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Meeting of the Regional fencing organizations in Sweden are AFAIK always held after the regional championship, either team or ind. The championship is wrapped up by 16:00 or maybe a bit later, and the meeting commences shortly thereafter. Never heard about no-shows because of conflicts with the just finished events. In one case, I heard of a meeting taking part with a t least one member (busy professor) being present via conference call. Did not hear about problems due to that.

Right, but meetings following events that end at 16:00 and meetings following events ending at 23:00 are different beasts.

-B

[notalent]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Right, but meetings following events that end at 16:00 and meetings following events ending at 23:00 are different beasts.

-B

Events end at 1600? I dream of that happening Sadly 2300 is early at some NACs.

[KD5MDK]

There are events that end at 1600. Like Vet 60+ WS when they start before noon. There's just never the last event ending then. (Except on the last day of Summer Nationals, when everybody is running for a plane.)

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by notalent

Events end at 1600? I dream of that happening Sadly 2300 is early at some NACs.

The regional team championships, held 2 weeks ago, did end about then. Granted, the largest event was senior MET, with 7 teams, and no other event with more than 4. I will take lots of fencing over early stops any day.

Our Individual regional championships end at about the same time, with ME (largest event) usually having 20-30 competitors. You could take part, simply by joining a club in the region via email, showing up, and paying a SvFF competitive licence (13$ for a weekend, 50$ for a calendar year) at the door. Presto! All set.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[KD5MDK]

No more word on any of this, taken from the September meeting report by Brad, I presume.

Discussion of website, online membership, online entries.
In process of migrating information from website into a new website that is stable and easier to navigate. Expected completion date 10/15/06. Additionally allows direct posting of information by office staff without intermediation of webmaster.
Online membership system nearing completion. Scheduled to be operational concurrent with new website (10/15/06).
Those are being referred to as "Phase I" (there is also a completed "Phase 0").
"Phase II":
* Continuous web site improvement
* Better integration with Registration/Membership
* With easier maintainance, USFA can respond to constituent feedback
* Web Membership/Registration integration with Core App
* Reduce work for USFA staff
* Immediate feedback for problems (eg can't register for a Div I NAC if your rating is U)
* Completion Date: TBD - Q1 or Q2 2007.
[note: this completion date was clarified to indicate that national event entries are expected to be operational in time for NAC D (Columbus). Doing so would indicate Q4 2006 at the latest as the registration deadline for that NAC occurs in December. When this was pointed out that target was reiterated]
Phase III:
* Replace core application
* Create extensible, web-based core application
* Retire AS/400 based, built in 1984 application
* Tight integration with web registration
* Tight integration with web site (ie specific member and tournament info available)
* Completion Date: TBD Q3 or Q4 2007.