I particularly liked this idea from the High Performance Committee:
Captain and Chef should attend both of these events (meeting and world champs) and communicate expectations and activities for the teams to personal coaches and athletes.
Only Chefs with extensive snake-preparation skills need apply!
"Sometimes we, as coaches, get into that dictator mode where you just tell and you don't listen and you don't try to understand them." Tom Izzo, Mich. St.
"Fraud is the creation of trust. And then: its betrayal."
William Black, Ph.D.
I presume the submitted minutes for the previous meeting are out there somewhere, since they are supposed to be approved?
Was the budget report sent out?
I presume the submitted minutes for the previous meeting are out there somewhere, since they are supposed to be approved?
Was the budget report sent out?
Piece by peice comments following
The email I received mentioned the minutes would be coming in a subsequent email -- not yet received.
The budget report is routinely send out under separate cover (hard copy, in fact). I have not yet received it and don't know whether or not it has yet been sent.
-B
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
EC Actions: Approved to purchase the Colorado Springs office space.
I was under the impression we already owned our office space. Is this regarding the expansion into the former Team Handball space?
Urgent Motion #1
Fee increase - I feel this motion is only rationally considerable if there is a report of existing tournament income and expenditures, predictions for upcoming tournament expenditures, and comparisons of outcomes based on this motion passing or failing. At the moment, that information is not publically available.
Second Hearing:
1 - (D'Asaro) I believe it has been pointed out that this motion uses incorrectformulas for National Championships in its rationale section.
2 - (Baker) Needs a format for how to report such a situation, but am otherwise in favor.
3 - (Herman) This risks awarding ratings to the top 2/3 of a field. Not worth the correction, especially in consideration of the TC's recommendation further down.
4,5 (Kuver) I defer to the Tournament Committee's report on this.
6-13 - Already commented on.
14 - Why is this motion described as moot? It is already at 2nd hearing and I don't see any reason why it couldn't be passed and implemented by the January 2008 NAC. Of course, I don't think it's a good idea, but it's not moot.
15 - Support. For the events this affects, the additional resources are negligable, and hopefully will contribute to an expansion of fencing to the point that it will not actually be in effect for any events.
First Hearing
1 - (Herman) This seems a bit abrupt. Why not just have nicer medals for the National Championships? Also, presumably these would be awarded to both fencers who "tied for 3rd", right? Is there any particular reason you should get a medal at a NAC for 5th place but not Nationals?
2 - (Herman) Makes sense, although I understand the USFA currently obtains substantial revenue from Triple Fees. However, if the end result is more efficient, I support it.
3 - (Baker) This rolls into a larger discussion of what we want Div II and Div III to be, but I support it in general, unless we completely revamp the idea.
4 - (Baker) I support the idea of some sort of minimum standard. Are only CEN1 (or 2) ratings allowed or would other certifying agencies be allowed? Would US manufacturers/designers be disadvantaged compared to European brands if the only testing opportunities are in Europe to European designed standards?
5- (Soter) This proposal only makes sense if you presume that tournament sizes are drawn up beforehand to fit a certain rating level. The argument that 64 fencers requires 4 pools of 7 and 6 of 6 is uneven only matters if you capped signups at 64 in order to get an A4 (or A3 or B3 or C3) tournament, and everyone showed up. In my experience, the makeup of the pools is far more dependent on how many people attended, and you're just as likely to get 65 people as 63, so what does rejiggering the chart accomplish in terms of pool size?
6 - (Soter) Needs more consideration. How many areas/events are likely to be affected by this?
7 - (Soter) When would the additional Div IA event be held? There's only 1 3 day NAC and it already offers Div I. Presumably it would be onto the Oct, Nov or March NACs (or maybe in conjunction with JOs), but most of those have no room for an additional 6 open events. What does a Div IA NAC mean, open entery to anyone? No points awarded?
7 - (Soter) Mr Soter had two motions label "7". This one is about Time Zones. It looks to me that if adopted, the December and January NACs would have NO events starting before 10am unless they are located in the Pacific time zone. That's a bit of a problem, I think. In theory everyone could just get some extra sleep and shift the whole weekend back 2 hours, but that fails terribly when it comes time to fly out on the evening of the last day.
Appendix A - President's Report
I lost track of what was supposed to be done versus what was done versus what was described as done but I haven't seen, like online entries. Must revisit later.
Appendix B - VP Wright's report
Veterans - It would be nice to have some more details about the resolutions to the issues he mentioned by name.
Marketing - The USFA BoD currently writes and establishes policy in pretty much all areas, either directly or via committees. It seems to me that the proposed change would pull the BoD representation back from a controlling role and put the USFA executive staff and the marketing agency in charge.
Appendix E - Executive Director
Interesting news on the membership front. Clearly need to do something about that.
Appendix F - Legal Resources Group
The usual "wouldn't it be interesting to hear the whole story" bits. Good to see the membership recommended for expansion, the members service is appreciated and having more backs to shoulder the load has to be good.
Appendix G - Tournament Committee
Prop 1 - Best of the proposed solutions, although this would make it the only tournament level that had different results for 2nd and 3rd place.
Prop 2-9 - No immediate comment.
Prop 10 - Random reseeds - This is a technical problem that probably should be fixed, although it's not particularly unfair to anyone.
Prop 11 - I take it this proposal is to do something like having Pools for Satuday's event on Friday afternoon? That's an interesting idea, and would mirror World Cups. However, how to we decide when it is possible to do such a thing? For example, if Friday's events grow very large from registrations it could become difficult or impossible to accomodate the necessary pools, but you have to make the announcement well in advance so that people can plan to arrive on the correct day. Also, this means that a person only fencing one event may need to take an additional day off, which could be a substantial burden. Finally, what if a fencer plans to compete in say Div II and Div III? Now scheduling them on separate days no longer is enough.
Prop 12 - Formal training for TC work is important and a program should be established with certifications as soon as possible.
Prop 13 - Good news, keep it up.
Appendix H - FOC
This report looks remarkably similar to others submitted before. I suppose our problems just don't change, although the complaint about the FIE event airfare line item is gone. Hopefully that was resolved.
Appendix I - HPC
This confused me. I suspect you'd have to be an elite athlete, coach or parent to really know what all is going on.
Appendix J - Coaches College
Shame about the Olympic Year limitation. Perhaps if a suitable venue could be found (like a cooperative university) Level I and II courses could be offered in 2008 to keep the momentum going in expanding the available coaching cadre, or perhaps have regional workshops in its place to compensate for the missing year. Also, I'd like to see the "Become a Fencing
Instructor" program pushed to NASPE and AAHPERD.
Referee's College would be nice, but when any referee who is ready to move above the Division level can already find work at Summer Nationals (and is pretty much needed there), how many people would have time to do both?
Last edited by KD5MDK; 06-17-2007 at 02:08 PM.
Reason: fixed spelling of "Kuver"
Joe Streb's motion is now moot because the January 2008 NAC is scheduled for Atlanta, not Columbus.
Regarding my second first-hearing motion, I intentionally did not specify CEN1 to allow for implementation to include other testing agencies*. One of the nice things about having a relatively long phase-in period is that details such as who can test can be worked out. Gives a full year before the first tournaments with the rule. That first season is just National tournaments, where a significant number of athletes are already competing in FIE gear (empirical observation that holds for all levels, with the percentage increasing as the level of competition does -- I haven't made any attempt at systematic analysis to date). Two years out it would apply to everyone. That's the theory, anyway.
-B
* If any. That said, geographic bias should be fairly minimal in any case. Get the gear, send it with (boatloads of, unfortunately) money to the lab, get certified, and you're good to go. Slightly increased transit times or higher shipping fees shouldn't pose a significant additional burden to the costs already in place for creating a new clothing line.
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
3. To Enhance and Increase the Delivery of Services to Members
Objectives:
A. To develop an enhanced USFA website complete with on-line entries
Action Steps:
Contract to develop new website
Establish on-line entries system
Establish on-line membership renewal
Performance Evaluation Measures:
Enhanced website and on-line entries functional by October, 2005 (see report of Executive Director.)
(Bold emphahsis added.)
However, there's no mention of the status, or the holdup on the on-line entries in the ED report. We're now more than 20 monts late on this one. Does anyone have any insight into what's going on here?
dberke: I have no further information than what was sent out in the agenda. I'll certainly report back here with whatever information is shared in Miami.
-B
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
Compare with the other proposals, just as Mr. Herman's extending the places down to 10th (9-10 get Es) or the other one, because people seem to think E ratings should be awarded at an A1 tournament.
Just read the agenda and two things jumped out as 'What?'.
The idea that having an 80% cut from pools to DEs in the vet event demeans the finals of the competition, IE champion, is a complete load of S***. You tell Ed Korfanty, since there was an 80% cut you are just an ok fencer. Had there not been an 80% cut you would be a great fencer. Oh well.
Second, the online event registration and membership application. Not sure why this hasn't either been done or outsourced yet. I understand the pause a few years ago but we now have a very strong and well known example of online tournament registration many fencers use quite often than can either be used or copied(no disrespect to that webmaster). As for becoming a member online, if a 15 year old kid can buy a baseball card from ebay, we shoudl be able to become members of USFencing online. Is there a GOOD reason this hasn't been done yet? What will be the reason/excuse this time? This is an issue way too old and should have been done at least 2 years ago. To whom it may concern, get this one done. You have run out of lame BS excuses. It time to take that bold leap with both feet into the year 2000 and make this happen.
Just read the agenda and two things jumped out as 'What?'.
The idea that having an 80% cut from pools to DEs in the vet event demeans the finals of the competition, IE champion, is a complete load of S***. You tell Ed Korfanty, since there was an 80% cut you are just an ok fencer. Had there not been an 80% cut you would be a great fencer. Oh well.
I presume you mean "not having" a 20% cut (or 80% promotion). I can see the arguments for both sides.
Officer, director and committee reports (required under Bylaws Article VII, Section 4) are referenced to the corresponding Board of Directors Agenda appendix. The Board of Directors Agenda is available online at: www.usfencing.org.
I'm not finding these. I've got the agenda and some committee reports via Brad's file here, but there's still no treasurer's report, and I'd like the opportunity to review the things the Bylaws think I must.
Also, what format does the Nominating Committee election take? Do we nominate and then vote on people to represent particular sections?
Here's a brief synopsis of action taken at the Board meeting a few days ago. Sorry for the delay. Note that these are my personal notes and in no way reflect an official communication of the USFA. When official minutes are released they take precedence over anything I've written here.
Urgent:
Motion 1 was amended to read "Motion (Ron Herman): to increase the national tournament registration and entry fees by $10 each effective for the 2007-2008 season." The amended motion was passed.
Second Hearing:
Motion 1 failed.
Motion 2 was amended a couple of times. The words "in mid-season" were removed. Language was added to state that the change should be reflected in the Ops Manual and that the National Office is directed to create a policy of how this should be implemented and to establish appropriate deadlines. The amended motion was passed.
Motion 3 was amended per the TC suggestions.
A1 tournaments award the following classifications:
1->A
2->B
3-4->C
5-6->D
7-8->E
The amended motion was passed with a vote of 9-4.
Motion 4 failed.
Motion 5 failed with 1 vote in favor.
I don't have any note associated with motion 6. I think it was determined that RYC/SYC tournaments are already sanctioned nationally, so the motion was moot.
Motion 7 failed.
Motion 8 was deemed moot, due to the failure of motion 7 (which would have created the position of day captain).
Motion 9 ditto.
Motion 10 failed with 1 vote in favor.
Motion 11 failed. During discussion it was represented that the USFA has already examined such solutions and that a projection system for pools, etc. would be debuting later that day (Sunday). I haven't noticed such a system in use in the venue. I'll try to follow up with Michael Massik during the tournament tomorrow.
Motion 12 was tabled until September. It was noted that many of the Board members most affected weren't at this meeting (the motion's rationale is to avoid competition-meeting conflict and points events were going on as the discussion took place). Additionally some members of the Board will rotate off and others take their place and really what we need is for the new Board to determine what fits their (our) needs. The September meeting already is not held in conflict with any (national) tournament.
Motion 13 failed.
Motion 14 was ruled moot.
Motion 15 was withdrawn as the sponsor couldn't recall how his name came to be associated with it.
First Hearing
It was suggested that all motions require seconds, and, while we haven't required this in the past, starting with this meeting, motions failing to receive a second will not automatically advance to second-hearing status and will instead fail for that lack.
Motion 1 minimal discussion, but was seconded.
Motion 2 failed for lack of a second.
Motion 3 minimal discussion, but was seconded.
Motion 4 was withdrawn pending further discussion, research, and possible rewording, but is expected back in some form at the September meeting.
Motion 5 failed for lack of a second.
Motion 6 failed for lack of a second.
(the first) Motion 7 failed for lack of a second.
(the second) Motion 7 failed for lack of a second.
Other notes:
The next Board meeting will take place Sunday, September 16th, 2007 in Chicago, IL.
There was extensive discussion about the budget, controls on expenses, and how budget variances are handled.
The YDC has established an August 20 deadline for SYC bids for 2007-2008. The SYC season will now extend from October through April to try to avoid a spike as a specific portion of the season is overloaded with SYCs.
The EC meeting on June 29th resulted in the following actions:
* Approved reimbursement to a referee for incurred expenses submitted after the deadline due to extenuating circumstances.
* Approved the appointment of a panel to investigate allegations of inappropriate behavior by a coach.
* Approved the office in consultation with the Youth Committee Chair shall develop a policy for age verification for submission to the board in September and possible inclusion in the ops manual.
Let me know if there are any questions about anything at the meeting, either listed here or omitted.
-B
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
* Approved the appointment of a panel to investigate allegations of inappropriate behavior by a coach.
Brad, Thank you for a detailed report. It was easy to follow with the agenda on hand.
Regarding the EC actions, is this the event discussed in the other thread?
Originally Posted by KD5MDK 
