Vets in San Diego and Division Politics

[jjefferies]

As has been covered in another thread we know that Fencing as part of the Veterans Games in San Diego this September has been canceled. Curious as to why I inquired and was told that
The San Diego Division refused to sanction the tournament at their meeting on August 12 and refused to consider it before August 12. .

In order to make the budget, there needed to be 50-60 fencers registered. Without sanctioning, too many fencers were unwilling to come to the tournament and the games couldn't make their costs.

Nobody would have made any money (profit?) on the tournament. But the Division didn't like the price ($950) being paid for rent for the venue for two days, despite that it meant getting a state of the art facility with grounded strips and air conditioning..

Ok, I understand that without the hope of making the numbers the event was canceled. But that left me wondering why the Division was involved in the finances and wouldn't sanction the event and I followed that up and got the response that:

The Division had no financial responsibility in the tournament. Financially it was all with the Senior Games. But a "senior member" gave an interpretation of sanctioning and financial responsibility that: sanctioning means that the sanctioning body assumes total financial responsibility.

So it sounds like the "senior member" was instrumental in having the event turned down for sanctioning on the basis that the Division would have been financially responsible. Based on my experience as Division Chair for Northern Calif. that doesn't make sense as sanctioning has no relationship to the financial responsibilities - at least so far as I've ever learned.

So I'm getting this all third hand or worse. Does anyone know the actual situation and is there anything to "sanctioning means that the sanctioning body assumes total financial responsibility"?? I'm really curious about this as it does affect other divisions as well.

[oiuyt]

Different divisions are structured differently. In some divisions (some or all) tournaments are completely "owned" by the division, along with which goes financial responsibility. In other divisions all the division does is so "okay, this tournament's official" and everything else is handled by the organizer (club and/or individual, depending). And almost every imaginable point in between. And lots of hybrids. And exceptions.

In at least some divisions, sanctioning a tournament absolutely does include financial obligations from the division. In others it never does.

I have no information on how the structures are set up in San Diego.

Who was paying the $950? Who was paying tournament officials? Who was collecting the entry fees? Who gets to keep any surplus if more than the minimum number of people register? Knowing the answer to those questions goes a long ways towards knowing to what degree the division would have been assuming financial responsibility.

-B

[KD5MDK]

The only people who can answer those questions are the Division Officers and tournament organizers. Hopefully they agreed on what they are.

[midi]

First, my son, Kip Cox, is way to young to do this competition, but he has worked as the fencing aide at Gateways Summer School for many years with Anne Rosser, a board member of the San Diego Senior Games, and now retired PE teacher in the San Diego Unified School District. If he is at home during the Gateways Summer School, he visits her classes, including the one when his cousin was taking fencing. Anne was instrumental in the San Diego Division having access to the high school gym where they hold the monthly division tournaments at a very discounted price for gym use.

Four years ago Anne asked me to figure out what it would take to have fencing in the Senior Games in San Diego. We have worked on it and shared the information with San Diego Division EC members and members of the Board of the San Diego Senior Games. Membership in the San Diego EC has changed over time, and those with continuity did not speak to recognize the continuity of the request. The San Diego Division EC has ignored what we shared and the Senior Games was excited.

To make it work, we figured that a venue was needed with 6-7 grounded strips for 2 days (so fencers could do more than 1 weapon) and that we needed air conditioning (San Diego even on the coast can be awful in August and September), with a trainer. To make the budget, we needed a minimum of 30 fencers. (That means no out of town referees, and nobody makes money, only that the costs are paid and nobody is subsidizing the tournament.)

The Senior Games has a registration fee of $35 for all competitors, no matter the sport. Each sport sets its own fee. And each sport only uses the sport fee to pay the cost of running the competitions.

Saul Mendoza agreed to provide his club (San Diego Fencing Center) for the tournament. It provides 6 grounded strips and air conditioning, something not available elsewhere in San Diego. At the venue rental fee, he probably was losing money on the weekend since he would cancel classes.

I do not speak for Saul or the San Diego Fencing Center. I can only report the efforts undertaken with the San Diego Division over several years, the work of the San Diego Senior Games Board and what I know about the decision.

Midi Cox

[Purple Fencer]

h sport only uses the sport fee to pay the cost of running the competitions.

Saul Mendoza agreed to provide his club (San Diego Fencing Center) for the tournament. It provides 6 grounded strips and air conditioning, something not available elsewhere in San Diego. At the venue rental fee, he probably was losing money on the weekend since he would cancel classes.

And lets not forget that if anyone broke any gear....just walk through one door and you;re in teh Fencing Post.....winner for everyone...Saul wouldve probably make money back in sales.

[ysbadadden]

What I absolutely don't understand is the argument that the Division would somehow be liable for anything that went on at the Games. If it's a USFA sanctioned event -- especially if it is -- the Officers (if USFA members, as is required) are insured, the Organizers (if USFA members) are insured, the host club (if holding USFA insurance) is insured, and the fencers are insured. The Division (which may or may not be insured) presumably has no assets to speak of, and has extremely limited exposure, since it merely sanctions the event and does not run it.
The argument is completely phony, or at least, so it appears.

[oso97]

What I absolutely don't understand is the argument that the Division would somehow be liable for anything that went on at the Games. If it's a USFA sanctioned event -- especially if it is -- the Officers (if USFA members, as is required) are insured, the Organizers (if USFA members) are insured, the host club (if holding USFA insurance) is insured, and the fencers are insured. The Division (which may or may not be insured) presumably has no assets to speak of, and has extremely limited exposure, since it merely sanctions the event and does not run it.
The argument is completely phony, or at least, so it appears.

As Brad pointed out - not necessarily, depending upon how things are structured there. One of the biggest (false) assumptions people make is that the way things are done in their division is the only and right way to do things. There are probably as many different ways these issues can be structured as there are divisions in the USFA.

[oiuyt]

There are probably as many different ways these issues can be structured as there are divisions in the USFA.

If you include that some divisions are inconsistent, the count could be even higher than that. :)

-B

[oso97]

If you include that some divisions are inconsistent, the count could be even higher than that.

-B

*grin* there are inconsistencies, and then there are properly executed exemptions to the standard order!

[fencerbill]

The Division (which may or may not be insured) presumably has no assets to speak of, and has extremely limited exposure, since it merely sanctions the event and does not run it.
The argument is completely phony, or at least, so it appears.

YMMV. Who owns the scoring equipment used at Division meets? Are Division officers completely insulated from exposure?

[Ordway]

I am one of the San Diego Division officers (Treasurer) and I was at the EC meeting that voted on sanctioning the Senior Games.

1. We did not receive the request for sanctioning until the day before our Aug. 12 EC meeting. No one connected with the event attended the meeting to give details or answer questions.

2. The consensus across the EC was that while we thought it was a good idea in the abstract, we had no information about it; therefore we agreed that we could not in conscience sanction it. The decision to not sanction was based on procedural concerns and lack of information, not anything against the Senior Games itself. In fact, one of the EC members volunteered to get in touch with the people running the Senior Games to reiterate our support for the idea and our willingness to sanction future events if they were presented to us in advance and with more details.

[jjefferies]

I am one of the San Diego Division officers (Treasurer) and I was at the EC meeting that voted on sanctioning the Senior Games.

1. We did not receive the request for sanctioning until the day before our Aug. 12 EC meeting. No one connected with the event attended the meeting to give details or answer questions.

2. The consensus across the EC was that while we thought it was a good idea in the abstract, we had no information about it; therefore we agreed that we could not in conscience sanction it. The decision to not sanction was based on procedural concerns and lack of information, not anything against the Senior Games itself. In fact, one of the EC members volunteered to get in touch with the people running the Senior Games to reiterate our support for the idea and our willingness to sanction future events if they were presented to us in advance and with more details.

So the question that concerned me, "that the Division was financially responsible", was not a consideration and was not raised?? If so, then one could understand the Division's decision.

[Ordway]

So the question that concerned me, "that the Division was financially responsible", was not a consideration and was not raised?? If so, then one could understand the Division's decision.

For the Senior Games sanctioning, yes, that is correct.

[KD5MDK]

If you include that some divisions are inconsistent, the count could be even higher than that.

-B

You mean, have one policy with multiple options? Or multiple official policies?



I know the answer is both..

[oiuyt]

You mean, have one policy with multiple options? Or multiple official policies?



I know the answer is both..

Not to mention multiple different ways of violating their own policy(ies).

-B

[namenlos]

My view, and my $.02...

It true that the current EC is a predominantly conservative lot, and a bit obsessed about financial responsibility. This division has cash in the bank and lots of scoring equipment. Regardless of our bank account, I believe that the division does have a fiscal responsibility to its membership. And this EC, including myself, are responsible in addressing this. (for me, breaking even works) Could the division be sued for bills created by organizers, if the EC sanctions an event? In this litigious society we live in, my guess is yes. Could individual EC members be sued for damages? I've seen this done. Is it likely? Not in my mind, but it could...

For me the real concern is whether or not we cross the line from what is reasonable and based on common sense, versus an overwhelming concern for "what might happen". Unfortunately, I believe that we may have crossed that line. (Before I became a member of this EC, I would have considered myself a moderate, but now, relatively speaking... I must be a liberal! ;-)

Lets forget the money, and focus on the Veteran state games... The message that should have been communicated to the organizers is that the EC needed more information about the event before sanctioning it... nothing more, nothing less. And I for one would have embraced a reasonable proposal and would have voted for sanctioning (I abstained) had the proposal been presented to the EC. I was on the EC last season as well, and I never saw it on any agenda. I would think that the organizers could still provide a reasonable proposal to the EC and it could still be sanctioned.

Chuck Alexander

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Could the division be sued for bills created by organizers, if the EC sanctions an event?

If you are on the EC of the Division, why are you posing this in the form of a question?

What do the by-laws say about sanctioning? Does the division sanction merely make the event official for USFA ratings, or does it mean the entire event is run by the Division, with full responsibilities for all facets, including handling all monies?

As a Division officer, this is information you need to know, and be able to pass along to members of the Division.

[KD5MDK]

Maybe they're traditionally inconsistant...

[namenlos]

They were posed as rhetorical questions. There isn't any legal definition about liability for an EC anywhere to be found. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And there isn't any consistent application of how a division decides to sanction an event across the entire USA to be used as a standard.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Again, not really the point. What do your bylaws say about the sanctioning process? It should be pretty plainly spelled out. If not, then perhaps your Division needs to amend their bylaws as a point of protection.

As was mentioned earlier, every Division does it a little differently. In ours, the sanctioning process is clearly laid out, with benchmarks for a club's submission materials and timeframes to have their event be granted sanction by the Division.

The only events our Division takes financial responsibility for are those the Division runs itself: mostly JO and Summer Nats qualifiers and the odd RYC. For any other event, the clubs are on their own to collect/keep fees and pay their own expenses.

The clearer the Bylaws, the better for everyone.