Nominating Committee Guidance

[epeeforlife]

Let the Nominating Committee hear your voice!

We had a trial run with this in the RMS forum but now it is time for everybody to participate. Inquartata wanted me to add "Shoot them all at sunrise and confiscate their assets to distribute to grassroots fencing" option. Instead I think we can put that in a new poll "What to do with the officers who have been removed?" after this one is concluded.

[Inquartata]

However, it must be said that a poll which requires a follow-up poll is you-know-what.

[KD5MDK]

Flawed^2?

[Inquartata]

Did a mouse scurry across your keyboard at the end there?

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Is it possible that the the nominating committee can release those whose names have been put forward in nomination at some point...like halfway (or 1/3 or 2/3 or 68.93%) through the process?

That way, the membership would know who is in play for the positions, and maybe more importantly, who is not.

Or does that kind of transparency limit the opportunities for smoke-filled backroom shenanigans that seemed in vogue during the Times of Unrest a year or so back?

[oso97]

Speaking as a rather involved member of said Nominating Committee...

Many, if not most of the members are either active posters or lurkers here at F.net. Anything said is going to catch attention. The Nominating Committee is taking a different approach to the "usual approach" of selecting candidates. In the past, its been about who could assemble a strong coalition and strong-arm everyone else in to submission. We've taken a different approach.

We were elected by the Congress of the USFA to fulfill an important task - select the best candidates to lead the USFA in the next quadrennium. We've chosen to operate quietly and without fanfare, but also deliberately and seriously. We are cognisant of the important task facing us, and have approached it with the utmost of care and concern.

Starting in August, we began talking to a broad spectrum of persons from across the USFA. Athletes (both elite and non-elite), parents, coaches (both elite and non-elite), members of the Board of Directors, regional and local administrators, national and international tournament staff, current and past officers of the association, people with institutional memory, people with fresh perspectives. Most of the conversations were frank appraisals of both the state of the USFA and potential leaders, and were also of a confidential nature. And if anyone wants to express an opinion of any nature, you can look on the USFA website and find us. Anonymous commentary is not accepted for consideration, however.

We've also received numerous inquries from potential candidates and have responded to all of those. We have a number of serious candidates for positions that we are considering. It is not our intention to broadcast these names high and low, but if anyone is interested in expressing an opinion, again, you know where to find us (the Dallas NAC would be one such occasion).

It is our intention to assemble the best >TEAM< of individuals to lead the future of our organization, and we expect the candidates for various positions to allow us to do our work in a serious and deliberate fashion. There will be NO back scratching, hidden deals, quid-pro-quo, or other such nonsense. We are charged under the Bylaws with submitting a report by mid-December, and will do so. And again, if anyone has any specific commentary to submit, we want to hear it - but directly, from you, not on an internet bulletin board.

And if the membership does not approve of our final report, well there are provisions for contested elections. But, we hope the nature of our process and the assembly of the strongest team we can find will not require such a process.

[edew]

Oso,

Do you guys have a direction that you want the team to work towards? A team may be great if going in direction X, but may be poor when going in direction Y. Maybe you want a team to work on infrastructure. Or maybe a team to work on marketing and expanding the sport. Or whatever. I don't know, but perhaps have some priorities of what you think USFA wants. Then, various people might look differently.

Also, are you considering people that might be outside of the sport who might have an interest in doing something that is entirely voluntary?

I'd be more interested in knowing (and offering input) on the decision criteria of the nominating committee rather than the names of those who have passed through with thumbs up or down.

[Tripod]

Allow me to summerize the previous post.

Everyone before me is bad, but I'm good. My friends and I have discovered a new idea of impartiality that has never been considered by our predicessors who were partisain hacks.

We hope to appoint a team without an election of any sort, but please don't discuss things in public because open discourse might lead to a result different from the one that our secret organization has planned for you.

Pay no attention to the men working behind the curtain. We have your best interests in mind. Your interests, by the way, are probably beyond your understanding, so trusting us blindly is in your best interests.

SHHHHH!!!! As we all know, the best governments are researched in secret, selected in secret, and operate in secret. Pappy Dick C knows best.

[Right-Handed Lefty]

Originally Posted by Tripod

Allow me to summarize the previous post.

Only the names will change.

[dberke]

Originally Posted by Tripod

Allow me to summerize the previous post.

Everyone before me is bad, but I'm good. My friends and I have discovered a new idea of impartiality that has never been considered by our predicessors who were partisain hacks.

We hope to appoint a team without an election of any sort, but please don't discuss things in public because open discourse might lead to a result different from the one that our secret organization has planned for you.

Pay no attention to the men working behind the curtain. We have your best interests in mind. Your interests, by the way, are probably beyond your understanding, so trusting us blindly is in your best interests.

SHHHHH!!!! As we all know, the best governments are researched in secret, selected in secret, and operate in secret. Pappy Dick C knows best.

Speaking as another person on the Nominating Committee, I think you've entirely misread his post.

First, there was an election. The USFA Congress elected the members of the Nominating Committee in Miami. The Congress is comprised of people from each division elected by their membership. All USFA members over age 18 are eligible to be a Congress rep, so it is not difficult to be involved in the process. If you chose not to do so, that is your decision and not a flaw in the process.

Edit: Also, any member over age 18 was eligible to run for their section's rep on the Nominating Committee. That's how I got elected - I wanted to get more involved. I sought out the information, found out about the Committee election, ran, and was elected. Hardly a "closed" process.

Secondly, there is a difference between discretion and secrecy. In my involvment with the Committee, I have found people more than willing to discuss things with outside parties. However, an anonymous internet forum is not the place to do that because it often leads to the spreading of misinfomation and rumor. Again, if you want to express an opinion on candidates, issues facing the USFA, or anything else you feel should be considered, feel free to contact any of the committee members directly. Most of us will be in Dallas where we can talk in person.

Dan

[oso97]

Originally Posted by edew

Oso,

Do you guys have a direction that you want the team to work towards? A team may be great if going in direction X, but may be poor when going in direction Y. Maybe you want a team to work on infrastructure. Or maybe a team to work on marketing and expanding the sport. Or whatever. I don't know, but perhaps have some priorities of what you think USFA wants. Then, various people might look differently.

Also, are you considering people that might be outside of the sport who might have an interest in doing something that is entirely voluntary?

I'd be more interested in knowing (and offering input) on the decision criteria of the nominating committee rather than the names of those who have passed through with thumbs up or down.

Eric,

That is exactly how we started out. What we've realized is that, aside from a few generalities (better communication, national office with better direction, development of fiscal policy overhauls, improved development and deployment of information resources, fostering of and protection of our competitors at international meets, development of tools for local fencing organizers to utilize, among others), its next to impossible to predict the specific challenges we'll be facing in the next quad.

We've also realized that there is a surprising amount of consensus on these general directions.

And Tripod, I'll point out that just because it isn't being discussed on F.net doesn't mean that its taking place in secret. As wonderful and fabulous as this bulletin board system is, it does not represent the be-all and end-all of all communication. The notion that we're conduction our affairs in secret, with some sort of covert agenda, would be insulting to the members of the Nominating Committee who have been especially open and available. Discretion and confidence is one thing - anonymity is something else entirely. All that is asked is that you make your comments as you, yourself, directly to a member of the committee by email, phone or in person.

And honestly, if you wanted to get more involved in the process than that, then you needed to be at the Congress Meeting last summer. Sorry if this offends anyone, but if you're not wiling to make the sacrifice and commitment to attend and speak, then you're more likely to be limited in the role you can play. That doesn't mean NO role though. If you have something to say, by all means, seek out one of us, and make your comments directly. You will not be blown off.

[JEC]

Originally Posted by oso97

... if anyone is interested in expressing an opinion, again, you know where to find us (the Dallas NAC would be one such occasion)...

Please, listen CAREFULLY at what USFA members tell you without overinterpreting. If needed, then, ASK for clarification before jumping to conclusions or spreading a rumor.

I hope that you and the committee succeed representing the membership and moving forward the organization. I applaude your and DBerke's openess in discussing the operations behind the curtain.

[Right-Handed Lefty]

Originally Posted by dberke

However, an anonymous internet forum is not the place to do that because it often leads to the spreading of misinfomation and rumor.

And yet I hear rumors and misinformation at regional and national events all the time. The USFA is full of people who care about U.S. fencing. I will not dispute that. What you have to understand is that we have been burned before and we're cynical of the process. There are people who care and then those who care only about themselves or their pet projects. At this point, it is up to the nominating committee to prove us wrong.

And yes, I have made suggestions in person to members of the committee.

[Tripod]

SO you will be selecting people because you think they will be able to provide

BETTER Communication Skills
BETTER Coordination Skills
BETTER Financial Planning Skills
BETTER Resource Distribution Skills

All that AND, here's the kicker, a deep caring for US Athletes.

You were seriously surprised to find consensus on these issues? I'm sure everyone is shocked to find out that you aren't considering individuals with a proven track record of

WORSE Communication Skills
WORSE Coordination Skills
WORSE Financial Planning Skills
WORSE Resource Distribution Skills

And a record of tossing the US National Team under a bus.

"Better" is not a specific criteron without properly defining what "better" means. Has anyone involved with this committee been involved with the hunt or selection process of a leader for a multi-million dollar corporation before? How about a service orgainization that serves nearly 50,000 members? What does qualify someone for serving on this community other than being in a room at a certain time?

[epeeforlife]

Originally Posted by dberke

it often leads to the spreading of misinfomation and rumor.

You say this like it's a bad thing.

[oso97]

Originally Posted by Tripod

Has anyone involved with this committee been involved with the hunt or selection process of a leader for a multi-million dollar corporation before? How about a service orgainization that serves nearly 50,000 members? What does qualify someone for serving on this community other than being in a room at a certain time?

Actually, several of us on the committee have served on the very types of things you mention as well as bringing to the table a number of other very important skills for this type of endeavor. But, I see little to no reason to continue this line of discussion, until you're willing to jump out from behind the mask of internet anonymity.

[JEC]

Originally Posted by oso97

...I see little to no reason to continue this line of discussion, until you're willing to jump out from behind the mask of internet anonymity.

I disagree, David. You know exactly who I am, but just because Tripod, epeeforlife or Right-Handed Lefty have not disclosed their identity does not make their opinions less valid. They are likely USFA members...

If USFA had a message forum for USFA members-only ... then it would be a moot point because everybody would have a voice.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally Posted by dberke

Again, if you want to express an opinion on candidates, issues facing the USFA, or anything else you feel should be considered, feel free to contact any of the committee members directly.

Dan: I have every faith that you and Oso are operating with the best of intentions. But your statement goes back to the core of my original muse: how are we to offer feedback or develop confidence that there is indeed a wide variety of qualities and experiences and viewpoints in the candidates if we don't know who they are? And by that, I don't mean we need to know every single person who has been briefly contacted or whose name came up once in an e-mail...I'm more thinking people who have become formal candidates.

For example: if someone I suspect harbours hidden agendas or has acted like a buffoon in the past has been nominated, then I'm more likely to try and encourage another candidate to step forward. But if I never see that person's name until the candidate slate has been presented for voting, my options are limited.

However; my understanding of how the process works may be flawed. For our edification, perhaps one of the Committee meembers can explain their understanding of the election mechanics between now and the coronation of our new leaders.

[Tripod]

Originally Posted by oso97

And if the membership does not approve of our final report, well there are