New USFA Officers - Nominating Committee Report?

[KD5MDK]

I realize we're no strangers to discussion about the USFA officers and who they should be. I'd like to give that topic a somewhat nicer try.

According to the bylaws* the Nominating Committee that was selected at Summer Nationals needs to submit its report to the USFA by December 15th.

The Secretary shall mail to each member of the USFA a notice of the nominations filed by the Nominating Committee or cause such notice to be published in the first issue of the official publication of the USFA printed after issuance of the Nominating Committee report, but in no event shall notice be given later than January 31 of the year in which elections are to be conducted. If any person nominated by the Committee at any time chooses to withdraw from consideration or for any reason becomes unable to stand for election, the Nominating Committee shall promptly meet to select a substitute candidate for the position. The report of the Nominating Committee shall be available upon request to any member of the Association.

I rather doubt we're getting a mailing from the USFA about this. It could also be in American Fencing, but can they get another issue out by Jan 31?

The members of the nominating committee that I know I all respect highly, so I'm sure sincere consideration has gone into their decision. That said, does anyone know who they picked?



* I realize many of the bylaws are pretty much ignored, but I hope this one isn't.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Yes, I've heard some of the names on the nomination list.

However; word on the street is that there may be a competing slate of candidates put forward that would require a subsequent vote of the masses to choose between the two slates.

If memory serves, the competing slate folks need to get a fairly small number of signatures (from all/some of the divisions and sections) to force a runoff.

If I didn't need to go make some cornbread to go with the chili, I'd try to wade thru the USFA docs to figure it out, or someone in the know can just tell us.

[KD5MDK]

I happened to leave the bylaws open, and the section you're looking for is the next one down:

3.Section Nominations by Petition. Additional nominations may be made on the written
petition of not less than two percent of the voting membership as of the close of the preceding
membership year with at least twenty-five members from each of three different Sections signing
the petition. For a signature on a petition to be valid, it must be signed by a member eligible to
vote in the election for which the petition intended, and legibly show the first and last names and
divisional affiliation of the signer. A petition may designate one or more persons as candidates.
No petition shall serve to nominate candidates for office unless the original of all parts thereof is
received in the National Office and a copy is received by the Secretary before April 1 of the year
in which the election is to be conducted. Proof of mailing by certified or registered mail, return
receipt requested, or by private delivery service guaranteeing delivery within two days and
providing proof of delivery, postage or shipping prepaid, properly addressed to the intended
recipient, not less than 10 days before due, shall raise a presumption of timely delivery to the
addressee.
4.Section No Voting by Slates. Candidates for office stand for election as individuals. Ballots
shall not take into account or provide for a vote for any candidate to be tied or joined to a vote
for any other candidate, except when each of such candidates are running unopposed.

2% of the membership is only 340 signatures. That said, I think it would be wise to know who is nominated before writing that you want someone else.

[oiuyt]

The nominating committee has submitted their report. I expect that the list of nominees will be officially released shortly.

Note that the 2% need only be of the voting membership. So drop out of the denominator all of those members under age 18 (as of Feb. 1st). Also scratch anyone who hasn't either provided the National Office with their birthdate or ortherwise that they are (or will be) 18 as of Feb. 1st.

Given the large number of young members in USFencing, I wouldn't be surprised if 17,000 (2% of which is 340) is somewhat high.

Just as a note, voting is not done by slate. Each individual nominated (whether by the nominations committee or by petition) runs as an individual.

-B

[T]

I happened to leave the bylaws open, and the section you're looking for is the next one down:


2% of the membership is only 340 signatures. That said, I think it would be wise to know who is nominated before writing that you want someone else.

Well, I'm sure many of you know that I am putting together a slate of candidates to run against the nominating committee's slate (although, technically, neither slate can run as a 'slate' according to the bylaws). For this past membership year, the number of eligible voting members was just under 9000. This translates into less than 200 signatures.

More about who is going to be on the 'slate' in a few weeks but it should be well established by the Atlanta NAC.

FYI, I would like to make it clear that I appreciate the contribution and work the nominating committee did in their task. I have nothing against them personally or any of the candidates they are putting forward. With that said, I feel that the membership needs a choice of qualified candidates as opposed to having the nominating committee's slate elected by proclamation. There are some tough and very pressing issues that this organization needs to face in the next 4 years and the membership should have a choice as to who it wants to lead them.

In a few weeks, I will post more about it but for now, feel free to send me a private message or to post a response here.

Tracy Hurley

[Snowbabe]

Since we don't know the slate yet, how do you know that you are going to run against it? Maybe we need to see who is running before we cost the USFA a bunch of money with a contested election. Money that could go to the athletes instead of toward a contested election.

[teacup]

Since we don't know the slate yet, how do you know that you are going to run against it? Maybe we need to see who is running before we cost the USFA a bunch of money with a contested election. Money that could go to the athletes instead of toward a contested election.

As Oiuyt noted above, officers are not elected as a "slate" but individually, so if the proper procedures are followed, anyone can run against the individuals proposed by the nominating committee.

[Jengar]

When is the actual election?

[T]

When is the actual election?

Ballots are supposed to be mailed by May 1 and to be returned (and received by USFA designated office) BEFORE 14 days preceeding the annual membership meeting which is usually around July 1. So to be safe, mail it back before the end of May.

[arc]

I realize we're no strangers to discussion about the USFA officers and who they should be. I'd like to give that topic a somewhat nicer try.

According to the bylaws* the Nominating Committee that was selected at Summer Nationals needs to submit its report to the USFA by December 15th.

I rather doubt we're getting a mailing from the USFA about this. It could also be in American Fencing, but can they get another issue out by Jan 31?

The members of the nominating committee that I know I all respect highly, so I'm sure sincere consideration has gone into their decision. That said, does anyone know who they picked?

* I realize many of the bylaws are pretty much ignored, but I hope this one isn't.

As chair of the Committee, I can certify that the bylaws were not ignored, and that we have in fact made our nominations and timely submitted our report to the Secretary. The nominees are now a matter of public record, and so in answer to your query are:

President: Kalle Weeks
Vice-Presidents: Jerry Benson
Ro Sobalvarro
Mark Stasinos
Treasurer: Greg Dilworth
Secretary: Brad Baker

As I'm sure you can imagine, we went through a difficult and exhaustive process, with many interviews and discussions amongst NC members and between the NC and both the various candidates and individuals willing to give their $.02. As a result of that work, we believe that have assembled not just a slate, but a team of candidates whose combination of diverse backgrounds, skills, and experiences, collective fresh point of view, and dedication to open deliberation and communication will make them highly effective at solving the challenges (both existing and future) facing the Association over the next quadrennium.

Best regards,

Aaron Clements
Nominating Committee Chair

[Damon Scaggs]

I'd like to make a couple of comments about the nominated slate.

First of all I like all of these people. I consider a number of them to be personal friends, but more importantly I consider them to be very competent at what they do. I've had a chance to discuss with some of them their vision for the future of the association and I like what I'm hearing. There are some interesting ideas to be explored. On a number of fronts, I am encouraged by what I've heard.

On one subject I am deepely concerned. It seems to me that there is one hole in the experience level of this slate. Experience in the area of FIE relations and politics seems to be completely lacking amongst this group. A large part of what the USFA does is organize teams to be sent to international competition. We, on these forums, are constantly debating the changes made at the FIE level. Almost all rules are simply adopted verbatim from what the FIE has decided. Without experienced leadership in this area we risk abandoning any influence in the FIE for four years, especially given the difficulties of the current political climate in the FIE. Taking that a step further, it's important that the decision makers at the national level are adopting policies which are not in conflict with what is happening at the international level. For this reason I would prefer to have someone with this experience in the leadership ranks as opposed to someone who is appointed essentially as an ambasador to the FIE.

Finally, I don't consider a contested election at this point in time to be at all a bad thing for the USFA. One of the points Aaraon made was that he felt that this slate had a committment to open debate and communications. There is nothing more open about choosing leadership that an actual election. I would hope the candidates also can see it from this point of view. At this stage, as a regular member of the USFA, I have absolutely no idea exactly what the deliberations were behind closed doors. By no means am I being critical of the nominating committee. They did their work within the rules as they exist. I respect that and thank them for their work. It's the rules themselves that I'm not crazy about. The approach as it stands is a bit of an ivory tower. Given the problem the last time around an actual election might give the whole leadership a greater mandate than they would otherwise have. I welcome hearing about what the proposals are from this slate and any other interested candidates.

[KD5MDK]

The USFA currently has the following Americans actively serving on FIE Committees: (in the order on the FIE website)
Sada Jacobsen (Athletes)
Donald Alperstein (Disciplinary)
Sam Cheris (President of the Legal Committee and member of Olympic Rules Comm)
Ann Marsh-Senic (Medical)
Carl Borack (President of the Promotion Committee)
George Kolombatovich (President of the Referees Committee)
Jeffrey Bukantz (Rules Committee)
Dan Dechaine (SEMI Committee)

The only committee we don't have a member on is the FIE Executive Committee, and we have 3 committees with Americans as head, while no other country has more than one. In short, there's lots of Americans who are experienced with the FIE, and the President makes appointments to the executive committee in addition to the elected officials. I don't see any reason why some of them couldn't be appointed to assist in guiding the USFA in working with the FIE.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Just as a note, voting is not done by slate. Each individual nominated (whether by the nominations committee or by petition) runs as an individual.

-B

Hypothetical scenario: Consider the case of an individual being nominated to more than one position by different groups of petitioners. Assume that his nominations are in good order, and that his name comes on the voting list. Furthermore, assume that he wins the vote for at least two positions with at least 50% of the total votes cast for those positions.

Then what? Can he be voted into multiple posts at once? If only one, can he choose which one himself? Or does get the post for which his win was the biggest? Or something else?

A more likely scenario: I note that there are 3 posts as Vice-President, but there is no distinction between them, so presumably their duties and privileges are the same. Assume that there is at least one candidate who is successfully nominated by petition. How should the voters indicate their preferences? It may very well be so that a given voter finds 3 candidates acceptable and to all intents and purposes equally good, but that all other candidates are completely substandard in his opinion. In that case, for such a voter to vote by stating only the candidate which he finds the best is not going to convey the opinion that he wants to voice. To vote by ordered list (followed by IRV or Condorcet) would, OTOH, convey all relevant information for all possible voter opinions. One could also have a system where the individual voter has 3 voting slips, and he has to write in one name of the candidate that he supports on each slip. If a voter felt very particular about one candidate, he could then write one candidate name three times over.

As an aside: Recently, the national meeting of the Swedish Engineer union was held. I am a member, and read about it in the union paper. There was a vote for a 2-person committee, and there were 3 candidates. There were 183 delegates, and each had to vote for one person. How it went? All three candidates got 61 votes each! They checked the voting slips, and it was found that one of them had been filled in incorrectly. Otherwise, they would have had to cast lots to break the tie.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[oiuyt]

Where three or more candidates have qualified for any office, the ballot shall be designed according to a system of preferential voting.

The elections committee determines the form of the ballot.

Nominees are required to accept the nomination and to fill out some paperwork to remain as official candidates. The whole multiple nomination thing could, in theory, be taken care of at this stage.

That said, I don't recall having seen a specific prohibition against holding multiple offices simultaneously. That's probably something that should get tossed over to the By-Laws Review Committee for inclusion if it's not in there. I know there are other limits (can't be an officer of a division/section, can't be an officer of another sport's NGB), must be a voting member.

Regarding the VPs, the positions are in theory all the same. In practice in USFencing we tend to divide up the responsibilities and they each have an area of oversight.

-B

[JEC]

Congratulations to Brad for getting nominated to run for USFA Secretary!!!

The USFA voting members among the FNet community will strongly support you.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

I dunno about that Baker guy. Word on the street is: he's a "heighty"--only people 6'3" and higher will get preferential access to the new President.

[KD5MDK]

My section will be appointing Justin Meehan as our lobbyist then.

[Jengar]

I believe that the Nominating Committee slate looks good. On the other hand, a good election (that is, an election with discussion of issues rather than personal attacks) will allow everyone to discuss the issues that are important to the members of USFA and to the candidates.

[KD5MDK]

I don't think there's necessarily a need for a contested election to bring out the issues that are important to members. All we need to do is bring up the issues here or elsewhere and see if candidate responses indicate an acceptable intention on the issues we care about. For example, one concern I've had in the past is the failure of the Board to make its minutes and reports available to the membership, especially to the Congress which is required to receive them. I have no doubt that Brad will perform excellently in this regard and in communicating with the membership.

[Inquartata]

Unless all that POWER goes to his head...