Alternative Officer Slate for USFA

[jjefferies]

It's really campaigning season here in the US and that includes the USFA.
Here is a website for an Alternative Slate of officers which I received.

http://www.usfencersforchange.com/

I'm no more familiar with this slate than I am with the USFA nominated slate other than having spent an pleasant wait with Mrs. Hurley in an airport on the way back from a NAC. So I would really appreciate learning/hearing more about this group as well as the Official USFA nominated slate.

I don't have any close friends or buddies in either group. So personally I'm concerned about this strictly for what they can do for me, my club, Division and the sport. We've been promised a number of things these past several years which have not come to fruition. Most prominently online registration for NAC's, SN's. In my humble (or not so humble) opinion there is no excuse why the USFA has not taken a leadership role in using the internet to handle such mundane tasks as registration and reporting of results. I'm well aware that the tiny staff in Colorado Springs is busting their buns to keep up. And I do appreciate their hard work. But I really believe that with proper leadership these activities could have been handled much better - working smarter not harder.

[KD5MDK]

I find it interesting that they look like they're intending to nominate someone for treasurer even though according to the nominating committee report no one other than their nominee indicated interest in the position.

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I find it interesting that they look like they're intending to nominate someone for treasurer even though according to the nominating committee report no one other than their nominee indicated interest in the position.

Well the website is obviously under construction. I received the URL from a gentleman who is considering running for the position. But it is one of the few positions that I think requires a technical background or at least an understanding of the business at hand. I've also heard via the grapevine that the USFA nominee is very acceptable (is that too much of a back handed compliment?). But as I said I don't know the individuals and am looking forward to learning/hearing more. At least an alternative slate means that the election may actually allow a vote by the membership. Or do I have that wrong? Ok, Back to the rules book at least I now have real reason to pore through the rules trying to understand what's going on.

[4qtrs]

Hmm, that is an interesting group of canidates. I was surprised to see Soren's name there. Hopefully they will post more details on how they plan on accomplishing their goals. Or am I to nieve in an election year to want actual details.

[KD5MDK]

Having people say they're an alternative slate doesn't force an election, especially as people are elected as individuals, not a slate. Each non-nominated candidate will need to have a petition signed by USFA members (the exact number and geographic breakdown is in the bylaws, but it's pretty low) and that is what forces an election.

[Inquartata]

Mmmm...I'll only say that their platform seem pretty heavy on "give still more money to elite athletes" and "force through a qualification system for NACs to reduce rank and file entrants". Both of which philosophies are anathema to my way of thinking...

Pretty vague on what the general membership is supposed to see from them.

[oso97]

Interesting bit of a proposal. Its actually not all that different from the plans of the slate put forward by the Nominating Committee (although, there is some differences with respect to emphasis, particuarly with respect to "control" of events, as opposed to "management and development" of events), as they were communicated to us. But there is significant overlap, expecially with respect to Points 3 (Building international political relationships), 4 (Development of external resources and networks) and 5 (Improved membership services). In fact, they're so similar, my first thought was that this group had somehow gotten access to the confidential documents that the Nominating Committee had received and generated internally. But then, these are not exactly new ideas, nor do they take any great imagination to come up with.

The major difference is that the group put forward by the Nominating Committee has extensive hands-on and management experience, both within the Association and external to it, and is actually capable of bringing its ideas to fruition.

Its also interesting that this alternative group is leading off its campaigning by tying the group put forward by the Nominating Committee to the current adminstration, and the origin of the problems facing the Association. And, this is most assuredly NOT the case. But, to lead off with "negative" advertising, especially untrue assertions? Poor choice indeed. And says a lot about how this group would govern.

[FencingKitten]

My experience with those of these candidates that I know is that they are concerned first and foremost with what they want and what affects their fencers. My observations lead me to believe that this would result in a tyrannical disregard for any opinions or even facts that run counter to the goals that some of these folks might be interested in.

My experience with the NC slate is that they will always listen to and consider anything that anyone has to say on a topic, and sincerely consider it. It may not change the outcome, but they have always been willing to explain their decisions when I've had questions.

I've only worked personally with a few members of each "slate," so it's not a whole-picture perspective on either side, but I think oso's right - starting off a weak platform by tying the current candidates to the current administration, when in fact they have very little to do with it is not promising for an administration. The NC's group seems to have better things to do, which is as it should be.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


The webpage looks a bit under-designed, which might be a not-so-good sign.

When I read the detailed platform (only 2 pages so far, so I would not call it detailed) I saw mostly generalities. Some more flesh on the bones in the international parts though.

What was lacking when I looked was:
1. A list of stuff that should not be done by USFA, given limited resources
2. An explanation why their candidates, as individuals, would be better in performing the tasks than those nominated
3. Personal bios on the candidates describing both the fencing activities, and their non-fencing life so that one can see how the latter can be brought to support the former
4. A full set of candidates
5. Numerical targets for anything (budgets, total FIE points earned by USFA members, international medals, USFA membership, #counties which have a USFA club, etc.)
6. An explanation on how their goals interacted, so that one could see that the fulfillment of one would help another, so that they do not all constitute different resource drains, but support each other


Happy New Year!

Peter Gustafsson

[jjefferies]

Just for funsies I will play devil's advocate though I really don't know any of the personalities or all the issues well enough to be possibly good at such a role.

Point 1. The alternates website - as pointed out earlier - isn't fully up yet so we can't draw a lot of conclusions about that. Other than they were wanting to get started.
Point 2. We have yet to see the NC slate's position on anything. So at this time it's a draw on either group's intentions.

Originally Posted by oso97

Interesting bit of a proposal. Its actually not all that different from the plans of the slate put forward by the Nominating Committee (although, there is some differences with respect to emphasis, particuarly with respect to "control" of events, as opposed to "management and development" of events), as they were communicated to us. But there is significant overlap, expecially with respect to Points 3 (Building international political relationships), 4 (Development of external resources and networks) and 5 (Improved membership services). In fact, they're so similar, my first thought was that this group had somehow gotten access to the confidential documents that the Nominating Committee had received and generated internally. But then, these are not exactly new ideas, nor do they take any great imagination to come up with.

Yeah, I think we'll see generalities for a while yet. Positions haven't really been staked out. Somehow I doubt the ALT slate had access to an confidential documents - but who knows. Anyway it all seems very apple pie and flag waving at this stage.

Originally Posted by oso97

The major difference is that the group put forward by the Nominating Committee has extensive hands-on and management experience, both within the Association and external to it, and is actually capable of bringing its ideas to fruition.

That's as much of a liability as an asset. I believe there has been a lot of reluctance on the part of the powers that be within the association to embrace change. And it appears to me that the NC slate represents the existing power structure. The type of change that I'm concerned about is modernizing the details of how business is carried out, registration for events, paying dues and communications between the association and the membership and within the membership. Support for the elite, enhancing the junior programs are all goals that any slate of officers will embrace. There may be some differences in effectiveness but not in the overall goal.

Originally Posted by oso97

Its also interesting that this alternative group is leading off its campaigning by tying the group put forward by the Nominating Committee to the current adminstration, and the origin of the problems facing the Association. And, this is most assuredly NOT the case. But, to lead off with "negative" advertising, especially untrue assertions? Poor choice indeed. And says a lot about how this group would govern.

Well, if the NC list of candidates is put forward by the existing power structure in the USFA, and there is an existing power structure - albeit at an informal level - then how can it not be tied to the previous administration which was put into place by this same power structure??? If it's not tied to the current power structure or the incumbent administration then the NC slate needs to get that out. Though I don't see how they can claim not to represent the NC and thereby the existing power structure.

As I indicated I'm just trying to play devil's advocate - not my most comfortable role by any means. But what I would REALLY like to see is this net group used as a forum for discussing the issues and perhaps even allowing the candidates to meet and discuss those issues with association members. HEY and maybe even debate their opposite candidate.

[Damon Scaggs]

I think it would be a mistake to conclude that the NC slate is a group of "insiders" just because that list was produced by the nominating process. They are far from it. From my discussions with them, I consider them to represent some significant change. Unfortunately, most people don't have the oportunity to discuss things with them. I welcome the idea that someone is putting forth an agenda. Even thought I know most of them, I eagerly await the nominated slate's platform. It's not premature to expect that kind of disclosure. Without it, how would anyone know if they should even sign a petition to have a contested election? I'm sure the slate, given their positions of openness would certainly agree that we, the electorate, should have some idea of what their positions are.

[RITFencing]

Well, I think Bruno could actually do a good job as VP; I think he's got a careful and methodical nature, a slow temper and good people skills, as well as a lot of experience as an FIE ref to give him perspective on the national scene.

The whole thing of a fencing political party, though... no. Just... no. There are too many damn politics in this sport already.

Just so long as we don't have bumper stickers being handed out for candidates. I think anyone doing that would just lose my support for all of time.

[JEC]

Originally Posted by oso97

Interesting bit of a proposal. Its actually not all that different from the plans of the slate put forward by the Nominating Committee (although, there is some differences with respect to emphasis, particuarly with respect to "control" of events, as opposed to "management and development" of events), as they were communicated to us. But there is significant overlap, expecially with respect to Points 3 (Building international political relationships), 4 (Development of external resources and networks) and 5 (Improved membership services). In fact, they're so similar, my first thought was that this group had somehow gotten access to the confidential documents that the Nominating Committee had received and generated internally. But then, these are not exactly new ideas, nor do they take any great imagination to come up with.

The major difference is that the group put forward by the Nominating Committee has extensive hands-on and management experience, both within the Association and external to it, and is actually capable of bringing its ideas to fruition.

Its also interesting that this alternative group is leading off its campaigning by tying the group put forward by the Nominating Committee to the current adminstration, and the origin of the problems facing the Association. And, this is most assuredly NOT the case. But, to lead off with "negative" advertising, especially untrue assertions? Poor choice indeed. And says a lot about how this group would govern.

David,

It is clear that you have an opinion favorably to the slate. After all, you were the SW representative to the Nominating Committee.

However, let me re-arrange your argument:

It is then interesting to note that while you label them:
a) the alternative slate is unimaginative ("not exactly new ideas, nor do they take any great imagination to come up with")
b) you suggest that "this group had somehow gotten access to the confidential documents",
c) you characterized their campaign as "negative" advertising. (Wow, see above)
d) but the platform of the official slate is "so similar" to the one proposed by the alternative slate.

Could it be that the official slate has experience in being part of the "business as usual". They heard some ideas and repeat them.

Just being the devil's advocate ...

I do not belong to either "slate", but I will choose wisely when I vote. I do believe that it would be hard to find a better candidate for USFA Secretary than Brad.

[FencingKitten]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

Well, I think Bruno could actually do a good job as VP; I think he's got a careful and methodical nature, a slow temper and good people skills, as well as a lot of experience as an FIE ref to give him perspective on the national scene.

The whole thing of a fencing political party, though... no. Just... no. There are too many damn politics in this sport already.

Just so long as we don't have bumper stickers being handed out for candidates. I think anyone doing that would just lose my support for all of time.

I don't know if there were bumper stickers, but I seem to recall buttons appearing in a few places...

[arc]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

Just so long as we don't have bumper stickers being handed out for candidates. I think anyone doing that would just lose my support for all of time.

Well, just so you know, at the Tucson NAC, Dr. Hurley was distributing "Tracy Hurley for President" bumper stickers.

[dekko]

Just curious here but just because someone has put up a website with candidates does this mean there will be a vote?

I am not attached to either group but it seems slate A, nominating committee driven, will be on the ballot but will slate B, group on this other website, be on a ballet?

Does this group merely wanting to run make them automatically on the ballet? I admit I haven't looked it up but this does bring up lots of questions. Does the existance is another slate make this a contested election? Are the slates voted on or each position? Among a few.

On a side note, while agree Brad would be a good choice I would actually subscribe to the notion that there are maybe 5 people in fencing at the most who could handle the financials of US Fencing, it seems as though Greg is the only one willing to tackle the task. In my mind this makes him a better choice for treasurer than Brad does for secretary, this is not a shot at Brad by any means.

[DJ Apostrophe]

In order for there to be a ballot, the "alternative" candidates need to petition themselves a nomination. The bylaws stipulate how many signatures and from where (needs to be geographically dispersed), and by what date.

Assuming they cross that hurdle, they will be on the ballot.

What form the ballot takes is up to the election committee.

If they do not cross the petition hurdle, there will be no ballot as it would be an uncontested election.

-w

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by dekko

Just curious here but just because someone has put up a website with candidates does this mean there will be a vote?

I am not attached to either group but it seems slate A, nominating committee driven, will be on the ballot but will slate B, group on this other website, be on a ballet?

Does this group merely wanting to run make them automatically on the ballet? I admit I haven't looked it up but this does bring up lots of questions. Does the existance is another slate make this a contested election? Are the slates voted on or each position? Among a few..

My understanding, albeit formed from conversation, is that there will have to be a petition for each position but the number of signatories is relatively low, some 300? from three different divisions? The bylaws stipulate a percent of the total membership so the number of actual signatures will be dependent upon the current membership - and I believe it has to be of members older than 18. Not sure if they have to be spread over the divisions. But once there is a valid petition then the election becomes contested and the vote - normally only by the board - becomes open for all members to vote.