New development in USFA politics!

[ivlobane]

No, this is not a problem with my examples. Rather, these are problems that have to be adequately addressed before talking about hypothetical policy for the USFA. I raise the examples because they are of possible concern.
<snip...>
This concern is, of course, prior to raising the logistical difficulty of outsourcing staff in venues across the nation. I'm simply not going to swallow the privatization idea on faith alone, as so many Americans have seemed willing to do in the past decade.

It's not a problem that a contract was granted without competition to administration insiders? I support the USFFC slate because they are the first opposition to even raise any of these questions. Swallowing anything on faith is bad for your health. Until this USFFC slate appeared, we all were being asked to swallow the NomCom's candidates on faith, without discourse on issues.

[ivlobane]

Or, better, what is USFA's role in increasing the number of such venues?

I am asking for a concrete number that we can consider immediately. Your question can start a whole new thread,

[Durando]

It's not a problem that a contract was granted without competition to administration insiders? I support the USFFC slate because they are the first opposition to even raise any of these questions. Swallowing anything on faith is bad for your health. Until this USFFC slate appeared, we all were being asked to swallow the NomCom's candidates on faith, without discourse on issues.

We agree to an extent. (I simply don't agree that there is no discourse on the issues). Since the New Slate people have announced themselves, I've been curious to watch their platform develop. The first warning flag that came up for me is the subject of privatization as a cure-all.

I am just a voter in this election and have my own notions of what I want from the USFA. I'll vote for those who correspond most closely with it--it doesn't mean that I'll make that agenda public or that I'm searching for perfect congruence. Part of the responsibility of office is knowing where and how to lead productive discourse, but I suppose I might speak for you as well in saying that I don't need someone to tell me what the issues ought to be.

[ivlobane]

We agree to an extent. (I simply don't agree that there is no discourse on the issues). Since the New Slate people have announced themselves, I've been curious to watch their platform develop. The first warning flag that came up for me is the subject of privatization as a cure-all.

I am just a voter in this election and have my own notions of what I want from the USFA. I'll vote for those who correspond most closely with it--it doesn't mean that I'll make that agenda public or that I'm searching for perfect congruence. Part of the responsibility of office is knowing where and how to lead productive discourse, but I suppose I might speak for you as well in saying that I don't need someone to tell me what the issues ought to be.

Thank you, I'll take that as a compliment...

I feel an interesting development: people are talking as if they already get to vote. Allow me to remind you please that unless this gathers enough signatures, you will not.

[ivlobane]

Since the New Slate people have announced themselves, I've been curious to watch their platform develop.

Where are you watching it?

[dberke]

Again, I am being asked to believe this on faith alone. This right here is stirring not so bad, yes? Where is the NomCom slate?

Right now the dictation seems to be coming from some Gray Cardinal somewhere, and the USFFC platform includes transparancy.

It's unfortunate you don't have faith in the work the nominating committee did. There's not much that can be done about that, though.

Although this is speculation, I have a feeling the people on nominated slate are waiting to see if there will actually be an election. In the meantime, they're also busy doing silly things like organizing, reffing, and coaching at JOs...

I am afraid that if a slate was intimately familiar with the inner working of the current USFA, they have already contracted the disease it's sick with.

Wow, that is incredibly cynical. So you're saying that nobody who understands how the USFA works can possibly be objective and able to fix things? That rules out a lot of people. I would contend that the people who actually understand the system and know its problems would be more effective leaders when it comes to changing it. Just because they understand the USFA doesn't autmatically mean they're happy with how things are done - far from it.

Elected when, how? It really felt like some sort of closed process. Again, any intimacy involved?

oso97 already explained this. It was a wide open process, if you chose to participate. Your choice not to was yours and yours alone.

Dan

[ivlobane]

...In the meantime, they're also busy doing silly things like organizing, reffing, and coaching at JOs...

The USFFCs meanwhile are only busy plotting their vicious coup? Take a look at who they are again.

...Wow, that is incredibly cynical. So you're saying that nobody who understands how the USFA works can possibly be objective and able to fix things?...

There is plenty reason for cynicism.

• askFRED available for years? "Sorry, no thanks..." Why not? "Meh, we don't like it..."
• Can we see how the Exec office work please? "No, have some talking instead..."
• Wow, we have an Olympic gold medal! "Thats great, have a press release, where's my cheeseburger...Disney can wait, USOC get in line behind Pepsi and Nike..."
• Hi, I'm a major media company, we want to do a presentation on your sport, but your tournaments look... not quite presentable... "Mmm, too expensive.. mmm... brrtrrpprr..."
• Where are all the post college fencers? "This is America!"

Understanding how how the USFA works is not my problem. Having been internally selected through a logistically demanding process is my problem. That, and the fact that I saw nothing drastically new are reasons I did not participate.

[T]

We agree to an extent. (I simply don't agree that there is no discourse on the issues). Since the New Slate people have announced themselves, I've been curious to watch their platform develop. The first warning flag that came up for me is the subject of privatization as a cure-all.

I just want to clarify one thing. There is nothing in my previous post about privatization that suggested that I thought it was the cure-all. All I did was propose it as a model to be considered. There are many models of privatization that have been effective but of course, they are reliant on effective oversight. Part or all of the functions could be privatized. Perhaps nothing would be privatized. All I was suggesting is that it is a model that should be considered...not forced on anyone. The problem with trying to generate a conversation to address the issues is that every time an idea is put on the table it gets shot down without due diligence. This is the same with the idea of the 4 regional training centers (or 1 or whatever number). It is something that should be discussed with due dillegence instead of rejecting it because somewhere in the past some organizations have been terrible managers at doing it. Btw, the successful examples of privatization don't hit the newstands. At the university level, there are many examples of successful privitization including bookstores and food-service functions. Ideas are where great things come from. Not all ideas are great but if you don't look at problems from different perspectives - brainstorming ideas, perhaps, the organization will never grow in a positive direction. And what that positive direction is should be based on a discussion of where it wants to be.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

The problem with trying to generate a conversation to address the issues is that every time an idea is put on the table it gets shot down without due diligence.

I don't have a horse in this race, but I think T makes a good point here. She's hanging it out to give people a sample of her thinking. If every poster turns into an internet Patriot Missile battery, then T will probably see no benefit in continuing to lead the conversation about her vision, flawed or not, for the USFA's future.

If it turns out that the petition drive is sucessful, I would hope the Nominating Committee candidates are just as willing to publicly throw out their visions for discussion.

If the petition drive is unsuccessful, it will say volumes about the NC slate of candidates if they still follow T's lead and publicly discuss their ideas for a similar round of discussion and dissection here.

[dberke]

There is plenty reason for cynicism.

• askFRED available for years? "Sorry, no thanks..." Why not? "Meh, we don't like it..."
• Can we see how the Exec office work please? "No, have some talking instead..."
• Wow, we have an Olympic gold medal! "Thats great, have a press release, where's my cheeseburger...Disney can wait, USOC get in line behind Pepsi and Nike..."
• Hi, I'm a major media company, we want to do a presentation on your sport, but your tournaments look... not quite presentable... "Mmm, too expensive.. mmm... brrtrrpprr..."
• Where are all the post college fencers? "This is America!"

There is no argument with your list of issues above - everyone, including the nominated slate, knows these are problems. What I don't understand is why you seem to think that the nominated candidates are partially to blame for the current situation. They're not - instead, they want to fix things, which is why they volunteered for the positions.

I don't doubt that the USFFC slate is passionate about fixing things. I think the debate is more about what they consider the most important issues to address, how they make decisions, and if they are equipped with the skills and knowledge needed to actually get things done.

Understanding how how the USFA works is not my problem. Having been internally selected through a logistically demanding process is my problem. That, and the fact that I saw nothing drastically new are reasons I did not participate.

Yes, it's so much easier to just complain than it is to get involved and work towards fixing things.

Dan

[ivlobane]

There is no argument with your list of issues above - everyone, including the nominated slate, knows these are problems. What I don't understand is why you seem to think that the nominated candidates are partially to blame for the current situation.

They are not to blame necessarily, I just remember similar type of pseudo-election before and no fundamental changes happened. More than once. Candidates that come from within an internal process usually are afraid to step on any toes.

The USFFC slate is completely fresh, surprising even. They represent a wide range of constituency. T's language is issue-driven. She strikes me as someone that would not be afraid of taking on unpleasant truths. She has a very strong resume. They all invested a lot in this sport and they are hungry for a return on this investement.

Yes, it's so much easier to just complain than it is to get involved and work towards fixing things.

Dan

Thought and words preceed action. I got involved when I saw something I can stand behind.

[noodle]

lets start a new group:
united states foilists for foilist representation in the united states fencers for change platform.
(USFFFRITUSFFCP for short)

too long have these tyranical epeeists and epee-saberists run the show. we demand equal rights to be a part of revolutionary new groups to try and instill change in things. we have long since been excluded from the official united states fencers for change platform; when will our equally good ideas also be heard!

we shall in the near future be appointing a new board of all foilists which should be voted on to replace the self-appointed USFFC board for the chance to be voted on to replace the USFA appointed USFA candidate board.

edit: there will also be cake.

[ivlobane]

lets start a new group:
united states foilists for foilist representation in the united states fencers for change platform.
(USFFFRITUSFFCP for short)

too long have these tyranical epeeists and epee-saberists run the show. we demand equal rights to be a part of revolutionary new groups to try and instill change in things. we have long since been excluded from the official united states fencers for change platform; when will our equally good ideas also be heard!

we shall in the near future be appointing a new board of all foilists which should be voted on to replace the self-appointed USFFC board for the chance to be voted on to replace the USFA appointed USFA candidate board.

edit: there will also be cake.

Careful, in Soviet Russia sence of humor has you!

[epeemike81]

The USFFCs meanwhile are only busy plotting their vicious coup? Take a look at who they are again.



There is plenty reason for cynicism.

• askFRED available for years? "Sorry, no thanks..." Why not? "Meh, we don't like it..."
• Can we see how the Exec office work please? "No, have some talking instead..."
• Wow, we have an Olympic gold medal! "Thats great, have a press release, where's my cheeseburger...Disney can wait, USOC get in line behind Pepsi and Nike..."
• Hi, I'm a major media company, we want to do a presentation on your sport, but your tournaments look... not quite presentable... "Mmm, too expensive.. mmm... brrtrrpprr..."
• Where are all the post college fencers? "This is America!"

Understanding how how the USFA works is not my problem. Having been internally selected through a logistically demanding process is my problem. That, and the fact that I saw nothing drastically new are reasons I did not participate.

There are proposals before the board right now to address the very first two items on your list (greater cooperation with AskFRED and greater financial transparency). You know who introduced them? Brad Baker, the nominated candidate for Secretary and Greg Dilworth, the nominated candidate for Treasurer.

So, as many others have asked, what indicates to you that they don't share these concerns or wouldn't do anything about it?

I'll now let you get back to your regularly scheduled propaganda.

-m

[HDG]

lets start a new group:
united states foilists for foilist representation in the united states fencers for change platform.
(USFFFRITUSFFCP for short)

too long have these tyranical epeeists and epee-saberists run the show. we demand equal rights to be a part of revolutionary new groups to try and instill change in things. we have long since been excluded from the official united states fencers for change platform; when will our equally good ideas also be heard!

we shall in the near future be appointing a new board of all foilists which should be voted on to replace the self-appointed USFFC board for the chance to be voted on to replace the USFA appointed USFA candidate board.

edit: there will also be cake.

Noodle for president.
Can I have my cake now?

[noodle]

Noodle for president.
Can I have my cake now?

only if you visit our booth and sign the petition. it will be set up right outside the next USFFC meeting place, set up outside of the next major USFA event.

[Allen Evans]

I don't have a horse in this race, but I think T makes a good point here. She's hanging it out to give people a sample of her thinking. If every poster turns into an internet Patriot Missile battery, then T will probably see no benefit in continuing to lead the conversation about her vision, flawed or not, for the USFA's future.

I'm very impressed that a group of people are willing to stand up and say "We have a better vision for the future of the USFA". It takes some guts, and certainly in Ms.Hurley's case, it's taking a great deal of time.

But so far, I am not sure that I've got a gotten a glimpse of that vision. What I have heard are concrete examples of the problems we all know exist (or we all suspect exist). Thinking out loud about possible solutions is admirable, but the final statement always seems to be: "We won't be able to come up with any solutions for the challenges faced by the USFA until we are elected and can see the entire picture".

That hardly inspires confidence in me, and points back to Oso's excellent post about experience.

Allen Evans

[ivlobane]

So, as many others have asked, what indicates to you that they don't share these concerns or wouldn't do anything about it?
-m

I'm glad both slates share similar concerns. Maybe this cycle we'll actually get something done.

But why sign USFFC's petition?

To have an election with the issues discussed and recorded. Then, in the future, the USFA members can hold whatever slate accountable.

Perhaps the NomCom slate will win, but forcing them to campaign will shed a lot of light on how things stand. It will also generate discourse on how to remedy problems.

[ivlobane]

noodle, HDG, are you two trolls now or what? If you want to asnwer that, do it in a private message.

[ivlobane]

...but the final statement always seems to be: "We won't be able to come up with any solutions for the challenges faced by the USFA until we are elected and can see the entire picture".
Allen Evans

I didnt realize, but I just answered your question in my previuos post. Forcing a campaign is going to send two slates after whomever is blocking relevant information.