New development in USFA politics!

[seak]

My 2 cents poli sci students take on process:

I like process, it serves a purpose in weeding out candidates who are serious and committed and allows for a vetting process. In this case there was a proper process for candidates for USFA office to follow. Of all the USFFC candidates only Ms. Hurley followed the process. This indicates to me that she has been serious and steadfast in her desire for office, and has put thought and time into why she wants the office, what she wants to change, and why she would be a good pick for USFA president. The same is true for the candidates put forward by the nominating committee. It is not however true of the rest of the USFFC slate. For all we know if some of them had put there names forward at that time, they might have been picked by the nominating committee.

That being said, I like public discussion of issues. campaigning and debate, and opening oneself up for questioning which Ms. Hurley has done here, but no other candidate has done on either slate. I think that it is important to here ideas and proposals from all of the candidates. You are all running for office of a 20,000 or so membership organization transparency in the electoral process is important. I would urge all of the candidates to open up about there ideas and why they would like office and why we should vote for them, whether or not there is eventually an election, and the earlier the better. And while I do not agree with everything Ms. Hurley has said I strongly applaud her for having the courage to come here and open herself up for questioning and bashing, and certainly increases my view of her candidacy.

*Disclaimer: I know several of the individuals on the nominating committee and they're among the people I respect most in fencing. This is also true of two of the candidates for election put up by said committee. The rest I don't know and have no opinion of.

[Wafath]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

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

Obvious sarcasm does not make one a troll, it makes you a smart-arse. (Or someone with high rep. Take your pick.)

Calling someone a troll is often trolling.

And just to be clear, this post is an attempt at meta-trolling.

W

[ivlobane]

Brilliant..!

For those of you at JO's: could you please find more candidates, from both slates if possible, and invite them to this forum? I think we all want to hear from more of them, no..?

[HDG]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

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

The high levels of self-righteousness in this thread might benefit from a little levity.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally Posted by seak

I would urge all of the candidates to open up about their ideas and why they would like office and why we should vote for them, whether or not there is eventually an election, and the earlier the better.

An excellent proposition. In fact, if the NomCom truly has the confidence in its candidates that it professes, I would urge the NomCom members to encourage their slate to join in these discussions.

I'd like to hear from the NomCom candidates what reasonably specific plans and fixes they have in mind for the next four years, especially their plans for any operations and personnel changes in the Front Office. Let them outline their thinking and engage in some back and forth with the unwashed, cakeless masses here, just as T has done.

We're told we should have faith in the NomCom candidates because the NomCom exercised a great deal of thought and effort in the selection of these particular candidates. This may very well be true.

But I think it's time for the NomCom candidates to engage in a full dialog with their constituency here. It'll be a great opportunity to prove the superiority of their vision.

[T]

Originally Posted by 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.

Hey noodle,
I strongly encourage you to put a slate together and be a part of the election. I will be the first one to sign your petition (and I mean it). I will even let you share my table at the JOs or whichever NAC you want. Whether you fence foil, saber, or epee - it doesn't matter. We all want the sport to grow and prosper. The more people and ideas we have involved n the process, the better we all will be. The most important thing is that no slate of candidates will waltz into office without justifying themself and discussing their positions. That is what we need and only through this election process can we force it.

I wish you luck.

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by dberke

Are you implying that the nominated slate wouldn't push for exactly that? That's hardly the case - especially with Greg D. as treasurer!

You're doing everyone a disservice by portraying the nominated slate as "part of the status quo." They are very much NOT part of the status quo, and will stir things up as much as the USFFC slate would.

Dan, being the slate nominated by the "current powers that be" is inference that they are a part of the existing power structure.

How they will conduct themselves is an entirely different matter. But one which they should speak to. I don't see how you can say that they will or will not follow some course of action.

[T]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

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".

Alan, thanks for the compliment (sorta) but let me re-quote something I said earlier about the USFA's business model (this was on page 9, I think)

"the business model that involves asking officials and bout committee members to 'help' run events (and the business of the front-office) is ridiculous. This business model is what the entire USFA organizational structure is built on and perpetuating it is, sorry for the use of the term, a status quo or 'business as usual' perspective (FYI, this is what the 'business as usual' comment on our website is referring to -- not the individuals on either the nominating committtee or their slate of candidates). Yes, it is a nonprofit organzation and BOD committee volunteers provide valuable oversight and ideas, and office volunteers help fill in the gaps that the paid staff can't handle but programs, membership services, and necessities like marketing, promotion, and fundraising shouldn't rely predominantly on 'help' from BOD volunteers or consultants (who have no vested interest in the success of their efforts), and (nearly) volunteer referees and bout committee members. I believe the amount and success of the existing fundraising, marketing, promotions, etc efforts of the USFA are a testament to the inadequacies of this flawed business model."

This is an extremely important point. We need to challenge the current business model. We are no longer a grassroots organization and need professional staff to do the varied functions that an organization like the USFA requires. So far, identifying the concrete problems may not be difficult (we probably all could name 5 right off the top of our head) and proposing possible solutions to them may not be that difficult either (although, mostly I have only heard complaints about suggestions made). However, what I don't see is a different (much less better) vision for the future.

Now, if restructuring the front office (including changing at least one key member of the executive ranks) does not constitute a vision for what needs to be done BEFORE any problems can be addressed, I don't know what is.

Fighting fires from self-inflicted injury (which is the experience that David was referring to for many NC slate candidates) is not the type of leadership this organization needs in order to move forward. It is the kind of leadership the current organization needs because there are so many fires to tend to. But it is not the type of leadership skills we should aspire to. Firefighting, while it is certainly a necessary skill, is not leadership. Sometimes leadership requires bold ideas and bold changes. This is not to say that I am advocating wholesale change for the sake of change. But we need to fix the processes that have gotten us into the messes we are currently in.

How can we do this? Through conversation and cooperation. So far, I am the only candidate discussing anything. I doubt seriously that the NC slate has the answers to everything and if they did, they would already be implemented (because most of them have been on the BOD for, let me quote David "umpteen years"). Do I hold these individuals accountable for all of the fires? No, but it appears that many of them stood by and watched the blaze without trying to change anything.

Brad and Greg have some very good propositions on the BOD agenda. As you may know, we support Brad (and I have mentioned already why we are not contesting that position). Greg may also have some good qualities but in his proposals it has the appearance (rightly or wrongly) that he is writing into the agenda a job description and job security for his next (uncontested elected) position. This may or may not be the case and I am not ragging on Greg but the point is Greg and the most of the others have been there for some time but yet this is the first motion to come up about this problem. Are they now just getting religion because they believe they will simply waltz into office uncontested?

The tournament committee has many problems as well (and I am by no means suggesting they are easily solved). However, whatever happend to that survey that was done a couple of years ago? Perhaps a good idea to try to collect info but it looks like things are still the same to me. It looks very much like process over function. They did something to ask people about their ideas but never acted on it. How is this a vision for the future?

On the other hand, Brad's proposition has little to do with his potential position. Collaborating with ASKFRED for registration is a real issue that does nothing to prosper his position as potential secretary. This is a real vision that solves the terribly outdated registration process we have (which consumes huge amounts of resources - human and financial).

Do you see the difference?

I want to say right here and now. I have absolutely NOTHING against anyone on the NC slate (or the nominating committee). In fact, I only know a couple of them. They are probably all good people with good ideas. I wish them all the best BUT I refuse to stand by and let anyone take office without explaining themself. It's not about the nominating committee - its about a healthy process. Too much incest (and I am by no means suggesting that anyone on the NC or the NC slate have incestual relations with family members) can blind people to more underlying problems (like the organizational structure and business model). We just keep putting bandaids on and fighting the fires as they arise.

ok everyone...fire away (no pun intended).

[Wafath]

Originally Posted by Wafath

Obvious sarcasm ....

Originally Posted by T

I strongly encourage you to put a slate together ....

I stand corrected. My bad.

W

[dberke]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Dan, being the slate nominated by the "current powers that be" is inference that they are a part of the existing power structure.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can describe the nominating committee as part of the "current powers that be". As one of the members of that committe, I hardly feel that I'm part of the existing power structure.

Originally Posted by jjefferies

How they will conduct themselves is an entirely different matter. But one which they should speak to. I don't see how you can say that they will or will not follow some course of action.

I agree that they should speak to everyone about their vision and plans for the USFA. I heard those plans as part of our research on the committee, but they will have to come forward with that information themselves.

Dan

[Peach]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Dan, being the slate nominated by the "current powers that be" is inference that they are a part of the existing power structure.

Ya know, I'm not comfortable being referred to as part of the "powers that be." Please don't. That's really misleading. Neither the Board nor the USFA office had anything to do with the work of the committee.

[ivlobane]

Originally Posted by Peach

Ya know, I'm not comfortable being referred to as part of the "powers that be." Please don't. That's really misleading. Neither the Board nor the USFA office had anything to do with the work of the committee.

Forgive my skills with this forum engine, but please, let us know here:

"Who are you?"
"What is your "in real life name?"... The "irl" awareness is a good forum to reality bridge.
If you fear identity thieves, please consider that this forum has zero technical information useful to identity hackers.

Then, once there is a face connected to a name, it is possible to take you seriosly on an internets forum.

[Peach]

I'm not anonymous in any way. Delia Turner. I'm a veteran sabre fencer from Philadelphia, mother of a fencer, a coach of beginning fencers, and at one point a referee--as I said, definitely NOT a "powers-that-be" type, and Jonathan Jefferies knows me and should know that, as I pointed out to him. The committee was pretty much rank-and-file members. I think someone else already posted the names of all the members of the nominating committee, anyway.

I'm a little bemused by the tone of your message--who did you think I was?

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

"Who are you?"

Wow, I didn't think there was anyone on fencing.net that didn't know who Peach is. Who are you?

[HDG]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

Forgive my skills with this forum engine, but please, let us know here:

"Who are you?"
"What is your "in real life name?"... The "irl" awareness is a good forum to reality bridge.
If you fear identity thieves, please consider that this forum has zero technical information useful to identity hackers.

Then, once there is a face connected to a name, it is possible to take you seriosly on an internets forum.

Why do you feel this overweening need to continually put wikipedia links to banally obvious terms?

[ivlobane]

Originally Posted by HDG

Why do you feel this overweening need to continually put wikipedia links to banally obvious terms?

Because "why" ends with a "y"...

[ivlobane]

Originally Posted by Peach

I'm not anonymous in any way. Delia Turner. I'm a veteran sabre fencer from Philadelphia, mother of a fencer, a coach of beginning fencers, and at one point a referee--as I said, definitely NOT a "powers-that-be" type, and Jonathan Jefferies knows me and should know that, as I pointed out to him. The committee was pretty much rank-and-file members. I think someone else already posted the names of all the members of the nominating committee, anyway.

I'm a little bemused by the tone of your message--who did you think I was?

Wonderful! Good to meet you. I read very few other threads, so I didn't know you, that's all. I also think there might be an influx of of new readers soon, so I tried to set a precedent that we all could be easily connected to a face and not hide behind anonymity of internet.

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by T

This is an extremely important point. We need to challenge the current business model. We are no longer a grassroots organization and need professional staff to do the varied functions that an organization like the USFA requires.

I've got no arguments with challenging the current business model. But wouldn't that include looking at the current model to see if it could be made to perform in a more efficient way? The USFA may no longer be a grassroots organization, but it's hardly a large corporation with a lot of resources at its disposal. The wholesale change you seem to be campaigning on is going to take a lot of money and a lot of expertise -- which will have to be either co-opted (those clueless volunteers again) or paid for. Having been part of "radical" changes at smaller organizations with more resources (two large law firms) I've seen how difficult this can be.

Originally Posted by T

How can we do this? Through conversation and cooperation. So far, I am the only candidate discussing anything.

I agree. I certainly hope that more potential USFA officers weigh in in the coming months about what they would like to do. I certainly would like to hear from the Nominating Committee selection for President, as we all probably would.

Originally Posted by T

Greg may also have some good qualities but in his proposals it has the appearance (rightly or wrongly) that he is writing into the agenda a job description and job security for his next (uncontested elected) position. This may or may not be the case and I am not ragging on Greg but the point is Greg and the most of the others have been there for some time but yet this is the first motion to come up about this problem. Are they now just getting religion because they believe they will simply waltz into office uncontested?

This statement seems to be an entire red herring to me -- it would appear that you're criticizing someone for acting in their core competence, an action, by the way, that I feel is long over due and makes perfect sense. I don't know Greg's history of interaction with the BoD, so I don't know if he's been on the sidelines for a short time, or a long time, but the same charge could be leveled at anyone whose voice hasn't been heard until now, and that would cover a lot of folks (including some of your slate of proposed officers). I don't think there is any reason to be suspicious of the timing of these proposals.

Originally Posted by T

On the other hand, Brad's proposition has little to do with his potential position. Collaborating with ASKFRED for registration is a real issue that does nothing to prosper his position as potential secretary.

Is this really a relevant criteria to look at the strength of the current proposals by Brad and Greg? Any strong, top-down business model (of the type you seem to be proposing) is going to shift power from a large group of volunteers to a smaller, more agile, group of professional staff, subject to oversight. Brad's proposal would seem to bring MORE unpaid volunteers into the loop (no offense, Peet). I'm a little confused, since it would seem that your relative support for both proposals is exactly opposite of your goals.

Be that as it may, thanks for responding to me. My statement in the previous post -- about your taking the time to make your opinions known while you run for office -- WAS a compliment, and I hope you take it that way. I may not agree with your vision for the future of the USFA but do support your right to make an argument for change. Thanks for your time!

Allen Evans

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by Goldgar

Wow, I didn't think there was anyone on fencing.net that didn't know who Peach is.

It's the avatar. In real life, Peach's ears don't stick up that straight.

AE

[Redblade]

Originally Posted by Peach

Ya know, I'm not comfortable being referred to as part of the "powers that be." Please don't. That's really misleading. Neither the Board nor the USFA office had anything to do with the work of the committee.

That's exactly the sort of thing The Powers That Be would say to throw people off.

Originally Posted by ivlobane

I also think there might be an influx of of new readers soon...

Sending people you know in this direction, are ya?