New development in USFA politics!

[ivlobane]

Sending people you know in this direction, are ya?

No, I'm hoping this thread comes up at JOs...

[Philistine]

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.{snip}

I think this is a good point.

Many of the suggestions for radical change presuppose a much greater operating budget. While I think it's true the nature of the USFA is changing (for a number of reasons), some of the suggestions seem to be putting the cart in front of the horse.

An influx of cash from new sources of income would certainly be welcome and bring a whole lot of flexibility to do many things, and it seems to me (as a complete outsider) at least, that there are many unexplored opportunities for fundraising--but I don't see making huge, radical changes without the infrastructure in place to support it as being a good way to go.

Also, AIUI, many of the changes being suggested aren't really changes that even can be implemented by officers. It's going to require considerable cooperation with the BOD and Congress.

--Philistine

[ivlobane]

Many of the suggestions for radical change presuppose a much greater operating budget.

How can this stament have merit, when one of the main issues is that nobody knows exactly how the operating budget of the national office is spent? The USFFC slate will not accept that. Considering their accomplishments, and Tracy's posts here, I am certain there will be progressive changes.

[ivlobane]

We have to fax our entry forms. That means there is someone in the office processing paper. Literally shuffling paper and doing data entry. In the 21st century. When things like askFRED and WuFoo are available. Streamlining the registration process with an online system will eliminate this role. Yes, that will be painful to someone that has been with the USFA for a long time.

It is time to move forward.

PS: The counter agrument of the fact that an IT person will require a higher salary, is that a good IT person would spend barely 10% of their time managing this database. Once it is in place. Therefore, the IT person could be tasked with other projects as well.

[KatyFencing]

I am sorry that I have not been able to keep up with all of the threads or even read them before I posted this, but this is the first of a series of proposals/platforms that we have developed to help fencing in general. I do want to specifically discuss David Sierra's (oso) post about the leadership qualities of the candidates. I want to keep this a platform oriented and goal oriented campaign. If you want to vote for people, fine. If you want to vote for personalities, fit youne. Please, please, please consider the one of many posts I will make with specific ideas over the next month and maker CERTAIN that you have an opinion and that the candidates you vote for have the SAME opinion. Then collectively, lets make certain that they follow through.

Here is the first program:
DISCLAIMER - I did not invent many of these ideas, I just listened to people that were successful and put them in place. I just think they need to be implemented nationwide.

USFA Fencing Leagues
(Designed as a program to grow local fencing clubs and inspire new ones)
Benefits of the program:

· Grow the USFA membership
· Introduce fencing to specific groups, (i.e. youth, adults, teenagers)
· Grow existing clubs
· Add new fencing clubs

Program specifics:

· A specific time-frame fencing class, (four or six week), with a USFA tournament held after the last class day.
· All participants would become USFA members with their fee. The remainder of the fee would go directly to the local club/coach/organization.
· The marketing and administration would be maintained by the USFA, and the USFA would either use its not-for-profit status or set up a new non-profit organization specifically for this purpose and this would enable marketing and partnerships with the schools and after school programs. This reduces the marketing fees tremendously. An additional benefit would be the locations that would be available for free or reduced-fee usage.
· The cost would be market based, although $125 is cost I have used in the cost analysis.
· Each club would be required to be a USFA member with the required USFA insurance on that location, and the coach would be required to be a USFA member.
· Equipment would either be provided by the club or purchased from the proceeds of the class to furnish the club for new clubs. Grant money could be utilized for this purpose also.
· The tournament needs to be a USFA tournament held at that or a nearby location after the last class. This tournament should be limited to similar age, sex and experienced fencers, (un-rated fencers for adults/teens, and age restriction for youth).
· The club/coach would contact a USFA contact, and working together they determine location, length of session, minimum participants, days, age groups targeted, fees, etc. The USFA representative would contact marketing channels such as schools, churches, etc. and collect registration fees. Scholarships should be awarded on a need basis, and funds could be collected for this purpose. This contact list should be forwarded to the local club/coach to make certain each participant is contacted.
· Classes can be in foil, saber or epee depending upon the local coach and preferences.
· After the initial class, these fencers can be advanced into existing programs or new clubs can begin.
· Local targeted USFA competitions should be held to foster these new students into the USFA fold.

Cost Analysis:

Assumptions:

1. $125 registration fee per person.
2. 50 clubs or new clubs/coaches participate.
3. Two USFA Fencing Leagues per year average per clubs that participate.
4. Ten paid participants per session.
5. Administrative costs for salary/overhead $30,000
6. Marketing costs $20,000 for 50 clubs, $40,000 for 100 clubs
7. Retained fencers in USFA 30%
8. Turnover of fencers in USFA program after first year 50%.

First Year Income/Loss

Income=$125.00 X 50 X 2 X 10 = $125,000
Costs = $50,000 to USFA
Revenue to local clubs/coaches = $75,000
Second year USFA benefits with additional $15,000 in membership income
Third year USFA benefits an additional $22,500 in membership income

First Year Income/Loss based upon 100 clubs or new clubs participating

Income=$125.00 X 100 X 2 X 10 = $250,000
Costs = $70,000 to USFA
Revenue to local clubs/coaches = $150,000
Second year USFA benefits with additional $30,000 in membership income
Third year USFA benefits an additional $45,000 in membership income

[KatyFencing]

This post is the first of many programs/platforms I will be posting in the next several weeks. This post also compliments what the French are doing to increase their membership.

USFA Fencing Leagues
(Designed as a program to grow local fencing clubs and inspire new ones)
Benefits of the program:

· Grow the USFA membership
· Introduce fencing to specific groups, (i.e. youth, adults, teenagers)
· Grow existing clubs
· Add new fencing clubs

Program specifics:

· A specific time-frame fencing class, (four or six week), with a USFA tournament held after the last class day.
· All participants would become USFA members with their fee. The remainder of the fee would go directly to the local club/coach/organization.
· The marketing and administration would be maintained by the USFA, and the USFA would either use its not-for-profit status or set up a new non-profit organization specifically for this purpose and this would enable marketing and partnerships with the schools and after school programs. This reduces the marketing fees tremendously. An additional benefit would be the locations that would be available for free or reduced-fee usage.
· The cost would be market based, although $125 is cost I have used in the cost analysis.
· Each club would be required to be a USFA member with the required USFA insurance on that location, and the coach would be required to be a USFA member.
· Equipment would either be provided by the club or purchased from the proceeds of the class to furnish the club for new clubs. Grant money could be utilized for this purpose also.
· The tournament needs to be a USFA tournament held at that or a nearby location after the last class. This tournament should be limited to similar age, sex and experienced fencers, (un-rated fencers for adults/teens, and age restriction for youth).
· The club/coach would contact a USFA contact, and working together they determine location, length of session, minimum participants, days, age groups targeted, fees, etc. The USFA representative would contact marketing channels such as schools, churches, etc. and collect registration fees. Scholarships should be awarded on a need basis, and funds could be collected for this purpose. This contact list should be forwarded to the local club/coach to make certain each participant is contacted.
· Classes can be in foil, saber or epee depending upon the local coach and preferences.
· After the initial class, these fencers can be advanced into existing programs or new clubs can begin.
· Local targeted USFA competitions should be held to foster these new students into the USFA fold.

Cost Analysis:

Assumptions:

1. $125 registration fee per person.
2. 50 clubs or new clubs/coaches participate.
3. Two USFA Fencing Leagues per year average per clubs that participate.
4. Ten paid participants per session.
5. Administrative costs for salary/overhead $30,000
6. Marketing costs $20,000 for 50 clubs, $40,000 for 100 clubs
7. Retained fencers in USFA 30%
8. Turnover of fencers in USFA program after first year 50%.

First Year Income/Loss

Income=$125.00 X 50 X 2 X 10 = $125,000
Costs = $50,000 to USFA
Revenue to local clubs/coaches = $75,000
Second year USFA benefits with additional $15,000 in membership income
Third year USFA benefits an additional $22,500 in membership income

First Year Income/Loss based upon 100 clubs or new clubs participating

Income=$125.00 X 100 X 2 X 10 = $250,000
Costs = $70,000 to USFA
Revenue to local clubs/coaches = $150,000
Second year USFA benefits with additional $30,000 in membership income
Third year USFA benefits an additional $45,000 in membership income

[T]

I am posting this on behalf of August Skopik (see his note below). This represents one idea/proposal that August, as coach/club VP (from USFFC slate) would bring to the table.

Have fun discusing!
Tracy Hurley


Dear Fencers,

I have attempted repeatedly to post to the fencing.net discussion forum, but I keep getting rejected. Here is the first of many platform ideas that I will be posting. I have to rely on Tracy to update the fencing.net forum or one of you vigilant fencers.

August Skopik

USFA Fencing Leagues
(Designed as a program to grow local fencing clubs and inspire new ones)
Benefits of the program:

· Grow the USFA membership
· Introduce fencing to specific groups, (i.e. youth, adults, teenagers)
· Grow existing clubs
· Add new fencing clubs

Program specifics:

· A specific time-frame fencing class, (four or six week), with a USFA tournament held after the last class day.
· All participants would become USFA members with their fee. The remainder of the fee would go directly to the local club/coach/organization.
· The marketing and administration would be maintained by the USFA, and the USFA would either use its not-for-profit status or set up a new non-profit organization specifically for this purpose and this would enable marketing and partnerships with the schools and after school programs. This reduces the marketing fees tremendously. An additional benefit would be the locations that would be available for free or reduced-fee usage.
· The cost would be market based, although $125 is cost I have used in the cost analysis.
· Each club would be required to be a USFA member with the required USFA insurance on that location, and the coach would be required to be a USFA member.
· Equipment would either be provided by the club or purchased from the proceeds of the class to furnish the club for new clubs. Grant money could be utilized for this purpose also.
· The tournament needs to be a USFA tournament held at that or a nearby location after the last class. This tournament should be limited to similar age, sex and experienced fencers, (un-rated fencers for adults/teens, and age restriction for youth).
· The club/coach would contact a USFA contact, and working together they determine location, length of session, minimum participants, days, age groups targeted, fees, etc. The USFA representative would contact marketing channels such as schools, churches, etc. and collect registration fees. Scholarships should be awarded on a need basis, and funds could be collected for this purpose. This contact list should be forwarded to the local club/coach to make certain each participant is contacted.
· Classes can be in foil, saber or epee depending upon the local coach and preferences.
· After the initial class, these fencers can be advanced into existing programs or new clubs can begin.
· Local targeted USFA competitions should be held to foster these new students into the USFA fold.

Cost Analysis:

Assumptions:

1. $125 registration fee per person.
2. 50 clubs or new clubs/coaches participate.
3. Two USFA Fencing Leagues per year average per clubs that participate.
4. Ten paid participants per session.
5. Administrative costs for salary/overhead $30,000
6. Marketing costs $20,000 for 50 clubs, $40,000 for 100 clubs
7. Retained fencers in USFA 30%
8. Turnover of fencers in USFA program after first year 50%.

First Year Income/Loss

Income=$125.00 X 50 X 2 X 10 = $125,000
Costs = $50,000 to USFA
Revenue to local clubs/coaches = $75,000
Second year USFA benefits with additional $15,000 in membership income
Third year USFA benefits an additional $22,500 in membership income

First Year Income/Loss based upon 100 clubs or new clubs participating

Income=$125.00 X 100 X 2 X 10 = $250,000
Costs = $70,000 to USFA
Revenue to local clubs/coaches = $150,000
Second year USFA benefits with additional $30,000 in membership income
Third year USFA benefits an additional $45,000 in membership income

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Would these "leagues" be city specific, or regional?

This sounds pretty similar to how I got started in fencing: a multi-week class, ending in a tournament among the surviving class members. The difference in this proposal is the embedding of the USFA membership in the class cost.

Once the intro class/tournament is done, what would be the next step for the league? Another set of classes/tournaments?

Any marketing plan to add more bodies to the USFA membership base is admirable, but I'm not immediately seeing the overall benefit of the "league" compared to a less complicated incentive program encouraging local clubs to structure a basic intro to fencing class also resulting in USFA membership.

I'm wondering if an incentive plan might make more sense: for each of these "intro to fencing + USFA Tourney" meets the club holds, they get a rebate or a hold-back of a portion of the USFA membership fee. Many of the local clubs already do the outreach programs, anyway, so it might mitigate having to have a USFA person dedicated to assisting in local marketing. The USFA benefits from the swelling membership base without adding much bureaucracy to the system.

Perhaps as part of any intro class+membership plan, the USFA should devote some attention to communications with the new fencers, especially as the time approaches for renewal, with targeted mailings or e-mailings thanking them for their membership, and listing benefits for renewal. There's a substantial drop-off for renewals after the first year or two of membership. A two-pronged approach to adding new members and keeping exisiting ones would certainly help the USFA's bottom line. We already get an e-mail blast for other issues. Why not a specific one tied to membership renewal?

[T]

I’m just back from the JOs and the BOD meeting that was held Sunday morning.

One piece of news hot off the press: Michael Massik (the Exec Director) has resigned but will stay on until after the Olympics. That will make many things much easier for the new President, no matter who it is.

One other piece of quite disturbing news! We learned that the USFA could be in the red for upwards of $1million. Conservative estimates are over $250,000; but evidently the auditor’s estimate is that it is probably closer to $1million. Being in the hole is bad enough but the scary part is that they don’t know exactly how much in the hole we are!

So, what is my point? I sat there at the BOD meeting waiting for the discussion of exactly what happened, who did it, why it is just now coming to the surface, etc. I was waiting for someone, anyone, to ask pointed questions about this disaster of a financial status. 5 out of the 6 nominating committee slate candidates are currently on the BOD (Mark Stasinos is not). Only 2 of them (Jerry Benson and Greg Dilworth) seemed to give a damn. The others didn’t open their mouth; didn’t ask any questions; didn’t even voice astonishment (there were a couple of others on the BOD that were astonished – just not the others on the NC slate). Evidently, they knew at the Sep meeting that things were amiss but 5 months later, there is still no handle on the situation and no plan to address it. What does that mean? This means that the new officers will inherit a huge deficit. But more importantly, the NC slate candidates are ok with it (evidently, because their actions indicated indifference). There was no discussion of how to put the brakes on spending or how to manage the current cash flow crunch. I reiterate the need for qualified staff people in the front office to address the basic organizational functions.

I’m still waiting for this ‘vision’ to show itself. Do I hold each of these individuals responsible for what has happened? Maybe a little. Do I hold them collectively accountable? Yes indeed! This deficit (and the lack of control systems) happened on their watch. They either approved a budget that had huge problems or didn’t have the control systems in place for proper oversight. Either way, I’m not seeing effective leadership. Now, I have to commend Jerry and Greg for being upset about it and certainly Greg’s motion for the 2 new committees was certainly warranted (although they do not address how to get out of the current financial situation or the fact that this organizational function is nonexistent in the current structure) . The outgoing president, Nancy Anderson, said “we just have to do the best we can with what we got”. I’m sorry, that is not a good enough answer for me and it shouldn’t pacify you either. The NC president candidate (Kalle Weeks) and VP candidate (Ro Sobalvarro) sat there without raising one question or making one comment about the disaster – NOT ONE. Someone who is a potential incoming President or VP should have been quite excited about the mess that they will possibly inherit. I repeat again, I’m not seeing this grand vision I was told about. This behavior points to a ‘business as usual’ business model that is unobtrusive, unconcerned, and indifferent. Organizational and structural changes are desperately needed. We can not afford NOT to make the necessary changes.

[TBean]

Well that explains a lot, it is more than a cash-flow issue for the organization. Small wonder Mr. Massik resigned, the alternative looks worse on your resume.

While I agree the Board is accountable and that change has to happen I doubt, highly, that the failure was intentional. This systematic lack of controls has been a cultural issue for this institution long before these folks took charge. Years of individuals who know a lot about fencing but little about non-profit management led to this - unfortunately this Board is the one left holding the bag. Hopefully this will convince the Board that it must make some significant cultural changes and really hire the people and find the Board members who can make this a strong, viable institution.

As for folks not asking pointed questions - how experienced in financial matters are they, maybe they didn't know the questions to ask, maybe they just needed to process the information. Also, public meetings are often not the best forums to get into these types of disucssions - people just get defensive and nothing productive happens. However, if I was a Board member I would have asked Michael if the Director's insurance premium was up-to-date - assuming that they have it.

[noodle]

We have to fax our entry forms. That means there is someone in the office processing paper. Literally shuffling paper and doing data entry. In the 21st century. When things like askFRED and WuFoo are available. Streamlining the registration process with an online system will eliminate this role. Yes, that will be painful to someone that has been with the USFA for a long time.

It is time to move forward.

PS: The counter agrument of the fact that an IT person will require a higher salary, is that a good IT person would spend barely 10% of their time managing this database. Once it is in place. Therefore, the IT person could be tasked with other projects as well.

i'm currently giving consideration to setting up a service to do this, and also accept NAC entries, and undercutting the USFA price (how would i do that? well its a secret). but it would most likely only work to instill change in the system, and become unpopular after the USFA makes the appropriate changes.

[Wise-Epeeist]

re 'seemed to give a damn': The absence of excitability does not necessarily imply indifference. Emotional responses to stress are unique to each individual; it's unfair to paint broad generalizations.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

I’m just back from the JOs and the BOD meeting that was held Sunday morning.

One piece of news hot off the press: Michael Massik (the Exec Director) has resigned but will stay on until after the Olympics. That will make many things much easier for the new President, no matter who it is.

One other piece of quite disturbing news! We learned that the USFA could be the red for upwards of $1million. Conservative estimates are over $250,000; but evidently the auditor’s estimate is that it is probably closer to $1million. Being in the hole is bad enough but the scary part is that they don’t know exactly how much in the hole we are!

Tracy: I have visited several congress meetings of the Swedish Fencing Federation, in my capacity of club representative. Some years ago, we had budget results in the red a bit too often, but changes have been put in place in order to diminish the occurrence of that. That has been, by and large, successful. Might I suggest that you contact our treasurer for background and tips?

At the meetings that I have attended, there have always been a lot of budget discussion, including some pointed questions from several people. Those have mostly been of the type: why should we fund project A instead of B? Anyway, the latest time I was there, there was a considerable deficit, due entirely to actions of the Swedish Olympic committee. I can promise that it was not met with complacency.

A budget question: Tracy, if your group gets elected and there is a million dollar deficit, what do you suggest for stopgap measures in order to stop the financial hemorrhage? Remember that it is almost always easier to cut costs than to increase revenues, at least in the short term.

If there are some 20000 USFA members and a 1 million USD deficit, then the deficit is 50$/member. To suddenly increase membership dues by that amount is probably not a good idea, but an increase is quite probably part of the solution.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[edew]

I can see divisions and sections probably going in the red (ok, maybe not to the tune of $1million), since many are headed by volunteers who don't have clear understanding of income/expense and such. But the USFA is a paid organization with people whose full-time position is to run the damn thing. $1million? holy shiat!

I was wondering why I didn't see Massik walking around the venue this whole week.

(I was planning on going to the BoD meeting, but didn't get to sleep until around 4AM -- rolling around in bed, not out carousing. So I bagged the meeting and slept until 10:30AM.)

[foilfanatic]

Actually I did see him several times in the venue ... including on Sunday afternoon.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Wow. Just...wow.

First Thought: what candidate in their right mind would actively seek the helm of a ship that close to sinking?

Second Thought: Someone with an iron will, a big whip and a burning desire to install and man some huge bilge pumps.

Third Thought: Why do I suddenly have visions of Performance Enhancement and Weapon Squad funding checks with little wings on them flitting directly away from Beijing?

Fourth Thought: (now that the paper bag is no longer helping with the hyperventilation) How accurate is this account of the board meeting? Brad? Anyone else in attendance?

[KatyFencing]

I just read Tracy's post that the USFA is potentially $1MM in the red, and what I see is more opportunity than discouragement. Let's look at the positives and negatives.

Positives

1. We have an excellent product, a sport that is fun and the events run themselves. I worked with an organization locally, The Houston Sports Authority, that was looking for events and a sport like ours.

2. We have a changing dynamics in the education process in schools, and more young people are looking for individual sports.

3. We are growing as a sport, and the USFA has achieved national and international results. We have positive press and not negative press.

4. We have people ready to make the changes needed, and experienced in deficit cash-flow being turned into positive cash-flow. My first sales job was with a company that lost $200MM in its first year. It turned that around and was able to become profitable within 3 years, (Discover Card).

Negatives

1. We can't continue to do things the same way as before.
2. We need new leadership.
3. We need a plan from the new leadership.

I am sorry my first platform post was duplicated, and I have several more posts that will address this issue and other areas that need to be addressed in the coming months.

Negatives

[silver2e]

I’m just back from the JOs and the BOD meeting that was held Sunday morning.

One piece of news hot off the press: Michael Massik (the Exec Director) has resigned but will stay on until after the Olympics. That will make many things much easier for the new President, no matter who it is.

One other piece of quite disturbing news! We learned that the USFA could be in the red for upwards of $1million. Conservative estimates are over $250,000; but evidently the auditor’s estimate is that it is probably closer to $1million. Being in the hole is bad enough but the scary part is that they don’t know exactly how much in the hole we are!

<snip>
Evidently, they knew at the Sep meeting that things were amiss but 5 months later, there is still no handle on the situation and no plan to address it.
<snip>...certainly Greg’s motion for the 2 new committees was certainly warranted ...

At the BoD meeting, were the motions for a Budget/Finance Committee and an Audit Comm approved? It would seem self-evident that at least some of the members of the BoD should have some business background so that they can monitor the budget for each year.

Many organizations have a business mgr to oversee the budgeting process--using some common accounting-type software, and seeing that clerical or bookkeeping staff is familiar with the program and can enter the inflow/outflow amounts in a timely fashion. But monthly review of the budget report is vital!

[KShan5[PrFC]]

In reply to the deficit. Aren't NACs one large source of revenue for the USFA, and wouldn't limiting NAC sizes (as proposed) limit the amount of available money to cover the deficit?

[T]

At the BoD meeting, were the motions for a Budget/Finance Committee and an Audit Comm approved? It would seem self-evident that at least some of the members of the BoD should have some business background so that they can monitor the budget for each year.

yes they were approved and yes people were 'volunteered' for them.