New development in USFA politics!

[T]

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?

As I mentioned earlier, the general understanding that the USFA advertises (again, the budget is not public so I just have to go on what I have heard), is that the NACs do not make money. Some rumors suggest that the summer nationals are the only event that makes money. So limiting the NAC entries would not necessarily mean less 'profit'. Limiting entries might mean less loss but without a budget it is difficult to say.

To recover from a deficit this size will take some major actions. Peter, above, asked, if elected, what steps would I take to rectify the situation. I am working on a plan...so more later.

[epeemike81]

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?

Spot on. Fewer NAC entries would mean less income. there's no way around that.

It's at times like this that I want a financial professional who's spent much of his adult live trimming fat and saving corporations a lot of money at the helm. Coincidentally enough, we have just such a candidate running for Treasurer: Greg Dilworth.

-m

[Capt. Slo-mo]

It just so happens, we have two treasurer candidates in play. So: how do they propose to save a large non-profit organization with a 250K to 1M dollar budget shortfall, and an executive director who's gathering up cardboard boxes for his office?

(cue "Dueling Banjos" theme)

Lady and gentleman, start your calculators!

[Mo]

Pardon me for not falling for the "the sky is falling, the USFA is bankrupt" scenario, but, when I look at our family finances, aren't we ALL operating on a deficit??

With house payments, car payments, slow work pace, high expenditures going down the drain for fencing, etc, it seems to be a way of life right now for everyone.
While the situation may be really serious, maybe it is not a major castastrope. Most of us with children with expensive habits live on the edge. I know we do.
Cool down a bit people...
The Olympics are coming. Fencing will be even more visible in the US. More people will want to fence. More fencers, more money.
Resolve to do A LOT better but panic is not in order.

The Momster

[Wafath]

Pardon me for not falling for the "the sky is falling, the USFA is bankrupt" scenario, but, when I look at our family finances, aren't we ALL operating on a deficit??

Yes, but, if the previous posts are true, this isn't just a case of going into debt as part of a long term plan. It isn't entirely clear that the USFA has assets to back up this debt.

It also isn't clear to whom the USFA owes money to. If the USFA had a line of credit from a bank or owed, say, the USOC, the amount owed would probably be known.

As it is, I fear that the USFA has been delaying payment on bills in order to maintain solvency. This might work if you can generate some positive cash flow for a while and catch up. Now that it is starting to leak out, businesses and individuals may not be willing to extend the USFA credit.

Is the USFA on the verge of bankruptcy?

W

[T]

Pardon me for not falling for the "the sky is falling, the USFA is bankrupt" scenario, but, when I look at our family finances, aren't we ALL operating on a deficit??

With house payments, car payments, slow work pace, high expenditures going down the drain for fencing, etc, it seems to be a way of life right now for everyone.
While the situation may be really serious, maybe it is not a major castastrope. Most of us with children with expensive habits live on the edge. I know we do.
Cool down a bit people...
The Olympics are coming. Fencing will be even more visible in the US. More people will want to fence. More fencers, more money.
Resolve to do A LOT better but panic is not in order.

The Momster

It is always good to be an optimist. I am too. I hope the USFA takes advantage of the exposure it gets from the Olympics and turns it into revenue (that would solve a big problem). This may happen, unless history repeats itself and potential revenue achieved from a medal in Beijing is wasted as it was last time.

Since you are 'the momster' and apparently have a kid that fences (I'm sorry but I don't know who exactly you are other than your kid is involved in w.saber) perhaps you can answer this question...

Are you a USFA member? If so, why? If not, what would it take for you to become a member?

In my conversation with many parents, it seems that many (I would say most but I don't have reliable statistics) parents are not members..simply because there is no incentive for them to join the association (any many of the ones that are members are forced to join so their club can control divisional elections). This looks like a great revenue potential. Let's say that the USFA has 20,000 members. Only about 9000 are voting members - which includes about 1000 non-competitive members such as coaches and parents (who aren't 'competitive' members). This puts approx 10,000 as youth/cadet fencers. Out of these 10,000 fencers, let's say that 1/3 of them also have 1 sibling that is a member. This makes about 6600 households that have parents that are not members. Now, all of them aren't 2-parent households so let's say that 2/3 of them have 2 parents which gives you almost 11,000 parents that are potential members given the current membership demographis.

If we structure a membership category that attracts parents (with membership benefits that can include a variety of things such as discounts on cars, hotels, etc.. the same kind of benefits many organizations give with their membership) for $25/parent/year (let's say), this could account for $275,000 in revenue EACH YEAR.

This may be optimistic but my question to you as a 'momster' to a fencer is,
what type of membership benefits can the USFA offer to attract parents that are not currently members?

[sheck]

Is the USFA on the verge of bankruptcy?
W

I know the USFA had/has a endowment started from left over money from the 1984 Olympics. Not sure of the current status / limitations though.

[JEC]

Did the USFA bought the building that was discussed maybe 6-8 years ago? Perhaps, that in itself is the tangible object that was mortaged. Or perhaps, the mortage liabilities contribute to the deficit ...

[Mo]

It is always good to be an optimist. I am too. I hope the USFA takes advantage of the exposure it gets from the Olympics and turns it into revenue (that would solve a big problem). This may happen, unless history repeats itself and potential revenue achieved from a medal in Beijing is wasted as it was last time.

What exactly was the USFA supposed to do to use the victories in Greece to promote fencing? What potential revenue?
Mariel and I think Sada were both still fencing NCAA. They couldn't have their names used to promote anything. That will be the case this year for Becca too should she make it to the Os.
Under NCAA rules, no organization is supposed to use the name or image of an athlete for advertisement purposes. Not only that but it seems that a person has to have more than a medal at the Olympics. They need qualities that make others want to emulate them. Fencing, with it's lack of popularity in this country, doesn't cut it like a tennis player or ice skater. No one really idenitifies with gymnasts either because they are so outside the norm.
What would you have done to cash in on Olympic success for a fencer who cannot break the NCAA rules?


[/QUOTE]
Since you are 'the momster' and apparently have a kid that fences (I'm sorry but I don't know who exactly you are other than your kid is involved in w.saber) perhaps you can answer this question...

Are you a USFA member? If so, why? If not, what would it take for you to become a member? [/QUOTE]

I am a member but it hasn't done me a lot of good. I did it so I could mostly vote against the recall which I thought was really bogus.


[/QUOTE]
If we structure a membership category that attracts parents (with membership benefits that can include a variety of things such as discounts on cars, hotels, etc.. the same kind of benefits many organizations give with their membership) for $25/parent/year (let's say), this could account for $275,000 in revenue EACH YEAR.

This may be optimistic but my question to you as a 'momster' to a fencer is,
what type of membership benefits can the USFA offer to attract parents that are not currently members?[/QUOTE]


Know what I would really love??
A parent committee that included members of the USFA like Jim Carpenter and Andrea Lagan and more than one coach from a club.
When a fencer's family has basically bankrupted its self so their kid can fence and they have a problem, there is no one to turn to. There is no one that will help them. There is no one who will stand up and say, "we will get off the fence and do something about this" no matter how wrong the situation may be.

We needed someone out of three people who worked at the USFA office to say, yes we met with you and yes we discussed this and yes we got emails and NO ONE WOULD ADMIT or write down what they witnessed or allow us to see VITAL emails that had been sent about our situation. They didn't want to upset the coach.

Parents are powerless to do anything. The coaches whims come first. The staff at the USFA seems to back up coaches and the hell with the fencers or their parents even if they KNOW the fencer is being harmed or being treated grossly unfairly by a coach. Until recently there was no one on the USFA who would back up a fencer or a family. One person tried but was unsuccessful.
This kind of crap should not go on.

Give us a committee with some say, in an ombudsman capacity and perhaps more people will join. Youth fencing could really use a committee like this too. All the parents know who the cheaters are in a division. If parents had some power we could solve problems ourselves. Who at the USFA Office has time to arbitrate the smaller but important things that happen in divisions??

Until a fencer gets near the top and has to deal with unfair coaching practices, they have no idea how horrible it can be for their kid or their family.

I would like to see someone on staff with a backbone and for the USFA to remember that it is the fencers that count, especially the fencers that are working and winning in spite of the bs that seems to fly in all directions.
Fencing is not as bad as any other sports I guess but is it too much to ask for it to be different? Shouldn't we have a choice to make it that way?
Everything is so darned secret. The budget is secret, heck our clubs budget is secret.

Having finances, voting proceedures, high performance committee meetings and everything else should be OPEN. Anyone who wants to attend should be able to attend. Fencers on a squad should be able to view the funding and disbursement of squad funds. It is all kept secret to protect the people spending the money. No one makes sure it is equitable. It is impossible to see if the money is spent evenly and the purchases for a team can be used by all members of the team.

What I am asking for is a square deal and not for fencing to be a cliquey club run by people that have always run it in a way they see fit whether it is really fit or not.
The Momster

[jfarmer]

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.

I agree that is symtopmatic of a long term cultural issue. However, if it is indeed true that the organization is at least $250,000, probably $1 million in the red, then some serious questions need answers. The first is obvious, how? Was the organization's books balanced at the end of the FY? If so (and they should have been), then what has happened in the last 6 months to create this situation?

I understand that the Executive Director is responsible for controlling the USFA budget. If so, then Mr. Massik should have been fired. Indeed, even if you grant him the chance to resign, I can't see allowing him to stay on through the Olympics is a reasonable thing to do. In fact, depending on the circumstances of the current financial situation, I think any competent lawyer would suggest that he be removed and not allowed access to the premises. (I'm sure that Mr. Massik is a nice and honorable man, but given that a fraction of the current problems would have the COO of any organization bounced out the door, pronto...)

[Allen Evans]

Before we start talking about selling the office furniture, it's probably worth pointing out that a projected shortfall in the budget does not necessarily imply imminent bankruptcy.

Allen Evans

[T]

Let me try to address these one at a time.

Since you are 'the momster' and apparently have a kid that fences (I'm sorry but I don't know who exactly you are other than your kid is involved in w.saber) perhaps you can answer this question...

Are you a USFA member? If so, why? If not, what would it take for you to become a member?

I am a member but it hasn't done me a lot of good. I did it so I could mostly vote against the recall which I thought was really bogus.

Know what I would really love??
A parent committee that included members of the USFA like Jim Carpenter and Andrea Lagan and more than one coach from a club.
When a fencer's family has basically bankrupted its self so their kid can fence and they have a problem, there is no one to turn to. There is no one that will help them. There is no one who will stand up and say, "we will get off the fence and do something about this" no matter how wrong the situation may be.

We needed someone out of three people who worked at the USFA office to say, yes we met with you and yes we discussed this and yes we got emails and NO ONE WOULD ADMIT or write down what they witnessed or allow us to see VITAL emails that had been sent about our situation. They didn't want to upset the coach.

Parents are powerless to do anything. The coaches whims come first. The staff at the USFA seems to back up coaches and the hell with the fencers or their parents even if they KNOW the fencer is being harmed or being treated grossly unfairly by a coach. Until recently there was no one on the USFA who would back up a fencer or a family. One person tried but was unsuccessful.
This kind of crap should not go on.

Give us a committee with some say, in an ombudsman capacity and perhaps more people will join. Youth fencing could really use a committee like this too. All the parents know who the cheaters are in a division. If parents had some power we could solve problems ourselves. Who at the USFA Office has time to arbitrate the smaller but important things that happen in divisions??

Until a fencer gets near the top and has to deal with unfair coaching practices, they have no idea how horrible it can be for their kid or their family.

I would like to see someone on staff with a backbone and for the USFA to remember that it is the fencers that count, especially the fencers that are working and winning in spite of the bs that seems to fly in all directions.
Fencing is not as bad as any other sports I guess but is it too much to ask for it to be different? Shouldn't we have a choice to make it that way?
Everything is so darned secret. The budget is secret, heck our clubs budget is secret.

Having finances, voting proceedures, high performance committee meetings and everything else should be OPEN. Anyone who wants to attend should be able to attend. Fencers on a squad should be able to view the funding and disbursement of squad funds. It is all kept secret to protect the people spending the money. No one makes sure it is equitable. It is impossible to see if the money is spent evenly and the purchases for a team can be used by all members of the team.

What I am asking for is a square deal and not for fencing to be a cliquey club run by people that have always run it in a way they see fit whether it is really fit or not.
The Momster

Here is where I have a lot of knowledge. Now that I know how the 'momster' is, I know where she is coming from. One of my major issues with the USFA is that parents are footing the developmental programs (and much of the elite programs) of the assocation. For the USFA, this is a very good thing and I, like many parents, are willing to do so because it directly benefits our kids in many ways (on and off the strip). However, while they pay all of the bills, they get no service, no benefits, no nothing (except a kick in the teeth). It is a blind allegience that we are asked to deal with. Parents are not idiots. Even if they are not fencers, they should be allowed to be involved in how the association is benefiting their child and the sport they participate in (especially at the local level but also at the national level).

One of my positions from the beginning is that parents need to be represented on the Exec Committee. There needs to be a focus on parent input (as I said in a previous post, about half of our membership are youth/cadet fencers). We have a lot of resources out there among parents we are not utilizing. Member services are not hard to imagine. I totally agree that programs for parents are needed. Perhaps the momster and I are (somewhat) exceptions in that we have successful elite athletes but there are many parents out there that would like to not only have the info that the momster was talking about communicated to them in a fair manner and access to open meetings but there are many new parents that are interested in getting involved whether it be through learning how to keep score , run events, fix weapons, find the good travel deals, etc. In addition, how can they help their kids be successful and how do they make world teams and what about college?

It is not too much to ask for USFencing to be better than other sports. You will get no argument from me on that one.

Momster is a USFA member because she wanted to vote against a political position (which was club driven). Many parents are members for the same reason (although it is more likely to be a vote against local division control of some other club). Is this a good reason to join the USFA? We will not attract parents as members until we turn this model around and start asking the question 'what can we do to help you child succeed in fencing?' You never know who or where the next child prodigy will come from and the USFA should be involved in paving that road as easily as possible by utilizing and providing support (and this is used as a general term and not exclusively or even primarily financial).

[T]

the endowment is run by the USFencing foundation which is a totally different organization. The USFA cannot dip into this budget to pay expenses (and shouldn't be able to) without clearing major hurdles. This really is not an option that should be entertained unless there is absolutely no other solution tenable and creditors are knocking down the door.

The USModern Pentathlon Association had a similar trust (from the 1984 Olympics) and dipped into it every year until finally that NGB went bankrupt and they were selling office furniture (and everything else) at auction .

I know the USFA had/has a endowment started from left over money from the 1984 Olympics. Not sure of the current status / limitations though.

[oiuyt]

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?

The budget and related issues were discussed more than any other topic (actually close to as much as EVERY other topic) at the meeting. In addition to discussion in the morning, there was over an hour of dicussion on the topic, including a number of very specific questions (mostly from Greg) and related sub-discussions during the latter portion of the meeting after the recess.* The majority of the financial discussion took place at the evening portion of the meeting, which I don't believe T attended. While Greg and Jerry were two of the more active members in the discussion, I would not characterize things as they being the only two involved.

As mentioned previously in the thread, Greg's motions were passed. The interval of time between the morning and evening portions of the meeting allowed for the confirmation of the identities of some people interested in serving on each. The Board made our required appointment to each (Greg to Finance, Evan Ranes to Audit). The Athlete's Rep to the Finance Committee (Scott Rodgers) had already been identified, and Derek Cotton, as treasurer, was automatically the chair. There is one Presidential appointee to each, which appointments are required within 1 month, and an athlete rep appointment to the audit committee, required to be made expeditiously.

Based on reports, the topic was discussed very extensively the previous day at the EC meeting as well.

Without going into specifics, the USFA lost considerably more money last (fiscal) year than was anticipated. There were cost over-runs in a number of areas, some quite significant. I think there is no one involved in any capacity that is "ok with it" or indifferent.

Did the USFA bought the building that was discussed maybe 6-8 years ago? Perhaps, that in itself is the tangible object that was mortaged. Or perhaps, the mortage liabilities contribute to the deficit ...

Yes, the USFA, along with several other NGBs, purchased the office building to which you refer. We own a percentage of the building, which houses our NO.

I know the USFA had/has a endowment started from left over money from the 1984 Olympics. Not sure of the current status / limitations though.

That money, as well as other designated gifts over the 20+ years since, was placed with the US Fencing Foundation, a separately-controlled non-profit. The USFF has chosen to invest their assets with the US Olympic Foundation. Annually the USFF choses an amount of money to give to the USFA, coming exclusively out of the USFF earnings (so as to maintain the principal). This year I believe that amount is on the order of $70,000.

The USFA names a couple of the directors of the USFF and does some administrative work for the USFF, but certainly doesn't control it or own it's assets. They are tightly connected but separate organizations.

I'll type up notes from the meeting and post them (in the thread about the meeting), probably tonight. As in the past, I anticipate that mostly being brief notes of the resolution of the various motions, perhaps with a few comments.

One note for here, because it pertains to the budget discussions and doesn't really have a particular agenda place, but affects most of this thread's readers; As has been mentioned in the past, and again on Sunday, the USFA has an existing policy of increasing membership fees with the new Olympic quadrennial. As descibed on Sunday, absent a modification to the policy in July, membership fees in 2008-2009 will be increased by $10/year in each category. I'm unclear how lifetime membership fees will be altered without specific action.

-B

* For those that were not in attendance, the meeting, which was scheduled to run 7:30-9:30am ended up recessing at ~9:40am and reconvening at 5:00pm, running until just before 7:00pm. The latter session contained an executive (closed) portion dealing with a sensitive non-budget-related topic, but the majority of that time was dealing with the specific budgetary and financial discussions.

[T]

Yes, but, if the previous posts are true, this isn't just a case of going into debt as part of a long term plan. It isn't entirely clear that the USFA has assets to back up this debt.

It also isn't clear to whom the USFA owes money to. If the USFA had a line of credit from a bank or owed, say, the USOC, the amount owed would probably be known.

As it is, I fear that the USFA has been delaying payment on bills in order to maintain solvency. This might work if you can generate some positive cash flow for a while and catch up. Now that it is starting to leak out, businesses and individuals may not be willing to extend the USFA credit.

Is the USFA on the verge of bankruptcy?

W

While I wouldn't go so far as to say that the USFA is on the verge of bankruptcy, I would say that there is cause for alarm (which should prompt changes in both staff, elected officers, and processes). While I do not have the priviledge to review budgets (they are kept tightly under wraps), from my experience here is what I see as far as who the USFA owes money to and how they finance their debt.

If you are on a national team, or a referee/official, and are receiving some subsidy for travel or hotel costs to either national or international events, the USFA asks you to go through a travel agent to book your plane tickets. If you do, the USFA buys the ticket with their credit card (and I have no idea what the terms are on the credit card but I hope they have one of those that gives the USFA a kickback that they advertise on the homepage). So all travel expenses are funded with revolving credit from a credit card (and I have no idea what the balances are) including hotel costs, etc. to world championships and other important international events. Now if you are funded by a grant or are concerned about getting the best deal, working around a complex schedule, etc and you feel that you want to buy your own ticket (because it is infinitely easier to get exactly what you want at a good price) and just get reimbursed, you can count on 3 or 4 months reimbursement process (if you're lucky). You are also allowed to submit your credit card statements and they will pay your interest (that is what I'm told but I have never done it because I find it absolutely ridiculous). So these more frugal and special-needs people are funding part of the debt.

I suspect the rest of the debt is more direct for stipends, venue costs, etc. to refs and event managers for services rendered and NAC expenses.

Several months ago I was told that the reason that I wasn't getting reimbursed in a more timely manner (and I mean less than 5 months) was because the USFA had huge amounts of cash (I was told 'millions' of dollars) tied up with deposits on venues a couple of years into the future for NACs. How true is this? I don't know but it was a top USFA staffer that told me this. This, alone, could account for a large part of our current financial problem. How do we negotiate NAC venues? Now that we have dumped the Local Organizing Committee approach for the most part, who is making the deals? It would be nice to know how much cheaper is it to go to Denver or Pittsburg in the middle of winter or Miami in the middle of summer.

Feel free to contribute any other info about where you think/know what accounts for the debt!

[T]

The budget and related issues were discussed more than any other topic (actually close to as much as EVERY other topic) at the meeting. In addition to discussion in the morning, there was over an hour of dicussion on the topic, including a number of very specific questions (mostly from Greg) and related sub-discussions during the latter portion of the meeting after the recess.* The majority of the financial discussion took place at the evening portion of the meeting, which I don't believe T attended. While Greg and Jerry were two of the more active members in the discussion, I would not characterize things as they being the only two involved.

I definitely said that others were involved in the discussion besides Greg and Jerry. I also admit that it was discussed for quite a while. My point was that others (2 important players in particular) on the NC slate were not involved in the discussion.

You are correct, I did not attend the evening session. My understanding from the morning session is that the evening session was going to be spent in Exec session and then some with Greg clarifying with the ED (and others)about the budget. I wish I had attended but was unaware that the evening session was going to take place until I arrived at the meeting on Sunday morning. Had I known, I would have made other travel plans. Again, there was no communication about meetings and times (other than the stated time of 7:30am on Sunday) to interested parties before the meeting took place.

I definitely look forward to the minutes.

[oso97]

* For those that were not in attendance, the meeting, which was scheduled to run 7:30-9:30am ended up recessing at ~9:40am and reconvening at 5:00pm, running until just before 7:00pm. The latter session contained an executive (closed) portion dealing with a sensitive non-budget-related topic, but the majority of that time was dealing with the specific budgetary and financial discussions.

Additional information about the second part of the meeting. There were a grand total of six observers for this part of the meeting (I was one of them). The issues that were discussed there were easily the most important part of the entire agenda.

As an observer, I would have described the atmosphere of the meeting as "frank." There were no shouted recriminations, no banging of shoes upon tables, no wild accusations made, no screaming matches, and no adversarial positions taken (This, by the way, is a GOOD thing. It shows that people involved, while passionate, are capable of acting in a professional and competent nature). Greg, after having examined in minute detail the submitted budget and compared it with previous budgetary releases, prepared a list of questions he wanted answered. This list of questions was submitted in advance of the meeting to the Executive Director. There were no "gotchas" or surprises tossed out. Yes, Greg and Jerry were definitely in the lead on the questioning, which is not surprising, as they are the two with the most formal financial training and background. It is entirely appropriate that they lead the questioning, and be supported by others. The questions were answered by the Executive Director, with additional clarification given by one of the VPs (Sam Cheris) in a number of cases. The nature of the answers ranged from highly satisfactory and appropriate, to questionable and troubling, to evasive and/or defensive, to downright unsatisfactory in any regard (and there was a good spread - no category was over-represented).

A number of additional thoughts from my perspective on the financial status of the organization.

1) The budget and audit committees that were set up will be a good thing and are long overdue. One of the ways the financial situation developed was that there was a lack of oversight coupled with a lack of capability. These two committees will give the board the oversight to determine the capabilities that the employees need. I am hopeful about this positive direction.

2) Greg asked two questions at the beginning of the whole thing, that were to those who have any sort of feeling about this the most important. First question: What are the current cash reserves of the USFA? Second question: What are the current Accounts Payable of the USFA? The totals for these two categories were not wildly out of sync, indicating that the situation, while serious, has not quite approached the point of "grim."

3) What we really need is a "cash flow" budget.

4) There is going to be some belt tightening. Hopefully though, this belt tightening will be more of the nature of doing proper budgeting instead of making guesses and then holding people to those budgets instead of letting them go over, and not in the slashing of important programs variety. Budget variances that are in the 20% to 25% range are evidence of either bad budgeting or not holding people to what they said they were going to spend. Or both (this seems the most likely!).

5) I am more confident than ever in the choices that the Nominating Committee made (and the ones we DIDN'T make - and I'm not just talking about people who have been posting in this thread). They have the skills, the background and the intestinal fortitude to tackle the tough issues, and do so in a responsible, professional manner.

[dcmdale]

Pardon me for not falling for the "the sky is falling, the USFA is bankrupt" scenario, but, when I look at our family finances, aren't we ALL operating on a deficit??

Yes and no.

I have sat on/chaired/advised dozens of non-profits. One of the first things you learn working with non-profits is to keep your eyes on the money. You don't "badger" for financials. You get what you want in the detail that you want *or* you get a new executive director who can do the job. Anything less is malfeasance.

Yes. It is possible to run a deficit with a non-profit. The question is why there was a deficit (Was it planned in the budget? If not, what happened and why wasn't the BoD informed?) and how was it covered. If it was covered out of reserves set aside in previous years, then ok. However, reading through this entire thread (yesterday!), it screams at me that they have been covering the deficit by delaying payments and, in particular, possibly by mishandling restricted funds. That's a no-no.

Worse, in my experience, the most common reason that detailed financials can't be produced is because of misappropriation. I am not saying that this has happened here, but it is a big problem in the non-profit world and it often presents itself it an auditor's statement similar to the one described. It needs to be investigated. It should be a big red flag to the board that something *could* be wrong.

Bottom line: In a best case scenario, this revelation means that whoever is on the board next year will likely be focused mostly on hiring a new ED, cleaning up an accounting mess, and trying to cover the deficit. A real possibility is a Attorney General investigation (in most states that I have dealt with there is a division of the AG office that investigates things like this and, from experience, it is not fun). Worst case could involve criminal prosecution.

To bring this thread back around, I am not thrilled with either slate. Both slates are full of dedicated, opinionated, hard working individuals with long histories of contributing to the sport. Both slates look forward to implementing significant positive change. All that is good. But an effective non-profit BoD (of any type) needs to balance enthusiasts (the people who know what the organization should be doing), money (the people who can finance that vision; e.g., someone who can write a check for $500K for a matching funds campaign and also use connections to get the USFA into places it can't by itself), and pros (the people who make sure that the organization is running smooth enough to accomplish the vision). Pros often bring not only direct professional expertise, but also an understanding of things that have worked/not-worked for other organizations and lots of contacts. Both slates are enthusiast heavy and being able to appoint three more isn't enough spots. That may be the nature of this beast that it must be so.

Edit: (Others posted while I was writing). The description of Greg/Jerry's responses are exactly what I would expect of the professionals.

[T]

What exactly was the USFA supposed to do to use the victories in Greece to promote fencing? What potential revenue?
Mariel and I think Sada were both still fencing NCAA. They couldn't have their names used to promote anything. That will be the case this year for Becca too should she make it to the Os.
Under NCAA rules, no organization is supposed to use the name or image of an athlete for advertisement purposes. Not only that but it seems that a person has to have more than a medal at the Olympics. They need qualities that make others want to emulate them. Fencing, with it's lack of popularity in this country, doesn't cut it like a tennis player or ice skater. No one really idenitifies with gymnasts either because they are so outside the norm.
What would you have done to cash in on Olympic success for a fencer who cannot break the NCAA rules?

ok. Let me try this one. While being able to use the individuals to promote the sport would be great, I also understand the NCAA issues as well (even if Mariel will not be fulfilling her committement to ND because she is accepting professional sponsorships now).

Fencing was on TV for the Olympics. This is the first time that we have had more than 10 seconds on the air. We had the moment to promote the sport at the local level through supporting local programs such as the ones that August mentioned above (the fencing leagues). While it would have been nice to have these programs led by Olympic medalists, it was not required. We had the exposure. An opportunity was lost when we did not act on it. I remember at the time that the USFA website was under one of its revisions and there wasn't even a way for people to find clubs in their area very easily. So, if we get TV exposure, we need to put the organization in a position to capitalize on the exposure through supporting local programs. We can do this through providing additional training, forums, and program support for club owners and coaches. The opportunity has a very small window. We need to be ready for it this year.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Dear USFFC...I know there have already been multiple complaints about your website. They have all been correct. I have seen 6th graders use geocities better than that mess you call a site. However, disregarding the hideous yellow background, the random changes in font, and the fact that it is impossible to get to the candidates page from the main page (unless you know it's /candidates.htm). I know Greg would do an awesome job as treasurer, but I wanted to see who you had running against him, and what sort of credentials he/she had. So I see Sharol Pestotnik, and I start to read, and all of a sudden I find she is on the US Men's Epee Team and bragging about her top 8 finish at the '04 Olympics where it was the best result in that weapon for the US in 48 years. Obviously, this is not her, and it is a description of Soren Thompson.

My question, I guess, is how can anyone take your slate of candidates seriously when no one is willing to spend, say, 2 hours to organize a site at the most basic level? Like linking all parts of the site on the main page...or anything I guess. Having the proper information with the proper names, things like that. Hell, how can you ask anyone to vote for you when you have Tracy Hurley-EACH (what does that even mean???) as a description of your qualifications, or Soren Thompson- US FENCERS FOR CHANGE, August Skopik- with the much informative "Candidate Brings Multiple Strengths to the Table," Sharol Pestonik- I fenced in Athens for the US Men's Epee Team!...oh wait.*

You give the NC slate a bunch of crap for not having a proposed platform, yet you can't even put together a remedial website. I'm not even asking for much (though change the damn color please), but this sort of crap wouldn't get you a passing grade in 4th grade computer class. Sure, you can come on here and argue with everyone, but how about getting your own crap together first?

*At least you got Bruno Goossens right (presumably, though it's tough to trust anything on the site currently). 1/5 aint bad I guess...