New development in USFA politics!

[TBean]

Yes and no.

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.

You have hit the nail on the head. The organizations leadership structure has consistently been made up of enthusiasts. However, all of the other people exist within the organization's membership and no one has succeeded in finding them and bringing them to the table. They exist in the both the ranks of active fencers and fencer's parents. I know of one person within my division who could write the $500K check as well as couple who could do $100K and lots within 5-digit potential.

Yet the USFA does not cultivate, in a systematic manner, these individuals as donors or potential board members. Where is the organization developing the next generation of its leaders - why on the newly formed committees are there only Board members? Why not find people outside the exisiting structure and let them learn, become invested in the institution and want to help more. Surely there are people with the skill-sets who fence for not only those committees but others as well. Every non-profit I've worked for or sat on the Board of wants outside people on its committees - that is your farm team for your BoD.

[edew]

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.

That's even worse! You're just a pawn of the current powers that be. Woo-hoo-woo-hoo. (Tin foil hat armed and ready.)

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

Much like the current presidental campaign, I personally would prefer to see issues raised and proposals offered rather than personalities. Then, once we decide on which problems to tackle or which proposals to implement, then we can decide on who would be best to do the job.

If the proposal is to have a strong marketing program, then hiring a number-crunching guy (hypothetical person, as I don't know who's strong in any particular field) might not be the best solution. If the proposal is to clean house and make the finances more transparent, then hiring some slick huckster isn't going to do the job.

Then again, hiring someone and making that someone do what he or she is good at is yet another problem, right?

[KD5MDK]

That's even worse! You're just a pawn of the current powers that be. Woo-hoo-woo-hoo. (Tin foil hat armed and ready.)

The official term used at JOs was "puppet".

Much like the current presidental campaign, I personally would prefer to see issues raised and proposals offered rather than personalities. Then, once we decide on which problems to tackle or which proposals to implement, then we can decide on who would be best to do the job.

Actually, I'm more concerned about character than specific plans. FDR didn't plan on starting a World War in 1932, and Thomas Jefferson didn't plan on multiplying the size of the US several times in 1800. It's the selection of highly competent, skilled people who can meet unforeseen challenges that is the critical component of leadership.

[edew]

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

Yes, Greg is indeed looking very svelte these days.

[edew]

The official term used at JOs was "puppet".




Actually, I'm more concerned about character than specific plans. FDR didn't plan on starting a World War in 1932, and Thomas Jefferson didn't plan on multiplying the size of the US several times in 1800. It's the selection of highly competent, skilled people who can meet unforeseen challenges that is the critical component of leadership.

The thing is, looking back over the past 20+ years I've been involved with fencing, there's really no massive uncertainty that occurred with fencing that compares to the likes of WWII or the Louisiana Purchase. Perhaps we really could use some massive uncertainty, some major unforeseen incident to knock some momentum into the body.

After reading a bunch of the posts on this thread (and others), I am still convinced that we need to have an outsider with extensive marketing and networking experience as the ED. The officers should concentrate on tailoring and making clear the tasks for the ED and to review and audit the books.

Other than that, increase regionalization. (Where's Eric Rosenberg to help me sing this song?) If NACs are losing money, then don't do them. Move them to smaller venues, but provide professional assistance to maintain a quality product for the fencers (and, hopefully, sponsors...I'm morbidly dismayed that in 2008, US Fencing still does not have major sponsors putting brand names at the venues of NACs. Even weekend bicyclists around Palo Alto have their cycling shirts and shorts tattooed with numerous company names. You think there are more eyeballs for a zipping cyclists in some remote woody two-lane road than at a NAC?)

I spoke with (ok, was collared by) Branimir Zivkovic while at the JOs. He showed me his FIE-approved raised fencing strip with built-in extension lights (worth approximately $4500) the he'd give to me for free. One, two, fifty. However many I want. How come USFA wasn't approached by Bran and how come USFA didn't approach him? I couldn't possibly be the only person he wanted to sell me on this deal. I can't personally use it at my club, but I completely understand his pitch -- it's brilliant.

If there are marketing geniuses within USFA, they need to come out and help. If there are financial geniuses within USFA, they need to come out and help.

The problems are pretty clear and simple. There's no huge uncertainty about them. The goal is to fix them.

[Craig]

there wasn't even a way for people to find clubs in their area very easily.

If they searched for fencing on google, then they came here (www.fencing.net) and looked up the club information there. (I have the traffic logs that show this is what happened.)

Craig

[Capt. Slo-mo]

We had the exposure. An opportunity was lost when we did not act on it. (snip) So, if we get TV exposure, we need to put the organization in a position to capitalize on the exposure through supporting local programs.

I'm still not clear on what the USFA could have been doing at the local level, following the 2004 Olympics. As a Division, we tried to throw a post-Olympic banquet/celebration event for Mariel after her win, timed for her first return to Portland after flying directly to school at Notre Dame from Athens.

Some of the same entities bemoaning this "lost opportunity" during the late recall effort were also throwing up all sorts of alleged NCAA-violation roadblocks and other obstacles to the celebration, until we finally just gave up.

But seriously, if your Olympic champion is an NCAA athlete, and can't appear in advertising, give testimonials, take part in a 20-city tickertape parade tour, or plaster themselves on a Wheaties box...what kind of realistic opportunities are left to drum up significant exposure for fencing?

Hmmm...is there a possible NCAA waiver for an athlete to appear in a 30-second PSA-style spot promoting fencing/physical fitness, if it's on behalf of the sport itself, not a fencing sponsor?

It'd be interesting to hear some ideas from the marketing committee, as well as the candidates.

[T]

I'm still not clear on what the USFA could have been doing at the local level, following the 2004 Olympics. As a Division, we tried to throw a post-Olympic banquet/celebration event for Mariel after her win, timed for her first return to Portland after flying directly to school at Notre Dame from Athens.

The USFA could have many established programs at the local level that are essentially, a franchise (this may not be the most correct term but you get the idea). These programs could be advertised at the local level and collaboration and support could be provided to the clubs and coaches for facilitating the intro to the sport for interested people.

We essentially got caught with no plan or programs in place to facilitate fencing classes, clubs, leagues (whatever) at the local level. Instead, the USFA was too dependent on hoping that the clubs could take care of the demand and questions.

As Craig mentioned above, if it hadn't been for fencing.net, people would have had a lot of trouble finding local clubs at all. If the potential clients were assertive, they could find a club. Once they found the club, the club and coach may or may not provide the type of programs that would be effective at maintaining the fencer in the future (and accruing membership fees and potential prodigies). The point remains that the whole thing was out of the USFA's control. Any new members that were enlisted as a result of the Olympic success was in spite of the USFA - not because of it.

[Mr Epee]

T,

Thank you very much for participating in this conversation.

I'm currently involved with a few things that are taking most of my energy, and as a result haven't been able to follow the several hundred posts that have been recently placed on this subject.

So, I appoligize if this was asked before... but...

Did you at any time express your desire to run for office to any member of the USFA nominating committee? And if so what, if any, reasons were explained for not including you as a possible canidate?

I would be very sad to hear that the nominating committee intentionally ignored qualified canidates who made their desire to participate known.

[T]

Dear USFFC...I know there have already been multiple complaints about your website. They have all been correct...

For anyone interested, the new website is now posted.

[JEC]

T,

Did you at any time express your desire to run for office to any member of the USFA nominating committee? And if so what, if any, reasons were explained for not including you as a possible canidate?

It is my understanding based on a conversation I had with T that she had a telephone call with the nominating committee prior to their selection of a slate. Why was she not selected? You will need to ask somebody like David Sierra, who was in the nominating committee.

I support T's quest for real election. I also support many of her ideas. It is unfortunate that I can't find the positions and viewpoints of the slate selected by the nominating committee. It is also unfortunate that we do not know the track record (in terms of motions presented) of most people in the slate. I think that it is evident that Brad Baker has presented quite a few BoD motions establishing a very nice track record. This is the best indicator, in my view, of his great suitability for the position of Secretary. On the other hand, I applaud the open communication and ideas presented by Tracy Hurley and Augie Skopik.

[noodle]

For anyone interested, the new website is now posted.

tsk tsk.
PM me if you want me to design a webpage for you guys.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

We essentially got caught with no plan or programs in place to facilitate fencing classes, clubs, leagues (whatever) at the local level. Instead, the USFA was too dependent on hoping that the clubs could take care of the demand and questions.

Tracy: I'm not trying to be deliberately dense (this time!) but these statements appear like you're suggesting the USFA should have been prepared to launch a slew of actions that would have directly competed with the exisiting club structure across the country.

There appear to be a lot of fencing clubs in the USA. Any club offering saber should have been able to figure out a way to try and capitalize on the Athens success. They probably would have been less pleased with the NGB helping a new club start up in the mall next door.

So, what would be a good plan for immediately post-Beijing? How about having the marketing brain trust create a :30 spot with holes in it for plugging in the weapon/gender/people having success in the Olympics, and then make that commercial available to all the exisiting clubs around the country to help them buy some time on the cable cut-in advertising slots?

A representative of the USFA and/or the USOC needs to talk with our good friends at NBC right now about hooking some of the video rights from the fencing venue for a quick turnaround, should the US come home with some medals.

[oso97]

It is my understanding based on a conversation I had with T that she had a telephone call with the nominating committee prior to their selection of a slate. Why was she not selected? You will need to ask somebody like David Sierra, who was in the nominating committee.

As has been explained previously, at length...

Dr. Hurley met with members of the nominating committee in Tuscon, and participated in at least one conference call as well. Some members of the committee also talked with her on their own. This was equal or greater to the attention that other candidates received. She was considered for the posts of both President and Vice-president. Her candidacy was the subject of much discussion and deliberation... And she was not selected as one of the people we nominated. Others were felt to have better qualifications. No decision was unanimous*.

And that is all I or anyone else is allowed to say. There is a reason the deliberations are confidential.

*Other than the two positions (Treasurer and Secretary) for which no notification was received of other interested parties other than the two whom were nominated

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


I suddenly came to remember the movie title "Million dollar baby". Not sure who will be it, though.

I sure am relieved that I am a member of the Swedish Federation, which has less corrosive issues. Whew.

That said, I would like to offer some ideas for the next administration, should the 1 million $ figure be correct.

It has repeatedly been said the the people in the central office have quite enough work as it is, but such a deficit precludes any new hiring. I suggest to kill two birds with one stone by making a rule which lessens administrative load, while at the same time is a revenue source.

Presently, there is a petition entry path to SN, in which all petitions presumably are considered on their respective merits. This takes manpower better spent elsewhere. I suggest that all who petition are free to enter SN no matter if the failed at qual events or did not even take part. The sole proviso should be that they pay up a significant sum, which is set so high so that those fencers are net money sources for USFA.

Furthermore, I suggest that new competition formats are instituted for NAC´s and SN, which have the central feature that all poules (in one event, at least) which start at the same time must end at almost the same time, no matter how many fencers there are in it, or whatever happens in the poule. The rule should be that no bout may start after a time 50 (or thereabouts) minutes after the poule started. Bouts not fenced by then are not fenced at all, at least not in that poule. I have outlined rules for keeping such a competition format fair and reasonable in previous threads, it is not all that difficult. This keeps poules synchronous, so no fencers wait for others in slow/big poules. With every piste active at all times, the total competition time goes down, with attendant cost cuttings.

Thirdly, I suggest that the incoming administration uses the time before the OG to identify other US. NGB´s which are roughly the same size as USFA, have similar media impact, and are not too dissimilar in any other characteristics. Of those that fit those criteria, find any which have had serious financial problems, and managed to turn them around. See whatever those NGB´s have done, and copy whatever is possible. If there are no such NGB´s, find any reasonably similar non-US fencing NGB´s.

Fourthly, Mariel and Sada can not be the first US. OG medalists bound by NCAA rules. Find previous examples of US. OG medalists in 2nd-tier sports (in terms of media/non-performer awareness) and copy whatever they did in order to get around the NCAA rules. If we can mince and chop ROW rules, surely there is someone who can be creative with the NCAA rules. What enforcement possibilities do they have, anyway? Would it be a viable option to just flout the rules, without even trying to seem in accordance?

Tracy - I am surprised that you state that you do not know which fencer Capt. Slo-Mo is connected to. Even I over here in Sweden had figured that out before I got a PM confirming my hunch!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[KD5MDK]

What enforcement possibilities do they have, anyway? Would it be a viable option to just flout the rules, without even trying to seem in accordance?

The school revokes your scholarship, student-athlete status, and position on the team. If not, the school is banned from athletic competition in that sport.

See:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...tball/smu.html

[TBean]

After reading a bunch of the posts on this thread (and others), I am still convinced that we need to have an outsider with extensive marketing and networking experience as the ED. The officers should concentrate on tailoring and making clear the tasks for the ED and to review and audit the books.

Not marketing - fundraising. You need someone who knows how to raise money from individuals because that is what this sport is, a group of individuals who all share an interest. The ED needs to know how to build, develop and manage a board. I go back to the skill-sets you need for good board members exist in the thousands of nameless and faceless individuals who participate in this sport. Many of us work for non-profits, sit on Boards or have high net worth - yet we aren't ASKED to participate. Board members should be looking at thier own divisions for talented individuals to get involved on committees - move beyond the same group of people that everyone knows.

The ED has to be able to lead the Board in a shared strategic vision for the organization - a plan for the next four years needs to be developed. The ED has goals for the year and benchmarks to reach. They need to be creative and innovative, they are not given tasks by a Board, this is an Executive Director who works in partnership with the Board, not an office manager.

[T]

T,

So, I appoligize if this was asked before... but...

Did you at any time express your desire to run for office to any member of the USFA nominating committee? And if so what, if any, reasons were explained for not including you as a possible canidate?

Here is how the nominating committee process happened from my point of view. Obviously, David's viewpoint is a bit different...

In September, the announcement went up about contacting the nominating committee if you were interested in being considered for the Exec Committee. I contacted 2 people that I considered to be 'in the know' about USFA politics and asked them what they thought about me putting my name in the hat. Both of them, independently, told me (paraphrased) that I shouldn't bother because the NC has already chosen their candidates. This was in mid/late September. I thought that I would give it a try anyway so I submitted my info through proper channels (as advertised). A few weeks later, I went to the Tucson NAC and met with 5 (of the 14) people on the NC and suggested that I was interested in the Pres position but would consider a VP position as well. The conversations were pretty informal (held in a bar) and went fine but I definitely got the vibration that I was not going to be considered (based on the body language and responses by 2 of the members who were very much in control of the committee - can you guess who I'm talking about?). At that time, I was told that 'soon' I would be receiving a question sheet that posed questions that each potential candidate would be asked to respond to. And through this forum, the short-list of candidates would be selected and interviewed formally by the entire committee at the Dallas NAC in November.

About 3 or 4 days before the Dallas NAC, I had not received any list of questions from the NC and I inquired about it. I was told that they had decided to change the process and they would be in touch. In Dallas, on Sat night, I got a call from the chairman of the committee that asked me to come to an interview in an hour. Unfortunately, I was out at a play that a family member of mine was involved in in Ft. Worth so I couldn't make it. Ironically, I had seen many NC members that day at the venue and no one mentioned this interview possibility so I went on my merry way to Ft. Worth. While I could not make that interview, I told them that I was available anytime on Sunday but was told they had other interviews to do.

Still at the NAC (on Saturday), I heard from 3 independent people that one of the NC members (can you guess who) had asked them if they wanted to know who the next Pres of USFA was going to be and he told them Kalle Weeks. Now, this was 3 independent sources in the same day even though I hadn't asked any of them. He also indicated to them that he could tell them who the VPs were going to be as well. I was also told by a prominent coach that he was told (by the same NC committee member) something to the effect that there was no way that I was ever going hold an office in the USFA as long as he had something to say about it. I was surprised - to say the least but it confirmed my earlier suspicions that influential members of the committee had made up their mind already and there really wasn't a contest at all. What's more is I couldn't figure out why there was such animosity toward me for trying to serve the USFA. The only assumption I could make is that I wasn't one of the 'old boys club' entrenched in USFA politics. Certainly, I had many ideas and perspectives and intimate knowledge of fencing, nonprofit organizations, program evaluation (you can read my vita), etc. and it just didn't make sense.

Other anectdotal info that I heard (which may or may not be correct but since I heard the same thing from multiple people, I will assume there is some validity to them):

(Certain) members of the committee (not all) had mentioned that the USFA was going down the toilet and the FOC needed to take it over (4 of the 6 people on the slate are members of the FOC).

The committee consisted of a few influential people who want to instill their vision on the USFA (and the other committee member's opinions were not relevant).

One of the committee members (can you guess who) had a conflict with me many years ago and that was the reason why I would never hold an office.

ok. that's it for the anectdotes...

As I walked around the venue and talked to people, I heard from many people that said I should run - regardless of the NC decision - and that it would be good to hold the slate to the fire. The more I thought about it, the more I agreed with it. For years, I have stood by the sidelines and just accepted decisions and actions that were biased, based on some magical process that was not and would not be disclosed. My experience with the HPC committee, alone, was enough to prompt me to find out what the wizard was doing behind the curtain.

After I returned home from the NAC (on Monday), I get an email that states they are going to setup a phone conference on Wed night (2 days later) with NC members and the president candidates. I mentioned to the chair of the committee about what I had heard in Dallas and he told me that the NC committee member had spoken out of turn as no vote had taken place yet. The point is that I didn't want to go through a bogus interview when decisions had already been made (I don't have a need to fulfill process for process sake). I teach college and happen to have a night class on Weds but I was willing to cut the class short so I could make the interview. Again, the interview went well and I think there were some relevant discussions and I mentioned that I would consider a VP position as well (I believe there were 8 or so of the 14 committee members present at the phone conference, 5 of which I had already talked to informally in Tucson). This means that about half of the committee had no contact with me whatsoever. I was told that the vote would take place on Friday.

Saturday, Sunday, and Monday came and went but no information was forthcoming. I finally emailed the chairman and was given the decision. How long was it going to take for them to tell me?

And here is some info on my thought process...
I continued to talk with people at the Richmond NAC and I would say the vast majority of people I talked to told me that 'someone needed to do it'. They either had personal opinions about a few people on the NC that weren't exactly positive or they felt that it was time someone made the candidates earn their position through a vote so that members could hear a variety of opinions and viewpoints on the issues. It was also suggested to me that I put together a slate of candidates to contest all positions instead of just the president. In general, I thought this was a good idea but I needed to think about it for a while. I had always thought that Brad Baker had been forthright in communication on f.net and appreciated the motions that he had made in the BOD meetings. So I talked with Brad briefly in Richmond and told him that I if I put a slate together, I would not contest the secretary position because of this. This (at least somewhat) validates my claim that I am looking for candidates that can contribute positively to the organization as opposed to just rocking the boat for the sake of it.

In my decision making process, in December, I reviewed all of the published minutes of the BOD meetings to look and see who had made motions that seemed to move things in a positive direction. Again, Brad's name came up regularly. I decided that if I found motions from the NC slate candidates that I felt were moving the USFA in the right direction, I wouldn't contest the election at all (any position). As I reviewed the minutes, the name that did not come up at all (not once in all of the published minutes except from her Tournament Committee report) was Kalle Weeks. Ro's name did not come up either. Again, I was looking for motions that would move the organization forward from NC slate candidates. Most of the motions were rules-related. Any other, more substantive motions, by NC slate candidates were few and far between and in some instances - nonexistent.

During the week between Christmas and New Years, I received a phone call from Nancy Anderson (the current president). She asked me why I was doing this and creating all of this turmoil and wouldn't it be better to just let the process established take care of itself. I was amazed and of course, curious as to who put her up to making the phone call. She said no one had put her up to it but I have to admit that I didn't buy it completely. She also told me that the NC process was probably inadequate to handle this large of an organization and that the bylaws could possibly be changed to reflect this and that I should just wait for the bylaws to be changed. Essentially, the major point of the conversation was 'don't rock the boat'.

So, I guess you know the rest of the story, I decided to rock the boat. But, with the best intentions for the organization, that is - to force a discussion of the issues. My question at this point is why are some members of the NC and their supporters afraid of an election? Afterall, it could confirm that their decisions were good ones. On the other hand, there could be a critical mass of members that are fed up with the way things have been done in the past and are willing to vote for candidates that they feel are better qualified, have a broader perspective, etc.

[T]

Tracy: I'm not trying to be deliberately dense (this time!) but these statements appear like you're suggesting the USFA should have been prepared to launch a slew of actions that would have directly competed with the exisiting club structure across the country.

On the contrary, nothing would be 'forced' on the clubs and no competing clubs would be established by the USFA in a mall next door. What I am suggesting is that the USFA have a coordinated effort to help clubs establish programs if they are interested. Some clubs don't need it. Your club, for instance, I'm sure has plenty of programs and probably wouldn't be interested. But there are many clubs out there that would like the support (again, very specific programs with specific guidelines - 'how to' type info) from the NGB. The programs are not intended to compete with the clubs. On the contrary, they are designed to make the clubs stronger and to help them handle capacity. It's a win/win situation.

Can something like this be established before Beijing? Probably not, time is too short. But again, I suggest that little is being done to help the clubs handle the capacity for the potential influx of curious patrons.

Any club offering saber should have been able to figure out a way to try and capitalize on the Athens success.

I emphasize the 'should have been able to figure out a way'. This means that the USFA is not capitializing on anything (except through a possible trickle up process). In your model, the clubs must have the capacity (and knowledge and time/energy, etc.) to capitalize on success. The USFA, on the other hand, stands on the sidelines and accepts if it happens, great! If not, well, that's not our business.

Some of the same entities bemoaning this "lost opportunity" during the late recall effort were also throwing up all sorts of alleged NCAA-violation roadblocks and other obstacles to the celebration, until we finally just gave up.

Again, I highlight the need to work with the NCAA to develop a knowledge of fencing. There has been no outreach on the part of the USFA to approach any of these issues with the NCAA. Perhaps they might listen to such a proposal but the point is - no one has approached them on the USFA's behalf. So the lack of collaboration between the USFA and the NCAA has hampered any progress in that area.

[Mr Epee]

And she was not selected as one of the people we nominated. Others were felt to have better qualifications. No decision was unanimous*.

And that is all I or anyone else is allowed to say. There is a reason the deliberations are confidential.

Better qualifications?

So can we safely assume that Ms. Weeks also holds a doctorate degree in a related field? Looking at the Nominating Committee's report, I am very surprised, and incredibly disappointed, that so little effort was put forward to explain the nominee's credentials outside of USFA service.

This is a fairly major problem.

The report reads along the lines of Candidate X likes fencing, likes helping people, and plays well with others. It would be much more acceptable to document things like specific education and past real world work experience.

When I go to a fencing tournament, you can't throw a rock without hitting a Doctor, Lawyer, C.P.A., University Professor, etc... I continue to be surprised that the nominating committee was only willing to identify one individual for each position, and then do such a poor job of explaining their decision.