New development in USFA politics!

[ivlobane]

Tracy Hurley's and August Scopik's language is also a lot more clear and concrete than that of the report.

I remember speaking with Bruno Goosens. He does not muddle his words with bureaucratic niceties either.

All: please remember that discussion and accountability will not be forced without signing and sending this petition.

[oiuyt]

So can we safely assume that Ms. Weeks also holds a doctorate degree in a related field?

She holds a doctorate in education from Harvard University.

-B

[oso97]

Commentary on the Nominating Committee Process

And that is all I'm going to say on that subject.

[ivlobane]

Commentary on the Nominating Committee Process

And that is all I'm going to say on that subject.

So why was most of this slate silent and inactive during the last meeting?

[Mr Epee]

She holds a doctorate in education from Harvard University.

-B

See... that's exactly the sort of information that would be useful...

That sort of thing carries a little more weight than what is listed in the nominating committee report.

[keith]

*wonders why not having a life for 3-5 years qualifies someone for anything, other than AA of course*

[oso97]

So why was most of this slate silent and inactive during the last meeting?

Question one : Were you there?

Question two : Do you have any idea about what positions people hold on the BOD?

Question three : Do you know why it would be appropriate for certain people to ask certain questions, and why it would be inappropriate for others not to?

[Greg_D]

So why was most of this slate silent and inactive during the last meeting?

Essentially it comes down to various roles in the organization.

Ro is an elected officer of the USFA. As a result he is on the Executive Committee. The EC held their meeting the previous day where he had an opportunity to ask questions, understand the answers, and make proposals. After that, it's generally considered to be appropriate to allow those in charge of specific areas to answer questions or make comments. Were we to have probed about coaches or the youth committee Ro would have spoken up.

Kalle was there in her capacity as chair of the Tournament Committee. She's not actually a member of the BOD, but attends so that the board may ask questions of her. (Bill Oliver was also there in a similar capacity as chair of the FOC.)

Mark was there as an observer.

Brad, Jerry, and I are regular board members. Brad and I are representatives elected from the USFA Congress. Jerry was elected by the SW Section.

As Tracy noted, Jerry and I were the most vocal about budget issues. This would make sense since he and I both have relevant education (both of us have MBA's) and background to ask these sorts of questions. Brad was involved in areas where he has more expertise such as technology, ratings, and qualification paths.

To get the full flavor of the interaction you really needed to attend both halves of the meeting. Unfortunately, there were so many issues and questions that it had to be split.

Greg

[Mr Epee]

Question one : Were you there?

Question two : Do you have any idea about what positions people hold on the BOD?

Question three : Do you know why it would be appropriate for certain people to ask certain questions, and why it would be inappropriate for others not to?

Whoa, easy there, Sparky.

I'm a little uncomfortable with a member of the Nominating Committee being abusive to a general member who has the audacity to not understand the inner workings of a USFA Board meeting.

If you feel that you have time to answer questions, then please please please do so... but let's try to avoid bullying the general membership, ok?

Peace.


-------
Edit: Greg, again thank you for taking time to explain things to folks. That was interesting and informative.

[ivlobane]

Essentially it comes down to various roles in the organization....

...To get the full flavor of the interaction you really needed to attend both halves of the meeting. Unfortunately, there were so many issues and questions that it had to be split.

Greg

OK, thank you, this is the best answer I got from anyone other than Tracy. It confirms the conviction that it is time for an overhaul of said organization!

[JEC]

Better qualifications?
... 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.

That is because the Nominating Committee wants you to accept their decision without questioning. They could as well have nominated two individuals for each of the positions for a general election.

[ivlobane]

Question one : Were you there?

Question two : Do you have any idea about what positions people hold on the BOD?

Question three : Do you know why it would be appropriate for certain people to ask certain questions, and why it would be inappropriate for others not to?

1: No.
2: Only from what I can gather in publicly available documents and this discussion: not enough. And what is available does not give me any comfort, as Greg's post above confirms. Multiple capacities? Roles of the moment preventing from speaking up? Meeting times not scheduled so that all relevant parties can attend? This why a management overhaul is necessary by someone that is not afraid of cracking the proverbial whip.
3: Because a "Why?" ends with a "Y".

[KD5MDK]

That is because the Nominating Committee wants you to accept their decision without questioning. They could as well have nominated two individuals for each of the positions for a general election.

Reading the bylaws, I can't swear that isn't permitted, but I'm pretty sure it would be a dramatic departure from all precedent.

[JEC]

Reading the bylaws, I can't swear that isn't permitted, but I'm pretty sure it would be a dramatic departure from all precedent.

You have to agree that having an unelected committee essentially selecting the board of directors behind closed doors does not sound very democratic... almost Anti-American.

[dberke]

You have to agree that having an unelected committee essentially selecting the board of directors behind closed doors does not sound very democratic... almost Anti-American.

Agreed. But the Nominating Committee was elected, by you, indirectly:

1. You elected congress reps from your division
2. Your congress rep voted on the nominees for the committee (1 per section)
3. The nominating committee interviewed candidates and voted on each one to build the proposed slate.

If you don't like that process, talk to your section rep on the Board of Directors (or any other BoD member) and get them to introduce a motion to amend the USFA bylaws to eliminate the use of a nominating committtee and move to some other system.

I'd also like to point out that, had you been interested, you could have run to be your section's rep on the nominating committee. That's how I got elected - I expressed interest, had my name entered as a candidate from the Pacific NW, and the congress elected me.

Everyone likes to make this sound like it was such a secretive process, but honestly, anyone who wanted to participate easily could have. I'm proof of that.

Dan

[arc]

You have to agree that having an unelected committee essentially selecting the board of directors behind closed doors does not sound very democratic... almost Anti-American.

Umm ... interjecting in here, I have to point out that the Nominating Committee is an elected committee, serving independently of the EC, the Board, and any other committee of the Association. It's elected by the Congress, i.e., that group of individuals elected by the divisions each year. The only part of the NC (and every other committee of the USFA) that the membership doesn't get its representational voice with respect to is the athlete representation, which is required by USOC bylaws.

A representational form of government ... gee, that sounds quite American to me.

That is because the Nominating Committee wants you to accept their decision without questioning. They could as well have nominated two individuals for each of the positions for a general election.

Putting aside the ad hominem attack, the Nominating Committee's job is to nominate one individual for each position, not to identify everyone interested in positions and to set up a general election. This is confirmed by reading article XIII, sec. 6 of the Bylaws of the Association, which explicitly states that "If no additional timely nominations have been made for any office, then the nominees of the Nominating Committee for such office or offices shall
be certified by the Election Committee as having been unanimously elected." Kind of hard to do if the NC could nominate more than one individual for a job, no?

[oso97]

You have to agree that having an unelected committee essentially selecting the board of directors behind closed doors does not sound very democratic... almost Anti-American.

First of all, the nominating committee does not select the Board of Directors.

Second, the Nominating Committee is elected by the Congress, which is elected directly by the membership in each Division.

Its a Representative Democracy. Not a Direct Democracy. Which is, in fact, about as American as it gets.

[ivlobane]

First of all, the nominating committee does not select the Board of Directors.

Second, the Nominating Committee is elected by the Congress, which is elected directly by the membership in each Division.

Its a Representative Democracy. Not a Direct Democracy. Which is, in fact, about as American as it gets.

Exactly! And when the chain of Representatives fails you, you have a lovely recall election.

[Mr Epee]

Ah, Gentlemen....

Three consecutive posts by members of the NomCom.

So, can we please clarify why you were only able to find one individual for each open position? Clearly, there was more than one qualified canidate who contacted you about at least one of these positions. Heck, some of your selections appear to be excellent choices, so why not allow the members the ability to select for themselves?

I sense that some of you are encouraging others to get involved. So why not just allow people the opportunity to become involved on the most basic of levels. It's only healthy. Participating in a committee is not something that most people can/will do, but allowing members the opportunity to participate at the most fundemental level may open a path to future participation.

Why? Why? Why?

Why did you choose to put us all through this craziness again. Have an election. Someone wins. Someone loses. We all move forward.

[ivlobane]

Oh, look at that! One of the key components of such a recall election is gathering signatures to initiate it...

This is not exactly a recall election, but really starting to look like one.