New development in USFA politics!

[brtech]

Maybe I misunderstand the last part of this post. Are you saying that you want to have elite athletes not bother to have to fence the unwashed masses, and have some special tournaments just for them?

I think you will have a problem with that idea. The elites will skip the events with the unwashed. So will the almost elites. The unwashed will fence themselves. One of the points of going to a NAC is to get your head handed to you by elite fencers. You learn something from the experience. Eventually, you learn how to not have that happen, and sometimes you get to the point where you can beat them.

And, remember that if you double the size of an event, you add ONE DE to the gold medal fencer's schedule. What's that near the bottom of the table, 1/2 hour? Quadruple it; it costs the elite fencer an hour.

There are problems with the events getting large, but excusing elite fencers from having to fence qualified (Div I, right?) fencers, even if there are a whole lot of them, won't be very appealing to voters.

The expression "let them eat cake" comes to mind. Sorry, I'm sure you didn't mean it to.

[T]

I notice that you didn't address the conflict of interest that Mo pointed out. I'd appreciate it if you would.

-m

Doesn't everyone have a conflict of interest in fencing? We all do. Is mine more than anyone else's? Probably not as much as you may think.


As President, what could I do to benefit my daughters' position? I could change it so that my daughters received all of the money or perhaps all of the points or maybe that they could make all world teams or whatever... (yes, this is sarcasm).

A President can't do any of these things as the committee system that the USFA currently works under wouldn't allow it.

If I become President, would I discontinue supporting my kids? No, but that doesn't mean that I would cheat for them. Would a coach not advocate for their students? Would a referee not advocate for their position? So we all have a conflict of interest. Perhaps if we can get the CEO of General Electric to run for president, he wouldn't have a conflict of interest.

So, if we eliminate everyone who has a conflict of interest, we wouldn't have any candidates.

[Mr Epee]

Ready to lead... on day #1

[oiuyt]

To be very blunt, Masin's proposed rating system is very bad.

Without getting too much into the details, his rating system awards you a "win" vs all of the fencers who place behind you in direct elimination and a "loss" to everyone who places above you, adjusting your rating according to the ratings oh whom you beat and whom you lost to, with some exceptions (medical withdrawls, etc).

The really easy example is a tournament with 15 "A" equivalent fencers and 1 "U" level fencer. If the U finds his way into the top 8 of this tournament through any concocted means (extremely poor refereeing, cheating, the A's refusal to medically withdraw after an accident, whatever) The 7 A's who lost close bouts with other A's who made it into the top 8 would lose drastic points to their ratings because a "U" placed higher than them, even though it had absolutely nothing to do with their performance.

I'll leave most of the discussion on this for other threads, but this is NOT how George's system works.

It actually awards "wins" vs. those that should finish a few places below one's finish IF everyone finished according to initial seed, "losses" vs. those that should finish a few places above one's finish (again, IF seeding were perfect), and a "tie" vs. a person of the rating that should finish where one finished. Actually not against the specific people that seeded in those slots, but a generic person with their classification.

So with 15 A's and a U finishing in 8th place the U gets the equivalent of wins against 3 A's, a tie against an A, and a loss against 3 A's. The DFL A gets the equivalent of a tie against a U, and 3 losses vs. A's. The 15th-place A gets a win against a U, a tie against an A, and 3 losses to A's. 13th and 14th act similarly with the addition of 1 or 2 (respectively) wins vs. A's.

If the U finishes DFL he gets a "draw" vs. a U, and 3 losses vs. A's.

For the A's that lost 14-15 to other A's in the 16 they still are mostly adjusted by results vs. other A's. 9th-12th will be neutral (3 A losses, 3 A wins, 1 A draw). 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th will have shown they are somewhat lower quality than the typical A in the tournament and their ratings will decrease.

-B

[TBean]

While the USFA is responsible for elite-level fencing, it is also responsible to the rest of us. It comes under:

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS - TO HELP DEVELOP AND IMPROVE ATHLETES, COACHES & OFFICIALS.

That does not specify the age or skill level of the athletes in question, so I assume it covers improving and developing my 40-year-old self. It is part of the orgnaization's mission, they should give it some attention.

The fundamental thing people are not acknowledging is the importance that I, and other non-elite, fencers play in the role of developing an elite athlete. I was at competitions or training, providing them with someone to fence, always doing my best to give them a game. Many of us played a role in helping these fencers develop because we ourselves are not without skill or training.

Many, many things needs to be addressed - NAC size, ratings inflation the list goes on. However elite fencers cannot exist without the rest of us - part of their funding does come from my membership - the USFA and elite athletes need me and others like me. It is not unreasonable for us to expect the USFA to do a better job at meeting our needs and acknowledging we have a place in the sport. I agree that elite athletes need to fence others who are just as strong but not at any cost. You cannot segregate the sport into haves and have nots - that will only make the current issues worse and weaken the USFA more.

[T]

While the USFA is responsible for elite-level fencing, it is also responsible to the rest of us. It comes under:

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS - TO HELP DEVELOP AND IMPROVE ATHLETES, COACHES & OFFICIALS.

That does not specify the age or skill level of the athletes in question, so I assume it covers improving and developing my 40-year-old self. It is part of the orgnaization's mission, they should give it some attention.

The fundamental thing people are not acknowledging is the importance that I, and other non-elite, fencers play in the role of developing an elite athlete. I was at competitions or training providing them with someone to fence - beating them at one point and always doing my best to give them a game. Many of us played a role in helping these fencers develop because we ourselves are not without skill or training.

Many, many things needs to be addressed - NAC size, ratings inflation the list goes on. However elite fencers cannot exist without the rest of us - part of their funding does come from my membership - the USFA and elite athletes need me and others like me. It is not unreasonable for us to expect the USFA to do a better job at meeting our needs and acknowledging we have a place in the sport. I agree that elite athletes need to fence others who are just as strong but not at any cost. You cannot segregate the sport into haves and have nots - that will only make the current issues worse.

I'm not sure whether this is pointed at me but I think I covered this in a previous post on the last page. I agreed with your perspective. No argument from me. Segregation is already done with the requirement of C and above for Div 1 events. I'm not sure there is a strong argument for allowing everyone to fence every tournament regardless of their rating.

I don't think anyone is advocating there be have/have not system. My proposal included a new category of events. One that everyone would potentially be able to aspire to if that was their goal. It is quite common in track and field or swimming to meet specific time standards in order to qualify for international-team selection events. All of the other runners or swimmers compete at their level until they are ready to move up (in fencing - because there are no time standards - there needs to be a provision of some overlap between divisions). This allows for people to fence people who are better but not necessarily the 'best' until they are ready for it.

I also agree that in order for fencers to get better, they need to fence better fencers. I also belive that an Olympic champion does not get any better by fencing a beginner (this is an extreme example). We need to have categories. The question is not if we need categories but how do we divide them so that we maximize the number of quality bouts - not just the number of bouts. And quality is defined based on your individual skill level.

[TBean]

On the other hand, I don't think that the people who are contending for international teams should necessarily compete in these events. While there is some argument about whether this is an effective solution - it does solve a lot of the problems that have been discussed here. One, the elite fencers can compete in a smaller event (and by smaller, perhaps 128 would be a good number - which is the approx size of many world cup events). In addition, it provides the 'unwashed masses' and opportunity to continue fencing in national competitions (and perhaps some points can be awarded to the top finishers in specific events (top 16?) that can give them the ability to fence in the international selection events).

This truly sounds like you are looking to make it into haves and have not. You want to make events for athletes in contention for international teams - who else gets an invite? I don't disagree that training with peers needs to happen for our upper tier of athletes but you cannot cut them off from the rest of the sport. It is not like they are never going to fence someone awkward at an international event.

My post was partly addressed to you and partly I needed to say it. I honestly don't believe you or the rest of your platform have the non-elite athlete's interest at heart - you have not manged to convince me. You care about elite level fencing, that is where your focus is, which is fine I don't fault you for that. I don't think you recognize the non-elite athlete's contributions to the sport or why we want to feel connected to it though competition. I just don't think you get it because you are not coming from the same place - no harm, no foul, no fault.

Edit: I will add that I am perhaps wrong and simply not interpreting your intentions correctly. That happens in forums such as this.

[noodle]

This truly sounds like you are looking to make it into haves and have not. You want to make events for athletes in contention for international teams - who else gets an invite? I don't disagree that training with peers needs to happen for our upper tier of athletes but you cannot cut them off from the rest of the sport. It is not like they are never going to fence someone awkward at an international event.

My post was partly addressed to you and partly I needed to say it. I honestly don't believe you or the rest of your platform have the non-elite athlete's interest at heart - you have not manged to convince me. You care about elite level fencing, that is where your focus is, which is fine I don't fault you for that. I don't think you recognize the non-elite athlete's contributions to the sport or why we want to feel connected to it though competition. I just don't think you get it because you are not coming from the same place - no harm, no foul, no fault.

Edit: I will add that I am perhaps wrong and simply not interpreting your intentions correctly. That happens in forums such as this.

based on the phrase "128 would be a good number", this is not nearly as big of a haves and have nots situation as you're making it out to be, considering that this number is double most weapon's points lists. it might involve restricting the ME and/or MF events to A's only (provided we don't change rating systems), but the skill range would still be great in events like that. not all A's are on the same level.

also note that if we did change the rating system and made it so that X events per year counted, where X is greater than the number of top level events each year, even the top fencers would have to fence domestically at large events to keep themselves up there, requiring exposure to the unwashed masses, as it were.

[Craig]

This truly sounds like you are looking to make it into haves and have not. You want to make events for athletes in contention for international teams - who else gets an invite? I don't disagree that training with peers needs to happen for our upper tier of athletes but you cannot cut them off from the rest of the sport. It is not like they are never going to fence someone awkward at an international event.

I really don't see it that way. In other sports you have segregated leagues and those work just fine.

Real world example: In my roller hockey league I'm in the lowest level of the over-30 rec league. I'm one of the better players in that league, but I started out in a AA league where I got my head and stick handed to me each night. I learned a lot, but it wasn't much fun for my teammates who had to figure out how to win a game with a low A player in a AA league.

I still learn stuff with each game I play in the A league and I go play pickup with players that are in AA. They still kill me, but I give them trouble. Once I decide my skills are good enough, I'll ask to get to the AA league, or the officials who run the league will kick me up to it.

Other sports have A, AA, AAA leagues or even the concept of local and travelling teams or, gasp, varsity and JV. Each provides a way to give the maximum number of "good reps" and developmental opportunities.

- Craig

[ivlobane]

I really don't see it that way. In other sports you have segregated leagues and those work just fine.

Real world example: In my roller hockey league I'm in the lowest level of the over-30 rec league. I'm one of the better players in that league, but I started out in a AA league where I got my head and stick handed to me each night. I learned a lot, but it wasn't much fun for my teammates who had to figure out how to win a game with a low A player in a AA league.

I still learn stuff with each game I play in the A league and I go play pickup with players that are in AA. They still kill me, but I give them trouble. Once I decide my skills are good enough, I'll ask to get to the AA league, or the officials who run the league will kick me up to it.

Other sports have A, AA, AAA leagues or even the concept of local and travelling teams or, gasp, varsity and JV. Each provides a way to give the maximum number of "good reps" and developmental opportunities.

- Craig

An example of this system at local level: (what I heard about Tauber fencing center, a rumor but an idea...)

During certain times of free fencing, the athleteds are segregated into three groups. Lets call them Div3, 2 and 1 for somplicity. You fence x amount of bout in y amount of time. Your ratio of victories vs. defeats is recorded. Once you hit 80% in Div 3, you move up to Div2. From there to Div1...
The athletes that do not achieve 80% of victories get bumped a Div down, unless you are in Div 1. Then your unwashed mass goes back to Div3 and has to claw your way back up.

A system based on this could work for qual. paths perhaps... (Division-->Section-->Nation...)

[brtech]

What we're mostly discussing here is M. Epee. We have/will have more than 128 C or better men's epee fencers who want to fence in a NAC. To me, this is a very nice problem. Suppose we had 1000 C or better M. epee fencers who wanted to fence in a NAC? Suppose we had 1000 C or better W. Foil fencers?

WHERE IS THE PROBLEM? Is 10 DEs for an elite fencer actually a problem? Is it unhealthy? Unrealistic energy stores? What is the problem? Poor baby can't fence 10 DEs or doesn't want to/shouldn't have to fence 10 DEs.

For sure, there are logistics issues with handling events as big as this. Those are solvable without restricting who can come.

We do in fact restrict who can come. We do in fact limit to C or better. I don't see a reason to restrict further. If you are C or better, you can fence, and if you are dedicated enough to earn that C and get your butt to a NAC, great. We should let you fence, and we should ask the elite fencers to fence another DE or two. They won't learn anything. But then, they learned from some other A some time ago and that other A didn't learn anything from the wupping either. So what?

Go look at Cadet Men's Epee in JOs. A kid seeded 111 and rated C finished 8th and got his A. Suppose he was seeded 151th? You want to tell him he couldn't fence a Div 1?

At some point, there is a real problem. If we get to the point where it's not actually practical for an elite fencer to participate, then something has to change. When we get there, we can make a change to eligibility.

[TBean]

Its not the numbers, it is not the segmentation - it is not any of that. I truthfully understand that it needs to happen and don't argue it.

However, if you are going to address the fact that a large portion of the membership thinks of itself as annoying to its governing body and national office, address that and that alone. It gives you more credibility. I understand Tracy has an interest in elite athletes and I do not doubt for a moment she will protect and expand thier interests. What I do doubt is her ability to institute a cultural shift that makes the USFA an inclusive organization of all its members. That is what I was trying to get to - not well.

The USFA is not only dedicated to Olympic success - part of its stated mission includes the rest of us.

[keith]

....snip....
Real world example: In my roller hockey league I'm in the lowest level of the over-30 rec league.
....snip.....

leaving aside the other issues raised it's worth pointing out that many other sports are far more organised around age groups. Hell, masters swimming starts at the ripe old age of 18 (with 5 year age groups).

If the USFA is going to re-organise national competition a lower 'Vet' group might be one of the ways of looking to retain people in the sport - at the time they are, hopefully, reaching the point where they can be useful both in a financial and organisational capacity.

A switch to regional circuits/qualifiers is (IMHO) simply going to provide another way of keeping everything junior/cadet heavy.

[T]

Its not the numbers, it is not the segmentation - it is not any of that. I truthfully understand that it needs to happen and don't argue it.

However, if you are going to address the fact that a large portion of the membership thinks of itself as annoying to its governing body and national office, address that and that alone. It gives you more credibility. I understand Tracy has an interest in elite athletes and I do not doubt for a moment she will protect and expand thier interests. What I do doubt is her ability to institute a cultural shift that makes the USFA an inclusive organization of all its members. That is what I was trying to get to - not well.

The USFA is not only dedicated to Olympic success - part of its stated mission includes the rest of us.

While you were perhaps unconvincing at your discussion of the need for a cultural shift, perhaps I was unconvincing of my interest in changing the culture of the USFA. There are many things that need changing in the USFA and I agree a cultural shift is needed. My current opinion about the USFA culture is that the athletes (non-elite and elite, alike) are an inconvenience and an annoyance to the USFA. Each group may have different needs but there certainly is some overlap. The negative atitude toward elite-athletes may not be as obvious but it is certainly there in a big way.

The problem is that the USFA has no customer service. In fact, I was told by a member of the NC that (and I even think I read it in a post by him in another thread) that (paraphrased) it was ridiculous for members to demand customer service. The USFA has 3 full-time staffers for elite-athletes but still that function is not handled well. Much of the duties that these full-time staffers are involved in revolve around USOC compliance duties, FIE international paperwork, and organizing world championship trips (where, btw, the athletes and their family members are treated like an inconvenience). Little, of which, is direct customer service but they are things that need to be done. How many staffers do they have for the non-elite fencers? None, that are dedicated solely to this function. With the current organizational structure, there is no one in charge of this large membership contingent. The office staff can only do so much - and I will agree that they are overworked and underpaid.

So while you picture the problem as being an elite vs. non-elite cultural problem, I suggest that it is a customer service problem prevalent from top to bottom. Everyone is getting the shaft in terms of customer service. Many coaches don't join; parents don't join; and the only reason the fencers join is so that they can fence at tournaments a few weekends a month. There is no other compelling reason why anyone would join the USFA. And, believe it or not, that is one of the main reasons why I am running. One of my top priorities (as discussed in the platform) is improving customer service. The customers are fencers, just like you.

[T]

What we're mostly discussing here is M. Epee. We have/will have more than 128 C or better men's epee fencers who want to fence in a NAC. To me, this is a very nice problem. Suppose we had 1000 C or better M. epee fencers who wanted to fence in a NAC? Suppose we had 1000 C or better W. Foil fencers?

I agree, a nice problem to have. I'm not sure any venue could handle an event with 1000 people without it taking several days (which may be what you want).

I'm not sure why your feelings are hurt because of the idea of establishing an international-selection division for competitions (which includes a fairly large group - maybe 128 or even 256). Div2/3 fencers can't fence the Div 1 so do you see something wrong with this division as well?

We want all fencers to get better (assuming that is their goal). Fencing bouts far below your level is not a productive way to spend your time or mine. I'll fence some beginners at the club and I'm sure the elite fencers do too. What will make non-elite and elite athletes better is fencing a high number of quality bouts - not just a high number of bouts. Quality bouts are those that are from people with skill levels that are perhaps somewhat lower and somewhat better than you.

WHERE IS THE PROBLEM? Is 10 DEs for an elite fencer actually a problem? Is it unhealthy? Unrealistic energy stores? What is the problem? Poor baby can't fence 10 DEs or doesn't want to/shouldn't have to fence 10 DEs.

It has nothing to do with any of these things. Quality bouts are the issue as well as a productive use of time. Do we see Olympic runners competing against club runners? Do we see black belts competing against yellow belts? Do we see NFL football players playing sadlot ball (or arena football)?

For sure, there are logistics issues with handling events as big as this. Those are solvable without restricting who can come.

How? In a couple of years, m.epee will grow to near 400 entries maybe 500. Will it be time to change then? If you wait for the problems to occur instead of trying to plan for them - you are not prepared when changes need to be made.

We do in fact restrict who can come. We do in fact limit to C or better. I don't see a reason to restrict further. If you are C or better, you can fence, and if you are dedicated enough to earn that C and get your butt to a NAC, great. We should let you fence, and we should ask the elite fencers to fence another DE or two. They won't learn anything. But then, they learned from some other A some time ago and that other A didn't learn anything from the wupping either. So what?

No one is saying that people won't be able to fence NACs. That is far from the truth. They would be able to fence all of the NACs that they meet the qualifications for. As a matter of fact, if we limit the number of events that take place on the same weekend, we could hold more events in other parts of the country as the size/cost of the venue would not be huge a restricting factor. If you fence the Div 1 event (an event that could be 300 or 400people) and place in the top 32 or even 64, let's say, you could earn points that would put you on the point system toward that top 128 ranking level -- allowing you to fence in the international-selection competition. Would a 64th place give you enough points to put you in the top 128? Maybe not. But 2 top 64s in the same season probably would. So you earn your qualification through progressing through the ranks.

If an elite fencer takes a season off (let's say, after the Olympics), they could be required to work their way back up the point list to fence the international-selection event). Or perhaps not - that is a detail that needs to be examined.

Go look at Cadet Men's Epee in JOs. A kid seeded 111 and rated C finished 8th and got his A. Suppose he was seeded 151th? You want to tell him he couldn't fence a Div 1?

Good for him. Under this type of system there could be an allowance (or a conversion) of cadet or junior points that equate to senior points or perhaps there could be an exemption for these international-selection meets that include the top x cadets and top x juniors regardless of their ranking in the senior point list (like we do now for the Div 1 national championships). I agree, he shouldn't be excluded.

At some point, there is a real problem. If we get to the point where it's not actually practical for an elite fencer to participate, then something has to change. When we get there, we can make a change to eligibility.

If you wait for the problem to occur before you address possible alternatives, you are not ready to address it when the problem becomes real. Planning for the future is a necessity. The USFA needs to be proactive not reactive.

[veeco]

This truly sounds like you are looking to make it into haves and have not.

Just like in real life. Americans are the only people I know of who think you can be overweight, a hair from a heart attack, and yet still be able to do the things that regular, healthy people do every day.

I don't disagree that training with peers needs to happen for our upper tier of athletes but you cannot cut them off from the rest of the sport.

And yet lots of other sports do it already.

It is not like they are never going to fence someone awkward at an international event.

Actually, it's quite likely they won't. You see, at most world cups, the number of competitors from each country is restricted. Not to 128 or some large number like T's proposal here, but to only 8 fencers. Those 8 fencers aren't "awkward", they are the best that that country could afford to send there.

They got there by proving they can beat the awkward people in their country, usually at various levels of selection, such as local events, when they started fencing, then going on to larger regional events when they got a little bit more experience, then finishing to the even larger national events, once they made their mark on the regional circuit.

When you're fencing in a world cup, whether the person in front of you is from Senegal or Russia, they aren't just awkward, they need to be taken seriously.

Why would someone think a stratified competition system, which works well everywhere else, wouldn't work as well here, I don't know.

[brtech]

Just for the record, I do think being proactive is a good idea. It would seem that this issue is not one to base a choice of candidates on, and not an issue that the President should make into a leadership issue out of. Charge the Tournament Committee to stay on top of it, making sure they make steady progress and keep a proper perspective (balancing elite and non-elite fencer's concerns). The president should spend her time on things that really are pressing issues.

I appreciate the "customer service" focus. Speaks to things like on line registration, a real hot button. This one does deserve high level management attention, but only because it got so screwed up. Not so sure that gimmicks like discounts really look like customer service though: I'd rather just have a smoothly run bureaucracy that responds when I need it to.

FWIW, the professional staff, all of them, always have treated me very well. You may blast Michael, but for me, he has been a good ED. I have no complaints. I don't quite understand the cash flow issues, and I do know the captain loses his job when the ship runs aground. That brings up a good question:

Who should we hold responsible for a problem like this: the ED or the President? We're seeming to lay blame on Michael. Is that appropriate?
If this happened on your watch T, would you resign? Of course, we peons don't know who knew what and when they knew it, so really, it's not the kind of a question I can reasonably ask, but it's an interesting line of thought: who is really responsible for monitoring and managing the budget, the professional staff or the "elected" officials? In the government, it's the elected officials. They may fire staff, but we hold the officials responsible. I think that should be true here. Do you?

[KD5MDK]

The ED is responsible for the oversight of contacts the USFA puts out. The Executive Committee can't have the time for things like that compared to a full time staff. We've been promised online registration and membership for years, given detailed timelines, etc. What we don't know is what the contacts specify, what the deliverables are, and who is in breach. But I can't reconcile what has been presented to the Board in the past with what we have now without some sort of incompetence.

That needs to be investigated and straightened out by the ExComm now, but it should ordinarily be an ED role.

[TBean]

The ED is responsible for the day-to-day running of the organization. If the organization is that far in debt, he shoulders the brunt of the responsibility for not bringing cost over-runs into line or asking the BoD for guidance on how and where cuts needed to be made in the budget to keep in line. If Mr. Massik is unable to do that then he is not the correct person for the job.

The Board is there for oversight, guidance and expereince - they are volunteers not staff. It is ultimately up to the staff to run the organization. It seems, based on Greg Dilworth's proposed committees, that little formal oversight of the financials was in place - ie; monthly financials produced and reviewed. It is hard for a Board to act on a problem when, it seems, they are not given the full scope of the issue. For that, Mr. Massik is accountable. Now that the Board is fully aware of the signifigance of the issue, they are accountable for fixing it and ensuring it never happens again.

[T]

Just for the record, I do think being proactive is a good idea. It would seem that this issue is not one to base a choice of candidates on, and not an issue that the President should make into a leadership issue out of. Charge the Tournament Committee to stay on top of it, making sure they make steady progress and keep a proper perspective (balancing elite and non-elite fencer's concerns). The president should spend her time on things that really are pressing issues.

If a President and the Exec Committee is not proactive, you get where we are today. I think it is an important leadership issue. You can't just stand around and wait for changes to happen so that your response is 2, 3 or 4 years late (online registration, perphaps?).

I appreciate the "customer service" focus. Speaks to things like on line registration, a real hot button. This one does deserve high level management attention, but only because it got so screwed up. Not so sure that gimmicks like discounts really look like customer service though: I'd rather just have a smoothly run bureaucracy that responds when I need it to.

Gimmicks like discounts are 'benefits of membership' designed to give members well, some benefits out of membership other than the right to fence at USFA sanctioned events. This is not the same things as customer service.

FWIW, the professional staff, all of them, always have treated me very well. You may blast Michael, but for me, he has been a good ED. I have no complaints. I don't quite understand the cash flow issues, and I do know the captain loses his job when the ship runs aground. That brings up a good question:

Who should we hold responsible for a problem like this: the ED or the President? We're seeming to lay blame on Michael. Is that appropriate?
If this happened on your watch T, would you resign? Of course, we peons don't know who knew what and when they knew it, so really, it's not the kind of a question I can reasonably ask, but it's an interesting line of thought: who is really responsible for monitoring and managing the budget, the professional staff or the "elected" officials? In the government, it's the elected officials. They may fire staff, but we hold the officials responsible. I think that should be true here. Do you?

Michael is a nice person. But he has done hardly anything for the organization in terms of managing the front office and raising money. As I said in a previous post, the ED's main responsibility should be fundraising (or at least coordinating the fundraising effort and meeting/greeting potential donors). The CEO is supposed to know what is going on in the office in terms of basic finance and personnel. He has done neither. I hold him primarily responsible. However, the President and the Exec Committee have the ability to hire/fire the ED. This should have happened a long time ago. The organization has changed but the leadership philosophy hasn't. They are still operating like a grassroots organization that has volunteers doing most of the heavy work. The President and Exec Committee and to a certain extent the BoD are responsible for not getting the info they need out of the ED to make informed decisions. This is where proactive leadership becomes important. With a deficit last year of $150,000, they should have been on top of budgets and expenses. Now that deficit has balooned to an unknown (but significantly larger) amount.

Would I resign if this mess happened on my watch? Well, the short answer is yes (I would be embarrassed). But the person who would replace me would be just as guilty so what are you going to do, throw out the whole Exec Committee during the last year of their term? I'm not sure that is a practical solution either. But I think, at a minimum, we are owed an apology and a plan to get us back in or near the black. One of the The Exec Committee's responsibility is oversight of the professional staff. If the Exec Committee did not know about the cash flow/budget problems it's because they had their head in the sand. The accountant (Robert Dumcum) left the organization and was replaced by his assistant (what were her qualifications? My understanding is that she was an accounting clerk but I could be wrong). I have known for quite a while there was a cash flow problem with reimbursements running 3 (or more) months late, the association paying interest payments on personal credit cards (and what were those rates?) that were used to pay for legitimate reimburseable expenses and many if not all National Coaches not knowing what their budget balances were so they keep spending. And all of this while we had huge amounts of cash tied up in contracts on venues for years into the future. If this doesn't signal a potential problem, I don't know what does. The signals were there and I could see them and I wasn't even on the Board.