New development in USFA politics!

[ivlobane]

Great to see a candidate, welcome!

[Capt. Slo-mo]

August:

Thanks for stepping up. I think all of us would love to hear many more specfic, concrete proposals of this nature from all of the candidates.

A challenge to everyone with a hat in the ring: tell us what you'd like to do, and especially how you'd do it.

[keith]

A challenge to everyone with a hat in the ring: tell us what you'd like to do, and especially how you'd do it.

Failing that we could always start making up policies for them.

[noodle]

hey, didn't we have an online registration system for a little while there? did that disappear or is it still around?

[Wise-Epeeist]

I have a couple of questions regarding an implication on the front page of the alternate candidates' site, "Do you want 4 more years of Business As Usual?":

Which of the committee-submitted candidates have served before, and in what capacity? In what manner would each of them be considered "business as usual?"

[noodle]

hey, didn't we have an online registration system for a little while there? did that disappear or is it still around?

ah, i found it.
how much is the surcharge? $5? i bet i could do it for $2 or $3.

[alexsmom]

There are several interesting pieces in this latest announcement.
1. I assume that IVLOBANE, who just joined this discussion, is a member of the opposition and this announcement is the official coming out. So who is IVLOBANE? Minister for ??
2. Paul Levy is not running for treasurer. Instead we have Sharol Pestotnik. But I've not been trying to keep up so that change might not be recent.
3. Ms Pestotnik's candidacy must be fairly recent as the website hasn't yet been updated with her resume.

A previous comment I overheard was that the current candidate for treasurer from the nominating committee is very good and non-controversial which may have some bearing, But I do hope that we get to hear more from both sides about what their vision for the USFA in the next four years is going to be.

I am of the belief that opening up the election process to the membership is one of the best things that can come from all of this.

Bios are all present and accounted for.

[T]

August:

Thanks for stepping up. I think all of us would love to hear many more specfic, concrete proposals of this nature from all of the candidates.

A challenge to everyone with a hat in the ring: tell us what you'd like to do, and especially how you'd do it.

Hello everyone, I have enjoyed the discussion so far. I would like to expand on a couple of things.

Yes, I am Tracy Hurley 'T' and have put together the usfencersforchange slate of candidates. As some of you have noted, this election should be about 'the issues' and that you would like to see a discussion of how the candidates view the future of US fencing and exactly what they see as the important issues for the next 4 years (and how they might implement the changes necessary to achieve these goals). I am glad to see that fencers are interested in the issues. That is exactly what this election should be about.

The major objective for presenting an alternate slate to the nominating committee's slate is so that the issues are brought up, discussed, and people are held accountable for their actions (or lack of actions) in the past. In addition, it is important that candidates discuss their vision for the future and how this vision might be operationalized. I also want to make clear (as I have heard rumors to this effect), that this will not a campaign against any individual. As far as our slate is concerned, there will be no negative campaigning, no name-calling, etc. This will be a campaign based on the issues. So, let's get started...

I am all for discussing the issues and welcome any and all opportunities to do so. My 30+ years of involvement in fencing at just about every level, combined with the vast experience of the candidates running with me on the usfencersforchange slate (Soren Thompson, Bruno Goossens, August Skopik, and Sharol Pestotnik), provides many and multiple perspectives but they all point to one major goal -- bringing in fresh ideas and solutions to problems that the USFA has been experiencing for many years. Most of us can identify the problems without candidates telling you what they are. The platform on our webpage highlights what we believe are the important issues. I would like to take this opportunity to discuss one part of the one of the goals highlighted in our platform (http://www.usfencersforchange.com/pl...sforchange.pdf). Additional issues will be discussed later.

Control of National tournament/championships size/efficiency/qualification

As I see it, there are 2 major aspects to achieving this goal. The first one is to control the size of the entry field at NACs. The second one is to develop a tournament management system that is efficient. These two things are not independent. Obviously if you make the NAC entry field smaller, the events will be easier to manage. However, I believe there is room for improvement on both fronts and improvements are needed. A proposal for the first issue is discussed below (control of NAC size). A proposal for the second (tournament efficiency) will be discussed in a later posting.

Controlling size of NAC entry through Regionalization:
Most sections currently have several major competitions. For instance, the Southwest section has the Longhorn Open and a couple of others that are similar in strength and size. These section events could provide an excellent way to control NAC entry size.

For instance, 3-5 of the sections could host ‘National’ tournaments that would have a Strength Factor calculation associated with them (with a formula that would be similar to world cup events but with national-level fencers instead). These should be the largest tournaments that already exist in the section. Points to the highest placed fencers (or a specified % of the field) would be allocated based on a formula that takes into account quality and size of field. These sectional-event organizers would be ‘encouraged’ to attract a strong strength factor. What constitutes ‘encouragement’ is open for discussion but it could include reimbursement of expenses, equipment, etc. This ‘encouragement’ however should fall within amateur guidelines of the USOC/NCAA. These would all be potential Group I scores (under the current system) or perhaps a Group 3 point category could be initiated. The point is that each of these local/regional competitors in these tournaments would benefit from the fact that rated fencers were invited to their local tournament because these rated fencers would increase the amount of National points available to the top finishers. Based on this system, these regional tournaments would award national-level points which would then place these fencers in the national points standings for that event.

Once this happens, then entry into USFA NACs would be available to only those fencers with points as of a certain cutoff date in that category (top 128, lets say) plus people with FIE points (so that quality foreign fencers are not excluded). This would allow local/regional fencers to obtain national points without going to the NACs. In m.epee, for example, the national point list goes down to about 200 points (which appears to be about 64 places). Regional tournaments could provide a viable alternative to qualifying for NACs. I think most everyone agrees that 260 fencers is too large for a NAC, this type of system could shrink the field to a more manageable size -- perhaps 128 (there also might need to be an increase in the number of people who receive points at NACs, as well). The national points should not be rationed as much as they currently are. Regional events could expand the point system and provide a qualification path to NACs while at the same time, reduce the NAC entry field AND improve the quality of fencing at the regional level.

This is one suggestion for regionalization and control of NAC entry field. Weapons that have smaller events may need different standards. For instance, w. foil NACs routinely have about 100 competitors. Do we need to restrict entry for this event? Perhaps the current rating restriction is sufficient (although the inadequacy of the rating system is a whole other discussion). I think, though, the point is still valid, that fencers who compete at the NACs, should essentially qualify to compete based on regional success. But for the smaller weapons, how this might be operationalized might be different.

One other point (I apologize for the excessive length)...
More than anything else, if the usfecersforchange slate candidates are elected, I can promise that collaboration and cooperation will be an utmost priority. I have provided an outline above for one way that regionalization can be an effective way to control NAC size. Other stakeholders may have other suggestions as well. The final solution will ultimately be based on collaboration from many stakeholders taking from one suggestion or another to come up with the most practical and logical solution to the problem.

[brtech]

This is an interesting post. AFAIK, tournament formats are the domain of the tournament committee. Are you proposing to change that, and have the executive board have the power to change tournament formats? Are you suggesting you will only appoint people to the Tournament Committee that agree with this view?

I'm guessing that was not your intention. Perhaps "how do we control the size of NACs" is not the right kind of question to discuss in the context of USFA leadership. By all means take your suggestions on controlling the size of NACs to the Tournament Committee.

How about something more in line with things that are in the domain of executive leadership. Questions like:

What changes would you like to see, if any, in the professional staff, or the relationship between the professional staff and the elected leadership?

or

Do you think efforts like on line registration have gone awry, why, and what would you do about it?

or

What should the role of the President be in promoting the sport of fencing, and since new leadership takes office following the Olympics, what would you do to capitalize on whatever success we achieve?

or

What do you think about the current committee structure, what changes would you like to see, and why?

or

What do you see as the proper balance between how much effort/time/money should be spent on elite athletes vs once-a-week club attendees?

[Mergs]

First of all, it is great to see this discussion. Once again. I am encouraged, though, to see that a couple of fellow Gulf Coast Division folks are stepping up to the plate to try and affect change to our organization. There are some insights and suggestions that I would like to submit for consideration.

Having been involved with a rather large and established (read entrenched) organization for quite a number of years, I have learned that real change is next to impossible to affect. That is, unless you can put like minded people in all critical positions, and for us that doesn't mean the officers of the organization, it means the permanent staff. While most of the folks are doing yeoman's work, they are hamstrung with the daily operations of the organization, as well as resource contraints, to be able to look at how to improve the organization. If you want an example, try calling the front office today. I don't want this to turn in to a master's thesis on how to improve the organization, so I will say that folks that want to affect change to read "From Good to Great" by Jim Collins, or visit his website jimcollins.com.

As to the question of improving NACs and/or making them more relavent, I would offer the following:

There needs to be a fundemental change in the organization. There should be one for the recreational fencer and one for the ellite fencer. If you look at most sports organizations, they are divided into these two levels. Anyone can join and compete in the lower category (and competitions are organized to handle such large numbers), but it takes qualifying some way to be allowed to compete in the upper level, like going from USGA to the PGA (except in our case, we'll leave out the discussion of Professional Fencing!).

What I would like to see from potential alternative candidates is how they would address this suggestion, as well as how they would address resourcing staff and programs such as marketing, standards, etc.

If this sounds like a re-hash of some of my past suggestions, you're right. We've been down this path before, and it's turned into a circular route.

Perhaps the alternate slate should look at establishing another organization......Hmmmmm?

[Mergs]

brtech - looks like great minds are tracking....again! I hadn't seen your post while I was composing mine, but it looks like we are asking similar questions.

[T]

This is an interesting post. AFAIK, tournament formats are the domain of the tournament committee. Are you proposing to change that, and have the executive board have the power to change tournament formats? Are you suggesting you will only appoint people to the Tournament Committee that agree with this view?

I'm guessing that was not your intention. Perhaps "how do we control the size of NACs" is not the right kind of question to discuss in the context of USFA leadership. By all means take your suggestions on controlling the size of NACs to the Tournament Committee.

You bring up some additional good points. However, I would also like to point out that changes in the NAC structure/size is an extremely important issue facing the USFA. It affects many members and policy needs to be set that goes beyond the tournament committee.

As I see it, the all BOD committees and the USFA front office act as arms of the USFA Executive Committee. This is primarily because the BOD committee members are essentially appointed by the Exec Committee and the President has the capacity to hire/fire the Executive Director (who has the capacity to hire/fire staff).

As far as controlling the size of NACs, the USFA must address this issue soon and the tournament committee needs to be composed of people that are willing to make these necessary changes (a shared vision). I proposed one solution. I'm sure that members of the tournament committtee, once charged with resolving this problem, will develop a reasonable solution. It may or may not look like what I suggested but this is certainly a very good option.

This also answers part of two of your other questions...that is, "What do you think about the current committee structure, what changes would you like to see, and why?" and "What changes would you like to see, if any, in the professional staff, or the relationship between the professional staff and the elected leadership?" As I stated above, all BOD committees and the front office staff are arms of the Exec Committee. I think that there are several committees and staff positions that are in need of revamping with a different perspective or perhaps re-invigorating through a transfusion of new blood.

One thing that is important when considering committees, their members, and the front office staff is that everyone share the vision of the Exec Committee (otherwise the BOD and/or staff are going in different directions at the same time). Achieving this vision can be accomplished through a variety of perspectives but none-the-less, a shared vision is necessary. Committees such as the Tournament Committee, High Performance Committee, and Youth Committee (perhaps the 3 most important committees currently) provide an important function within the association. However, their ideas and perspectives have sometimes lacked initiatives and the initiative to move the USFA forward (and this has not entirely been the fault of the respective committees).

I would like to see the committees have a more direct impact on decisions and promoting necessary changes. As I picked the control of NAC size as the first topic to discuss, I feel that this would be an important top agenda for the tournament committee to address for the next quad. As President, I feel that it is important to provide direction as to what the top agenda items should be - but not necessarily what the exact solutions are. And, yes, I think that the Exec Committee should have a more direct impact on committees, their agenda, proposed solutions, etc. This does NOT mean that the Exec Committe will control everything that goes on in the committee process, etc. as I do not believe in the micro-managing of committees. However, it DOES mean that the Exec Committee should have control over the direction that the committees point toward. In other words, the Exec Committee should control the committees as opposed to the committees controlling the Exec Committee.

If you look closely at the candidates on the usfencersforchange slate, you will see that I believe that the Exec Committee should have a well-rounded perspective on most (if not all) USFA issues. I feel that a member of the Exec Committee should be present AND active on each and every committee. Some committees need revamping. Other committees need to be eliminated; new committees need to be established (or re-activated).

Regardless of the specific committees or front office staff, as President, what would be established is an open system of communication, establishment of goals, time tables, and measures of accountability (determining if/when goals have been achieved and the level of success of the outcome). Accountability is an important issue to be discussed later and is often narrowly defined as 'accounting for money'. It is just as important for committees (including the Exec Committee), the front office, and programs to be held accountable as well. Accountable to whom? Accountable to the membership and other stakeholders (like the USOC, FIE, sponsors, clubs, divisions, sections, etc.).

Comments welcomed. Other issues will be addressed later....

Tracy Hurley

[Wafath]

T,

Thank you for taking the time to read and post your thoughts in the forums.

In your brief statement of your platform, you mention "Collegiate" twice. This struck me as an odd focus for a USFA candidate.

I would like to know what you think is right, and what needs improvement in the relationship between collegiate fencing and the USFA?

What specifically would you change? What is the future role of the USFA in collegiate fencing? Is it different for the variety of levels currently seen in college fencing?

Thank you for your time,

W

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Hello everyone, I have enjoyed the discussion so far. I would like to expand on a couple of things.

Yes, I am Tracy Hurley 'T' and have put together the usfencersforchange slate of candidates.

I am all for discussing the issues and welcome any and all opportunities to do so. My 30+ years of involvement in fencing at just about every level, combined with the vast experience of the candidates running with me on the usfencersforchange slate (Soren Thompson, Bruno Goossens, August Skopik, and Sharol Pestotnik), provides many and multiple perspectives but they all point to one major goal -- bringing in fresh ideas and solutions to problems that the USFA has been experiencing for many years.

I am not a member of USFA and therefore not directly a stakeholder, but I am a fencer and an American. Some notes from me as an interested party, no particular order:

1. You use the word "slate". It was pointed out in another thread that candidates are not voted on slates, they are voted on individually. Was that word choice a mere slip, or was it intended to signify something more specific?
2. Your candidate set is listed as being 5 people strong, considerably fewer than those nominated by the Nomination Committee. Can you expound on the reasons for not submitting a full set of candidates?
3. Even if all of your candidates win their respective elections, they will have to work together with the uncontested nominees (barring truly unforeseeable circumstances). You will then experience something akin to a party coalition government, with all its usual difficulties. How do you plan to avoid gridlock, while at the same time getting a reasonable part of your platform turned into policy? Do any of you have practical experience with party coalition govt?
4. In one sentence, you combine the expressions "fresh ideas" and "vast experience". This seems to be quite a clash, IMO. Are you claiming that you are forwarding fresh ideas that have not been thought out by any previous fencers at all, or only that they are as of yet not implemented as policy?
5. Have you made any efforts to bring in people who do not have any fencing experience, but do have other valuable experience (leadership of other sports NGB, other nonprofits, proven fundraising ability, relevant scientific work, whatever)? Such candidates might be able to think out even fresher ideas! (In several Swedish sports NGB leadership groups, several members have never performed the sport in question, but are there for their other qualifications. That is good, IMO.)
6. Have you made any concentrated effort in trying to find good ideas/policies implemented in other fencing NGB´s than USFA, or non-fencing NGB´s in USA? Which current fencing NGB do you think has the best results/resources ratio, and what are your reasons for thinking so? What ideas used in other organizations have you found that you wish to implement for USFA?

Control of National tournament/championships size/efficiency/qualification

As I see it, there are 2 major aspects to achieving this goal. The first one is to control the size of the entry field at NACs. The second one is to develop a tournament management system that is efficient. These two things are not independent. Obviously if you make the NAC entry field smaller, the events will be easier to manage. However, I believe there is room for improvement on both fronts and improvements are needed. A proposal for the first issue is discussed below (control of NAC size). A proposal for the second (tournament efficiency) will be discussed in a later posting.

7. Limits on competition size will also result in a limit of the gross income due to registration fees. Have you done a calculation of the effect on the bottom line due to this proposed action?

Controlling size of NAC entry through Regionalization:
Most sections currently have several major competitions. For instance, the Southwest section has the Longhorn Open and a couple of others that are similar in strength and size. These section events could provide an excellent way to control NAC entry size.

For instance, 3-5 of the sections could host ‘National’ tournaments that would have a Strength Factor calculation associated with them (with a formula that would be similar to world cup events but with national-level fencers instead).

8. I am of the very firm opinion that the entire concept of a single strength factor for a given competition/event is a flawed concept, to the extent that it should not be used at all.

Under present SF calculation formulas, it is quite possible that two quite dissimilar competitions, A and B, end up with the same SF. A is a competition in which a small number (n) number of truly exceptional fencers compete, while the rest of the field is very weak. B, OTOH consists of the same number of fencers overall, but the ability distribution is much more compressed around some middle level. In that case, it will be much easier to get (n-1)st place in competition B than in A, while the reverse is true for (n+1)st place. However, it is standard that fencers finishing in those places will get the same #rating points. This gives a lot of excessive statistical noise, seeking out competitions based on good SF/difficulty quota, and other gaming of the system.

This is possible to overcome - while at the same time accounting for differences in the competition difficulties - if one completely does away with the SF concept, and instead has another rating points calculation system. I have described a simple variation thereof in a previous post here on f.net.

Once this happens, then entry into USFA NACs would be available to only those fencers with points as of a certain cutoff date in that category (top 128, lets say) plus people with FIE points (so that quality foreign fencers are not excluded). This would allow local/regional fencers to obtain national points without going to the NACs.

9. How would fencers from Alaska, Hawaii, the Dakotas, etc. fit into this system? Would a good fencer from a boondocks area be able to pick up enough points - to ensure entry to NAC - under your system solely by winning his local events? Or is it envisioned that they are expected to gain sufficient #points by going to strong events outside their state, events which are neither NAC nor qualifiers for other states? Or am I missing something?

10. If you consider the actions of the current USFA leadership, can you point anything that they have spent too much of the limited USFA resources on? What of all the things that USFA presently does do you plan on getting a smaller percentage of the budget, should you be elected?

11. Can you give specific details on what you think that USFA representatives should vote on, and motion for, in FIE meetings?


More questions later on.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Inquartata]

What's my problem with all the Div2-3, 1A, ect? I want those events to occur at a more local level. My clients would have an easier time seeing a return on their investement of time and money into this sport.

The http://www.usfencersforchange.com/ platform includes things I want.

Personally I am very much against that, as I think it further advances the elitism already apparent in Div I fencing and will reduce the quality of competitions available to most fencers ( especially in sabre, where the NACs are almost the only large competitions to be found outside of the NY-NY area.

However, from conversations I have had with various people I think I can say that the nominating committee's candidates are also gung-ho on the stupid regionalization business. So there does not appear to be any great amount of choice on that issue. Whoever is elected is likely to ram that particular idea through.

That and an #@!*ing ELO system.

also, they should've called it "epeeists for change".

Good catch ( although Sharol is the "token sabre fencer", I guess ).

[noodle]

Good catch ( although Sharol is the "token sabre fencer", I guess ).

yea, but she fences epee too. i made sure to look into that.

[HDG]

This does have the feel of something of, by, and for elite fencers only. The rest of us should apparently stop inconveniencing USFA with our desire to attend national events and just send checks every year.

[piste off]

5. Have you made any efforts to bring in people who do not have any fencing experience, but do have other valuable experience (leadership of other sports NGB, other nonprofits, proven fundraising ability, relevant scientific work, whatever)? Such candidates might be able to think out even fresher ideas! (In several Swedish sports NGB leadership groups, several members have never performed the sport in question, but are there for their other qualifications. That is good, IMO.)
6. Have you made any concentrated effort in trying to find good ideas/policies implemented in other fencing NGB´s than USFA, or non-fencing NGB´s in USA? Which current fencing NGB do you think has the best results/resources ratio, and what are your reasons for thinking so? What ideas used in other organizations have you found that you wish to implement for USFA?

Great ideas...

So the big questions are "How do we get bigger?" and "Once we get bigger (or even NOW) how do we handle the growth?"

I am sure other entities have dealt with this issue and navigated it successfully.

Rick

[keith]

This does have the feel of something of, by, and for elite fencers only. The rest of us should apparently stop inconveniencing USFA with our desire to attend national events and just send checks every year.

There is an arguement (and I suspect it is one that various of these folk have at the back of their minds) that the only national events that the USFA should be organizing are for the internationally relevant categories; junior, DivI and real vets.

In terms of structure the other categories could be run quite differently, and maybe not directly by the USFA.

I would be grateful to hear from (any) of the candidates on the subject of general structure of USFA run competition - the issue of qualification is a red herring as far as I am concerned. What do they see as the future landscape;

for example;
The status quo with qualification paths.
Reduction to junior, Div1, real vet only.
Something between.



And on a totally different topic (borrowed from TBean);

Would you appointment a professional fund raiser to the USFA? If yes on a salary or commission basis?

[HDG]

Would you appointment a professional fund raiser to the USFA? If yes on a salary or commission basis?

Perhaps a hybrid pay structure