New development in USFA politics!

[HDG]

I emphatically don't offer this as a suggestion, only a question: Has USFA considered making Division 1 B and up rather than C and up?

[noodle]

I emphatically don't offer this as a suggestion, only a question: Has USFA considered making Division 1 B and up rather than C and up?

yeah.

[ivlobane]

As far as the others? Here's a summary of their qualifications. These are the people who have been keeping your association afloat amid the turmoil of the past 3.5 years by working quietly, behind the scenes, out of the limelight and fanfare. They are not the status quo - they are the best of the new generation. They have paid their dues, toiled endless hours, done the hard work and are ready.

Is there a reason this is a scan and not a searchable, copy/pastable electronic document?

[Peach]

Is there a reason this is a scan and not a searchable, copy/pastable electronic document?

I guess because the committee submitted a physical, paper report, and in order to make it accessible the USFA decided to scan and post it. The USFA office didn't generate the report, and therefore doesn't have an electronic copy.

[ivlobane]

I guess because the committee submitted a physical, paper report, and in order to make it accessible the USFA decided to scan and post it. The USFA office didn't generate the report, and therefore doesn't have an electronic copy.

This is exactly why I cannot stand behind the NomCom slate. If the USFA does not see a problem with operating like that, then modern media and corporations cannot take them seriously. Also, after reading the document itself, I do not see a well defined platform. A lot references to the fact that the slate is experienced and has done a good job in the past. Please creatively correct me if I am wrong.

PS: The language used in that document is also a lot more vague compared to Tracy Hurley's.

PPS: There is absolutely no need or talk of getting rid of people that do good, hard work. They way I see it, the USFFC slate has good ideas as to redirecting and creating some corporate and mass media friendly standards for that work.

[KD5MDK]

Do you think the nominees don't see a problem with operating like that?

I know an electronic copy was submitted to the USFA Secretary. I cannot speak to why the USFA didn't use it.

Also, after reading the document itself, I do not see a well defined platform. A lot references to the fact that the slate is experienced and has done a good job in the past.

You're right. There isn't a platform. A nominating committee member says they selected people over proposals:

I don't think anyone at this point has a handle on the solution, and anyone who says they do hasn't thought through all of the possible implications. Any candidate who comes out with a specific detailed plan for tournament construction is trying to play politics by appealing to certain voting blocks. There are no simple answers.

What we need are people who are intimately familiar with the system and HOW and WHY it works, and who are also committed to finding the best way to re-organize it, keeping the best parts of it, scrapping the broken parts, building the new components and planning for the future. When we on the nominating committee were undertaking our deliberations, this kind of a viewpoint was one of the major things we considered, and played a significant role in our decision-making process.

[Peach]

This is exactly why I cannot stand behind the NomCom slate. If the USFA does not see a problem with operating like that, then modern media and corporations cannot take them seriously. Also, after reading the document itself, I do not see a well defined platform. A lot references to the fact that the slate is experienced and has done a good job in the past. Please creatively correct me if I am wrong.

PS: The language used in that document is also a lot more vague compared to Tracy Hurley's.

I'm not sure what you're saying. The document was drafted on a computer, certainly, and circulated in electronic form among the members of the committee before the final copy was printed, but a physical document with a signature on it still serves an important purpose as a final report to the USFA from what was a committee of rank-and-file members from all different sections and areas of the membership. Having it available on line, even if not being searchable and scannable, doesn't strike me as being antediluvian. It isn't that long. You can read it.

Further, the document does not contain a platform because the committee wrote it, not the candidates, and it represents an evaluation rather than a campaign statement. It seems to me that this comparison of apples and oranges underlies a great deal of the current discussion.

[brtech]

Good post oso97. I agree with what you say. While I'm not sure we really have a huge problem if NACs double in size from where they are, I am in full agreement that we need to look ahead and see where we need to make changes, and the horizon is bigger than the quad.

I do want good, strong leadership. Having said that, I also think that the committee structure, which tends to have more inertia than the executive committee is a good counterweight. You want decisions to be very thoughtful, involving a lot of people and have consensus among the experts. Strong executive leadership is helpful to facilitate development of consensus of course.

I don't know many of the candidates from either "slate" but I've talked to a couple of nominating committee members about the process and the people. I was pretty happy with those discussions, so I'm inclined, at the moment, to go that way. OTOH, I don't know much yet about the other candidates.

[keith]

You're right. There isn't a platform. A nominating committee member says they selected people over proposals:

... but given that there seems to be a general drum beat of X, Y & Z are problems that must be solved, it does seem reasonable that some actual solutions be proffered?

Sure any solution or 'ten year plan' would be greeted with howls of derision, but so will anything (including inaction) that comes down.

The problem isn't that the issues are intractable it's that no one who wants office seems willing to actually offer a policy solution. IMNSHO.

[ivlobane]

...intimately familiar with the system and HOW and WHY it works, and who are also committed to finding the best way to re-organize it, keeping the best parts of it, ect...

My intimacy with the current system would have resulted in phimosis of the brain. So I kept away. Until I stared teaching, then I realized there is no excuse for the USFA to be so behind the times. There were immediately available solutions to a lot of these problems for years. Nothing was being done to implement them. Anytime I had a conversation with anyone who tried to move US Fencing forward, I always heard complaints of an entrenched bureaucratic cabal that was very good at being vague.

Again, I will be happy if we have:

• Online registration. askFRED.net is available, what else do you want?
• A large screen device with real time updates at National events. Or a few-flat panels, anything other that little pieces of paper to crowd around to check your strip assignement. Some thing to make world class events look like world class events.
• Reduction of NAC size. In epee especially. Which means growing the locals. I cannot justify sending a student across the country to fence a round of pools.

This is what I'm interested in. The USFFC slate has it on their platform. They also have an interest in transparency, collaboration with the USOC and the NCAA. Their credentials are not intimacy with the current system, but fencing, business and leadership merit.

[dberke]

... but given that there seems to be a general drum beat of X, Y & Z are problems that must be solved, it does seem reasonable that some actual solutions be proffered?

Sure any solution or 'ten year plan' would be greeted with howls of derision, but so will anything (including inaction) that comes down.

The problem isn't that the issues are intractable it's that no one who wants office seems willing to actually offer a policy solution. IMNSHO.

It's easy to say "here's a solution to problem X" but complex problems can't be solved with quick solutions. Sure, they make good campaign slogans, but in practice, things are a lot more complicated.

To continue with the example of the NAC sizes... before offering a solution, those looking to solve the problem need to do a number of things:

• Define the goals of the NAC system for the next quad and beyond. This requires input from fencers (recreational, competitive, and elite), coaches, referees, etc. and needs to balance the needs of each group.
• Identify the problems with the current system that prevent it from achieving those goals. This is not as obvious as you may think - to some, large NACs are a problem. To others, they are not.
• Understand how the current system has evolved to where it is today. What actually works well and what doesn't? Don't throw out the good parts of the current system if they work well.
• Identify inter-system dependencies. If we change how NACs work, then later change the rating system, will it break the first set of changes?
• Come up with some potential solutions and field-test them at perhaps one NAC next season. Evaulate the results of the field-test and refine the proposal. Do another test if needed.

Before accepting any candidate's solution, ask yourself how they approached the problem and how they came up with the proposed solution. Did they collaborate with the different groups of people invested, or are they just proposing a solution that fits their needs?

Also, keep an open mind - don't decide anything until you've heard from all the candidates.

Dan

[ivlobane]

...snip... keep an open mind - don't decide anything until you've heard from all the candidates.

Dan

Wonderful post! I would imagine a professional business person would be good at managing these issues.

So far, we have not heard anything from the NomCom candidates, nor will we have an opportunity to hear from all the candidates, unless we sign the USFFC petition.

[oso97]

My intimacy with the current system would have resulted in phimosis of the brain. So I kept away. Until I stared teaching, then I realized there is no excuse for the USFA to be so behind the times. There were immediately available solutions to a lot of these problems for years. Nothing was being done to implement them. Anytime I had a conversation with anyone who tried to move US Fencing forward, I always heard complaints of an entrenched bureaucratic cabal that was very good at being vague.

Again, I will be happy if we have:

• Online registration. askFRED.net is available, what else do you want?
• A large screen device with real time updates at National events. Or a few-flat panels, anything other that little pieces of paper to crowd around to check your strip assignement. Some thing to make world class events look like world class events.
• Reduction of NAC size. In epee especially. Which means growing the locals. I cannot justify sending a student across the country to fence a round of pools.

This is what I'm interested in. The USFFC slate has it on their platform. They also have an interest in transparency, collaboration with the USOC and the NCAA. Their credentials are not intimacy with the current system, but fencing, business and leadership merit.

Ivoblane,

I think you miss the point of what I'm trying to say. Yes, the system needs fixing. Anyone with an ounce of sense can see that. Having interviewed all of the candidates that presented themselves to the nominating committee at length (including Dr. Hurley, but not including any of the others on her slate, because they didn't come on board until after the NC selected someone else ahead of her and THAT ought to be a big clue right there for you about motives and operations), I can speak that they all are aware of the problems. As well as the basic solutions. Yes, online registration is one of them. Yes, technical upgrades of NACs is another. Yes, growing the strength of local and regional events to provide additional competitive opportunities is another.

Everyone gets these. There are others. Transparency is another you mentioned. Believe me, every single person the NC interviewed agreed on the basic fixes for the problems at hand.

Or rather, I should say, everyone agreed what the END points of those fixes should look like. As an example, its very well to say "Impliment online registration for NACs." There are specific hurdles in the way of why it has not happened yet. Some valid, some... not so valid. Many are interlinked with other issues facing.

What drove the NC decisions and why I believe the NC slate is way more suitable than the Hurley slate is the fact that the people the NC chose are >experienced problem solvers.< Like I said, these are the people who have been keeping things from getting any worse than they could have been - and it could have been a LOT worse. The Hurley Slate cannot point to a single concrete accomplishment in the area of management for fencing outside its own very isolated and limited areas of immediate interest. Whereas each member of the NC slate can point to multiple projects they've taken on, and left better for their tenure.

Kallie Weeks - Has been the tournament chair for the past umpteen years and Bout Committee Chair for numerous national tournaments. The number of fires she's put out, projects she's kept in the air, and general management ability demonstrated is exceptional. And, outside of fencing, she's the head of an extraordinarily successful company that educates special needs students in New Jersey.

Jerry Benson - Long time member of the BOD. Former chair of the Clubs, Divisions and Sections committee (and kept a couple of divisions from going up in nuclear warfare while in that position). Part of a group that completely reorganized the USFCA Accreditation Protocols (which was almost as Sisyphuian a task as reorganizing the NACs will be). Helped organize the Southwest Section Circuit Cup. MBA and long time owner of a fencing salle - is recognized in the field as one of THE authorities on the business side of running a fencing salle.

Ro Sobalvarro - This is the guy who brought the RYC program to the national stage, and has been keeping it growing by lots of hard work. A successful, high level coach. Experienced at operating within the formal structures of the USFA.

Mark Stasinos - Member of the FOC (which is not something you are selected for by sitting on your hands and wining from the sidelines). Extraordinarily capable referee and referee trainer. Former Tournament Committee Chair. Former BOD member. One of the few people who has operated on "both sides of the platform" at national events (Refereeing and Bout Committee). Grassroots development experience.

Greg Dilworth - There's literally no-one else in the entire community who even begins to approach his combination of financial skills, length of service to the organization, and in depth knowledge of the organizational side of fencing. Not to mention unimpeachable ethics about financial matters. And also a member of the FOC and the BOD.

Brad Baker - well, the Hurley slate hasn't even chosen to contest that position.

Whereas on the other side I hear a lot about good ideas, and not so much about what they've done in the past in the fencing community that makes anyone think they'd have a prayer of getting them done.

Disclaimer: I am not in anyway connected to the above referenced individuals. I have not received an iota of compensation, nor been given a backpack, sticker or other form of gratuity in return for my endorsement. I have not been promised any position of political power, other than that I may be asked to help with some technical issues of the kind that I have experience with (I'm a computer technology guy) in the future. I am not coordinating my endorsement with the candidates or other people who served on the NC.

[keith]

It's easy to say "here's a solution to problem X" but complex problems can't be solved with quick solutions. Sure, they make good campaign slogans, but in practice, things are a lot more complicated.

I agree completely. However, even the USFA itself seems to be bewailing all these terrible problems that need fixing.

.... and, none of these are problems which just arrived yesterday.


Of course they could just decide to disappoint everyone and say things ain't all that bad everything works and will continue to work.

[Inquartata]

Which would impress you more:

"Your investment portfolio will be managed by Warren Buffet and Peter Lynch."

"Your investment portfolio will be managed according to these 20 painstaking set forth criteria and goals, by Joe Smith and Jane Doe"?

I know where I'd put my money.

( Yes, I exaggerate the contrast for effect. I'm just trying to point out that a platform is not necessarily an end-all be-all indicator of likely performance. Nor is the lack of one disqualifying, if there are other credentials to examine. ) )

[keith]

Which would impress you more:

"Your investment portfolio will be managed by Warren Buffet and Peter Lynch."

"Your investment portfolio will be managed according to these 20 painstaking set forth criteria and goals, by Joe Smith and Jane Doe"?

I know where I'd put my money.

You forget all those who swear by Quant funds.

Or more to the point do you trust a USFA committee to tell a Warren Buffet from a Kirk Wright?

( Yes, I exaggerate the contrast for effect. I'm just trying to point out that a platform is not necessarily an end-all be-all indicator of likely performance. Nor is the lack of one disqualifying, if there are other credentials to examine. ) )

There are many things to evaluate, but I find it strangely disappointing to find that you are so soundly behind the "trust us to pick'em" brigade.

[KD5MDK]

1) Yes, in this particular case, knowing who is on it.

2) If you know who was picked, you'd trust them.

[Wise-Epeeist]

... each member of the NC slate can point to multiple projects they've taken on, and left better for their tenure.

Kallie Weeks - Has been the tournament chair for the past umpteen years and Bout Committee Chair for numerous national tournaments. The number of fires she's put out, projects she's kept in the air, and general management ability demonstrated is exceptional. And, outside of fencing, she's the head of an extraordinarily successful company that educates special needs students in New Jersey.

Jerry Benson - Long time member of the BOD. Former chair of the Clubs, Divisions and Sections committee (and kept a couple of divisions from going up in nuclear warfare while in that position). Part of a group that completely reorganized the USFCA Accreditation Protocols (which was almost as Sisyphuian a task as reorganizing the NACs will be). Helped organize the Southwest Section Circuit Cup. MBA and long time owner of a fencing salle - is recognized in the field as one of THE authorities on the business side of running a fencing salle.

Ro Sobalvarro - This is the guy who brought the RYC program to the national stage, and has been keeping it growing by lots of hard work. A successful, high level coach. Experienced at operating within the formal structures of the USFA.

Mark Stasinos - Member of the FOC (which is not something you are selected for by sitting on your hands and wining from the sidelines). Extraordinarily capable referee and referee trainer. Former Tournament Committee Chair. Former BOD member. One of the few people who has operated on "both sides of the platform" at national events (Refereeing and Bout Committee). Grassroots development experience.

Greg Dilworth - There's literally no-one else in the entire community who even begins to approach his combination of financial skills, length of service to the organization, and in depth knowledge of the organizational side of fencing. Not to mention unimpeachable ethics about financial matters. And also a member of the FOC and the BOD.

Brad Baker - well, the Hurley slate hasn't even chosen to contest that position.

Thank you for this background.

[T]

Thanks for your questions. I will cover each of these in separate postings.

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?

As I mentioned in a previous post, the President and through consultation, the Executive Committee, has the ability to hire/fire/retain the Executive Director. I also discussed the importance of a shared vision AND the necessity of fundraising. The BOD (including the Exec Committee) should not interfere or try to run the front office. That is not their responsibility. The only responsibility they officially have toward the front office is their choice of Exec Director. The Exec Director, in turn, is the one that can hire/fire/retain the office professional staff. Through the Exec Director, the shared vision is operationalized in front-office duties, attitudes, etc. The front office, what they do, the direction they go in, their priorities, and goals should reflect the shared vision of the Exec Committee. If not, then conflict and/or apathy will prevail.

[T]

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

Currently, Brad Baker has put forth a proposal to merge (in some capacity) the ASKFRED online registration system with the USFA member database. (FYI, I also mentioned earlier that USFENCERSFORCHANGE are not contesting the secretary position because of our admiration and support of the work that Brad has done for the USFA and fencers in his various capacities). This is an excellent idea and as I mentioned elsewhere, is something whose time has come. In the greater fencing community, we have plenty of organizations that are already doing much of what USFencing needs to do (such as Fencingphotos, fencing.net, fencingpictures, etc.). Through alignments and cooperation with these organizations, the USFA can take advantage of what is already out there and not have to recreate the wheel. I think this forum is also a great way to disseminate information. If a dedicated forum can be setup to provide a communication link between the USFA and the membership that would also be a great thing. Obviously, the communication needs to go both ways and the problem becomes one of time and logistics. If the USFA has 20,000+ members and each one of them are posting items to a discussion board, it would take a full-time person (or 2) just to address all of the issues/questions. But I think the idea has merit and needs further investigation to, at a minimum, begin the idea of developing an open channel of communication between the membership and the administration (both elected and paid staff) and at a minimum, to do a better job of communication than the occasional e-letter we get from the office (which only occasionally provides any information above what the website includes).

I have also asked August Skopik (one of our VP candidates) to address the online registration issue in more detail. He should be posting a more definitive response to that item soon.