New development in USFA politics!

[oso97]

opps, David, I think you slipped. I'm sure what you meant to say was the 'nominating committee's slate'. On the other hand, perhaps it was no slip at all.

Thanks... appropriately edited. It was a typo.

But is this where you refresh your charge that the NC was composed of insiders who nominated their friends and buddies?

[T]

Notes that there will be more transparency if the motions made by Greg D. (otherwise known as nom. committee's candidate for treasurer and current congress rep) at the Feb 2008 board meeting are passed. Are these motions you/your treasurer candidate supports?

Also all of your comments so far regarding NAC size seems primarily aimed at Men's epee NAC's. Women's saber on the other hand doesn't even really hit 100. To suggest that outside of a couple times a year I as a women's saber fencer am going to be able to go to a women's competition with over 15 people in it seems silly, unless I like in Jersey/NY. I think the huge discrepancy over gender/weapon in the NAC sizes might be a sticking point on how NAC's are handled in the future.

You are right, the problems at the NACs are with the huge events - most notably m.epee (which given the current pace of growth will hit entries near the 300 mark soon). I also mentioned (elsewhere in this thread) that the qualification requirements could be different for different weapons (and I used w.foil as an example). If you look at a more recent posting of mine (a response to PeterGustafsson) you will see that another idea is to hold a winter equivalent to the summer nationals instead of regional qualifiers for the existing NAC structure. Look for that thread and see the details of that proposal.

[brtech]

Promoting the sport of fencing, while not primarily the President’s responsibility (that responsibility lies with the Executive Director), I think it would be remiss if everyone on the BOD (not just the Executive Committee) was not involved in promoting the sport in some capacity.

This is interesting. I wonder if Michael knows this. Is that explicit in his job description?

Our principal promotion efforts that are visible to me as a member seem to come from the Media, Marketing, and Promotions Committee. They seem to have made the decision to hire our current consultant (Circcone). Most of what I see as promotion seems to come from them. Michael and his team certainly are heavily involved in the day to day dealings of the efforts started by the Marketing committee.

I think the committees "report" to the President, not the Executive Director.

Is that actually not how it's supposed to work, the Executive Director is responsible for promotion?

[oso97]

This is interesting. I wonder if Michael knows this. Is that explicit in his job description?

Our principal promotion efforts that are visible to me as a member seem to come from the Media, Marketing, and Promotions Committee. They seem to have made the decision to hire our current consultant (Circcone). Most of what I see as promotion seems to come from them. Michael and his team certainly are heavily involved in the day to day dealings of the efforts started by the Marketing committee.

I think the committees "report" to the President, not the Executive Director.

Is that actually not how it's supposed to work, the Executive Director is responsible for promotion?

You are spot on about how it currently works.

That doesn't mean the system doesn't need changing. In fact, the idea of an ED who's primary job is promotion and marketing has been banded about, oh, in about 30 different discussions that I've heard. Doesn't necessarily mean that is the best way to go. But certainly, there should be SOME staff member who's primary portfolio is Marketing and Fundraising.

[T]

Thanks... appropriately edited. It was a typo.

But is this where you refresh your charge that the NC was composed of insiders who nominated their friends and buddies?

David, This election is not about your ego or mine. Can we stick to the issues? For the record, I have never made that charge...

[HDG]

But certainly, there should be SOME staff member who's primary portfolio is Marketing and Fundraising.

IF USFA were a university or a corporation, there would be a VP level office with this remit.

[Dev]

Dev,
I think there is some confusion as to who the USFENCERSFORCHANGE VP candidates are and what group they represent. Yes, Soren is an elite fencer that would approach this task from that perspective. However, August Skopik is not a national team coach. He is a grassroots club coach that has a prospering youth program and has its share of recreational fencers. They would approach this goal from both perspectives -- not from only one perspective.

My mistake; I jumped to conclusions on the latter name.

However, it is noteworthy that USFFC candidate slate has such detailed plans for improving the lot of .5% of USFA membership, and their answer for the other 99.5% is "I'll certainly bring up your concerns with our VP candidates."

Goes a long way toward explaining what the USFFC slate is really out to change.

[seak]

You are right, the problems at the NACs are with the huge events - most notably m.epee (which given the current pace of growth will hit entries near the 300 mark soon). I also mentioned (elsewhere in this thread) that the qualification requirements could be different for different weapons (and I used w.foil as an example). If you look at a more recent posting of mine (a response to PeterGustafsson) you will see that another idea is to hold a winter equivalent to the summer nationals instead of regional qualifiers for the existing NAC structure. Look for that thread and see the details of that proposal.

Well since you decided to completely ignore my first question....

As to the idea of qualification/a winter national tournament. My current guess is that as a women's saber fencer I might be able to qualify out of my region for the Div 1 events, I am no where near that quality of fencer though and don't mind the fact that I can't currently fence Div 1. Additionally, some divisions seem to feel that qualifiers are a way to hold their membership hostage for money or cannot run qualifiers in a financially reasonable way such that the cost of such tournaments is prohibitive to me (poor grad student 40 for a tournament with 4 people is alot). Hence I don't necessarily think division qualifiers are a better way to do things then earned ratings.

As to the idea of a Winter and summer nationals, as opposed to the current several NAC's plus a summer nationals, this again would not be my preference. I think finding refs might be difficult and people would have to miss school, but also it excludes any sense of regional diversity that we can currently get with NAC's. For instance I will almost certainly not be at summer nationals this year (combo of costly quals, costly plane tickets and lack of time to get to go for free as a ref). I am planning on competing at the Chicago NAC, reasonably cheap airfare, and it's over my spring break. With multiple tournaments to choose from in a season I can choose the one that best fits my budget, time and ability constraints. I think that by only having multiple events over the course of the year for the elites (and presumably for the kids as well) you are excluding recreational fencers/competitive fencers looking for developmentally appropriate tournaments from the national scene.

Much has been written on this board about the drop-off in post collegiate fencers. I think this would further harm that population.

[T]

My mistake; I jumped to conclusions on the latter name.

However, it is noteworthy that USFFC candidate slate has such detailed plans for improving the lot of .5% of USFA membership, and their answer for the other 99.5% is "I'll certainly bring up your concerns with our VP candidates."

Goes a long way toward explaining what the USFFC slate is really out to change.

I want to clarify that USFFC candidates have ideas and suggestions about many fencing programs and not just elite athletes. I think if you look back a few pages and find the posting by August Skopik you will see that. In addition, I have also mentioned several ideas in other postings that go directly to supporting recreational fencing programs. In addition, I know that August will be contributing more to this forum today with his ideas about how to support clubs and coaches and recreational and youth fencing programs (all of which come under the heading of grassroots fencing programs).

That is what the USFFC slate is built around. Our candidates have perspectives from parents, elite athletes, coaches, clubs, referees. We do not represent just referees or elite athletes or any other specific interest group.

[oso97]

My mistake; I jumped to conclusions on the latter name.

However, it is noteworthy that USFFC candidate slate has such detailed plans for improving the lot of .5% of USFA membership, and their answer for the other 99.5% is "I'll certainly bring up your concerns with our VP candidates."

Goes a long way toward explaining what the USFFC slate is really out to change.

That is probably a bit hyperbolic. I don't think the USFFC slate has no concern for the 99.5%. Dr. Hurley is indeed focused on the needs and issues facing elite fencers - its simply a matter of where her attention has been focused for the past several years. She is indeed most familiar with those issues. I find ZERO fault with her complaints and critiques. Some of her ideas are indeed exceptional. When the NC made its choices, one of the things we told them was, "You have got to get the High Performance Committee or whatever takes its place to reach out to Dr. Hurley, and listen to what she has to say. She has some great ideas about what the national organization could do for elite athlete development."

My concern is that they don't have the experience or abilities to carry out the REST of ambitious program they have laid out, and in attempting to do so, will wreck even further harm upon our organization.

I've known Dr. Hurley for about 15 years, give or take. I respect her accomplishments and those of her daughters. But I don't think they qualify her be USFA president, yet. Serve on an important committee? Sure. Work up from there to be on the BOD in a couple of years? Not a problem. Manage some aspect of elite fencer development? Absolutely. Learn about the rest of the USFA, and how all the interlocking parts work together, and then serve as an officer in a quadrennium or two? Heavens yes. We need talented, smart people like her in our national leadership. I was never unconvinced of her passion. Just her experience with the organization as a whole.

Our Divisions are a wreck. Our National Tournaments are skating by on the edge of serious problems. Our finances are ... well ... lets just call it shaky, and leave it at that. Our international presence has suffered. We have no cohesive program for the promotion of fencing talent from one level to the next. It is the time for boldness, yes. But its also the time for experienced leadership.

We need a group that is more than the sum of its parts.

And if Dr. Hurley takes the time to learn about the rest of the USFA beyond elite athletes, the hows and whys, the ins and outs, and all of the other stuff, then I will be the first one in line to support her candidacy in a quadrennium or two.

And I mean that.

[Dev]

That is probably a bit hyperbolic. I don't think the USFFC slate has no concern for the 99.5%. Dr. Hurley is indeed focused on the needs and issues facing elite fencers - its simply a matter of where her attention has been focused for the past several years. She is indeed most familiar with those issues. I find ZERO fault with her complaints and critiques. Some of her ideas are indeed exceptional. When the NC made its choices, one of the things we told them was, "You have got to get the High Performance Committee or whatever takes its place to reach out to Dr. Hurley, and listen to what she has to say. She has some great ideas about what the national organization could do for elite athlete development."

My concern is that they don't have the experience or abilities to carry out the REST of ambitious program they have laid out, and in attempting to do so, will wreck even further harm upon our organization.

Granted, although I'll make the claim that it's less about hyperbole than just plain cynicism. It's too easy to see the self-interest behind every crusader. In my case, the highlights of the USFFC platform--at least the eye-catching ones--appeared to run contrary to the interests of those of us in the unglamorous masses of fencers, referees, coaches, and volunteers.

I admit that my remarks are probably overly caustic and rooted in my own self-interest as well, but there are a lot more people like me, and like seak (who makes some extremely good points without resorting to my particular brand of counter-productive sarcasm) than there are like Soren Thompson.

I'm glad Dr. Hurley cares and has good ideas, and I'm not doubting your assessment of her. I'm just doubting the motivations behind the drive for change. If what you say is true, though, and the rest of their platform will be difficult to pull off, then I don't think it's worth the risk to the rest of the organization for guaranteed gains in support of elite athletes.

As for Dr. Hurley, I certainly don't agree with the notion that most "grassroots" fencers feel that the USFA needs to "just get out of their way." Most appear grateful that they have National tournaments with qualified referees available in the first place--at least in my neck of the woods--and they don't want to see that undercut. Pushing grassroots opportunities farther away from the USFA and down to the local level means that people stuck in the boondocks have even fewer opportunities to get out and fence professionally run and organized events--something most of the rank-and-file is quite grateful for at present.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


This thread has brought forth a lot opinions and information, by a lot of people. That is in almost all cases a Good Thing. However, there is one person whose recent relevations are IMNSHO completely ill-advised.

In Sweden, deliberations by Nomination Committees are always secret. They might state some limited explanation for why they thought their selections are good ones, but they would never touch upon the topic of those interested parties that they chose not to nominate. Furthermore, the discussions between the NC members leading up to their selections are never revealed.

There are good reasons for this.

First of all, it is in the best interest of the organization that all eligible members can approach the NC in order to state their interest to serve in a elected post. Even if they at first are found wanting, they might well acquire more credentials later on. In that case, it is detrimental to the organization if they felt slighted the first time and therefore chose not to help the organization later on.

Secondly, a public process will make some perfectly useful potential candidates to opt out of serving. This is especially true of those who come to the organization from outside, but might be willing to serve the organization with their work skills.

Thirdly, even a completely fair assessment of a candidate which comes to the NC with his interest to serve can create extremely bad blood within an organization if that assessment gives the impression of being ever-so-slightly denigrating. An impression is here completely sufficient, it is not a defense if the assessment is factually true.

I can assure you that if a member of the NC of a Swedish sports organization would have revealed anything more than the list of nominees (and some boilerplate endorsing sentences), then he would have been taken off the NC within at most a few weeks. If he would have revealed as much as has been revealed in this thread, the Swedish sports organization - a body comprising all various sport NGB´s and above them in jurisdiction - would have stepped in, and punished the NGB which had such a NC member

Monday this week, I attended my club´s yearly meeting in my capacity of beginner training. I know both members of our NC well, but neither of them has said anything whatsoever of their internal deliberations.

And that is the way it should be.


Extremely concerned,

Peter Gustafsson

[T]

Seek, I didn't ignore your first question...I just hadn't gotten to it yet. I am trying to respond to as many questions as possible.

Notes that there will be more transparency if the motions made by Greg D. (otherwise known as nom. committee's candidate for treasurer and current congress rep) at the Feb 2008 board meeting are passed. Are these motions you/your treasurer candidate supports?

Most of what Greg proposes has merit and provides for needed oversight (which is currently missing). However, most of the duties described by Greg are things that should be taking place by paid staff (such as a CFO) which the USFA does not and has not had (in quite a while). We have an accounting function (whose current existence is a mystery) but we have no finance function. What the USFA needs is a CFO (Chief Financial Officer) while the BOD provides the oversight function as Greg describes in his motions. Committees as oversight functions provide more breadth than simply having the Treasurer be responsible for it all (there is no argument from me on that one). I definitely like the oversight function for the reimbursement process (see my note below).

One thing that Greg's proposals do not include is how any/some/all of this financial information is communicated to the members. At least the Board would have a good idea of the budgets, etc. but I suspect most of them already do (at least the ones that have an interest in that area). But what about the membership? How can transparency be accomplished when the information is still kept tight to the chest? The members need to have access to budgets, audit reports, and all other financial information that should be public information for a 501C3.

On a side note: For years, I have heard that the NACs are not profitable. I have to be honest, I cannot find out a definitive answer to that question and this is a big concern to me. I also see wasteful spending that goes unaccounted for and this is big concern to me. I have seen USFA officials pull out wads of money at world championships, etc. and just start peeling off the bills for dinners, drinks, etc. without receipts, without documentation, and without any justification as to why someone was getting their bill paid for and some were not. As a parent, I have personnally been owed over $10,000 for over 5 months at a time (reimbursements owed from a direct USOC grant for Kelley and Courtney for which the USFA was a conduit). I am still owed (an additional) nearly $3000 and much of this expense is over a year old and most of this was team entry fees paid for w.epee team world cup events that the USFA didn't even bother to send a coach to but agreed to pay the entry fee for. This bothers me as a member and it should bother everyone else too (on several levels). The response I get when I inquire about it? Just submit your credit card statements and we will pay your interest charges. Is that anyway to run the financial dealings of a NGB?

Now, I will be the first to say that parents are substantially funding the USFA developmental programs. As a parent, I understand this and gladly accept the responsibility. That is not the point. The point is that I follow the rules, I submit my receipts for valid expenses, and everything appears to go in a black hole somewhere. I inquire about it and get no response or perhaps a generic reponse of 'it is in the pile'. If I knew from the outset that none of the expenses were reimburseable, that would be ok and I would have little basis for complaint. However, that is not the case. The fact is that, personally, I (and many other people from what I understand) are funding the cash flow expenses of the USFA and THAT is what bothers me about the financial position and policies of the USFA. I see funds that go unaccounted for, I see perks being dished out to people based on who they know on the BOD, I do not have access to current financial information (even ones that are a year old would be nice) and I am asked to just accept it. I am tired of accepting mediocrity (actually, worse than mediocrity) from the sport that I have been actively involved in for over 30 years and have poured much of my efforts and energy into.

-- sorry for the rant but people have asked me why I am running for President and why I am forcing a contested election for the Exec Committee positions. This is one of the major reasons. I am tired of accepting (less than) mediocrity. USFencing deserves better; our members deserve better.

[T]

As for Dr. Hurley, I certainly don't agree with the notion that most "grassroots" fencers feel that the USFA needs to "just get out of their way."

Dev, the actual quote was "I have heard from many people that ‘if the USFA would just get out of our way, we would be better off than we are now’. Nowhere did I suggest this voice came from grassroots fencers. I heard this mostly from coaches, club owners, and parents. Why would grassroots fencers want the USFA to get out of their way? The USFA currently doesn't do anything to get in their way (except for setting qualification standards to NAC, JOs, nationals)? On the other hand, divisions and sections have a great impact on clubs and club-based programs and can be very much in the way of progress and club growth.

[TBean]

IF USFA were a university or a corporation, there would be a VP level office with this remit.

No, if the USFA ran itself like a non-profit of equivalent size they would have a Development Director whose only job was to raise money. I work for organization with a much smaller budget and that is my job, additionally we have a part-time Marketing Director in addition to the Executive Director.

[T]

As to the idea of a Winter and summer nationals, as opposed to the current several NAC's plus a summer nationals, this again would not be my preference. I think finding refs might be difficult and people would have to miss school, but also it excludes any sense of regional diversity that we can currently get with NAC's. For instance I will almost certainly not be at summer nationals this year (combo of costly quals, costly plane tickets and lack of time to get to go for free as a ref). I am planning on competing at the Chicago NAC, reasonably cheap airfare, and it's over my spring break. With multiple tournaments to choose from in a season I can choose the one that best fits my budget, time and ability constraints. I think that by only having multiple events over the course of the year for the elites (and presumably for the kids as well) you are excluding recreational fencers/competitive fencers looking for developmentally appropriate tournaments from the national scene.

Seek, Hypothetically, let's say I put you as the chair of the tournament committee... how would you handle the NACs? Keep them like they are? Change them? How? I hear ideas that you are not in favor of but you haven't said what you are in favor of. We need input from everyone... I encourage you to let whomever wins the election to know what your viewpoint is.

And this question doesn't just go to Seek. I'm busy throwing out ideas and busy fending off counter attacks about what is wrong with my ideas. I will admit that I have one perspective. However, I also wise enought to know that there are other perspectives that are equally (and maybe more) valid. In no way do I propose or suggest that I have an answer to everything. What would you suggest? Can there be a consensus or two that the new BOD (whomever happens to be on it) can move forward on in a positive direction?

[oso97]

Peter,

I take EXTREME offense at what you are saying. No ethical lines have been broached, or even approached. At no time have I or any other member of the Nominating Committee disclosed internal deliberations of the Nominating Committee. The USFA NC took great pains during our deliberations to keep them confidential. We also agreed that at no time in the future would anyone disclose the details of what any candidate for office or person we consulted told us.

During the deliberative process in fact, we went out of the way keep rumors from starting. We did not publicize the names of the candidates we were discussing for office (although we did respond to the question when asked directly, and in an "unpublic" forum). When we were finished with our deliberations, we assembled a document that was quite substantially vetted, and spoke to the kind of generalities you mention. When details were included, they were details of "public record" nature - who did what, and that sort of thing.

And now the Nominating Committee has been dissolved. It is over. Kaput. No more, for the next 4 years. Those of us who served on it are now regular members of the USFA, the same as everyone else, with the exception that we have some confidential information that we are bound not to reveal. Not an iota of that confidential information has been revealed.

This is the kind of information that members of the nominating committee agreed would be confidential:
•What someone said about someone else - either a member of the Nominating Committee, one of the candidates, or something another person that we asked advice of
•How a member of the NC voted on a particular question or candidate, the roll that a member took in the deliberations, how active or unactive they were, etc
•Vote totals, other than "unanimous or not-unanimous"
•Perceived negatives that a candidate revealed about themselves that the NC decided as a whole were disqualifying, except when that information was a matter of public record, and in particular if the person publicly disclosed the information themselves
•Identities or identifying information about a person who gave advice to the NC, except for where that advice was procedural and not substantive (like the USFA General Counsel telling us about our duties, and the Secretary telling us she received our report)


These are the things that was agreed were NOT confidential:
•Who served on the Nominating Committee
•People we were interviewing for potential office
•The timeline and general process of our deliberations including how candidates were weighed for suitability for office, but without disclosing the specifics of how a particular candidate met or did not met various criteria
•Questions that were asked of them (so long as the specific responses were kept under wraps).
•The dates, times and locations of our meetings

These guidelines were approved by several persons with extensive experience in protocols for ethical conduct. As you can see, they can be summed up in "Don't talk about what someone else said."

Every last word I or other former members of the NC have written has been in the spirit of this. But that does not mean that we are exempt from having opinions. I trust that having opinions does not arouse the ire of the Swedish Authorities? Because, I intend to espouse my opinions. Which, here in the US is a constitutionally protected right (one, which, I note is lacking in the Swedish Constitution - including the right to criticize the state).

Now then, to specifics. My criticisms of Dr. Hurley's experience and positions are taken directly from her website, and my knowledge of her activities in the USFA by virtue of being in fairly close geographical connection to her base of operations. I have not disclosed a single item that she told the Nominating Committee, except that her answer to a question was "unconvincing" without once mentioning what that answer did or did not include, which, falls under the guidelines for ethical conduct that the NC is bound by. My criticisms of her are based upon her own statements, public record and my own criteria for who I would like to see as the President of the USFA, as a general member, not as a former member of the NC.

My positive comments of the persons we nominated are taken directly from the report of the nominating committee, which is a public document, and available for your perusal on the USFA website.

I have the right to express my own personal opinions about any person who has declared themselves a candidate. I do not have the right to express anyone else's opinions about that person (nor do have I done so). Having served on the NC does not mean that I have signed away the right to express my own opinion, so long as my expression does not include confidential details. Which, in no case has it.

I await your apology.

[TBean]

One thing that Greg's proposals do not include is how any/some/all of this financial information is communicated to the members. At least the Board would have a good idea of the budgets, etc. but I suspect most of them already do (at least the ones that have an interest in that area). But what about the membership? How can transparency be accomplished when the information is still kept tight to the chest? The members need to have access to budgets, audit reports, and all other financial information that should be public information for a 501C3.

Very few non-profits are going to provide year-to-date budgets, cash-flows and other financial information for the public - try calling a non-profit and see the answer you get. They won't provide it to you.

The USFA is obligated to provide to the public is its 990, which is available on Guidestar for anyone who wants to go look. I find it good policy to provide your Audit when someone requests it and if you give out the 990 why not the audit. Most agencies have a budget available for some level of public consumption - again simply smart policy. The latter two do not have to be made public but should be provided upon request.

If the USFA wants to make a policy that its financial information is publically available then they can do so. Simply post everything on thier web-site.

[oso97]

One thing that Greg's proposals do not include is how any/some/all of this financial information is communicated to the members. At least the Board would have a good idea of the budgets, etc. but I suspect most of them already do (at least the ones that have an interest in that area).

Dr. Hurley,

This assumption here cuts to the heart of my criticisms of your candidacy. It is, quite simply, not true. And it reflects the thinking behind a number of other assumptions that are also untrue. I have attended every BOD meeting held in conjunction with a national tournament for the past three years as an observer (just as you or any other member of the organization can). And every single one of them has included members of the BOD fighting to get information about budgets and financial health of the organization from the Executive Director, and being rebuffed, both by the ED and ultimately by the ExCom. Unless the BOD is being given secret access to the financials (which I HIGHLY doubt), they don't have it either. And from the level of frustration I've heard expressed (in open company, not as part of my work on the NC, just to satisfy PeterG), the members of the BOD are just as fed up.

In no way do I propose or suggest that I have an answer to everything.

I have no problems with the answers you've suggested, for the most part. I don't think you're even asking the right QUESTIONS though. See above for just one example.

[ivlobane]

I thought a 501C3 is obligated to provide financial information..? Are you saying the USFA's own board of directors is unable to get financial records?