New development in USFA politics!

[Wise-Epeeist]

... I await your apology.

Please don't do that.
The gentleman expressed his concerns. You clarified. That should be enough to move forward.

I would like to hear more information about how the candidates are dissimilar from their opposite numbers. I can't imagine there are many serious differences that would justify an alternate slate.

[TBean]

I thought a 501C3 is obligated to provide financial information..?

They are obligated to provide thier 990 publically and be audited by an outside firm. Most will make that audit available upon request and some will post in some manner. Most will have a buget of some kind available if requested - what will be used for grants. All of these things are financial records and give you a good idea of the position of the organization.

Most will not provide internal financial docuementation to someone who just calls and asks for it. At all my Board meetings our financial reports are marked confidential.

Try calling the Red Cross and see how far you get trying to get a cash-flow statement or year-to-date budget.

[HDG]

Please don't do that.
The gentleman expressed his concerns. You clarified. That should be enough to move forward.

Allegations of impropriety go well beyond expressions of concern.

[fencerchica]

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.

Seconded. I feel concerned and angered by the dismissiveness, nearly to the point of contempt, that seems to be expressed for (and I quote) "everything other than the top tier of DivI." We already have NACs which are specialized such that those of you who apparently walk on water don't have to associate with the unwashed masses who are rated C and below.

[TBean]

Are you saying the USFA's own board of directors is unable to get financial records?

The USFA does have financial records - honestly you can go to Guidestar and get the 990. If you badger the staff enough you can get an Audit, I have a couple.

What it does not seem to have is reporting mechanisms. It seems as the BOD cannot get reports on the financial position of the USFA during the year - little scarey for a roughly $5 million dollar organization.

This could again come down to internal capacity. Is there anyone capable of understanding and generating these reports currently on staff. Since no one can answer to the status of the accounting system of the USFA we cannot even guess if this level of reporting is possible. If things are not coded with enough granularity it is tough to generate reports out of accounting systems. Plus to generate reports that would mean that the staff has to stay on top of all of processing receipts and payments. I don't think they have the bodies or the skill sets to make that happen.

[Dev]

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.

So which coaches, club owners, and parents are these? I've never heard that from any of the coaches, club owners, and parents I know.

I was under the impression that USFA membership was not a prerequisite for belonging to a fencing club--it regulates and sanctions competition. Can you provide examples of how the USFA can get in the way of club growth when it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it?

Actually, in the latter part of your statement, you conflate divisions and sections with USFA oversight and cite it as an impediment to club and program growth--i.e, a problem. But in the part of the USFFC platform relating to national tournaments, you propose pushing more of the responsibility for large events and NAC qualification onto those same divisions and sections that are "getting in the way." Something about that doesn't line up.

This last bit may be out of line, but: Your points about money management are well-taken, but you'll likely find little sympathy for your lack of reimbursement for your elite fencer's international competition costs from a majority membership who has never even sniffed a World Cup competition and also never will.

[ivlobane]

Seconded. I feel concerned and angered by the dismissiveness, nearly to the point of contempt, that seems to be expressed for (and I quote) "everything other than the top tier of DivI." We already have NACs which are specialized such that those of you who apparently walk on water don't have to associate with the unwashed masses who are rated C and below.

Please use the forum's quote engine. You can copy/paste multiple quotes into a notepad, then paste them all into your post. If there's an easier way to do that, anyone, let me know... This way we can see who said what, when and why...

As to the feeling of contempt, please consider this: if the NACs are trimmed down, all the fencers and logistical support is goign to go down to a more local level, therefore the masses will benefit. The masses are already not so bad, but will only get bigger. If you want just the glamour of participating in a National event, there will still be the Open.

[HDG]

This last bit may be out of line, but: Your points about money management are well-taken, but you'll likely find little sympathy for your lack of reimbursement for your elite fencer's international competition costs from a majority membership who has never even sniffed a World Cup competition and also never will.

While I'm in the never sniffed category, I think that anybody who has ever had an employer, etc. dilly-dally on reimbursing an authorized expense, especially a large one, can sympathize.

[Dev]

While I'm in the never sniffed category, I think that anybody who has ever had an employer, etc. dilly-dally on reimbursing an authorized expense, especially a large one, can sympathize.

Except that this is a sport--and a privelege--not a job.

[keith]

Except that this is a sport--and a privelege--not a job.

perhaps you would feel more sympathetic for the less high and mighty?

A quick search will easily turn up a thread or two with refs grousing about how long it takes them to get paid. Unless you feel it is their privilege as well?

Anway an open question (with many answers) for the floor;

It's easy to say why the USFA runs competitions for team selection but why does it run the other NACs and summer national events?

(I've always reckoned the how should follow the why)

[HDG]

Because fencers want the competition opportunities.

[Mergs]

A quick search will easily turn up a thread or two with refs grousing about how long it takes them to get paid. Unless you feel it is their privilege as well?

And Armorers, and, well just about anyone that has worked a NAC/SN. I'm still waiting on my check from the Richmond NAC.

However, going back to my earlier post, I again ask the question "Why don't we have two organizations, one for elite fencers and, as was so aptly put, the rest of the unwashed masses?"

[dberke]

As to the feeling of contempt, please consider this: if the NACs are trimmed down, all the fencers and logistical support is goign to go down to a more local level, therefore the masses will benefit. The masses are already not so bad, but will only get bigger.

That is a HUGE assumption. Do you have any data to suggest that indeed would happen? Where will this logistical support come from? The USFA? If so, will there be enough trained people (bout committee, refs, armorers, etc.) to fan out across the country each weekend to help run regional events? Or do you rely on local organizers? How about venues? Some parts of the country have the resources end experience to hold large events, but others don't. What happens to them?

If you want just the glamour of participating in a National event, there will still be the Open.

Translation: If you're a Div II or Div III fencer and want to compete among your peers on a national level, you're out of luck.

Dan

[Dev]

perhaps you would feel more sympathetic for the less high and mighty?

A quick search will easily turn up a thread or two with refs grousing about how long it takes them to get paid. Unless you feel it is their privilege as well?

Interesting twist, but apples and oranges. Referees are working. They're rendering a service--essentially taking on a second job that enables the fencers to fence. I have far more sympathy for the referees, you're correct.

Fencers, on the other hand, are playing--even the elite fencers are not under any obligation, nor are they ultimately serving anybody but themselves when they choose to participate.

[ivlobane]

Point 1: That is a HUGE assumption...<snip>...

Point 2: Translation: If you're a Div II or Div III fencer and want to compete among your peers on a national level, you're out of luck.

Dan

• It's is part of the platform of the USFFC slate. Their candidates have business acumen to make this re-organization happen. They are not soviet revolutinaries either, and are not bent on destroying anything before building.
• Something got lost in translation. I'm sorry, English is my second language... If you are a Div2/3 fencer are you competing among your peers at a Div1NAC?

[Dev]

• It's is part of the platform of the USFFC slate. Their candidates have business acumen to make this re-organization happen. They are not soviet revolutinaries either, and are not bent on destroying anything before building it.
• Something got lost in translation. I'm sorry, English is my second language... If you are a Div2/3 fencer are you competing among your peers at a NAC?

Uh, yes.

There are more NACs out there than just Div 1. Way to prove the man's point.

[oso97]

Interesting twist, but apples and oranges. Referees are working. They're rendering a service--essentially taking on a second job that enables the fencers to fence. I have far more sympathy for the referees, you're correct.

Fencers, on the other hand, are playing--even the elite fencers are not under any obligation, nor are they ultimately serving anybody but themselves when they choose to participate.

Bad perspective. On two counts.

#1 - Those elite fencers are representing us. Its their job to do so.

#2 - If you pay attention to what Dr. Hurley was saying you'll find that she was talking about training grants from the USOC that went through the USFA. The USFA never would have had the money, unless the USOC gave it to them. The USOC gave it because of the performance of certain athletes. The money was promised to them and decisions were made based upon that money being available.

Cash flow is a major issue with the current national office staff.

[ivlobane]

Uh, yes.

There are more NACs out there than just Div 1. Way to prove the man's point.

Point taken, I apologize, when I said NAC, I mean Div1NAC, that's the specific semantics...

[dberke]

• It's is part of the platform of the USFFC slate. Their candidates have business acumen to make this re-organization happen. They are not soviet revolutinaries either, and are not bent on destroying anything before building it either.
• Something got lost in translation. I'm sorry, English is my second language... If you are a Div2/3 fencer are you competing among your peers at a NAC?

A Div II/III fencer currently can compete among their peers in the Div II & Div III events at the October and March NACs. There are no "opens" available to them otherwise, unless they are eligible for one of the youth or vet events or have a C and can fence Div I. (Div I-A is available for everyone at SN, if they qualify.)

What competitive opportunities are you proposing for Div II/III fencers on a national scale, if any?

Dan

[Mergs]

I agree with Dan on where the logistical support will come from. A growing trend with NAC's is that the local divisions are refusing to sign contracts to provide LOCs because of the terms and burdens it places on the 'slave labor' category of support required.