New development in USFA politics!

[ivlobane]

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.

Good point, that is why I want to have this election and vote for USFFC. Before you can consider exactly how to do this, you need to be aware of the current flow of finances. A part of their platform is to force this awareness. Currently, it looks like whomever is in control of the cashflow makes it a classified process.

[dberke]

Good point, that is why I want to have this election and vote for USFFC. Before you can consider exactly how to do this, you need to be aware of the current flow of finances. A part of their platform is to force this awareness. Currently, it looks like whomever is in control of the cashflow makes it a classified process.

Are you implying that the nominated slate wouldn't push for exactly that? That's hardly the case - especially with Greg D. as treasurer!

You're doing everyone a disservice by portraying the nominated slate as "part of the status quo." They are very much NOT part of the status quo, and will stir things up as much as the USFFC slate would.

Rather, I think the distinction between the slates boils down to:
- How will the candidates go about implementing the changes necessary? By dictate or by consensus?
- Do the candidates have the background and knowledge of the inner workings of the USFA necessary to get the changes implemented?
- What are the reasons behind each candidate's desire to hold the position?

Keep in mind, one of the slates has been vetted by the nominating committee comprised of 14 people elected by the membership. The other slate has not (except for Ms. Hurley.)

With that said, I do hope that the nominated candidates chime in on this discussion. I think it would be helpful for everyone to hear from them too.

Dan

[kazmer]

I think any reform has to address tournaments and elite fencer development.

This can be done if USFA "franchises " about four permanent regional fencing centers in the USA.

These can be operated by existing clubs that can develop a permanent facility that can host NAC-s ( at least 20 strips ). Eventually all NAC-s and regional tournaments would be held in these centers. Tornament staff and referees would be trained locally around these centers . This would reduce the cost of hosting tournaments by reducing the travel & hotel costs for referees and eliminating the cost of renting facilities. Facilities would keep the entry fees collected at tournaments . They would have to use net earnings (after expenses paid ) to hire coaches to run junior and elite athlete programs , camps etc. all year round. Some elite fencers would eventually relocate close to these centers allowing them to train at top level.Recreational fencers would continue to use the centers like before.

This is a win-win scenario for everyone. The USFA needs to find clubs/investors who are willing to invest and create facilities. In exchange the USFA needs to outsource the tournaments and its revenues to these centers.

[ivlobane]

Are you implying that the nominated slate wouldn't push for exactly that? That's hardly the case - especially with Greg D. as treasurer!

You're doing everyone a disservice by portraying the nominated slate as "part of the status quo." They are very much NOT part of the status quo, and will stir things up as much as the USFFC slate would.

Again, I am being asked to believe this on faith alone. This right here is stirring not so bad, yes? Where is the NomCom slate?

Rather, I think the distinction between the slates boils down to:
- How will the candidates go about implementing the changes necessary? By dictate or by consensus?

Right now the dictation seems to be coming from some Gray Cardinal somewhere, and the USFFC platform includes transparancy.

- Do the candidates have the background and knowledge of the inner workings of the USFA necessary to get the changes implemented?

I am afraid that if a slate was intimately familiar with the inner working of the current USFA, they have already contracted the disease it's sick with.

- What are the reasons behind each candidate's desire to hold the position?

Just read T's posts, I have to get out of here, but will come back later I'm sure... oi...

Keep in mind, one of the slates has been vetted by the nominating committee comprised of 14 people elected by the membership. The other slate has not (except for Ms. Hurley.)

Elected when, how? It really felt like some sort of closed process. Again, any intimacy involved?

With that said, I do hope that the nominated candidates chime in on this discussion. I think it would be helpful for everyone to hear from them too.
Dan

Yes me too, I have not heard from one of them...

[oiuyt]

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...

Using the multiquote functionality.

Tag the MQ button (next to the quote button) for each post-to-be-quoted except for the final one. Tag the quote button for the final post.

You'll get a new window in which to post, with quotes from each of the selected posts.

-B

[ivlobane]

Using the multiquote functionality.

Tag the MQ button (next to the quote button) for each post-to-be-quoted except for the final one. Tag the quote button for the final post.

You'll get a new window in which to post, with quotes from each of the selected posts.

-B

OMG, I feel silly after htmling it all. Live and learn, thank you!

[oso97]

Elected when, how? It really felt like some sort of closed process. Again, any intimacy involved?

10 members of the Nominating Committee were elected by the USFA Congress at its meeting in July 2007. The USFA Congress is composed of representatives of each of the Divisions of the USFA, elected by their division membership. Each division gets at least one representative, and others apportioned on the basis of population. At the meeting, nominations from the floor were solicited. In the case of several individuals being nominated from one Section, the congress as a whole voted on which member would serve.

3 members of the Nominating Committee were elected by the Athlete Advisory Group (as required per USOC statute and our own bylaws for all committees of the USFA). I can not speak to the process by which they were elected.

The following is a list of the individuals, what group they represented, and what they are "known" for in the fencing community. Apologies if I get the details on anyone incorrect.

•Michael Aufrichtig - Metropolitan Section - High level epee fencer, head of the NYAC fencing program
•Daniel Berke - bout committee official, creator of "Fencing Time"
•Aaron Clements - Rocky Mountain Section - referee, section and division adminstration
•Marcella Denton - Great Lakes Section - bout committee official
•Alan Kuver - North Atlantic Section - bout committee, refereeing, developmental level coaching
•Nichole Lechner - Athletes - former national team member
•Ivan Lee - Athletes - Olympic sabre fencer
•Delia Turner - Mid-Atlantic Section - Veteran world champion sabre fencer, developmental level coach
•Evan Ranes - Pacific Coast Section - Referee, veteran epee fencer, tournament administrator (created and ran the Duel in the Desert), USFA Congress representative to Board of Directors
•Laurie Schiller - Midwest Section - Coach of Northwestern University, active in Coaches Association
•David Sierra - Southwest Section - Referee, administrator of a regional fencing circuit, developmental coach
•Erinn Smart - Athletes - Olympic foil fencer
•Jeff Snider - Referee, division administration, coaching

It was as about as diverse a group as you could ask for, and completely independent and separate from the current administration, and existing national power structure of the USFA. We had one junior member of the Board of Directors in our midst, and a member of the Veteran's committee. But everyone had, at some time, interacted with the 'official' part of the USFA, in some capacity (international travel, refereeing, tournament administration, coaching, division and section administration). And been on the "being screwed" side of things in a lot of cases. Certainly been on the "why the heck can't we do things BETTER?" side of things. It was a group of people elected with a mandate, who had never worked together as a group before and stepped up to do an extraordinarily difficult job, and did it well.

We did an incredible amount of research into the state of the USFA, what the current power structures are, who really runs things, where the problems are, who is responsible for them, who has keeping things from getting any worse, who has been fighting for modernization and improvement, and who has been hindering it. And we interviewed an extraordinary number of fantastic candidates. In many cases, conducted multiple interviews with them.

And we selected the individuals whom we felt had the best handle on the problems of the USFA, formed the best team to solve them, and brought the best composite of skills. It was far from a crowning. All of the decisions were extremely thoughtfully considered and debated considerably.

[T]

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.

FYI, the most recent 990 form on Guidestar was the one I was referring to which was 2005.

[seak]

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.

Well let no one say I shirked a challenge

Many of these ideas have been borrowed/adapted from other folks primarily wafath (to give credit not blame )

First, I should probably say I don't mind if NAC's lose money, as long as at the end of the year the USFA has come out neutral financially. What I have heard is that in the past the NAC's lost money, and summer nationals made money to balance it out (ignoring Miami and catering budgets last year). Also, if some of my membership fees go towards subsidizing NAC costs I might be ok with that. Hence I don't feel the need for fewer NAC's, and will therefore only deal with NAC size.

As to NAC size, I think there are two issues that should at least in part be addressed in combination with each other, the problem with the ranking system and NAC size. If there was more granularity in the rankings it would be easier to control the sizes of the different NAC's (I think). That being said I'm not a huge ELO system fan, I think increasing the number of letters in our current structure would work (perhaps having a letter you can only earn by receiving national points) and also having a faster rating phase out plan.

For the NAC's I would set priority deadlines, so for a Div1 all A's and B's get to register first, if the optimal size (set by the BC/TC/BoD whatever) hadn't been reached open it up to the next level down. For Div2 same idea except start with C rather then A etc. Of course all of this would be easier with online registration! The consequences of this system of course are that it will probably be easier for a E rated WS fencer to fence national events then an E men's epee fencer, but I sort of feel that there are many more good competition opportunities at the local level against same gender opponents, and it's easier to earn a higher rating. This system could also work with a numerical rating system, using number cut - offs instead of letters.

Anyways I'm sure it has several flaws and htat you all will pick it apart. Enjoy!

[T]

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?

At the risk of being called a radical rebel for proposing a possible alternative business model (not dictating it, btw, but proposing. After all, how can you reach a consensus or move forward if no one is proposing any ideas?)...

There are plenty of resources to host regional events (and personally, I like the idea of 4 regional permanent centers that kazmer proposes). Furthermore, the business model that involves asking officials and bout committee members to 'help' run events (and the business of the front-office) is ridiculous. This business model is what the entire USFA organizational structure is built on and perpetuating it is, sorry for the use of the term, a status quo or 'business as usual' perspective (FYI, this is what the 'business as usual' comment on our website is referring to -- not the individuals on either the nominating committtee or their slate of candidates). Yes, it is a nonprofit organzation and BOD committee volunteers provide valuable oversight and ideas, and office volunteers help fill in the gaps that the paid staff can't handle but programs, membership services, and necessities like marketing, promotion, and fundraising shouldn't rely predominantly on 'help' from BOD volunteers or consultants (who have no vested interest in the success of their efforts), and (nearly) volunteer referees and bout committee members. I believe the amount and success of the existing fundraising, marketing, promotions, etc efforts of the USFA are a testament to the inadequacies of this flawed business model. Sorry for the digression as that is a whole other topic...

Back to the idea of regional (and national) events. One solution to the lack of logistical support for regional (or even more national) events is to make the logistics/management of fencing tournaments a business venture. For instance, the USFA could encourage the certification of Bout Committee “companies” and Referee “companies” (ie, fencing event specialists) that would bid on running tournaments. Selection of “companies” would be based on both the quality of the proposal, qualifications of the “company” employees/management, and cost. These companies would be evaluated and based on their performance would/would not be used in subsequent events. Each event would request proposals/bids for tournament operations or perhaps contracts could be done on an annual basis. If regional events are the direction the USFA takes, then these events would also have to use 'sanctioned' event management companies in order to give out rankings or points. The more and higher-level of points available, the higher the credentials would have to be for that company. This model could be purshed farther (if the 4 permanent centers, mentioned above, were not operationalized, by requesting bids on turn-key operations that include finding a venue and negotiating that agreement (based on critiera setup in a RFP - request for proposals). In turn, these companies would then be motivated to train and pay their employees (ie, referees, bout committee personal, armorers, etc.) to run their contracts. This would free up a lot of USFA resources in terms of human time, tournament management, reimbursements, logistics, and the list goes on. In addition, it would provide an opportunity for fencing junkies (and I use that as a term of endearment) to make a living at the sport (or at least a nice second income).

I can see where there would be experienced referees and bout committee people that could form excellent companies and in turn, could make a living out of it. Then the USFA members could expect a quality service from people that are being fairly compensated for their time. The NACs and other events would not have to rely on volunteers or (almost) volunteers to 'help' run these events. In addition, the problem of 'pushing events' on the divsions or sections would no longer be a problem as they probably wouldn't be obliged to do hardly anything.

Will it cost money - yes, but NACs already cost a lot of money. I wouldn't be surprised if a private company could do it cheaper and better if there was a profit motive. Would the USFA benefit? Yes, this would free-up the office staff to do the jobs they were hired for as opposed to working the tournaments (and entry form paperwork). And in reference to the new employees described above - yes, they will cost money but can the USFA afford not to start running its show using a better business model? With a business model that includes dedicated staff to marketing, fundraising, and promotion, the USFA income will increase substantially - more than paying for the increased salary items. If the USFA wants to grow, we need to start adding the capacity to do so.

As I said above, this is ONE proposal that should, at a minimim, be reviewed and considered.

[TBean]

FYI, the most recent 990 form on Guidestar was the one I was referring to which was 2005.

The taxes for fiscal year 8/01/2005 to 7/31/2006 are there. That would be the 2006 990 form. I would not expect the taxes for fiscal year ending 7/31/2007 to be up on Guidestar and the USFA does not control that anyway. I would call the USFA for that information if I wanted it but would not be surprised if they told me that the audit and the taxes are not completed yet.

I believe you are right about the business model for the organization needing to change for it to be effective. Initiatives must be staff driven with oversight and ideas from the Board, the Board and volunteers cannot be tasked with some of this work - it must be handled by professional staff. The organization is well beyond the grassroots stage in its insitutional lifecycle, it must embrace the necessary changes to be successful. The lack of staff to adequately run the organization and lack of dedicated personnel in the field of fundraising, marketing and promotion is really quite poor at this stage of the game.

[T]

The taxes for fiscal year 8/31/2005 to 7/31/2006 are there. That would be the 2006 990 form. I would not expect the taxes for fiscal year ending 7/31/2007 to be up on Guidestar and the USFA does not control that anyway.

My apologies, they were not posted a month ago. It must be a recent addition.

[Durando]

Will it cost money - yes, but NACs already cost a lot of money. I wouldn't be surprised if a private company could do it cheaper and better if there was a profit motive. Would the USFA benefit? Yes, this would free-up the office staff to do the jobs they were hired for as opposed to working the tournaments (and entry form paperwork).

This alone predisposes me to vote against you. The evidence against the efficiency of privatization is legion and stretches from British Rail to ENRON to EDF/GDF to Katrina relief to Operation Iraqi Freedom, etc. Just because people are exposed to a profit motive doesn't mean that altruistic self-interest somehow invokes itself. This is a tiresome and naive position.
More often, I think, it leads to people gaming the system.

In order to overcome my negative predisposition, you are going to have to do an awful lot of persuasive describing and explaining (but do spare us the argumentation on the validity of privatization itself--it isn't necessary to be convincing philosophically, just within the context of the USFA). The graphs and charts necessary for this convincing presentation will be automatically disqualified if they are provided by the prospective vendors. Also, the cost of responsible, effective oversight will have to be subtracted from any cost efficiency.

[Allen Evans]

When you consider the fact that many of the people running/working tournaments are paid approximately $75 for a ten to twelve hour day, I have a hard time making the math work out that would let Tournament Companies both make a profit and offer services cheaper than the volunteers currently working.

Of course, labor costs are only a small part of running an NAC. Venue expenses and transportation of officials (and equipment) make up a larger portion of NAC costs. Regional centers may reduce (or eliminate) some of those costs. But placing and building/leasing four fencing centers is not going to be a trivial endeavor in terms of politics or expense. And those centers are going to have a lot of sunk costs that will have to be recovered. Will the spaces get enough use to justify their expense?

I'm with Durando on this. Privatizing the running of NAC is a bold and radical idea, but it doesn't make it a good idea.

Allen Evans

[T]

Well, I'm traveling to the JOs today so you won't hear too much from me this weekend. Depending on your perspective, this may be a good thing.

If you want to talk to me - you can find me around the venue on Sat and Sunday and at the BOD meeting on Sunday morning. I am always happy to talk with fencers who are interested in the election (from whatever perspective).

Tracy

[ivlobane]

This alone predisposes me to vote against you. The evidence against the efficiency of privatization is legion and stretches from British Rail to ENRON to EDF/GDF to Katrina relief to Operation Iraqi Freedom, etc...

One problem with these examples is that they were "no bid" contracts available only to those intimately familiar with the administration.

[ivlobane]

And the next question is: are there any facilities in the country that have even 10 competition size strips, let alone 20?

[Durando]

One problem with these examples is that they were "no bid" contracts available only to those intimately familiar with the administration.

No, this is not a problem with my examples. Rather, these are problems that have to be adequately addressed before talking about hypothetical policy for the USFA. I raise the examples because they are of possible concern. If you like, I could dig up others--I've worked as a translator to a firm which specializes in privatizing infrastructure throughout South America, so I have some basic notions of how this can work and the sort of problems which arise. If, however, you are saying that these examples are not germane because "If elected we wouldn't fall into that trap," then you guarantee my opposition, for you are simply saying we have a shiny philosophy that we should all believe in.

The difficulty of bidding and maintenance of a cost-effective working relationship with a vendor are almost always underestimated and, in my experience, lead to an operational situation where it is easier to excuse an underperforming vendor than it is to fire them and rebid: there usually isn't enough stick to keep the donkey going so the outsourcer's only solution is to keep adding carrot. In any case, a high level administrator has to be tasked to oversight.

This concern is, of course, prior to raising the logistical difficulty of outsourcing staff in venues across the nation. I'm simply not going to swallow the privatization idea on faith alone, as so many Americans have seemed willing to do in the past decade.

[ivlobane]

I'm with Durando on this. Privatizing the running of NAC is a bold and radical idea, but it doesn't make it a good idea.
Allen Evans

I'm on the fence about this, but certainly these type of things have to be examined. That requires transparancy and cooperation/subordination of the USFA executive office.

[Durando]

And the next question is: are there any facilities in the country that have even 10 competition size strips, let alone 20?

Or, better, what is USFA's role in increasing the number of such venues?