Nominating Committee Candidates for USFA Office

[T]

Bravery has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Our Bylaws provide explicit instructions on how contested elections are to be run.

And specific instructions on how to contest the election are also stated in the Bylaws. Are you saying that any USFA member doesn't have the right to contest the election if they can get the required number of signatures? Or if anyone has a difference of opinion than you, the bylaws don't apply?

We can't pick and choose which part of the bylaws to adhere to and which ones not. So just because exercising one part of the Bylaws may cost some money it shouldn't be done? What about all of those little cards that were sent out to every member with the NC committee slate on them (after all, the info has been posted on the website for more than a month)? The bylaws specified it should be done but it probably cost over $10,000 as it was sent to every single member - not just voting members (again, as specified in the bylaws).

And if the NC had enough foresight to be concerned about costs, then they could have had their NC slate names printed in the American Fencing magazine (as provided in the bylaws) whose official deadline was Nov 1. This would have required an adjustment in the timeline but could have been reasonably done. And this assumes that the due date couldn’t have been postponed a couple of weeks for an official USFA advertisement. As an advertisement, it would have cost $550 or if you really wanted to go all out, it would cost a bit more. But I suspect that since it was an official USFA announcement, it wouldn’t have cost anything (except the adjustment in the process timeline).

If the BoD thought that that the election process should be changed - as even you suggested in a previous thread that the process was probably not adequate - they could have proposed bylaw changes last year to get them ratified in time for the election. Another issue that could have saved some money that was overlooked by the current BoD.

And what about all of those faxes that are received and sent for tournament registrations? Not to mention the human resources required to handle the faxes and to enter the registration data by office staff. And what about all of that registration paperwork that is mailed out to every entrant (that is available online) and the cost of all of those little membership cards that get lost and we don't really need anyway since membership lists are readily available online?

Then we could talk about all of those plane tickets bought for short-notice travel for both international and national events. And the list goes on…

Between bylaw specification and wasteful spending processes, the money for an election could have easily been paid for. Nonetheless, you are suggesting that because of all of the wasteful spending that went on before, we can’t afford an election now?

I would suggest that instead of being a reason not to hold an election, this provides validation for the need to hold one.

www.usfencersforchange.com

[epeemike81]

And specific instructions on how to contest the election are also stated in the Bylaws. Are you saying that any USFA member doesn't have the right to contest the election if they can get the required number of signatures? Or if anyone has a difference of opinion than you, the bylaws don't apply?

We can't pick and choose which part of the bylaws to adhere to and which ones not. So just because exercising one part of the Bylaws may cost some money it shouldn't be done? What about all of those little cards that were sent out to every member with the NC committee slate on them (after all, the info has been posted on the website for more than a month)? The bylaws specified it should be done but it probably cost over $10,000 as it was sent to every single member - not just voting members (again, as specified in the bylaws).

And if the NC had enough foresight to be concerned about costs, then they could have had their NC slate names printed in the American Fencing magazine (as provided in the bylaws) whose official deadline was Nov 1. This would have required an adjustment in the timeline but could have been reasonably done. And this assumes that the due date couldn’t have been postponed a couple of weeks for an official USFA advertisement. As an advertisement, it would have cost $550 or if you really wanted to go all out, it would cost a bit more. But I suspect that since it was an official USFA announcement, it wouldn’t have cost anything (except the adjustment in the process timeline).

If the BoD thought that that the election process should be changed - as even you suggested in a previous thread that the process was probably not adequate - they could have proposed bylaw changes last year to get them ratified in time for the election. Another issue that could have saved some money that was overlooked by the current BoD.

And what about all of those faxes that are received and sent for tournament registrations? Not to mention the human resources required to handle the faxes and to enter the registration data by office staff. And what about all of that registration paperwork that is mailed out to every entrant (that is available online) and the cost of all of those little membership cards that get lost and we don't really need anyway since membership lists are readily available online?

Then we could talk about all of those plane tickets bought for short-notice travel for both international and national events. And the list goes on…

Between bylaw specification and wasteful spending processes, the money for an election could have easily been paid for. Nonetheless, you are suggesting that because of all of the wasteful spending that went on before, we can’t afford an election now?

I would suggest that instead of being a reason not to hold an election, this provides validation for the need to hold one.

www.usfencersforchange.com

wow, way to put words in his mouth. Being sensationalistic and inflammatory is hardly behavior which inspires confidence in your ability to adequately represent the USFA at the FIE level.

Nobody has ever said you don't have the right to contest the election should you get enough signatures.

Many people (myself included) have said that we don't support the action.

-m

[oso97]

And specific instructions on how to contest the election are also stated in the Bylaws. Are you saying that any USFA member doesn't have the right to contest the election if they can get the required number of signatures? Or if anyone has a difference of opinion than you, the bylaws don't apply?

{ranting snipped for clarity}

No Tracy, that is not what I am implying. Seems like you're looking for a fight any which way you can get it.

I was responding to JEC's idea that we hold an internet election that such an idea was impossible due to restrictions on the Bylaws. Actually, I think its a really GOOD idea, but one that is simply not feasible, and will require a bylaw amendment. In fact, there are quite a number of things in our bylaws that need updating and reworking.

The election will be an expense. A large one. I feel it is proper that people who support that expense have some idea what it is. If enough of the membership feels that such an expense is valid (by signing your petition), then we will have an election. Personally, I'd rather spend that money on something like, oh, travel expenses for athletes to Beijing. But, if we have to spend it, we have to spend it.

As far as the rest of your provocations, they are so transparently an attempt to start a flame war, they are not even worthy of a response.

[T]

That is going to be some expensive copying and postage!

The implication in this posting was that because it will be "some expensive copying and postage" that we shouldn't have an election.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

The implication in this posting was that because it will be "some expensive copying and postage" that we shouldn't have an election.

Which is a valid opinion. If someone thinks that the NC slate is a better slate than the USFFC, then why waste the money to hold an election? It's expensive, the USFA is in some sort of financial problem, it doesn't make sense to hold an election if you believe the NC slate is better.

[Mr Epee]

If someone thinks that the NC slate is a better slate than the USFFC, then why waste the money to hold an election?

It provides the individuals selected for office with a mandate from the general membership, and helps combat the illusion that leadership is appointed by a committee of insiders.

That has to be worth something, right?

It also encourages candidates to reach out to the membership and provide information about their vision for the future of fencing in the US. Elections serve wonderful catalysts for public discussion about the important issues in our sport.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

It provides the individuals selected for office with a mandate from the general membership, and helps combat the illusion that leadership is appointed by a committee of insiders.

That has to be worth something, right?

It also encourages candidates to reach out to the membership and provide information about their vision for the future of fencing in the US. Elections serve wonderful catalysts for public discussion about the important issues in our sport.

Meh. I guess. Not really though. How many members of the USFA do you think will actually care? How much discourse, especially say, outside of f.net, do you think is actually going to occur? I don't really see this leading to much interest from the common USFA member.

And everyone keeps saying the elected slate will go into office with a "mandate from the general membership." What exactly is this mandate? What exactly are they being instructed to do when they are elected? I'd hazard to say it's the exact same thing that a group appointed to the position would feel obligated to do. I don't really see where holding an election means that there is a mandate for the elected officials to follow. On the issue of "combating the illusion that leadership is being appointed by a committee of insiders," I'd have to say that anyone is allowed to go to those meetings. That you elected your officials who helped put together the committee to select the nominees. No election does not necessarily make the process bad.

For me though, more importantly, is that I know some of the people that were nominated and I think they're going to do a great job. So why waste money/time and risk having another group come in, who IMO would probably not do as good a job?

[fluidfencer]

If folks would quit this us-versus-them stuff and put the interests of the USFA first, we wouldn't be wasting all this time and effort. There are some significant problems to fix, and I'm pretty tired of people who think they have the answers.

How about this: The nominated slate and alternative slate could actually talk and find common goals. If you get stuck, bring in people both groups respect. Establish priorities, set deadlines for alternatives or recommendations, determine what resources will be needed (people and otherwise), solicit feedback, and make some blasted decisions. I realize it's not as easy as that sounds, but it's not remotely are difficult as people are making it either.

You know what would be really cool? Everyone on both slates should decline their nomination and find people who can really do the best job, without wanting it so badly.

[epeemike81]

If folks would quit this us-versus-them stuff and put the interests of the USFA first, we wouldn't be wasting all this time and effort. There are some significant problems to fix, and I'm pretty tired of people who think they have the answers.

How about this: The nominated slate and alternative slate could actually talk and find common goals. If you get stuck, bring in people both groups respect. Establish priorities, set deadlines for alternatives or recommendations, determine what resources will be needed (people and otherwise), solicit feedback, and make some blasted decisions. I realize it's not as easy as that sounds, but it's not remotely are difficult as people are making it either.

You know what would be really cool? Everyone on both slates should decline their nomination and find people who can really do the best job, without wanting it so badly.

and if they ARE the "people who can really do the best job"? I'd be hard pressed to find somebody who would be a better treasurer than Greg or a better Secretary than Brad.

Disclaimer: this should not be seen as a slight on the other NC candidates. I feel that they are strongly qualified as well, but due to the specific nature of the treasurer and secretary positions it's easier to see the strong qualifications.

-m

[KD5MDK]

I'd be hard pressed to find somebody who would be a better treasurer than Greg or a better Secretary than Brad.

You're presuming it is possible. Given that people who serve willingly are superior to those dragged into it and that nobody else stepped forward at all during the nominating process and expressed an interest, I think that's it is unlikely you could.

[Mauler]

I'd be hard pressed to find somebody who would be a better treasurer than Greg or a better Secretary than Brad.

I take it you're running for the understatement of the year contest?

[fluidfencer]

Greg and Brad have consistently been used as good examples of people with valuable skills and a desire to put good decisions ahead of politics. There are others that would be willing to make a commitment to help if they believed that their time and energy would not be wasted. If people are not stepping forward, it's because the current environment is one in which they feel they cannot be effective/successful.

People like Greg and Brad provide the best opportunity in many years for effective leadership at the USFA. They would be the first to admit (another sign of good leadership) that they don't have the skills to do it alone. You don't create a strong team by waiting around for people to volunteer. You identify the best people and convince they to join the cause by providing well defined reasons and the confidence that their efforts will have meaning.

Although every situation is different, I feel rather strongly that the people you have to convince to join are EXACTLY those best able to do the job. Once involved, however, I doubt there will be much patience for what has gone on in the past.

You're presuming it is possible. Given that people who serve willingly are superior to those dragged into it and that nobody else stepped forward at all during the nominating process and expressed an interest, I think that's it is unlikely you could.

[oiuyt]

There have been a number of requests for a platform from the group of officers proposed by the nominating committee. This is a response to that request.

The nominated candidates have posted our preliminary plans and positions to a new website: http://usfanominees.com/

These plans are still in development and we're looking for feedback and suggestions as we continue to expand them. You can contact us by email at usfanominees@gmail.com.

One thing that I'd specifically like to point out is that we're proposing a change in the organizational structure and role of the various Vice Presidents. For the past few quads the three Vice Presidents have divided their roles and duties into International, Domestic and Coaching.

Alternatively, we're planning to split things into "Organizational Development", "Resource Development", and "Athlete Development". This should allow for more coherent planning and implementation of programs, as well as break down some of the barriers to communications that have built up over the years.

-B

[KD5MDK]

Do you plan to have each VP responsible for targets in each domain, or do you have a VP who will specialize in each one?

That's a very nice site.

[500gms]

Just a reminder...

Kalle and Brad will be at NJ Fencing Alliance, 54 Burnett Ave., Maplewood NJ 07040 tomorrow late afternoon (6pm-8pm)to discuss their platform and anything else anyone else wants to discuss about fencing.

Everyone is welcome. There's ample parking and plenty of room.. So if you're in NJ or NY or Connecticut or PA and you want to participate come on over. It's free and we'll even serve you coffee and cookies. April 6th, 6-8 pm.

[telkanuru]

Once again....

[ivlobane]

Look, do yall want online registration or more pseudo-meetings and coffee/cookie nicieties?

USFFC.

[noodle]

Look, do yall want online registration or more pseudo-meetings and coffee/cookie nicieties?

USFFC.

no, i don't want online registration, because i was thinking of making an online registration webpage on my own, which would be defeated in that regard unless the USFA decided to pay me to get it done

[ivlobane]

Seems like you like to chew on your own tail.

[noodle]

Seems like you like to chew on your own tail.

i prefer to call it entrepreneurship.