Nominating Committee Candidates for USFA Office

[ivlobane]

Good luck with your customers.

[seak]

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

Really, you don't think Greg and Brad want online registration and will push hard to see it done?

[noodle]

Really, you don't think Greg and Brad want online registration and will push hard to see it done?

i want it so bad i'm willing to do it myself.

[seak]

I know, hence why I was quoting ivlobane

[noodle]

I know, hence why I was quoting ivlobane

i know, that was more for his reference, not yours

[KD5MDK]

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

USFFC.

This goes to show how little experience you have with the Nominees.

[ysbadadden]

Thanks for posting the information. We needed it because the other slate has posted its info.

Now what we need is some serious discussion.

[Inquartata]

Online registration is a luxury without which we can live. We've done so for years, after all. If it happens it must be possible.

And I will reiterate: campaign promises are not currency. Don't start spending them before the election. Whatever either side says it will do, it may not be able to do. Or it may change it's mind after being elected.

Vote for whoever you think is most capable and motivated, not for whoever offers you more chickens in every pot.

[fencinginDC]

Part of the problem in an organization like this is that people see the problems, and have some good ideas about how to fix them, but nobody takes the time (or, in all fairness, has the time) to do the specific things necessary for change to occur.

Greg D. took some very specific steps based on specific problems. He took the time needed to understand the problem, gathered information about solutions, and then wrote a proposed that could be voted and acted upon. And that was a big issue.

Unless you provide something that can be either voted "yes" or "no", you really haven't done anything but talk. Of course, when you have a lot of issues that all need attention, priorities have to be established, and that is where the Board has often failed.

For example:
Peet, you have likely thought through the issues involved in developing an online registration system, understand confidentiality of data, know the technical issues... Couldn't you (I might be mistakenly thinking that you haven't already done this) provide a very detailed proposal, that addresses all the concerns you know will be offered? I don't mean a two-page brief, but a convincing argument for how/why/when this could be done, and at what cost.

TBean or someone else mentioned some specific things that could be done to raise funds from current members (some pretty specific comments about an insert in American Fencing). Couldn't she put forward a plan that would address all the related issues, including costs? It wouldn't have to be THE PLAN for fundraising at the USFA, just some steps that would have an impact now.

Some stuff, like our ratings system, are a lot more complicated, but some are pretty easy.

What about T writing a set of criteria for selecting the national teams, with help from other, that was fair and transparent? Having a specific recommendation presented for a vote is the only way that kind of change is going to made. Politics might create roadblocks, but the individuals erecting those roadblocks would be put in a position to explain why AND come up with a better fair/open solution.

What about a plan for restructuring the way the USFA operates, changing from a big, clumsy, ineffective Board to one that is operated like most non-profit organization? I think someone mentioned some pretty specific steps for that as well. It might not end up being the final solution, but a proposal could start the process rolling.

Is there any reason why recommendation cannot be made from individuals, without be charged to do so through a task force or committee? It seems like this would improve the "accountability" issue since once a proposal is offered, the Executive Committee would be responsible for how it is dealt with, or why it wasn't dealt with.

[KD5MDK]

I think that all proposals really should be filtered through the Board first, by having a member present it to the rest. Everybody knows there are a lot of crackpots and clueless people in fencing, and if all proposals that anyone came up with had to be seriously considered, I think very little else would get done, and many good ideas would be ignored because they were drowned out by the others. Everybody has a Section Rep representing them, as well as 4 members selected from the Congress, Athlete Reps, etc and they represent a wide diversity of interests and perspectives. If you can interest one of them in your idea, they should be willing to present it to the BoD for consideration. If you can't interest any of them? You idea probably needs a lot more work.

What about a plan for restructuring the way the USFA operates, changing from a big, clumsy, ineffective Board to one that is operated like most non-profit organization? I think someone mentioned some pretty specific steps for that as well. It might not end up being the final solution, but a proposal could start the process rolling.

One thing we have that most organizations don't have is strong representation from the general membership. I think that is a substantial advantage to the USFA and not something that should be tossed aside in the interest of efficiency. The effectiveness of the Board is a representation of who is on it (and the Executive Committee, which can easily railroad the Board depending on the personalities involved). If you want a more effective Board, make sure the 5 people you can influence (Section and Congress Reps) are competent and effective people, and I think the rest will follow.

[T]

One thing we have that most organizations don't have is strong representation from the general membership. I think that is a substantial advantage to the USFA and not something that should be tossed aside in the interest of efficiency. The effectiveness of the Board ...

You are comparing apples to oranges. Efficiency is not the same thing as effectiveness. They are two completely different things. While it may be a substantial advantage in some areas of decision-making (such as developing a consensus on organizational goals) in many areas (such as getting things done) the current 'committee' structure is extremely ineffective and inefficient. Essentially, it is like trying to move a freight train with a volkswagen. It may move eventually, but it moves so slowly that by the time the decisions are implemented, we have incurred significant opportunity costs and many of the variables that went into the decision-making process no longer apply. You can't have an organization that depends on a committee-driven, bureacracratic structure and expect it to be able to adapt and change as technology and the environment (both domestically and internationally) change. Most committees should be used as a resource and in a consultative process. They should not be relied on to carry out the programs that are essential to the achievement of the organizational goals.

Even the USOC has suggested that the USFA needs to move toward a more staff-driven organization. Am I suggesting that we drop all of the committees? No, I think the committee members are a valuable resource. For instance, while I have issues with the current HPC, I think that this committee, if structured appropriately and held accountable, should be the major emphasis on decisions relating to international team selection, etc. We need to have multiple perspectives to ensure that the system is unbiased. Checks and balances are necessary to ensure fairness in this area.

[KD5MDK]

I don't see any direct correlation between the structure of the Board of Director and the committees of the USFA. Many committee members are not Board members and I think everybody agrees that the current structure and membership of committees needs to be revamped. However, fencinginDC proposed restructuring the Board, which is a very different thing.

I still maintain that who is involved is as or more important than the exact process. Processes can keep people from doing too much harm, but any time authority is delegated to the overwhelmed, the lazy or the clueless you'll receive poor results, whether the process is a committee or a dictatorship.

[fencinginDC]

This would be a good conversation in person.

KD5MDK might have a lot of experience with Board governance but we are somehow on polar opposites in our views.

In almost every example I have ever seen, the role of the Board is to provide organizational vision, fiduciary oversight, and to assume responsibility for things getting done once the Board agrees on a direction/action. Individual Board members LEAD the committees and depend on the individuals on those committees to develop effective solutions. The committees are like the wheels on a car, with the Board providing the steering.

Active participation by a representative group of individual USFA members comes from work on the committees, who are selected to participate based on their expertise.

The USFA membership as a whole participates in the process by elected the Board. The Board involves the USFA membership through the work done by the committees.

What we have now, to a large extent, are a bunch of people with opinions and experience. We are essentially trying to herd cats. NOBODY is doing the job that is most critical to an organization... providing leadership. How many times does that have to be said?

The structure described above is used by the vast majority of non-profit organizations, and corporations. To be blunt, we are very likely going nowhere without the change.

I don't see any direct correlation between the structure of the Board of Director and the committees of the USFA. Many committee members are not Board members and I think everybody agrees that the current structure and membership of committees needs to be revamped. However, fencinginDC proposed restructuring the Board, which is a very different thing.

I still maintain that who is involved is as or more important than the exact process. Processes can keep people from doing too much harm, but any time authority is delegated to the overwhelmed, the lazy or the clueless you'll receive poor results, whether the process is a committee or a dictatorship.

[oso97]

This would be a good conversation in person.

KD5MDK might have a lot of experience with Board governance but we are somehow on polar opposites in our views.

In almost every example I have ever seen, the role of the Board is to provide organizational vision, fiduciary oversight, and to assume responsibility for things getting done once the Board agrees on a direction/action. Individual Board members LEAD the committees and depend on the individuals on those committees to develop effective solutions. The committees are like the wheels on a car, with the Board providing the steering.

Active participation by a representative group of individual USFA members comes from work on the committees, who are selected to participate based on their expertise.

The USFA membership as a whole participates in the process by elected the Board. The Board involves the USFA membership through the work done by the committees.

What we have now, to a large extent, are a bunch of people with opinions and experience. We are essentially trying to herd cats. NOBODY is doing the job that is most critical to an organization... providing leadership. How many times does that have to be said?

The structure described above is used by the vast majority of non-profit organizations, and corporations. To be blunt, we are very likely going nowhere without the change.

So, what you're saying is we need a bylaws review? Because the current representational nature of the board is stipulated in our bylaws. But that is not to say an effective BOD with strong leadership can't be effective. Look at the group we had running things last Quad. Stacey Johnson's administration was widely praised as being quite forward thinking, proactive and responsive.

[fencinginDC]

Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting. I am fairly sure that the USOC has recommended the same thing.

There's no question that good things have been done before. I don't know Stacey Johnson but a good leader can certainly have an impact. What I'm suggesting is a good structure that leverages the the abilities of many people like her.

Think about it this way: If I understand it correctly, the Board we now have includes people who volunteered and were voted in through the Divisions and Sections. There are also USFA officers and committee heads. The current structure have no ability to influence who those Division/Section people will be, or (more importantly) if they have any of the skills actually needed by the USFA. In terms of effectiveness, that is simply chaos, and the reason why the Board mostly just exists and the Executive Committee directs the organization.

So, what you're saying is we need a bylaws review? Because the current representational nature of the board is stipulated in our bylaws. But that is not to say an effective BOD with strong leadership can't be effective. Look at the group we had running things last Quad. Stacey Johnson's administration was widely praised as being quite forward thinking, proactive and responsive.

[dberke]

Think about it this way: If I understand it correctly, the Board we now have includes people who volunteered and were voted in through the Divisions and Sections. There are also USFA officers and committee heads. The current structure have no ability to influence who those Division/Section people will be, or (more importantly) if they have any of the skills actually needed by the USFA. In terms of effectiveness, that is simply chaos, and the reason why the Board mostly just exists and the Executive Committee directs the organization.

What you describe is not the fault of the system of governance, but rather, the apathy of the membership. If you, as a member, feel that the Board representatives elected by each Section should have demonstrated skills before they are seated on the Board (a feeling that I agreee with, BTW), then it is up to the membership of each section to elect someone with those skills. If you don't think your current representitive has the proper skillset currently needed by the USFA, find someone in your section that does and encourage them to run.

The USFA's governance is similar to our country's form of representational government. There are no requirements that our politicians have a background in law, just as there are no requirements that our section reps know anything about fencing. It's up to the constituents to evaluate the candidates and (hopefully) select the one who has the best set of skills to deal with the issues of the day. Unfortunately, most USFA members don't care enough to scrutinize the candidates - if they even have a choice!

Then again, in a country where only half of the eligible voters even bother voting for president, does this come as much of a surprise?

Dan

[fencinginDC]

I'm not making my point very well...

You are describing a method (the current method) that forces certain aspects of good organizational management into a existing system that is, by its nature, INCAPABLE of providing effective and balanced leadership unless its by dumb luck.

The system I described is SPECIFICALLY created to allow an organizational body to identify the specific skills it needs to operate most effectively, then seek out the most qualified people for those Board positions, and then present a slate of officers that provides the best opportunity to successfully lead the USFA.

There just isn't a way to do that under the current structure. In fact, it is intended to be decentralized and works to specifically avoid that kind of cooperation.

Apathy is, in large part, the result of a lack of confidence that anything we do as one of many layers of sub-groups will have any impact on the organization as a whole.

I don't know that the approach I described is the "best" system, but I have tried to provide specific reasons for how the USFA would benefit if adopted. So far, I have not seen any argument that justifies the current system in a specific and factual manner. And please don't claim that the current system is more representative, because what I suggest provides for a vote of for the Board (by all members), and participation in USFA committees (which have an opportunity to involve many more USFA members if managed correctly).

What you describe is not the fault of the system of governance, but rather, the apathy of the membership. If you, as a member, feel that the Board representatives elected by each Section should have demonstrated skills before they are seated on the Board (a feeling that I agreee with, BTW), then it is up to the membership of each section to elect someone with those skills. If you don't think your current representitive has the proper skillset currently needed by the USFA, find someone in your section that does and encourage them to run.

The USFA's governance is similar to our country's form of representational government. There are no requirements that our politicians have a background in law, just as there are no requirements that our section reps know anything about fencing. It's up to the constituents to evaluate the candidates and (hopefully) select the one who has the best set of skills to deal with the issues of the day. Unfortunately, most USFA members don't care enough to scrutinize the candidates - if they even have a choice!

Then again, in a country where only half of the eligible voters even bother voting for president, does this come as much of a surprise?

Dan

[sheck]

There are no requirements that our politicians have a background in law,
Dan

Could of fooled me.

[oso97]

Could of fooled me.

You must be joking, yes?

[sheck]

You must be joking, yes?

I live in the DC area. LOL!