Nominating Committee Candidates for USFA Office

[Mr Epee]

He owns the Redlands Fencing Center in Oklahoma City, and has also started and turned over to his coaches four other clubs in Oklahoma.

According to this statement, I would expect there to be five fencing clubs in Oklahoma (Redlands + four others). The USFA "Find a Club" service only lists two clubs in Oklahoma. There was a "franchise club" in Tulsa that struggled along for a few years and then unfortunately folded recently. I'm reasonably aware of that area, but can't for the life of me remember any other associated clubs.

I used the wayback portal to look at the old USFA site where I found club called "Irish Fencing"... that seems to have disappeared. Their club site claimed that they "Train and Fence at the Redlands Fencing Centre", so I'm not sure that counts as an additional club that was started and turned over. Does it? Maybe. I don't know.

Can anyone remember where these other clubs were, and what happened to them?

[oso97]

According to this statement, I would expect there to be five fencing clubs in Oklahoma (Redlands + four others). The USFA "Find a Club" service only lists two clubs in
Oklahoma. There was a "franchise club" in Tulsa that struggled along for a few years and then unfortunately folded recently. I'm reasonably aware of that area, but can't for the life of me remember any other associated clubs.

I used the wayback portal to look at the old USFA site where I found club called "Irish Fencing"... that seems to have disappeared. Their club site claimed that they "Train and Fence at the Redlands Fencing Centre", so I'm not sure that counts as an additional club that was started and turned over. Does it? Maybe. I don't know.

Can anyone remember where these other clubs were, and what happened to them?

Well, there is Tulsa, as you mentioned. Then, Oklahoma Sport Fencing in Edmund (he trained their coaches, Bob and Carolyn Figel, and helped them get set up). Oklahoma City University, would count as another, I'm guessing, as would University of Oklahoma. I know from conversations with him that he's trained coaches who are teaching at those places (even if there is no USFA club there). Then there is the "Irish Fencing" which, was, if I am remembering correctly, associated with a school? I believe it may have been part of the OSF group/morphed into it/something along those lines.

[Mr Epee]

Re: Oklahoma University - There may be a few fencers attending OU, but there isn't club there by USFA record, or listed among the university's student organizations. It would be great if there was a club there, but I can't find one.

Re: Oklahoma City University - Yes, they do offer a one credit hr Intro to Fencing Class, but again... there is no information about a fencing club from the USFA, nor is it listed among the university's student organizations.

So, while there may be people teaching fencing at both places (totally off the radar), it seems that it would be a pretty big stretch to label either situation a "Fencing Club".

[oso97]

Since you seem to be greatly perplexed by this matter, why don't you email Jerry himself and ask him, then report back to us your findings? I know for a fact that you know how to contact him!

[Wafath]

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

So, does that mean you will be volunteering to serve as a representative from cap. div. for the USFA? Perhaps even assisting the division as a member of the executive committee, and assist in the division's goals?

W

[Mr Epee]

That's actually a pretty good idea.... I could do that.

However, I half expected the nominating committee to have done a little critical fact checking prior to finalizing their candidate selections. That seems like a reasonable expectation. Maybe it's not part of the process. I don't know. Seems like it could/should be though.

When a candidate mentions opening 5 fencing clubs, it seems like individuals involved in the vetting process would take the time to verify that information and take the current status of those clubs into consideration.


Just a thought.

[arc]

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.

Your understanding is not entirely correct, and as with many questions regarding the governance structure of the Association, it simply takes a look at the Bylaws to understand how the Board is structured.

The Board of Directors consists of the following individuals:

The officers (six);

One Director elected from each Section (ten) (to ensure diversity of geographic representation on the board, i.e., because there actually *is* fencing outside of New England);

Four Directors elected from Congress (to help further ensure that there is a representational mandate from the membership);

Up to four directors appointed by the President (including at least two "National Level Coaches" if such are not already on the Board); and

Enough Directors selected by the Athlete Advisory Group to comprise at least 20% of the whole Board of Directors (currently seven; USOC Bylaws require that every committee/board/etc be comprised of at least 20% elite athletes).

Note that Committee chairs are not, ex officio, members of the Board, and a review of the current committee chairs quickly reveals that the overwhelming majority of Committee chairs are not members of the Board at all. In fact, I think the only exceptions are Felicia Zimmermann, who is chair of the Athlete Advisory Group (the AAG is selected and operates autonomously from the rest of the governance structure of the Association, selecting its own chair and athlete reps to the Board), and Ron Herman, who chairs the Equipment Technology Committee (and who I believe, possibly mistakenly, is a presidential appointment to the Board).

[KShan5[PrFC]]

That's actually a pretty good idea.... I could do that.

However, I half expected the nominating committee to have done a little critical fact checking prior to finalizing their candidate selections. That seems like a reasonable expectation. Maybe it's not part of the process. I don't know. Seems like it could/should be though.

When a candidate mentions opening 5 fencing clubs, it seems like individuals involved in the vetting process would take the time to verify that information and take the current status of those clubs into consideration.


Just a thought.

Right because it's the NC slate's website bios that seem off the mark. You do remember the first USFFC website right? You do remember how wrong that entire website was for like...a month? To be fair though, none of the fencing clubs he opened have the power of the divine babaji behind him, so he must be doing something wrong.

[Mr Epee]

Right because it's the NC slate's website bios that seem off the mark. You do remember the first USFFC website right? You do remember how wrong that entire website was for like...a month? To be fair though, none of the fencing clubs he opened have the power of the divine babaji behind him, so he must be doing something wrong.

Hey!!! Where's the love and respect for crushing you in our NCAA Bracket Challenge? *adjusts collar* I can't get no respect. *readjusts collar*

I only vaguely remember the format original USFFC website, and certainly don't recall the specifics of the content. I'm not quite sure how that relates to this thread.

I must confess that I made a mistake in assuming that the information contained in the biographies published here (and on usfanominees.com) was the same information evaluated by the 08 Nominating Committee. I now understand that the contents of these biographies was not reviewed during the vetting process.

In fact, the information I found confusing in Jerry's biography was specifically NOT included in the information published in the nominating committee's official report. The relevant portion of the report is quoted below.

He comes to the world of fencing with extensive experience and background in business and has put his skills to good use in operating his own salle as a successful business venture.

The nominating committee can only be held responsible for the information included in their report.

[fencinginDC]

What has that got to do with building an argument for a new organizational structure for the USFA?

I already stated fairly clearly that I would contact the newly elected officers and ask if my skills/experience would be useful. From what I understand, the USFA has greater needs than my Division at the moment.

I hope that your questions weren't intended to distract from the issue at hand.

So, does that mean you will be volunteering to serve as a representative from cap. div. for the USFA? Perhaps even assisting the division as a member of the executive committee, and assist in the division's goals?

W

[oso97]

What has that got to do with building an argument for a new organizational structure for the USFA?

I already stated fairly clearly that I would contact the newly elected officers and ask if my skills/experience would be useful. From what I understand, the USFA has greater needs than my Division at the moment.

I hope that your questions weren't intended to distract from the issue at hand.

A suggestion.

To paraphrase a popular slogan: Think Globally, Act Locally. You can make a significant difference in your local division by working there. Then build a base of support and experience for future work as a national leader.

[TBean]

A suggestion.

To paraphrase a popular slogan: Think Globally, Act Locally. You can make a significant difference in your local division by working there. Then build a base of support and experience for future work as a national leader.

While in general I agree with this philosophy I don't think it is always the way to go. I don't want to be on the Board, but I am willing to offer my skills which include fundraising, board development, organizational assessment, strategic planning, non-profit management, and non-profit capacity building, to the national leadership - if there is a logical way for me to help.

I'm not trying to bypass helping my division. It is more that, perhaps, some of my skills might have a greater impact elsewhere. That is all.

[Greg_D]

Somewhat in response to the last couple of posts, but with some wider thoughts as we go forward...

In my opinion we should tap into people of all backgrounds and experience to assist in areas where they have expertise. If you are a finance/development/non-profit/organizational development/NGB/etc. pro, I would love to talk to you and get your ideas and perspective. You should know that, if I'm elected to Treasurer, it's pretty likely I'll come calling again for help when we actually start to do the work. I don't think there's any need for individuals to have served in a Division to help in areas where they have professional expertise.

Even if you don't have professional expertise, if you have an interest in helping and know in what way you want to work, we have a need to expand on our volunteer base and get more people involved in the USFA. Right now we don't have enough people to do everything that needs to be done. This is why Kalle and the nominated officers believe that one of the VP's should specifically target Resource Development. That section of our goals is below:

Resource Development Goals:

• Develop new sources of income, including sponsors and donations
• Build and enhance our volunteer corps
• Revitalize our parent base
• Enhance our referee training program
• Create a resource database
• Develop recognition programs

That said, I would hesitate to put anyone who hasn't been involved with the key committees and/or the Board into a position of significant authority. It's my belief that, for change to occur in an organized way, you need to know how things already work. There is always resistance to change. Trying to impose new systems or processes without understanding the current system, the reasons it is the way it is, and without knowing and understanding the potential sources of resistance is generally a recipe for disaster.

Having a vision of what the USFA should look like is important. Having some idea of how to get from where we are to where we need to be is equally important and requires experience, not just inside the sport, but also outside the sport.

I believe that one of the reasons the current administration has had so many problems is directly related to the above. Nancy had a lot of fencing experience. She had led a number of national and international bout committees over the years. She had a vision of how the USFA should work. However, she had not been a member of one of the significant USFA committees or the BOD in the years immediately prior to her assuming the role. In addition, though successful in her field she did not have executive experience. Stacey Johnson, by contrast, had been a member of previous administrations as a VP and was a Dean of a college (i.e. in an executive leadership position). I believe that the experience she had in her professional life as well as her knowledge of how the USFA actually works and what it would take to fix the problems significantly contributed to her success.

As was mentioned earlier in this thread, we were all nominated separately for our various posts. However, prior to accepting the nomination for Treasurer, I made sure that I knew who the nominee would be for President. I thought hard about those with whom I would be willing to serve and very much believe that those chosen by the nominating committee have the vision and experience, both inside and outside of fencing, to guide us back on a successful path.

I encourage everyone to think hard about what you want from the next administration and also about whether you believe that those for whom you vote will actually be able to deliver. Then vote accordingly. If you have an interest in helping us to move forward please contact the candidates or the officers once elected. I guarantee they'll be looking for all the help they can get.

Greg
__________________
http://www.usfanominees.com
The USFA-nominated officer candidates for the 2008-2012 term

[fencinginDC]

oso97

Like TBean said, I can understand that approach.

I need to ask this question, because I think it's important, and it might have been a consideration by the Nominating Committee.

You seem to be implying that a person needs to "pays their dues", for lack of a better term, at the Division or Section level before progressing to supporting National needs. Did the Nominating Committee have that in mind? Are you thinking that a National position or supporting a USFA need is some sort of "reward"? I don't want to make it sound like you did anything wrong if that was the case. You took your direction from, most likely, the Executive Committee.

The problem is that if you want people who are best qualified to lead the USFA, you are picking from a pool of dozens rather than thousands.

Please remember that have highly qualified people in management positions, who might not have decades of "fencing" experience, does not exclude those very experienced people from being actively involved in the decision making process.

Likewise, a 3-year term with staggered terms (or some variation) is a standard approach to Boards for a reason. You can't assume that there are no people capable of replacing Board members whose term expires. We are ALL expendable, and the staggered terms means that there are always experienced people involved.

If we are seriously about moving forward as a professional organization, we need to let go of the baggage we carry.

I can recommend a really good book on Board governance.

A suggestion.

To paraphrase a popular slogan: Think Globally, Act Locally. You can make a significant difference in your local division by working there. Then build a base of support and experience for future work as a national leader.

[ivlobane]

I very much appreciate what Greg has take the time to publish here, but I'm confused by the way this is framed.

As Greg points out, the individuals selected by the NomCom were selected as individuals. Why then would they be putting together what is essentially a party platform? At this point, I don't see the need for a bunker mentality of them against us... since the "us" doesn't really exist.

Since this is an issue of individuals, it seems to me that individual statements of goals and priorities are much more relevant than simply agreeing on a common ideology.

This is a very good point, we will be voting for INDIVIDUALS per position, not one of two slates, and the USFFC supports Brad Baker...

I also wish the NomCom slate would put up some photos already. Sometimes I find myself talking fencing with someone involved with the USFA and for the life of me cannot remember the name. I watch the BC, directors and coaches at competitions very closely. My vote will invole an evaluation of competency and PITA factor, and therefore I need to put a face to a name. I'm sorry but if one is a huge pompous PITA at competitions that looks at me with their nostrils, one will never get my vote.

[fencinginDC]

Several people asked about books:

This is a very good one for involving your Board in fundraising efforts (often difficult to do):
Fired Up Fundraising by Gail Perry

This is specifically on Board Development, plus I included a link to the Chronicle of Philanthropy book section which contain many related resources:
The Art of Board Leadership by Noelle Barton
http://philanthropy.com/managing/

Those who have been active on very good Boards would be useful resources. When I say "very good Boards", I mean those that passionately fulfill the mission of the organization but do it in a highly efficient (they are good stewards of others time, money and resources), effective (they prioritize and make good decisions based on the best information available, in a timely manner), and businesslike (they think strategically, based on what is best for the organization) manner.

[oso97]

You seem to be implying that a person needs to "pays their dues", for lack of a better term, at the Division or Section level before progressing to supporting National needs. Did the Nominating Committee have that in mind? Are you thinking that a National position or supporting a USFA need is some sort of "reward"? I don't want to make it sound like you did anything wrong if that was the case.

Okay, I'll try and respond as best I as I am able without getting into the "confidential" portions of our deliberations. Again, just to make it clear, the former members of the NC all agreed that while we will comment on the processes by which our decisions were made and the factors that went into those decisions in a general type of way, SPECIFIC things that were discussed during our deliberations about various individuals and commentary/recommendations that we received from outside sources is privileged, and not to be discussed.

I can see how that you might come to the conclusion based upon what I said (and bear in mind please, that above, I was speaking in my "own" persona, not as a former member of the NC), but, I can say that we did NOT use Division and/or Section administrative experience as a qualifying/disqualifying characteristic when making our decisions. However, for reasons quite similar to the commentary Greg made above (which basically boil down to "does the person have at least a clue about about current state of the USFA, how we got here, what are the relevant precedents are for specific things they are interested in are, and is aware of people who would support and be resistant to the changes they are suggesting" which I don't think is too much to ask!) we were looking for people with specific experience in USFA leadership as one of the judging criteria (but not, by far, as the sole criteria). Overall, we were looking for well-balanced individuals, with experience in a number of different fields, and tried to assemble a team who's various strengths would compliment each other (some people with USFA National administrative experience, some with local, some with financial background, some with buisiness leadership experience, some with coaching experience, some with competitive experience, etc). I did not mean to imply that one should have to "pay dues" of some sort, but that Division/Section leadership experience is one way to either 1) start down the road of getting gaining the experience necessary to operate successfully as an officer of the USFA (and progress through the ranks, serving on various committees, making a positive impact and generating favorable feelings about themselves) or 2) to contribute in a positive, tangible way with immediate, locally applicable results. Also, one of the biggest issues facing the USFA right now is local governance, and the breakdown in the governance processes of several divisions (and believe me, there are some UGLY situations brewing out there). We felt it was important that one of the skills of the team of the candidates we nominated (taken as a whole, not every member had to have it, but the group should be able to say, "yea, we've got some experience in dealing with these problems") to be familiar with the issues surrounding local governance.

To answer a question that I think is floating around unspoken: Had a superior candidate, with a limited fencing background but extensive governance experience in other role with other skills who meshed well with the other candidates we were selecting presented him/herself, I assure you, such a person would have received serious consideration. A couple of names of such types of people were floated during our discussions, both internally and with external consultations. However, those people were either unwilling to serve or never contacted us directly after being invited to. We were unwilling to nominate a candidate for office who did not take the steps of actually contacting the committee personally during the relevant portions of our search process.

You took your direction from, most likely, the Executive Committee.

Again, a mis-perception that seems to keep popping up. The NC is elected by the representatives of the >members< of the USFA at USFA Congress, where each Division has X number of representatives, based upon size. It is NOT appointed by the Executive Committee, or the Board of Directors. We did not take direction, orders, or anything of the like from those two bodies, and were totally and completely independent. Yes, members of those groups were consulted for their opinions, mainly on the current state and direction of the USFA, and for background on details, but they did not direct or influence our deliberations. We deliberately kept independent of them, and the charges that we were connected to them, or part of some "anointing committee" or "group of insiders" are really starting to irk most of us.

The problem is that if you want people who are best qualified to lead the USFA, you are picking from a pool of dozens rather than thousands.

Please remember that have highly qualified people in management positions, who might not have decades of "fencing" experience, does not exclude those very experienced people from being actively involved in the decision making process.

Again, I totally agree with you. Please do READ this post. In it, I talk about the subject of decades of experience, and what people with new ideas can bring to the table. I do believe that in our search, we cast our net pretty wide. I know I >personally< talked with about two dozen serious candidates, plus several times that in terms of people who had commentaries, suggestions, background or advise to offer, from across the fencing spectrum.

Likewise, a 3-year term with staggered terms (or some variation) is a standard approach to Boards for a reason. You can't assume that there are no people capable of replacing Board members whose term expires. We are ALL expendable, and the staggered terms means that there are always experienced people involved.

I am just curious, do you know the current paths by which the BOD is elected and who the members are and how they got there? There is a surprising amount of both turnover and carryover. I can think of some who have served for a LOOOOONG time, and others who are quite new. I've seen some people shuffle around, on and off it as well. The idea of staggered terms is certainly worthwhile, and has been discussed before. The question is one of implementation. Certainly, our entire governance structure could use a good re-thinking, and some sort of staggered system could very well enter into that.

Coming back to this issue of experience though, let me conclude with this. No person is going to have all the skills necessary to be all things to everyone. We need a leadership group, both at the level of the EC (what this election is about) and the BOD who bring different skills. We need accountants, managers, lawyers, coaches, athletes, money raisers, communicators, and other positions. Having all athletes would be a bad idea. Having nothing but lawyers and accountants would be crazy. The thread running through all of them though should be our love for the sport and the desire to improve the experience of others.

[Inquartata]

Allright, not to stir up trouble or anything ( who, me? ) but---where are the details on the NC candidates' plans?

The FFC website is filled with detailed plans. Yes, many of them are grandiose dreams with little chance of seeing the light of implementation daylight. Some of them may be contradictory. Some I don't like. But at least they give you some idea of the way their creators think. Information like that is the basis of informed decision-making ( and voting ).

Meanwhile the NC website is all vague "concepts" and glittering generalities. "Increase volunteerism" you say? Huh. "Develop new income sources". Wow. Not really very helpful IMO. How are you going to go about doing those things? Or are you waiting until after you get elected to start having concrete ideas? Come on!

And again, PLEASE, can we speak plain English, and not Management-ese? Are you guys grooming your hair into pointiness or something?

Seriously, none of you has had a "vision". Or are you saying you've fasted and wandered in the desert for a month, or taken peyote in a sweat-lodge or done the Sun Dance or something? If so, do share...

Whenever I read a company's annual report and see terms like "vision" or "concept" being thrown around, that's almost always my cue to sell their stock. And it hasn't let me down yet.

[arc]

Sorry to get to this thread a little late, as I've been travelling to and setting up for Rocky Mountain Sectionals, such as they are.

I need to ask this question, because I think it's important, and it might have been a consideration by the Nominating Committee.

You seem to be implying that a person needs to "pays their dues", for lack of a better term, at the Division or Section level before progressing to supporting National needs. Did the Nominating Committee have that in mind? Are you thinking that a National position or supporting a USFA need is some sort of "reward"?

I want to reiterate in no uncertain terms something that oso97 has already stated or alluded to.

First, when noting that the experience of candidates was a factor in our decision, this was not a matter of selecting individuals who have "paid their dues" as a "reward" for their prior service. The reason that experience played a major role in our decision is for exactly the reasons as stated in the NC report, which I wrote: the members of the NC believe strongly that a deep institutional knowledge of the Association and its structure are required to effectively accomplish the reforms that the next four years demand. That deep institutional knowledge gives four major advantages (after a serious Spanish Inquisition moment):

First, candidates with experience have the knowledge that gives the ability to distinguish programs or policies that are working from those that don't, so that the "baby isn't thrown out with the bathwater";

Second, candidates with experience have the requisite institutional knowledge to see the broader effects that any one change may have in a system that has grown to be, in some instances, somewhat Byzantine;

Third, candidates with experience have the requisite institutional knowledge that allows them to make decisions quickly and proactively, rather than having to spend time to educate themselves regarding the underlying problems and issues before making a decision on an issue that may be critical or may turn critical through delay; and

Fourth, candidates with experience have the institutional knowledge of the history of the Association to improve on proposed changes by being able to engage in comparison with systems of the past, allowing them to see similarities between current proposals and past proposals that have either failed or had serious drawbacks.

*That* is why experience played a major role in our decision. And as a side note, from my own personal experience to date, anyone who thinks that increased service is a "reward" is either off his/her rocker, or simply has no concept of the sacrifice that is involved.

I don't want to make it sound like you did anything wrong if that was the case. You took your direction from, most likely, the Executive Committee.

I will state categorically that the Nominating Committe took directions from absolutely *no**one*. As oso97 has already pointed out, ten of the NC members were elected indirectly by the membership through the Congress; the other three were appointed by the Athlete Advisory Group per USOC requirements.

The NC is an *independent* committee. It does not answer to the Executive Committee, the Board, or the Congress. While it may sound trite, service on the NC bears an awesome responsibility precisely because of its independence and because of the nature of its deliberations, which are traditionally kept confidential to allow the NC to seek the unvarnished, honest advice of those members wanting to chime in.

As chair of the Nominating Committee, I personally expended a great deal of time and effort consulting with a number of individuals considered "leaders" within the fencing world, including grassroots fencers, elite fencers, veteran fencers, coaches (both elite and grassroots), and officials (including former presidents, referees, BC personnel, armourers, etc.). We conducted a number of conference calls to allow committee members to interview the various candidates for the positions for which multiple candidates had presented themselves to the Committee, and had meetings in person in Tucson, Dallas, and Richmond. By my phone bills, I spent an average of an hour a day in such consultations between mid-September and the time of our final decision in Richmond, despite my other commitments as a new section chair, as a referee and low-level coach, and as an attorney trying to practice law in what time is left over from my hobby.

As an attorney, I have a great deal of respect for due process, and did my level best to ensure that a process (which admittedly evolved through the process) was followed which was fair to all of the candidates and which was executed in a manner to select the best candidates with a passion for performing the various jobs. Given that a sizeable part of the NC comprises individuals without a strong track record of deep involvement at the national level, the vetting of candidates (as noted earlier) included consultation with a broad range of individuals within the fencing community, in order to allow us to educate ourselves regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the various candidates.

The bottom line is that this Committee acted in good faith and performed a great deal of thankless, hard work (and from what I've heard, a great deal more work than has been performed by any foregoing NC) to select those individuals we felt were best suited to accomplish needed reforms of the Association. And we did it without being "directed" to do it by anyone, despite the incorrect public allegations that have been made that our committee was essentially the puppet of the existing Ex Comm. (As one final comment on that point, without going into any detail, for the most part, we even generally avoided consultation with existing members of the ExComm, excepting those individuals who had indicated a desire to continue to serve on the ExComm.)

Now, all that said, you may have your own notions of how the process works that prevents you from believing what I tried (evidently ineffectively) to say in the NC's report; however, I hope that you have an open mind to possibly listening to me and leaving the opinion that the Nominating Committee did its best to work honorably for the good of the Association.

[arc]

The FFC website is filled with detailed plans. Yes, many of them are grandiose dreams with little chance of seeing the light of implementation daylight. Some of them may be contradictory. Some I don't like. But at least they give you some idea of the way their creators think. Information like that is the basis of informed decision-making ( and voting ).

Meanwhile the NC website is all vague "concepts" and glittering generalities. "Increase volunteerism" you say? Huh. "Develop new income sources". Wow. Not really very helpful IMO. How are you going to go about doing those things? Or are you waiting until after you get elected to start having concrete ideas? Come on!

I'm not so sure that the FFC website is actually filled with detailed plans. There are many ideas listed in there (i.e., "More Customer Service, More Membership Benefits, More Program Support, More National-level Tournaments with More Geographic Diversity, More International Success, More Technology, More Social Activities, More Ideas, and More International Political Allies.") that seem rife with vague generalities than with real, concrete details. Take the "More National-level Tournaments" proposal for instance ... and yes, while there are some more specifics listed, there is little listed in, say, the way of numbers on how the FFC members believe that they can actually achieve the goals they list as part of their agenda.

It reminds me mightily of politics at a national level: successful politicians tell the electorate everything the electorate wants to hear, with just enough detail of the ultimate goal to make the electorate want to believe in the message, while being vague on the actual *path* to those goals so as to ensure that a reality check is impractical, while the candidate who says at the outset "here are the goals, and I promise to work hard to try to achieve them," while being more honest, ends up being vilified for being vague and unrealistic.

Is my perspective entirely objective? Almost certainly not, as I've had an opportunity to be involved in interviewing the candidates face-to-face, and have had input into the electoral situation, and I recognize that I have a subjective preference in the outcome ... but as an attorney, where part of my job is to objectively analyze facts and issues in which I have to take a subjective position on one side or the other, I like to think that I can make some valid observations regardless of my subjectiveness ...