Nominating Committee Candidates for USFA Office

[Philistine]

I agree.

Also--for the most part, most of the things that are being talked about don't appear to be things that are actually within the power of the officers anyway. (Also like national politicians).

So for the most part, the actual mechanics of the proposals seems to be something along the lines of -- "convince the board that this is a good idea and then get them to implement it."

While Treasurer and Secretary do have some actual duties (and in both cases, at least to my mind, Greg and Brad have given a pretty good indication through past actions of where they are going), what is it that the other officers can actually do in making changes without the consent of the Board?

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

You both have some good points.

However, IMO the more detail the better. Detail gives us a yardstick to measure success later on. If a candidate says "I am going to try to do A, B and C", we can see afterward whether in fact he DID A, B or C. If OTOH he justs makes general statements like "I'm going to work hard to improve stuff", well...how do we know if he did or not? Define "improve". Define "stuff". You know what I'm saying? It's easier to dance the Sidestep when you haven't ever committed yourself to any concrete programs in the first place...

Now, I have a great deal of confidence in the NC candidates earnestness and abilities...well, at least those of them I know...and can take the word on the others, because I have confidence in those members of the NC I know. The FFC group are largely strangers to me. But it IS a point in their favor that they have shared more specifics with us. Information is a good thing, the more the better...

[CadetVet]

The USFA's governance is similar to our country's form of representational government. 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.

One challenge is that a large percentage of very active constituents actually cannot vote - they are simply too young. While I am not trying to discuss the merits or problems created by considering a youth vote, our representatives must realize that they are not only playing to the voting members - but also to the thousands of youth, cadet, and junior fencers that have not reached majority.

Unlike the United States, where there are more people over 18 than under 18, fencing is clearly skewed toward younger membership. Most don't have fencing parents (and it would be unreasonable to require that someone fork over another full membership expense to simply buy a vote). Thus, our biggest constituency - young fencers and their parents - effectively have no voice.

Whether those of us with experience believe that they have something valuable to add or not is irrelevant - they represent one of our larger customer bases. I don't know what the solution to this problem is - but I do think that our leaders must recognize this disconnect and, at the very least, make significant efforts to listen to these disenfranchised members.

[mgriff]

Unlike the United States, where there are more people over 18 than under 18, fencing is clearly skewed toward younger membership. Most don't have fencing parents (and it would be unreasonable to require that someone fork over another full membership expense to simply buy a vote). Thus, our biggest constituency - young fencers and their parents - effectively have no voice.

Why on earth is it unreasonable to expect parents to join USFA if they want to have some effect on how the organization their kids are involved with is run? That's exactly how I first got involved: I wanted to make sure that qualifiers and other divisional and sectional events were properly run, and being able to vote in the divisional and sectional meeting was part of that process.

When my kids first started fencing, I amused myself by tracking the running total of what our fencing expenses. When we hit $10,000 after less than two years, I decided I really didn't want to watch that particular number any longer (though it'd be pretty easy to estimate an overall total now--it's not like I don't know how much we spend each year, and of course, I'd have to decide whether I should reduce the total by the amounts of my younger daughter's fencing scholarship and all of our officials' per diems/honoraria).

The $40 annual fee for an associate membership is a pittance in the big picture. Parents who choose to moan and complain about how USFA operates but are too cheap or lazy to get involved and get themselves a voice are not disenfranchised, they've chosen to disenfranchise themselves.

As for all those underage fencers who can't vote, that's not USFA's fault. For that to change, it'd take some major alterations in the laws governing nonprofit corporations. (But again, it was because my kids couldn't have any voice themselves that I took the trouble to use mine.)

Mary

[fencinginDC]

A very thoughtful, answer. I appreciate that! I don't mind disagreements when intellegent and committed people are open to finding good solutions together.

Okay, I'll try and respond as best I as I am able without getting into the "confidential" portions of our deliberations.

*SNIP*

The thread running through all of them though should be our love for the sport and the desire to improve the experience of others.

[fencinginDC]

The quoted response was long so my apologies for trimming a little.

I don't think that the NC was a puppet to anyone. In fact, I would have expected that the Board would have a fair say in guiding the NC, as would be the case in most organizations. I think the NC did a fine job considering everything that defines where the USFA is today. Following "due process" is good. Having independent and objectivity is good. Acting in good faith is also good. But if all those things simply result in maintaining a broken system, we are not making progress.

I still take issue with the 1, 2, 3, 4 points below. There is nothing about the USFA that makes it so special that a well qualified individual couldn't grasp all the relevant facts very quickly. If I join the Board of the local chapter of the American Cancer Society, do I need to be a research scientist? You are giving WAY too much credit to having substantial fencing experience. That would be helpful for a Board member, but it could easily be found in that Board member's selection of good Committee members.

The USFA is organizationally a mess. Doing the best that you can do under that system is understood, but the USFA needs more radical change than bandaids, even if they are robust bandaids. You keep noting the value of knowing what we have done but I strongly believe that there is far greater value knowing what others have done successfully. The four points below imply that "some" change is OK but just don't rock the boat "too" much. There is a VAST amount of knowledge and experience and approaches that have much greater value to the future of the USFA than "deep institutional knowledge". Fear of change can be hard to overcome.

That said, I really do appreciation the clarification on the way experience was considered by the NC in a fair manner. My comments have been almost entirely based on the need for an organizational structure. The work of a NC in that context, under a new system of governance, would have been equally well done.

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 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.

[fencinginDC]

Nicely said, and insightful. Changes will occur when proposals are presented to the Board for consideration. The quality of the proposal is extremely important. Problems must be clearly identified, alternatives evaluated, and a strong case made for the best decision. Simple in many ways but, as they say, the devil is in the details.

Greg's two proposals, for the Audit and Finance committees, is a very good example of how this should be done, and how present a strong case for a problem/need/solution. This was a terrific first step.

So... solutions will come as the new Officers/Board determine priorities, solicit help to provide solutions, create proposals that are presented for a vote, and become a catalyst for positive change.

I agree.

Also--for the most part, most of the things that are being talked about don't appear to be things that are actually within the power of the officers anyway. (Also like national politicians).

So for the most part, the actual mechanics of the proposals seems to be something along the lines of -- "convince the board that this is a good idea and then get them to implement it."

While Treasurer and Secretary do have some actual duties (and in both cases, at least to my mind, Greg and Brad have given a pretty good indication through past actions of where they are going), what is it that the other officers can actually do in making changes without the consent of the Board?

--Philistine

[fencinginDC]

But that is such a simple issue to address. Some variation of a youth advisory group, maybe even with a sectional or divisional component, cuold be developed without changing the organizational structure of the USFA. That requires, of course, a leadership team that would take their issues and concerns seriously.

One challenge is that a large percentage of very active constituents actually cannot vote - they are simply too young. While I am not trying to discuss the merits or problems created by considering a youth vote, our representatives must realize that they are not only playing to the voting members - but also to the thousands of youth, cadet, and junior fencers that have not reached majority.

Unlike the United States, where there are more people over 18 than under 18, fencing is clearly skewed toward younger membership. Most don't have fencing parents (and it would be unreasonable to require that someone fork over another full membership expense to simply buy a vote). Thus, our biggest constituency - young fencers and their parents - effectively have no voice.

Whether those of us with experience believe that they have something valuable to add or not is irrelevant - they represent one of our larger customer bases. I don't know what the solution to this problem is - but I do think that our leaders must recognize this disconnect and, at the very least, make significant efforts to listen to these disenfranchised members.

[oso97]

But that is such a simple issue to address. Some variation of a youth advisory group, maybe even with a sectional or divisional component, could be developed without changing the organizational structure of the USFA. That requires, of course, a leadership team that would take their issues and concerns seriously.

Actually, it could be argued that the work of the Youth Development Committee is one of the bright shining points of the USFA. The development of the RYC and SYC system, from its beginnings in Texas and California, to a nationwide tournament system is a success of the Association. Indeed, the RYC system works within, yet has its own independent niche, the overall organization structure.