USFA 08: We have election.

[T]

How the thread digresses...but since you asked...

Bob and I have both been members for decades but not necessarily consecutive years (note our Hawaiian Ironman Triathlon period and young children period as well as several years where one or both of us were injured, etc.).

I think I first joined the AFLA somewhere around 1972 and Bob probably joined before that. I don't know when the supporting life membership was added. Obviously, in retrospect, we both should have bought life memberships when they were $300. But I'm sure at the time, it was a goodly amount (just like $1200 is today). (Although, I will make this promise - if elected, I will buy a life membership - which, btw, I think all Presidents should do as a show of committment).

Now that we have 4 people (I guess we will only have 3 memberships to worry about from now on since Kelley qualified for the Olympics) it just seems too expensive at any one time to commit to. If we bought supporting life memberships it would cost $120 x 4 for 1 year and we would be committed to it for 10 years regardless (don't forget that Bob is 74 years old and while he is as healthy as ever, he doesn't really fence that much anymore because of his bad knees). So, we keep paying the annual membership dues and the prices keep going up. Not that I think $50/year/person is unreasonable but $120 is a little pricey. The main reason I opt for the 2 family memberships (which includes 4 competitive members) as opposed to the 4 individual memberships (since the cost is the same) is so that I only have to fill out the form twice instead of 4 times.

In the end, I guess it's all about the time value of money....

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Is there an honorary life membership bestowed upon those who qualify as Olympic fencers?


Say, does anyone else hear a tea kettle in the background, or is that just Inq's blood pressure spiking?

[JEC]

When did the life membership/supporting life membership get created?

Life membership was created over a decade ago. Supporting life membership was created about 3 years ago. My son and I are Supporting-Life members lvl 7. With 3 more years ($360/now), they are converted to life memberships.

However, it takes 25 years of regular membership to be equal in price to 10 years of supporting life or a life membership. I am doing it as a gift to my son (age 16), but for me (at age 44) it might not be cost-effective unless I keep fencing for as long as Dr. Bob Hurley. Nevertheless, in the big picture, the USFA needs the money right now to keep growing the sport.

I believe that USFA should use this idea of a legacy membership being pitched to the parents of cadet fencers before the parents/fencers start incurring on college tuition costs. It might be a good strategy to increase the USFA coffers. Now, if those funds were well administered ...

[JEC]

Is there an honorary life membership bestowed upon those who qualify as Olympic fencers?


Say, does anyone else hear a tea kettle in the background, or is that just Inq's blood pressure spiking?

Yes - also for the paraolympic team

Congrats! One less check to make!

[KD5MDK]

Well, I had been thinking that one family membership could cover 2 of you, plus the 3rd membership being either a life (or you could just wait for Courtney to get her own Olympic, that seems likely enough)

It's often not obvious when a life membership is a good idea. I'm an SL1 myself, and looking forward to when I get that nice bonus* that allows me to finish it out.


* Not currently on the horizon by a long shot

[parrythis]

reinvention would be required in verification of USFA membership and voting eligibility.

Not really. The online voting systems that I have looked at require that the election administrators import a file with a list of voters to register. Since the voter registration list would be come from USFA files, they should be able to include in the list only those members who are eligible to vote.

This does not require custom programming.

[parrythis]

set up a "voting booth" (laptop with wifi) at SN's. problem solved.

Hopefully, you are not suggesting this as the only method of voting. Doing so would disenfranchise anyone that does not attend SN's.

The idea of an online voting system is to let everyone vote from the comfort of their own home - sitting at their computer in their underwear if they so desire.

... although why anyone would put their computer in their underwear is beyonde me!

[larkmaj]

Hopefully, you are not suggesting this as the only method of voting. Doing so would disenfranchise anyone that does not attend SN's.

The idea of an online voting system is to let everyone vote from the comfort of their own home - sitting at their computer in their underwear if they so desire.

... although why anyone would put their computer in their underwear is beyonde me!

He was suggesting it as an additional method to try and account for those who, for one reason or another, were either unwilling or unable to vote online otherwise.

Note that Noodle was the one who initially suggested online voting in this thread.

[noodle]

Not really. The online voting systems that I have looked at require that the election administrators import a file with a list of voters to register. Since the voter registration list would be come from USFA files, they should be able to include in the list only those members who are eligible to vote.

This does not require custom programming.

link please.

[parrythis]

link please.

There are several out there. The one that looked pretty good to me was: http://www.ballotbin.com/

I'm not saying that this is the way to go, I am simply saying that if one wanted to run an election online, there is no need to write an application from scratch when there are several options out there already.

[Inquartata]

If there are no opposing candidates, then there is no debate.

Except over whether there should be opposing candidates, and why there are not...

What's your point, Inq?

My point is that your point---which I read to approximate "X will happen, therefore everyone shut up about the appropriateness of X from now on"---is flawed. There is still reason to decry the forced spending of money unnecessarily, even if the expenditure can no longer be obviated.

I am still bemused by the fact that one of the main complaints of the FFC folks is that the USFA has been spending money too profligately, and yet as their very first act they force the USFA to spend still more money...

Actually, Alan Greenspan's star is in eclipse right now, given the current financial difficulties built up during his tenure.

I know exactly who you've been reading.

It's a minority position, you know.

[KD5MDK]

Actually, it was All Things Considered.

[Inquartata]

Also not astonishing.