What's in it for the Parents?

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Doesn't seem NEARLY complicated enough for you Peter.

He hasn't finished the part about regional weighted representation and the pseudo-random order in which the voting for each position would occur.

Don't rush genius at work.

Allen

[T]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

Not a member.

At the end of the day, every year, I end up not signing up for anything.

Presumably, if the USFA is interested in really marketing memberships to parents, I would be in the target market. While not nearly as involved as T or Mo or some of the other regulars here, we hit most of the Div 1 and Junior NACs so our involvement is more than just casual. But then, I don't even know that a high percentage of parents of fencers in the elite programs have picked up their own memberships.

Marketing 101 says that you pick a price point that maximizes net earnings. $40 for non-competitive parent memberships isn't it. If it was say $20 or $25 and I could have signed up on the same form as my daughter, I would have simply checked it as a matter of course from the time my kid was a beginning fencer.

Now... if you wanted to get me to sign up for a full membership... [this couldn't be done at a NAC level, but easily could be in conjunction with local youth events]... A couple of NAC's ago, a bunch of us fencing dads were standing in line at a particularly slow weapons check and all of our kids had gone off to warm up so it was mainly "dads" in line. A couple of the dads started talking about having tried to fence their kids (invariably with the same results, they got a few early touches then slaughtered--then the kid says, "I kept trying moves on you, then I realized that you were too stupid to respond, so I just had to hit you."). Anyways, it turned out that almost all of the dads who were there actually own full kit that they have never used except to be a fencing dummy. In conjunction with the right events, I suspect that a "parent's event" (which, of course, would require USFA membership for insurance purposes) after the real events, would attract fair participation. The parents because they sit there watching practice from the sidelines for years and the kids will enjoy the comic relief.

I agree the membership categories need to be adjusted and if we are going to attract parents (who don't fence) then the rates should be lower (if for no other reason than the fact they don't require the insurance) or the benefits need to be expanded. I am in total agreement with your Marketing 101 cost/benefit analysis. And I totally hear you about filling out the forms.

On your other point about competitions, someone suggested to me recently that the USFA should try parent-child team-type competitions with a parent and their child paired up with another parent-child team. This could be a real attractive event - especially at the divisional or sectional-level. There are all kinds of possibilities which include handicap systems for age totals or ratings or whatever but the idea is an interesting one. Of course, if the parent is going to fence, then they would need to be a competitive member with the insurance.

What do you think about that idea??

[T]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

Mo and T both have kids at the Olympic level and feel like they are outsiders and completely ignored. At what level of involvement in fencing do you have to be before you can feeling like the USFA is there to at least be supportive of you and not your enemy?

sad but true. I can't tell you how many times the USFA has put up obstacles, changed the rules in midstream, or just made things unjustifiably biased or difficult (I suspect Mo can vouch for this as well). And I can also tell you that is one of the reasons why I am running for President (oops, I promised not to make this a political thread). While at present, many USFA things besides fencing can be challenging for many competitive fencers, hopefully they will change for the better in the near future.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Doesn't seem NEARLY complicated enough for you Peter.

Well, what do you expect? As I said, It took me less than a minute to come up with that suggestion, and I did not check it for extreme-case bugs. There could very well some. My point was that oso97´s implicit statement that it would be impossible to come up with a system in which members get to vote for their constituencies, but those with less constituenct affiliations would not be disenfranchised is incorrect.

Since it was so darn easy to come up with that suggestion, I am frankly surprised that he did not come up with something similar, or make an attempt at conclusively proving the nonpossibility. It is not like it is some kind of rocket science, after all.

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Why not add in some preferential voting scheme to how we allocate the votes that we choose to put into a given pile?

Takes two to tango.

That may very well be an improvement. Nobody would be happier than me if the flaws in my suggestions were to be found, and improvements were suggested. I am not wedded to my ideas in the sense that I wish other to adore them as-is, and that any suggestion for change is cause for personal affront.

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Or perhaps count role-specific votes towards the general total as well?
-B

Not good.

That would give those with more affiliations more voting power than those who have fewer. As an aside, a similar system was codified into law for local elections in some USA jurisdiction (forget which) and then used for at least one election, but later struck down as unconstitutional by higher courts. That happened sometime in the 20ies, IIRC.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

How many Parent Seats should be in this new parliament? How many Coach Seats? Referee Seats? Who decides?

I did not put any effort whatsoever into this topic when I posted my 1st post in this thread, but since you asked, lets have a stab at it.

First of all: total #seats equals present #seats in leadership plus #seats in advisory committees.
Second: Present leadership votes on which constituencies should be represented. The #constituencies is kept sufficiently low so that it is not more than #seats-2.
Seat allottment: popular vote by USFA members of voting age.
All voting members get a voting slip. They are asked to provide their preferred seat allottment. However, their allottment preference must satisfy 3 criteria:
1. The sum of seats must be equal to the total #seats, as defined in the first of all stage.
2. All seat numbers must be positive integers.
3. At least 2 constituiencies must get more than 1 seat by the individual voter.

If a voter sends in a preferred seating allottment which does not fulfill all three criteria, it is rejected out of hand and takes no further part in the seating allottment process.

The well-formed votes are collected, and the votes for each seating constituency are tallied. For each constituency, one then gets a discrete probability function. An average value for each of those function is then calculated. Which type this average should be is a bit trickier - if one chooses arithmetic mean the system becomes vulnerable to politicking by special-interest groups, if one chooses median then it is quite likely that not enough information is extracted from the votes. Given that, I think that the happy middle road would be to choose the geometric mean.

Now one has a set of mean values for each each constituency. It is highly unlikely that their sum is equal to the total #seats, so one uses arithmetic renormalization to fix that. The renormalized numbers will in all probability not be integers, so each constituency gets an integer number of seats by using the Sainte-Laguë method. Nothing new or especially groundbreaking with that, it has been around since 1910.

The seating allottment criteria are put in there as constraints against voters who wish to further the interests of their own tribe, to the detriment of all others. The "positive" criterion makes it impossible to dump all your votes on your tribe, and f*ck the rest. Those who wish to only further their own tribe will figure out that they can pass the letter of criterion #2 by giving a token seat to all other constituency than their beloved one, and give all the rest to that one. If many voters do so, the system will reward partisans who do not look at the bigger picture. That is the motivation for citerion #3: Even partisans must state their 2nd highest preference. Given the considerable number of voters who try to look at the bigger picture, partisan voting will then be diluted.

So there! It is not hard, it took me less than a minute to figure out this. Sure, there might be quirks in the system, but there is no subjectivity in it and it should be quite resistant to being taken hostage by vocal groups with strong lobby organizations.

Now, if other f.net members would post test ballons for various procedures I would be most delighted! I feel as if I am pulling moe than my weight in that regard, and would appreciate if someone else would chip in with the tedious writing work.

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

I want every member of a board working for the membership, not just their particular tribe.

Suggestion: Let those who belong to a given constituency vote for seat members, but with a twist. They vote for a number of candidates which is double the number of seats. After that, those that are not members of that constituency get to vote on those, and thereby cull down the number of candidates so that it is equal to the number of seats. Should a single-issue partisan get voted in by his peers in the first stage, he would very likely be deselected by the other members who have other priorities. Most of those who ultimately would be elected would be those who at least not openly are partisans/tribalists.

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

I do think that one of the things the USFA needs to do is get more work out of it's advisory committees, many of whom don't seem to have held meetings in a very long time. Giving these committees real work and goals (and publicizing who the members are to the USFA membership) would give the USFA members a contact point for advocating various points of view.

Allen Evans

New rule: those committees which have not had a meeting - and published the minutes thereof - for some set time (6 months?) are summarily dismissed. The USFA president, in his sole discretion, chooses new members to serve out the remainder of the term. The president can choose any USFA member of voting age and good standing to committee membership except those that were dismissed. The presidential selection is not subject to oversight, control, or acknowledgement by anyone else.

That should keep the committee members at least minimally active!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Not good.

That would give those with more affiliations more voting power than those who have fewer.

Not doing it that way could result in a bias for the general-member seats going to those with few or no other roles which could canabalize their vote totals.

Candidate X doesn't fulfill the criteria for any of the first 6 groups. All of Candidate X's supporters place their votes in the general pile.

Candidate Y is a referee, coach, elite athlete,* BC member, serving as division chair and a parent of a fencer. His/her supporters will support him/her across all seven piles. Each individual pile might be too small to get elected anywhere despite EVERYONE in the USFA voting for Candidate Y in at least one pile. Is that really a candidate we want locked out of the process?

-B

* I believe the USOC defines an elite athlete as one who has made a National Team (Senior National Team?) in the past 10 years. They need no longer be an active competitor.

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by T

What do you think about that idea??

I think that it would be a blast. I would definitely be up for something like that.

[fencerwallet]

Originally Posted by T

At the JOs and Summer Nationals, parents are often just sitting around waiting for their kids to fence (either between rounds which may take forever or between days).

I thought it would be a good idea to provide interested parents with some interactive seminars that might be of interest.

Topics, that I thought might be of interest are:
1) 'How to help your child be successful at fencing',
2) 'How to buy equipment',
3) 'How to fix equipment',
4) 'Getting your child into college',
5) 'How to travel on a budget',
6) 'How to keep score'
7) 'How to run a tournament' (and how to run tournament software)
8) 'How to make an international team', etc.

These, of course, could also be provided online but they wouldn't be interactive (ie, where face-face questions and answers were possible).

Are these topics of any interest and would they be a 'membership benefit' that would likely attract parents to join the USFA?

In general, my point is that I am trying to figure out ways that will bring parents into the social community of fencing and to attract parents, who are currently involved in fencing through their children, to become active participants with their children instead of passive ones.

This is a generally a pretty good idea, however, some of the more rudimentary topics are not.

[seak]

While I think it would be a great source of revenue for the USFA if parents became members, I don't see why it's a problem or abnormal that they're not.

Are most parents of Tennis players members of the USTA? My parents while they supported me as I played lots of different sports growing up, never joined any of the organizations, because they themselves weren't playing.

Also for the vast majority of parents out there, they can deal with coaching issues etc, by voting with their checkbook. I am not quite sure I see the need for specific parent representation on the board (especially given that large numbers of the board at least at the divisional level tend to be parents of fencers). I think for the high performance athletes there should be a mediating board to deal with some of the problems that Mo has had, but I think that that sort of thing is the minority.

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by oso97

How would you restructure this system to ensure representation from the different stakeholders? No doubt the system itself is going to undergo significant restructuring of some sort no matter who wins the election.

This whole part of the discussion probably belongs in another thread, but...

As an outsider, the current governance model appears to be an artifact of a time when the organization was *much* smaller and to the extent that it has changed since then, the change has been by accretion of new committees and processes rather than changing. Someone who has been around will need to tell me if I am wrong.

I *do* believe that the basic problem with the USFA is structural. The people that I know are invariably intelligent, dedicated, hard-working individuals who want to do the right thing and who are generally very passionate about what the right thing is. This is what you would expect in an organization that is largely run on the backs of volunteers. In most cases, they are also quite overworked and frustrated. And they can see the problems as well (or better) than anyone else.

There is also a huge group of outsider parents who (unless they are harvested) will involved with the sport on a "7 years and out" basis. Mo, T, myself, and several others here have their kids going to the college level next year. I can guarantee that my involvement will go way down. I imagine that T (if she loses) and Mo (after the Olympics) and the others of this class will do the same. There will be a group that will replace us, just like we replaced others. The nature of our sport (expensive and slightly off-beat) dictates that a lot of the parents that pass through are incredibly talented in their own rights and have a lot to offer during their time here (or afterwards, if they are properly recruited). Structurally, the USFA is quite effectively designed to keep the parental talent pool at arms length and away from anything important.

I do not agree with others here that fixing the problem is a matter of getting more representation of special groups. Structurally, there is less issue with people being able to say what needs to be said than with the organization's ability to hear and respond to issues. The answer to any problem is very much like oso97's earlier one to me: "here is what we can do, but beyond that our hands are tied by xyz." And fixing XYZ is invariably requires moving some massive obstacle. As has been expressed many times on f.net, even the BoD often seems to feel that its hands are tied.

Beyond the issue of a structure that is clumsy and can't respond to issues, the structure also allows people to move into political gatekeeper roles. Club owners are not just gatekeepers for the children and their ability to develop and move into further competition (and we all know that this can be a weapon), they also moderate a fair amount of the information to the parents--and they control access by the division to their clubs for local events. As we know, there are divisions that are essentially owned by the club owners or club owner.

I would suggest that at a minimum real change will require the USFA to move from a "bottom-up" governance model to a "top down."

1. Direct election by membership of all officers and BoD members (on a rotating basis to ensure both fresh ideas and longevity. BoD members are expected to do the best thing for fencing as a whole.
2. A reduction in the size of the BoD and an increase in meeting frequency.
3. "Clarification" of the role of the BoD vs. the professional staff.
4. Input to the BoD from various interest groups come through advisory committees that are precisely "advisory." They do not have seats on the BoD.
5. Committees that "do stuff" do that stuff under the ultimate direction and authority of the BoD. Committees do not own decisions vs. the BoD. They may be delegated authority, but ultimately the BoD can review anything that it wants.
6. Sectional and Divisional officers also get directly elected.
7. "Clarification" of the legal relationship between the USFA and sections/division. My recommendation would be that sections and divisions are legal extensions of the USFA and not independent legal entities.

I could be wrong on some or all of this. I am looking in through some very dirty windows and seeing what I can see. The intent is to give clear lines of decision making authority and accountability to the membership. At the local level, the hope would be to take the focus off of organizational garbage to focus on promoting fencing locally. Economies of scale and common processes can be exploited. More direct access between the USFA and its membership can allow committee better access to the human resources available to them and parents a clearer view of how to plug in than today where much of that view is obscured.

Club ownership, hopefully, would become more a matter of business ability and teaching quality than exercise in politics. The existing system rewards club owners that can figure out how to use divisional politics to hurt new clubs, increase revenues, or get the better fencers. The can use politics to keep "their" fencers "in line" (to your point oso97) which increases their political power elsewhere. I am not against the club owners: more clubs will tend to create more fencing (because more access) and often better quality fencing (because local fencing becomes less inbred). But we need to recognize that club ownership also has its own interests and the USFA needs to keep an eye on its own interests too.

Ultimately, what we all want is good fencing.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Not doing it that way could result in a bias for the general-member seats going to those with few or no other roles which could canabalize their vote totals.

Candidate X doesn't fulfill the criteria for any of the first 6 groups. All of Candidate X's supporters place their votes in the general pile.

Candidate Y is a referee, coach, elite athlete,* BC member, serving as division chair and a parent of a fencer. His/her supporters will support him/her across all seven piles. Each individual pile might be too small to get elected anywhere despite EVERYONE in the USFA voting for Candidate Y in at least one pile. Is that really a candidate we want locked out of the process?

-B

Yes!
Someone who critiques my suggestions on their own merits/demerits, points out drawbacks, and not just says "too hard"! Rep coming your way!

That is a very valid problem. How about solving it by tweaking the seat allottment procedure to:

Seat allottment procedure:
1. All vote slips for each vote box are tallied.
2. The tally results are put together into one big ordered list. Should a candidate get votes in more than one constituency, then that candidate gets one entry in the big ordered list, and his votes in the various constituiencies are added together.
3. The top vote getter gets the first seat in the USFA elected leadership. If he had votes from multiple constituencies, he gets his seat for the constituency which was his #1 vote getter. Should there be a tie for the lead, he gets to choose freely among the co-leaders which constituency he should represent. The constituency that he was voted in on gets its seat allottment reduced by one. If that reduces the constituency seat allottment to zero, then all lower entries for that constituency are struck from the big ordered list.
4. Step #3 is repeated with the edited big ordered list. This gives a new candidate his seat, which produces some edits to the BOL. That is then repeated until all seats are filled.

Changes in the seat allottment procedure are noted in bold.

That said, dcmdale wote:

Originally Posted by dcmdale

I do not agree with others here that fixing the problem is a matter of getting more representation of special groups.

What I was getting at was a system of ensuring that different special groups would get a formal say, in a way that took away subjectivity and lessened power of lobbying. I value what dcmdale writes highly, so it is perfectly possible that my suggestions are mere exercises in futility.

BTW: Think about what interesting politics we would have if they were adopted for US. HofR elections! The job of campaign planning would immediately become far more difficult, and the strategy of "secure your base, alienate all others" would be much less viable. Imagine Texas voting 64 candidates for HofR, and all non-Texan USA citizens then voting on which 32 - while maintaining relative party strengths - of those to send to the HofR! The same thing for Massachuttets, also. That would decrease some partisanship!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!Imagine Texas voting 64 candidates for HofR, and all non-Texan USA citizens then voting on which 32 - while maintaining relative party strengths - of those to send to the HofR! The same thing for Massachuttets, also. That would decrease some partisanship!

Wouldn't the fight -- instead -- be to insure that your "party" had the maximum number of candidates to offer in the second election in order to reduce choice? Wouldn't this INCREASE partisanship inside the state while decreasing it outside?

While I am no where near as informed on voting systems as you, Peter, I've observed from afar that the more complicated the system for distributing power and resources, the more likely it is to be gamed.

My concern with the allocation of "roles" on the BoD goes beyond a "fair" way of picking and voting for the candidates, but whether narrowing the roles of officers to a particular constituency is a wise move in itself.

AE

[T]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

My concern with the allocation of "roles" on the BoD goes beyond a "fair" way of picking and voting for the candidates, but whether narrowing the roles of officers to a particular constituency is a wise move in itself.

AE

You guys are intent on making this thread a political thread. Why don't one of you start a new thread in the General Fencing Discussion about this (and I will be happy to add to the discussion)? And let the parents use this space for their discussion about the original topic?

In most of the discussion I have heard so far, the parents (whose thread this is) have been stifled and marginalized by strong personalities that have taken over the discussion. This is exactly what happens in the BoD meetings and behind the scenes of the USFA political power-base (at the national, sectional, and divisional levels). The political-powers are intent on telling everyone what we cannot do, why their hands are tied (thanks, dcmdale), what's wrong with their ideas, etc. instead of building new and more productive organizational processes and models (if you want to see a more detailed discussion of this, go to the USFENCERSFORCHANGE website and look at the 'Priorities and Solutions' page, under IV).

The topic about constituency-based BoD is a great topic but it doesn't belong here. Out of the 40 postings in this thread, only about 1/3 of them are about the original parent topic. If a consituency-based BoD thread is started in the General Fencing Disucssion area, some parents may wish to join the BoD discussion elsewhere and kudos for them.

The main point of this thread was to find out what might motivate them to join the USFA. A seat at the national political table is one option that should be considered given the amount of money they spend in the sport as well as their time committment.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


Threaddrift - Guilty as charged.

I find so much pleasure in writing about those topics, so that I forgot myself. (It is not an issue of "intent" for my part, it is simple forgetting.)

In doing so, I performed the same sin that I have often taken others to task for. You pointed that out, and showed me the error of my ways.



Rep coming your way.


Hanging head in shame,

Peter Gustafsson

Originally Posted by T

You guys are intent on making this thread a political thread. Why don't one of you start a new thread in the General Fencing Discussion about this (and I will be happy to add to the discussion)? And let the parents use this space for their discussion about the original topic?

The topic about constituency-based BoD is a great topic but it doesn't belong here. Out of the 40 postings in this thread, only about 1/3 of them are about the original parent topic. If a consituency-based BoD thread is started in the General Fencing Disucssion area, some parents may wish to join the BoD discussion elsewhere and kudos for them.

The main point of this thread was to find out what might motivate them to join the USFA. A seat at the national political table is one option that should be considered given the amount of money they spend in the sport as well as their time committment.

[dberke]

I'm going to off