What's in it for the Parents?

[T]

While probably half of the USFA membership is under the age of 18, a relatively small % of their parents are members.

If you are not currently a member, what type(s) of membership benefits would attract you, as a Parent of a fencer, to join the USFA?

OR

If you are currently a member, what type(s) of membership benefits would be you be interested in?

[Mo]

If you are currently a member, what type(s) of membership benefits would be you be interested in?

Having a board on the USFA board for parents that actually had some power would be sooo amazing.

B

[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.

[T]

Having a board on the USFA board for parents that actually had some power would be sooo amazing.

B

Parents spend thousands and thousands of dollars every year for their kids to fence but yet they have no representation or input into the decision-making processes of the USFA. I strongly believe this needs to change.

Parents are, essentially, funding the developmental programs of the USFA. They (we) need to have a voice in decisions that affect their personal investment in both time and money.

Of course, parents can also be a great resource for the organization and the relationship should be a two-way street.

[oso97]

Parents spend thousands and thousands of dollars every year for their kids to fence but yet they have no representation or input into the decision-making processes of the USFA. I strongly believe this needs to change.

Parents are, essentially, funding the developmental programs of the USFA. They (we) need to have a voice in decisions that affect their personal investment in both time and money.

Of course, parents can also be a great resource for the organization and the relationship should be a two-way street.

Some of our greatest resources are parents whose children used to fence and the parents have continued their own involvement in the sport. Bout Committee is probably the place they've had the greatest impact.

I agree with you that parents should play a more complete role in the USFA decision-making progress. But, its tricky. The idea of of ANY group having automatic representation on decision-making bodies is troubling. I think there is too much potential for them to only pay attention to the specific issues that impact on a very narrow focus, and not work on the broader problems that need solving. Forcing people to demonstrate an ability to think about other issues is critical.

Your candidacy is an example of this. While we may disagree on who is more qualified to be USFA president and who would be better for the organization as a whole, you've never once said, "I should be because my daughters are two-thirds of the USA WE Team." Rather, you've chosen to focus on a much more broad set of concerns, and THAT is what is important. Kudos to you for that!

My feeling though, is that if a parent of a fencer wants to be involved in the process, then they need to be a member. And they need to show a desire and ability to contribute in multiple roles, the same as any other person involved in a leadership capacity.

My feeling? It has less to do with parents vs the existing power structure of the USFA (monolithic and one-sided it is not!) and the unwitting role that parents play in giving their children's coaches power on a national level. I've seen many many examples, both locally and nationally of coaches who parley their population of large and skilled fencers into political power. In many cases these coaches are rather toxic individuals, and why in heaven's name a parent will put up for an instant with the abuse these coaches shower upon their kids is a complete and utter mystery to me. The coaches will make promises to parents, and then use the kids results to insulate themselves in certain positions, and then tell the parents that unless they support the coach in action X, then they're going to take all that away from the kid.

The counterbalance to this is not necessarily specific parent representation, but competent, unaffiliated, neutral administrators who can make decisions about the good of the program as a whole, and not how this is going to affect the livelihood of coach Y or the dreams of parent Z.

And all too often, I've also seen the conflicts come down to wanting to have one's cake and eat it too. Decisions have to be made and priorities must be set. If you want to do X, then that means you're not going to be able to do Y, or that you might, just might have to commit yourself to do Z.

Example: I've seen a series of discussions about Sectional Qualifiers on the SAT weekend in May. Yep, that is not the ideal place. But, we're also talking about a date that was set, oh, about 12 months ago, allowing PLENTY of time for additional planning (um, take the test in June). And yet, there are parents who want that date moved. Well, where? And why didn't you voice your concerns 6-8 months ago when it was possible to do something?

Bottom line, I'm in favor of more parental involvement in the "administrative" side of the sport, but everyone should be judged for suitability on their own terms, not because of the genes that they've passed on to their offspring!

[dcmdale]

Not a member.

For me, it is less a matter of "what I would get" from being a parent member than a stasis caused by the strangeness of the fee schedule and the uninviting nature of the membership form.

Every time I fill out the membership form for my daughter, I go through the following calculus:

"A senior competitive membership costs $50 and gives essentially the right to fence, a subscription to AF, and the right to vote. A junior membership costs the same, but doesn't come with the right to vote. A "parent associate" membership costs $40 (the same as any other "associate" membership) and so far as I can see merely allows me to exercise the right to vote that my daughter's payment would come with if she was of age.

"Until this year, "right to vote" has been more of a negative than a benefit because it is an invitation to get involved in all of the divisional politics that one can ignore as a non-voting member--hardly something I would fork over $40 for. Besides, if I wanted to, I could still go to the meetings even if I couldn't actually vote.

"So, $40 gives me the right to vote, but not the right to fence. $10 more gives me a full competitive membership. I may never actually use it, but every year there will be one or two local events that are "stuck" with 14 or 24 competitors and they are scrounging for an extra U. I wouldn't want to pay $40 for a non-competitive membership and they get hit for a $50 competitive membership because I got "tapped."

"Then there is the family membership. But that is the same cost and has basically the same benefits as two competitive memberships, only we only get one AF (not a big deal).

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.

[dcmdale]

Example: I've seen a series of discussions about Sectional Qualifiers on the SAT weekend in May. Yep, that is not the ideal place. But, we're also talking about a date that was set, oh, about 12 months ago, allowing PLENTY of time for additional planning (um, take the test in June). And yet, there are parents who want that date moved. Well, where? And why didn't you voice your concerns 6-8 months ago when it was possible to do something?

Of course, on the other side of the coin, since this comes up every year, just *maybe* sectional officers would think to not schedule their qualifiers in conflict with the SAT.

(Now, I have got to go check #$%@#@ dates...)

[oso97]

Of course, on the other side of the coin, since this comes up every year, just *maybe* sectional officers would think to not schedule their qualifiers in conflict with the SAT.

(Now, I have got to go check #$%@#@ dates...)

Granted. But, the timeframe can start to get a little thin. For example, our Section bylaws stipulate a timeframe for sectionals that bascially encompases the last week of April and the first two weeks of May. Um, one of those is a NAC, another is Mother's Day and then there's an SAT weekend.

Which one would YOU chose to step on? Actually, except for that fact that trying to get referees would be impossible, putting it on top of the NAC would probably inconvenience the fewest people this time around! But you'd never get the referee cadre necessary to properly run the event. And a lot of the coaches would be at the NAC as well.

Plus there's also a stipulation for rotations, and many times the host division can accommodate one weekend but not another with an affordable venue.

Its an example of how the calculus involved can get complicated. Trying to view it through a very specific viewpoint to the exclusion of the others can be limiting.

[T]

Some of our greatest resources are parents whose children used to fence and the parents have continued their own involvement in the sport...

I agree with you that parents should play a more complete role in the USFA decision-making progress. But, its tricky. The idea of of ANY group having automatic representation on decision-making bodies is troubling. I think there is too much potential for them to only pay attention to the specific issues that impact on a very narrow focus, and not work on the broader problems that need solving. Forcing people to demonstrate an ability to think about other issues is critical.

I have to disagree with you on part of this response. I think that we need representation from all stake holders on the Board of Directors. Yes, they need to be USFA members - no argument there (which was the original point of this thread). And no group should hold a majority position. Is everyone suited to be on the Board? No, we definitely need cool-headed and responsible people that maintain their focus and keep everyone thinking about all sides of an issue. Parents have a unique perspective. Referees have a unique perspective. Coaches have a unique perspective (club and elite coaches have different perspectives). Fencers have a unique perspective (again, recreational, elite, veterans, and wheelchair fencers all have different perspectives), etc. If we don't have representation from all stakeholders on the Board, then we don't serve all members. If we have input from a variety of people with a variety of perspectives, we will travel down the most beneficial road (perhaps via a compromised agreement) for everyone.

How can we ensure that we travel down the best road for all USFA members if we only look at the issues from one or two sides of the story?

While we may disagree on who is more qualified to be USFA president and who would be better for the organization as a whole, you've never once said, "I should be because my daughters are two-thirds of the USA WE Team." Rather, you've chosen to focus on a much more broad set of concerns, and THAT is what is important. Kudos to you for that!

You are correct and thank you for noticing. Having daughters that represent 2/3 of the USA w.epee team in-and-of-itself is not sufficient for anyone to think that they should be president. And anyone would be foolish to run for such a position when their claim to fame is via DNA or is based on a single perspective in the sport. However, my daughters having the success that they have had is not a coincidence; it didn't happen by luck. And it DOES, provide me with a unique perspective that when coupled with all of my other strengths, i.e, the various hats (and masks) I have worn in this sport (fencer, coach, parent, manager), my educational background, my knowledege of many facets of the the sport, my professional and business experience in nonprofit and educational organizations, my knowledge of international fencing and associated politics, makes me a very strong (and in my opinion, the most qualified) candidate.

I wasn't trying to make this post about me. What I am interested in is finding out what would motivate parents to join the USFA. If elected, I would like very much to develop ways to motivate the parents to join the USFA and to become a contributing and active participant in their child's life and sport. While at the same time having some input on the return in their investment.

[oso97]

IParents have a unique perspective. Referees have a unique perspective. Coaches have a unique perspective (club and elite coaches have different perspectives). Fencers have a unique perspective (again, recreational, elite, veterans, and wheelchair fencers all have different perspectives), etc. If we don't have representation from all stakeholders on the Board, then we don't serve all members.

Fair enough. I'm willing to keep an open mind for a bit to see how you would implement this though.

Currently, the BOD is composed of the elected officers, an elected representative from each section, four elected representatives from the Congress and several representatives from the Athlete Advisory Group. I can point to numerous people on the BOD who are referees, several who are athletes (and NOT appointed by the AAG), a number of parents, several coaches, and some people who are just plain talented administrators. Numerous people fall into several of these roles.

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.

But, consider that pigonholing people into one role or another - or forcing them to choose "allegiance" to a group isn't necessarily the best way to get a broad representation. Lets consider two groups of people you've named - referees and coaches.

I personally know very few referees who aren't involved in some other aspect of the sport (i.e. they are referees only). Many many of them are coaches (and at all levels). Many are current active competitors. Many of them have held or currently hold administrative positions at the local and regional level. Here some of referees that are on the BOD, that I am aware of. None are on the BOD because they are referees. Passing the referee's test confers no administrative ability upon someone.

Brad Baker
Greg Dillworth
Sam Cheris
Jerry Benson
Gerry Baumgart
Derrick Cotton
Evan Raines

But, lets say for a moment that we were going to elect one or two people to represent the referee community to the BOD. I guess we could have all of the rated referees participate in that election. But, if we were going to do that, it wouldn't be very fair to allow them to vote in another constituency, would it? Which brings us to coaches.

Coaches that I can think of on the board: too numerous to count. And all there, with one exception, Ro Sobovlarro (currently serving as USFA VP with the "Coaching" portfolio), representing someone other than "coaches." But, if we were to elect representatives of coaching, what would be the basis for that? Allow everyone with a coaching membership to vote in an election to vote someone on the board? Maybe just people with a fencer in the top 32? Maybe just people who have a fencer who has competed at a national tournament? But, what about the people who voted in the election for the referee's representative?

Lets say we do have a system for parental representation on the BOD and a group of parents elect from there. How will people be eligible to vote in that election? All parents of fencers in the top 32? All parents of any fencer anywhere? What if the parent is a referee (I know several people whose children fence and they are referees), or a coach (again, I can think of several in this category), or even an athlete themselves? What happens if you identify a really good person from this group and they are doing wonderful things, and then their child stops fencing?

I see lots of potential for splintering the community by subdividing our membership by type and forcing people to declare allegiance to one group or another. This would be a bad thing over the long run.

These are the nitty gritty details that will have to be worked out, and are going to cause trouble for a system to apportion representation on the BOD. I think its better to go with geographic representation, and then use presidential appointments to fill in any gaps in specific talent that might be needed, rather than trying to get "voices." And if a parent wants to run for a BOD position, perhaps from their Section or the Congress, or as an Officer, then they will need to contest for it on the basis of what they bring to the table and the proven history of their accomplishments (other than passing on their DNA).

But, if you have some system in mind to mandate sufficient diversity of perspective that doesn't involve people having to declare allegiance to one group or another, please detail!

Cheers...

[Mr Epee]

Is there a specific problem with providing U-18 fencers with a vote entrusted to a legal guardian?

[brtech]

A problem with scheduling parents events at any NAC is scheduling parents events at any NAC. Kind of by definition, there is no slot that parents could attend an event. I don't think there is a slot that is just Vets events.

[dcmdale]

Granted. But, the timeframe can start to get a little thin. For example, our Section bylaws stipulate a timeframe for sectionals that bascially encompases the last week of April and the first two weeks of May. Um, one of those is a NAC, another is Mother's Day and then there's an SAT weekend.

Which one would YOU chose to step on? Actually, except for that fact that trying to get referees would be impossible, putting it on top of the NAC would probably inconvenience the fewest people this time around! But you'd never get the referee cadre necessary to properly run the event. And a lot of the coaches would be at the NAC as well.

Plus there's also a stipulation for rotations, and many times the host division can accommodate one weekend but not another with an affordable venue.

Its an example of how the calculus involved can get complicated. Trying to view it through a very specific viewpoint to the exclusion of the others can be limiting.

This indicates that this is a problem for every section and most years. I know from other threads that some sections have gotten dispensation to move their sectionals outside that window, but pushing the blame to the national office or the by-laws ultimately is part of the reason that the USFA is viewed as out of touch and unresponsive to its membership. If it is broken and it is broken year after year, it should be fixed.

As it happens, it will bite my daughter this year and there is an event that she won't be able to qualify for and she will be flying to SJ for 1 event instead of two, raising the effective cost / bout of going. It bit a bunch of kids last year. Next year, it will bite a bunch of other kids. My kid is not special that way. Bylaws can be changed, but it takes leadership that cares enough about the kids to fix it. That is part of what I think Mo and T are saying. And it is not just (relatively) minor things like bylaws that tend to force a decision between SN and college. It is the lack of an intelligent development path for cadet/junior/post-NCAA fencing. Its the failure to make development of younger fencers cost effective for parents. Its the failure to do anything to support recreational fencing, particularly (for parents) at a youth level.

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?

[dcmdale]

[Removed by author. Didn't read something above very carefully.]

[T]

A problem with scheduling parents events at any NAC is scheduling parents events at any NAC. Kind of by definition, there is no slot that parents could attend an event. I don't think there is a slot that is just Vets events.

Why can't we hold the same 'seminars' or 'info sessions' or whatever at a variety of times throughout the day or evening and on various days? If we kept them to less than an hour at a time, parents would probably be able to find a slot to attend if they wanted or if they found themselves waiting between rounds, or their kids want to go out with their friends, etc. If the topic was too involved for a single session, there could be Parts A, B, etc. There could be some type of info session taking place at many different times throughout the competition.

If you go to a professional conference, there are often multiple break-out sessions at the same time. You can't go to all of them at the same time but you pick and choose based on your schedule and your interests. Not all parents have to attend the sessions at the same time.

Obviously, some parents would prefer to view them online at their own convenience and this may prove to be a many people but I would also suggest that there is some social value in the face-to-face sessions and they would always have the ability to get questions answered.

[Philistine]

Is there a specific problem with providing U-18 fencers with a vote entrusted to a legal guardian?

Heck, personally I can't see any reason why the voting age shouldn't be at most 16. And my initial inclination would be to be favorably inclined to arguments to lower it to 14 (13 might be too young for me, but OTOH, it would then correspond to the age to fence in an open).

--Philistine

[T]

Fair enough. I'm willing to keep an open mind for a bit to see how you would implement this though.

Currently, the BOD is composed of the elected officers, an elected representative from each section, four elected representatives from the Congress and several representatives from the Athlete Advisory Group. I can point to numerous people on the BOD who are referees, several who are athletes (and NOT appointed by the AAG), a number of parents, several coaches, and some people who are just plain talented administrators. Numerous people fall into several of these roles.

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.

First of all, I wasn't trying to make this thread a political forum about the BOD. My point was to ask parents what would motivate them to join the USFA (information that any and all officers can use after elected). I will add one more political response here and then I would like the thread to drift back to its original topic. If you want to start another political thread, I will join you there.

But I want to hear from Parents-of-fencers on the topic in this thread.

And now for my final political response in this thread -
People wear multiple hats in our sport - no doubt about it. And at certain times, one hat is usually more dominant than another for a variety of reasons. For example, my primary role in the sport right now is that of parent (and everything that entails).

With that said, I don't believe we should limit who can vote on specific BOD seats (as you mentioned above). Instead, the BOD should have specific seats that every eligible-member can vote on. In other words, they would have a constituency that they would advocate for, argue for, and protect...For instance, someone who is a coach, a referee, or a parent may run for any position if they can present the requisite credentials to the membership at voting time to convince them they have that group's best interests in mind. This constituency should also hold them accountable for their decisions. If I am a referee, a coach, and a parent, I can still vote for all positions but I want to know the 'coach' representative is advocating for the benefit of all coaches (ie, transparency and accountability!). Equally, I want to know that the 'referee' and 'parent' representatives are advocating for the benefit of all refs and parents, respectively. Perhaps to fully accomplish this representation, we need BOD members that represent even a finer constituency-base (such as recreational, elite, and wheelchair fencers for example). I don't believe this splinters or divides the fencing community. On the contrary, I believe it builds for a stronger and more directed organization because decisions are made through discussion, compromise, and reasonableness. Bigger problems occur when stakeholder groups feel they are left out of the decision-making process. People are able to compromise and still advocate for their constituencies.

Without accountability and transparency (and these terms apply to many more things than just financial decisions and budgets), BOD representatives might possibly act in their own best interests ...and under the current system, there is no accountability to any constituency group because there is no transparency...period. And I also know this type of opaque political system trickles down to many divisions and sections (e.g, the often abuse of proxies at divisional and sectional meetings) where again, there is little - if any - accountability and transparency. The divisions and sections can pretty much do as they please without any accountability to their divisional/sectional members (given they can secure enough proxies by the fact they have the biggest club in the division) or the USFA (which currently is only minimally interested in the oversight of divisional and sectional political systems).

So, my point is that our USFA political system needs to be constituency-based which provides for accountability through transparent processes.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


Heavy snipping by me below. Bold emphasis mine.

Currently, the BOD is composed of the elected officers, an elected representative from each section, four elected representatives from the Congress and several representatives from the Athlete Advisory Group. I can point to numerous people on the BOD who are referees, several who are athletes (and NOT appointed by the AAG), a number of parents, several coaches, and some people who are just plain talented administrators. Numerous people fall into several of these roles.

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.

But, consider that pigonholing people into one role or another - or forcing them to choose "allegiance" to a group isn't necessarily the best way to get a broad representation. Lets consider two groups of people you've named - referees and coaches.

I personally know very few referees who aren't involved in some other aspect of the sport (i.e. they are referees only). Many many of them are coaches (and at all levels). Many are current active competitors. Many of them have held or currently hold administrative positions at the local and regional level. Here some of referees that are on the BOD, that I am aware of. None are on the BOD because they are referees. Passing the referee's test confers no administrative ability upon someone.

{LIST}

But, lets say for a moment that we were going to elect one or two people to represent the referee community to the BOD. I guess we could have all of the rated referees participate in that election. But, if we were going to do that, it wouldn't be very fair to allow them to vote in another constituency, would it? Which brings us to coaches.

Sure, it is possible to construct a voting system in which all voters are equally represented, and get to vote in their partially-overlapping consitutients.

Assume that the following constituiencies(sp?) are codified:
1. Coach (has USFA coach membership)
2. Referee (has USFA ref rating)
3. Top-level athlete (as defined by USOC, or top-32 in relevant NRPS list)
4. BC person (credentialed BC training, and/or extensive experience)
5. Voted to sub-national post (hopefully self-explanatory)
6. Fencing parent (at least one offspring is junior or younger USFA member)
7. General member (USFA member of voting age)

One can envision other categories, but you get the idea.

Now, give each USFA member not one, but seven votes. Furthermore, give each constituency a number of spots on the USFA board. (that is the hard part, since it is not self-evident that pure population data should be used for seat allotments. Should make for interesting politics, though.)

Then, let every USFA member vote for any of the constituencies that they belong to. For those that belong to several, let them choose how they will use their 7 votes. For those that only belong to one constituency, they must use all 7 votes in the election for those seats. Voters may, but are not forced to, vote for the same candidates in all of their votes. All candidates may run for seats belonging to the constituencies that they belong to, but they can only be voted to one seat.

The mail vote procedure:
1. USFA posts one outer return envelope, 7 blank vote slips, and at least one inner return vote envelope. Members which belong to multiple constituencies get the corresponding inner envelopes. Those are marked with constituency group name, but no other marking.
2. The voting member writes in the name of his preferred candidates. All candidates automatically run for "general" seats, in addition to eventual constituency seats.
3. The voter puts each vote slip into an inner return envelope which the voted-for candidate is eligble for. Votes that feel especially for some constituency may choose to use up all their 7 votes for one candidate in that constituency. Those voters which are more interested in blocking a particular candidate may choose to use all 7 votes on 7 different candidates which are direct competitors to that disagreeable candidate. Still other voters are free to mix and match.
4. The voter puts all his inner envelopes into the outer envelope, which he then mails back to USFA. The outer envelope is marked with a voter number.
5. At USFA, the outer envelopes are ticked off against the voter number list, so that no member can vote more than once.
6. At USFA, the outer envelopes are opened, and the inner envelopes are put into their respective vote boxes, one for each constituency.
7. All inner envelopes for a given constituency are opened, and the vote slips are put into their respective constituency vote box.

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 multiple entries in the big ordered list.
3. The top vote getter gets the first seat in the USFA elected leadership. All his eventual entries lower down are struck from the big ordered list. 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.

So there! A voting system which gives equal voting power to all voting members, and gives everyone a right to vote for candidates which belong to the same constituency as the voter!

Note: I think that voting should be done electronically. However, it is easier to describe the implementation in the snailmail case, so I went with that. Let PEET do the translation to software.

How hard can it be - it took me less than a minute to figure out the system (little more to write it down, though). Surely you could have come up with the same or similar, had you given it a moment´s thought! Why do you write as if it were impossible?

I think its better to go with geographic representation, and then use presidential appointments to fill in any gaps in specific talent that might be needed, rather than trying to get "voices." And if a parent wants to run for a BOD position, perhaps from their Section or the Congress, or as an Officer, then they will need to contest for it on the basis of what they bring to the table and the proven history of their accomplishments (other than passing on their DNA).

But, if you have some system in mind to mandate sufficient diversity of perspective that doesn't involve people having to declare allegiance to one group or another, please detail!

Cheers...

I see plenty of possibility for favoritism in an appointment system.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[oiuyt]

Doesn't seem NEARLY complicated enough for you Peter. Why not add in some preferential voting scheme to how we allocate the votes that we choose to put into a given pile?

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

-B

[Allen Evans]

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

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

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