US Fencers for Change: Where did they get these solutions?

[seak]

I'm not sure where that idea came from originally, but the USFA has been testing it out with a small group of referees (and other tournament officials?) for at least the past two seasons. It's not new.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, it's not about getting a bunch of nifty-sounding ideas and tossing them out there. It's about creating a coherent structure. Where do we want to be in 1 year? In 4 years? Beyond 2012? How are we going to get there?

Who is best suited for helping craft such a strategic plan and then do the heavy lifting of actually getting the component parts implemented?

-B

yeah, sort of realized this might be true, just remember Greg being the one talking about it (given that I'm clearly not in the pilot group and hadn't heard about it).

Post has been edited for accuracy, less inflametoriness (really not trying to start flame wars here I swear)

[jjefferies]

Such as THIS?

Kalle and I also conducted an open "Meet the Candidates" coffee at the New Jersey Fencing Alliance yesterday. It was videotaped by our hosts with the intention of cutting it into small enough chunks for posting to YouTube and potentially other sites (such as FNet). Roughly a 2-hour talk (mostly Q&A), but it covered a wide range of topics.

All of the nominated candidates will be in Portland. We'll certainly find time to be available for those that want to ask questions or give suggestions then. If you have ideas right now we'd welcome them being sent to usfanominees@gmail.com

-B

Good! So they're going to respond. That's encouraging.

But I take it your "Meet the Candidates" was a partisan affair. Not an attempt to present all the candidates. When you say "All of the nominated candidates will be in Portland" what do you mean? "All the Candidates" or just one slate?

[KD5MDK]

I doubt he's in a position to speak for people he's not affiliated with.

[jjefferies]

To jjefries: ummmm...........again really?

Most certainly. Look Inq doesn't have any hold on the rights to be a curmudgeon. And to boot I hold a "License to Flame"(tm) #0926 from the DoD. And you can check it out any time sweetie. Just ask the KoTL.

Look Tracy Hurley of the alternative slate has been incredibly open to membership opinion posting on the board etc. All credit to her. But, no one else from her slate has done the same thing (outside of a couple posts in the first thread).

To hear some people around here one's too many! If they all were posting here we'd be hearing Inq and Oiuyt and others complaining about that. So one voice of reason makes sense. And we do get a sense of Ms. Hurley's focus and interest in the sport.

More importantly to me is that I get the sense she's a fighter and I think that's important. While our sport isn't quite moribund, what leadership there is, seems to me to be coming from the bottom. I've been told recently that our soon to be past Executive Director was actively resisting growing the USFA membership. That he felt the USFA's size was adequate. (Ok so this was second hand report of conversations, but it seems to fit). And it fits with an NGB that sees itself as largely being an appendage to the USOC to handle selection of national teams within a set of rules laid out by another international body, the FIE. And sure that's part of the USFA's role but development, expansion of the sport are also intrinsic parts. These past years appear to me to have been a situation where the professional side, i.e. the Exec. Director, largely controlled and ran the NGB. It will take a strong personality to turn than situation around and make the organization responsive to the membership.

Of course there are those who prefer to leave it as it was and make no changes.

[oiuyt]

When you say "All of the nominated candidates will be in Portland" what do you mean? "All the Candidates" or just one slate?

Mmmm, I was using "nominated candidates" the way it's been commonly tossed around the past couple of months -- to mean those nominated by the nominating committee (as opposed to those nominated by petition).

USFFC's website says "We will be at the Div I National Championships/Youth NAC in Portland, Oregon on April 25-28." I don't know whether that means all five of those candidates or representatives of that group. I could see it going either way.

To hear some people around here one's too many! If they all were posting here we'd be hearing Inq and Oiuyt and others complaining about that.

????

Have I objected in any way to Tracy posting? To the posts from August? To any posts (if any?) from Soren, Bruno, or Sherol? I'm unclear what prompted the quoted comment.

Of course there are those who prefer to leave it as it was and make no changes.

Heh. I don't think that accurately describes ANY of the eleven candidates.

-B

[oiuyt]

But I take it your "Meet the Candidates" was a partisan affair. Not an attempt to present all the candidates.

Sorry, one additional comment on this post.

Kalle and I were the two speakers, so in that sense it was focused on us, rather than any of the other nine people running. When we were discussing our plans or ideas it was, naturally, our personal opinions and/or the plans of the group with which we've been working.

On the other hand, the handout provided to those in the audience included the biographies of all eleven candidates. Basically a printout of the material that's available on the two websites.

So I guess it depends on what you mean by "present all the candidates."

-B

[JEC]

I think that a great difference between prior selections of officers and the current state is that there is healthy debate of ideas, and the selected NC slate now has to expressed those ideas to the membership.


Ideas from the NC group:
http://www.usfanominees.com

Ideas from the Fencers for change group:
http://usfencersforchange.com/

Furthermore, the membership could make our future officials more accountable for their promises. Debate is healthy for any organization. If it wasn't for Tracy's challenge, we wouldn't have this debate, but, perhaps, the same level of secrecy that has permeated our organization for years.

[oso97]

Furthermore, the membership could make our future officials more accountable for their promises. Debate is healthy for any organization. If it wasn't for Tracy's challenge, we wouldn't have this debate, but, perhaps, the same level of secrecy that has permeated our organization for years.

Not hardly. Observation of any of the Board meetings recently, would quickly lead to the realization that debate is most assuredly happening. As well as in other places.

Just because the debate isn't happening on F.net doesn't mean its not happening!

[Snowbabe]

I find much of this very interesting. The current infrastructure definately has to be delt with. The USFA has had a good problem that we have grown very quickly-too quickly. My issue is that Ms. Hurley's group don't seem to have experience on how this organization is run. I don't think(maybe I am wrong) that any of these candidates have run a division, been on a national committee, consistently attended Board Meetings. I have been to many of the Board Meetings, and I know that Ms. Hurley attended the one at JO's but I don't think that I have seen her or any other candidates at other meetings. My point being is that you need to know how the current organization works, not how you think it works-to improve or recreate a better organization.
I also find it interesting that people don't think that the nominated slate is approachable. Brad and Greg are on this forum constantly. The others may not go on this forum. Maybe it is not their cup of tea. Many of you know Brad and Greg and they are as straight forward as they come. If they don't know the answer, they will find it and get back to you. If you have questions for the other candidates, go on their website and ask them.

[TBean]

fencinginDC - Have those people stepped forward and offered to help? Have they run for Division office? (it's often an easy stepping stone to bigger things)

I counter this with has anyone asked them to be involved? Have any of the few hundred people who are involved at the national level recruited or attempted to recruit others? People need to get invited to be a part of a part of the process. I don't sit around and wait for people to volunteer for my non-profit Board, I ask them if they have interest in being a part of my organization. This is what needs to happen, not waiting for people to raise thier hands, but asking those who are already involved to identify and recruit new people with needed skills. Then you ask those people open up thier networks.

[Timberwolf_CY]

I counter this with has anyone asked them to be involved? Have any of the few hundred people who are involved at the national level recruited or attempted to recruit others? People need to get invited to be a part of a part of the process. I don't sit around and wait for people to volunteer for my non-profit Board, I ask them if they have interest in being a part of my organization. This is what needs to happen, not waiting for people to raise thier hands, but asking those who are already involved to identify and recruit new people with needed skills. Then you ask those people open up thier networks.

The import of this point cannot be overstated. While I'm sure some people will take the stance that "Only true volunteers have the mettle to run fencing" or some such, most people probably don't even know they can aid in the running of things; they don't even know they are needed in the first place! When my old club's president asked me to run the club at UCM, I had no idea when he asked me that he was even leaving. Had he not asked me, there's a very good chance the club would not have lasted till now, simply because there was only one other good candidate, and he himself was leaving within a year or so. Actually, I would never have fenced and I would have remained an ignorant arrogant critic of Olympic European fencing had I not been invited to attend a practice at UCM's club. I don't mean to sound too self-....what, er, promoting/egotistical/built-up/etc? but the entire timeline of the club, and it's very existance, would have been altered if I had not simply been asked to fence for one night early in the school year (assuming, of course, that all other things remained constant). Now take someone as small and inexperienced as I was, and magnify it to the national level. There are probably hundreds of people out there, who, out of their ignorance, and their leaders' ignorance, may never volunteer for their or the national organization, and hence great change is never seen! It only takes one person to make a difference, but if that one person never knows, the difference may never happen...

Sorry if I got too grandiose or whatnot, it's just that when someone makes a point like that, it should be advertised and magnified as much as possible.

[nyacfencing]

I cannot imagine that these timid people never even thought about the possibility of being involved in their local division or section, or on a national committee, and one day out of the blue said to themselves "I should run the entire USFA".

If they didn't think to ask... then that is something we should all know. I know that that would sway my opinion on whether or not I want them running our organization. Leaders generally take charge without waiting to be asked.

That being said... has anybody found this out? Maybe they did take part... Maybe they were all section chairman...

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

That being said... has anybody found this out? Maybe they did take part... Maybe they were all section chairman...

Not so hard to find out, their website gives the following bio info:

August Skopik (Vice-President)

I am the founder and head coach of Katy Blades Fencing Academy located in Katy Mills Mall in Katy, TX. I began fencing at Texas A&M University in 1980, and have won Texas, Southwest Section and National events, (2003 Men Vet 40 Epee). I have also been the fencing administrative chair for Texas A&M, Bayou City Blades, Gulf Coast Division and Southwest Section.

The others also have organizational experience within fencing.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[fencinginDC]

I mentioned a few people as examples of those with skills to offer but not necessarily much experience in fencing as a whole. They have always been available to help when asked. Getting great volunteers is like getting people to make donations... nothing happens unless you ask.

Having people with USFA / international / FOC experience is very important. None of that experience necessarily translates into managing change, or providing leadership. For example, the USFA needs assistance with fundraising. Effective leadership means finding those resources and figuring out the best way to utilize them.

Just because someone has been involved with the USFA provides absolutely no basis for leading the USFA going forward, but they should absolutely be part of the process. What is needed to jump start the process is effective, intellegent leadership, provided by someone who doesn't have pre-determined ideas and is willing to listen. They also need to be someone that others feel that they can trust.

You can go through hundreds of emails and the only two people who consistently meet this criteria are Greg and Brad. Do they have ALL the skills and experience and contacts that the USFA needs? Of course not! But they have the ability to identify a path, and others who have those other necessary skills. There could be other people like them as well, but right now there are not, because another critical quality is having the commitment to step up and take responsibility.

What is so exciting is what people like that can do when they start asking the right questions. What if we identified 12 people with substantial fundraising skills to form the basis of a new fundraising effort? What if we identify people who had key positions in business or with other non-profit organizations to help determine the right foundation for the way the USFA should be restructured going forward. Those wouldn't be the same people who would figure out a better solution to a better ratings/points system, or tournament structure, or referee development.

Leadership will include the people who can help identify and prioritize the issues, find the right people and resources to address them, and make sure that it all gets done as promised. What we have generally had at the USFA are a relatively small group of people trying to solve everything all at once, without a clear plan, without seeking qualified help outside the group, without effective oversight or follow-up, and understandably not doing any of it very well.

There is reason to be optimistic, unless we end up with the same small groups of people trying to control everything, and actually accomplishing little.

fencinginDC - Have those people stepped forward and offered to help? Have they run for Division office? (it's often an easy stepping stone to bigger things)

I agree that there are people with vast experience in other fields who can be great help. At the same time, the number of people in fencing involved at the National level is relatively small. Probably maybe a few hundred do more than just show up? Experience working with these people, and the lessons learned from past USFA changes and choices is a very valuable strength for our leaders.

[oso97]

As KDMDK5 pointed out, the organizational nature of our Association is somewhat unique within the ranks of the USOC NGBs. This is reflected in a number of ways. We place a high degree of value on member voice and participation, and our governing processes are representative in nature and practice. Our Association is charged with selecting and fielding National Teams, and also is responsible, through its component arms, for week-in and week-out competition at the local level. On one hand, we are subject to economic upturns and downturns, like any non-profit organization, and yet we have fundamental core stability thanks to profits invested after the 1984 Olympics. The operational details of our sport depend HEAVILY on volunteer labor (and volunteer labor that is highly trained and specialized - it takes a significant amount of time to train a fencing referee, armourer or bout committee official, and we need LOTS of them, compared to virtually every other sport), and we also have a small, full time paid staff charged with administering a dizzying array of responsibilities.

The nature of our sport is also such that someone with a decade of organizational and operational experience at the national level can realistically be considered "new blood." Turnover in our volunteer administration is extremely low. The same faces keep popping up over and over again. Someone like Kalle Weeks, who has been chair of one of the most important committees in the USFA for the past 7 years, and has been promoting modernization, revitalization and reform for almost that entire time, is literally a newbie! Compare to our current president, who was a BC member in the 80s, or one of our current VP's who was an officer during that time period! Clearly, fresh blood is needed. We are suffocating under the weight of our own history!

But at the same time, a balance is needed, and change must be carefully weighed. There are real organizational and operational concerns that are incredibly nuanced and need to be weighed. Just as an example, take T's discussion of publication of selection criteria for Junior and Cadet National Teams for 2009, and all the factors that play into that, and flow from that (event weighting, Div I inclusion/not inclusion, domestic vs international, numbers and rankings of fencers allowed to compete internationally, and all the rest). There is an interlinked spiderweb of ramifications from just this one decision that can send ripples of effect down to every level of the USFA, right down to who is attending the next local competition in your division and what officials are available to run it. We need officers with an understanding of what those interweaved complexities are.

We need officers who have spent the past decade involved in these interweavings, so that when a decision is made, they can make the best decision for the organization as a whole without triggering a host of unintended consequences. Not officers from the old guard, the people who have been in the same officer positions since 1985, but definitely some people who have been active in the important debates of the past 10 years, like the decision to attend the 2001 World Championships, right after 9/11; the explosion of youth fencing and the growth, development and change to the RYC program; the ongoing efforts to recruit, develop and promote the massive increase in volunteer officials our sport needs in order to function as well as add levels of professionalism to those cadres that has become a worldwide model; or managing the national events that doubled, tripled, and quadrupled in both size and in the number of events held (with Div 1A, Div III, and youth events not even existing 20 years ago) - and STILL getting out of the venue earlier than in the "bad old days." People who know the group from which the next tier of leaders will come from, and can involve that group to reinvigorate our volunteer leadership to help deal with the challenges of the present, and who can overcome the resistance of a core of conservative, reactionary leaders who have not adapted to the realities of the present and the future.

I believe that the officers who fit this bill are Kalle, Ro, Jerry, Mark, Greg, and Brad.

Yes, I helped nominate them. Yes, I helped interview them and others. But this post is not about that. It is about how we make the decisions going forward.

I've read the USFFC website. There ARE good ideas there, including some which have been obvious to rank and file members for some time. I've spoken AT LENGTH to Dr. Hurley about her ideas, her passions and her frustrations. I've talked AT LENGTH to August Skopik (a VP Candidate) and heard what he has to say. Their thoughts and frustrations echo my own in many, many details. They have creative thoughts, that at first, may sound bizzare, but also need fundamental examination of why they are being proposed.

And yet, their ideas are also EXTRAORDINARILY similar to the thoughts of the group that I helped nominate and now support. We're all on the same page here, folks, and are all wanting to head into the same direction.
Really.
Seriously.
WE ARE.

This election is not a choice between the "old guard" and the "fresh voices of change." Kalle, et al. have just as much potential and passion to be agents of change as the others, and their route to nomination doesn't affect that. Their ultimate goals are the same: modernization of the organization, improvement of member services, increased transparency in governance, and production of high level national teams.

And the two groups' thoughts on how to go about those things aren't all that far apart, either. However, I have more confidence in the ability of Kalle, et al. to fight through the morass of confusion and take on the entrenched folks still stuck in 1985, because Kalle and the others have first hand, intimate knowledge of how things actually work at the national level on down and have spent the past decade striving to make them better, from the inside. Many of the really good things about our organization right now can be traced back to efforts that these people were physically involved in. If not for them, our organization would be in a world of hurt, even more so than it is. They have a vision of a strong, cohesive organization, serving its members and fulfilling the mandates of its charter in innovate and successful ways.

And yet, this election may degrade to fratricide, and we've seen some evidence of that already. We've got two groups of people fighting over the same ideas. It would be different if there were clear-cut policy differences to weigh, but instead people are starting to end up arguing about minutiae like which flavor of regional tournaments would be best, or painting the other group (and their supporters) as either radical reactionaries or solely focused on narrow, elite interests. It's going to start coming down soon to personalities, discussions of those personalities, and expansive campaign promises. And that is when it is going to get REALLY ugly.

You know who wins? The dinosaurs. The true reactionaries that are, in fact, tied to those narrow, elite interests. They're loving the fact that the forces of change and reform are fighting amongst themselves.

Think about it. Think hard. Do we really want to go down this path? We need officers with the proven ability to take on the entrenched interests, and with the detailed knowledge of the inner workings of the Association to let them do it from Day One of the next administration. We need to give them the strongest support we can, because, finally, FINALLY people who care about us have the chance to be in the majority and get things done.

Thats all. I'll bow out now. I'm going to try not to contribute any more to these discussions publicly, although, I don't intend to stop reading. And I know who I am going to vote for.

[keith]

*Wonders about the identity of the Sith lord manipulating the wizened rump of USFA democracy.*

[Mr Epee]

Leave Britney Alone!!!!!

[fencinginDC]

oso97

I know you are a smart guy. I have read your posts on a variety of subjects. Your comments regarding experience are definitely valid. Experience is critical to knowing how to make good decisions.

I don't think I made my point very clearly because we seem to be talking about different things:

1. I honestly can't tell, from what I have read and heard, that it will really be all the different if one group gets elected versus another. If you can't be candid about where we are as an organization, you can't expect change. Most of the people running for an officer are very valuable to the USFA and the it would be lunacy to not involve them in the important issues. Nobody questions their passion for helping the USFA succeed. There is not indication, however, that they are good leaders from a business/management perspective. By the way elections and counter-elections (currently and in the past) have been conducted, it is clear that neither group has the ability to effectively work with those having opinions that differ from their own, or to rally people to follow their lead. There wasn't anything "wrong" with the way the nominating committee selected the slate but, once again, without specific direction the choice was made from within a known and fairly narrow group of people. The group eventually elected has an opportunity to find people to assist them, or just try to do things within the same small groups. I hope they have the wisdom to ask for help.

2. The new structure I described has nothing to do with the USFA being unique. This is a matter of goverance and management. All of the people currently involved in USFA committees might be just as involved as they have been. What would be different would be a Board (3 year staggered rotation in most cases) that provides direction/strategy/priorities, which would then be implemented by a professional staff and various volunteers and committee members, with ACCOUNTABILITY. The volunteers and staff and committees would be very much part of the decision-making process, but the people responsible for leading the USFA would be the ones making the ultimate strategic and operational decisions, and making sure things got done. What would be effectively gone (and this is an important point) are what we now have in the form of "Officers", which I never really understood anyway. That has kind of been a fifth wheel, and only mattered because everything else was either ineffective (Board) or overextended (staff). What has normally been done by a real Board has been mostly absent at the USFA.

This is simply organizational management 101. It is very definitely not a new or radical concept, and completely familiar to anyone who has worked with management or Boards in a company of even modest size.

Here is a prediction:
I believe that people that have mostly stayed in the background will recognize the very responsible steps taken by Greg and Brad and, at the least, begin paying attention to what's going on. Among those will be people with the critical management and leadership skills that recognize opportunities to help move things in the right direction. This will take a few years, but the change will be inevitable, including a complete re-write of the USFA By-Laws.

The election will be held and, as long as Brad and Greg are involved, only very small groups will care who wins. Those winners will clearly be important and work in their respective capacity as Officers, but their success will be dependent upon their ability to work WITH others and not assume they have the answers (anyone who says they do is a blithering idiot). Those non-Officers wanting to make the positive and necessary changes at the USFA will either work with the newly elected Officers (Hurray!, good answer), around them (and possibly just wait until the next election, developing carefully considered plans to be implemented at that time), or just quit in frustration (putting us back to where we are today).

So, I'll be voting to be sure both Greg and Brad stay involved. I will contact the new group and offer my time and resources, and I believe others will as well. Listen up Officers-to-be... you have no less than a chance to reshape the USFA and prepare it for the future. Or, you can continue thinking that this election/political crap matters.

My personal challenge to you, the various candidates, is to get on the frigging telephone with each other and agree on ONE slate that we can all stand behind. I can't think of a better way to begin to build some credibility and trust.

[Falkan]

I got the same e-mail. In fact, doing a search for their website brought me to this thread.

I didn't get the impression that their ideas were wildly unrealistic. Obviously, they can't present all of their information: it's an e-mail trying to get people to vote for them, not a report. A simple format is more likely to get people to read it; a research paper with footnotes isn't.

I'm the president of a small collegiate fencing club in Southern California. I didn't start fencing until I started college, so I'm relatively inexperienced, but from what I've seen of the USFA and collegiate leagues, they are *extremely* insular organizations. This seems to be the fault of the organizations for waiting for people to come to them, not because of any lack of interest in fencing.

Based on that, what was most appealing about the e-mail was the impression it gave me that they're trying to establish the USFA as a more credible national association (not to imply it lacks credibility at the moment), particularly their suggestions regarding the establishment of a front office. The other most appealing thing about their platform was the modernization of the USFA's management process. I've noted with a large degree of frustration the lack of relatively simple conveniences: websites like askfred should've been established by the USFA a long time ago. This isn't new technology, and waiting for a third party to get around to implementing something like it is silly.

Again, this is all stated with the disclaimer that I've only been fencing for a few years. But I think that dismissing their ideas is imprudent - they seem to have some extremely valuable input that should be strongly considered. I love fencing, and virtually everyone I've talked to about it has been extremely enthusiastic about learning how to fence. There's interest, but it seems that organizations aren't doing enough to say to those that are interested: hey, we're out here.

[Inquartata]

You know who wins? The dinosaurs. The true reactionaries

Did someone call me?

Heh.