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

[Damon Scaggs]

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

The idea was developed by Greg Dillworth and Derrick Cotton.

[fencinginDC]

That just isn't realistic. TBean's comment reflects the real world, one that includes highly qualified people who are very busy... BECAUSE they are highly qualified. They type of people needed by the USFA are the same people that many other organizations would want. It is OUR responsibility as an organization to identify and RECRUIT the the best people. It is... immodest... to assume that they will seek out an office in the Division/Section/USFA.

A significant segment of the USFA membership needs to change their thinking, and stop assuming we are so darned special. We are a non-profit organization competing for volunteers, money and other resources... just like thousands of others.

Look what it took to get two small pieces of modern Board governance in place. Greg wisely identified the most critical issue based on serious financial concerns regarding the USFA, and got those two changes passed. Do people on teh forum have any idea of the scope of change that's needed? Since we can't afford to pay for it, find the right path will require guidance from people with very specialized skills and experience. The incoming Officers/Board can either help do that, or bury it. As I noted before, there is some reason to be optimistic.

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...

[ysbadadden]

It's not just about proposals or platforms. It's not even just about who has the best ideas.

It's about who can put good enough ideas across at the level of the Executive Committee, BoD, and National Office. Oh -- and make sure that the necessary, routine stuff gets done competently at the same time.

In my experience, there's a vast inertia in our organization that swallows up intitiative like a black hole.

So maybe the issue isn't ideas, but the ability to lead.

[jjefferies]

It's not just about proposals or platforms. It's not even just about who has the best ideas.

It's about who can put good enough ideas across at the level of the Executive Committee, BoD, and National Office. Oh -- and make sure that the necessary, routine stuff gets done competently at the same time.

In my experience, there's a vast inertia in our organization that swallows up intitiative like a black hole.

So maybe the issue isn't ideas, but the ability to lead.

Leadership is a funny business. Recently there have been a series of stories/complaints coming out of the Univ of Cal system. The chairman of the board, Richard Blum, has come under fire for pushing out ineffective administrators and tightening up management of the 200,000+ student system. Many would like him to be more collegial and have more papers on various possible approaches commissioned rather than take such direct action. But fortunately for him (and maybe the univ) he's rather wealthy, the husband of Senator Feinstein and a political power outside of the university system. Otherwise the entrenched powers of the university system would have smothered him and any possible reformation of an extremely massive system. While we don't have anyone quite of that caliber in our current USFA election there are analogies. Another analogy is that of the US government (I use the US as an example but the same applies to most democratic nations) where you have a huge bureaucracy that each administration must take control of. Likewise the USFA has a large bureaucracy of volunteers with a thin layer of paid professionals (ok I'm going out on a limb here), to oversee the whole operation. One of my concerns about the NC slate of candidates particularly the president is that they were selected through a collegial process. That is one that emphasizes experiences within the existing sets of obligations, expectations and history. Being conservative in many ways I would not want to throw all of that away (babies and bathwater). But putting another insider in charge is extremely unlikely to change the inertia which this organization has been experiencing. And with the departure of Michael Massick now is a great time to start the USFA forward again.

[arc]

One of my concerns about the NC slate of candidates particularly the president is that they were selected through a collegial process. That is one that emphasizes experiences within the existing sets of obligations, expectations and history. Being conservative in many ways I would not want to throw all of that away (babies and bathwater). But putting another insider in charge is extremely unlikely to change the inertia which this organization has been experiencing.

Have you not been reading what David & I have been saying on here? You want to define what you mean by suggesting that the NC is a "collegial" committee? And have you been completely ignoring what's been stated in every communication from the NC or its members as far as the NC explicitly looking for individuals who are (1) dedicated to reform/modernization/whatever you want to call it, combined with (2) sufficient knowledge of the Association to actually be able to present changes to the Board and get them implemented?

[oso97]

You want to define what you mean by suggesting that the NC is a "collegial" committee?

Well, you know, we WERE pretty collegial, in the sense that none of our meetings involved people standing up and shouting at each other or throwing things at each other. I certainly don't recall any yelling either.

Which is not to say there weren't some rather intense discussions and differences of viewpoints that needed to be thrashed out...

Since when did people *gasp* actually work together to develop a *gasp* consensus for change instead of an autocratic leader shoving things down everyone's throat become a BAD thing?

[keith]

Since when did people *gasp* actually work together to develop a *gasp* consensus for change instead of an autocratic leader shoving things down everyone's throat become a BAD thing?

The problem with a NC format is that it is easy to make an easy choice - and it is hard for members of a NC to deflect the charge that the candidates where picked because they are nice people.

[jjefferies]

Have you not been reading what David & I have been saying on here? You want to define what you mean by suggesting that the NC is a "collegial" committee? And have you been completely ignoring what's been stated in every communication from the NC or its members as far as the NC explicitly looking for individuals who are (1) dedicated to reform/modernization/whatever you want to call it, combined with (2) sufficient knowledge of the Association to actually be able to present changes to the Board and get them implemented?

Despite the sometimes almost hostile manner in which it is presented as though no one else has the right to question or pose other views, I've been reading it but as an argument presented. That's about as far as I'm willing to take my willing suspension of disbelief. Please tell, why should your statements carry the weight of literal truth? As a point we're cited Ms Weeks background as chair of the Tournament Committee 2001-2008 as being one proof of her qualifications to be president. While you on the other hand declare that the selected slate is "dedicated to reform/modernization/whatever". So what I have presented to me is the consummate insider who is willing to step out and take on the entrenched interests. Sorry but that stretches my estimation of probabilities just a tad.

May I add that Ms. Weeks should be honored for her dedication and hard work and I would not want in any way to detract from her contributions which I allow may well be greater than others. But as I am considering our current situation her qualifications do not negate the view that I am reaching that the USFA needs leadership which is both outside the established order and still knowledgeable of our needs.

BTW, in an off-line conversation with SEAK, I became aware that I hadn't been making the proper connection between Brad and Greg and their contributions here via their handles/avatars. Probably just a coastal thing. I am more familiar with west coast personalities and particularly those in the Bay Area. However, now that I know the relationship I'm much more interested their bid for office.
Best Regards

[ivlobane]

One of my concerns about the NC slate of candidates particularly the president is that they were selected through a collegial process. That is one that emphasizes experiences within the existing sets of obligations, expectations and history. Being conservative in many ways I would not want to throw all of that away (babies and bathwater). But putting another insider in charge is extremely unlikely to change the inertia which this organization has been experiencing.

Have you not been reading what David & I have been saying on here? You want to define what you mean by suggesting that the NC is a "collegial" committee? And have you been completely ignoring what's been stated in every communication from the NC or its members as far as the NC explicitly looking for individuals who are (1) dedicated to reform/modernization/whatever you want to call it, combined with (2) sufficient knowledge of the Association to actually be able to present changes to the Board and get them implemented?

Can you elaborate on the bolded text? ...The BOD that has sufficent knowledge to present changes to itself??? Or who is presenting what to whom exacty?

And as to the underlined text: this is absolutely the reason the USFFC get my vote as a pose to the NomCom's.

[ivlobane]

...snip...(1) dedicated to reform/modernization/whatever you want to call it?

Whatever you want to call it? USFFC wants to call it this. A lot more detailed and stronger measures than anything I ever saw from the NomCom's. Please don't tell me to go to meetings miles away when telecommuting is possible. Travel is quite expensive and sometimes time in general is priceless.

[arc]

Despite the sometimes almost hostile manner in which it is presented as though no one else has the right to question or pose other views, I've been reading it but as an argument presented. That's about as far as I'm willing to take my willing suspension of disbelief. Please tell, why should your statements carry the weight of literal truth? As a point we're cited Ms Weeks background as chair of the Tournament Committee 2001-2008 as being one proof of her qualifications to be president. While you on the other hand declare that the selected slate is "dedicated to reform/modernization/whatever". So what I have presented to me is the consummate insider who is willing to step out and take on the entrenched interests. Sorry but that stretches my estimation of probabilities just a tad.

I've never said that people have no right to question. I may be reading more into your comments than was warranted, but the thing that brings me out to comment in these threads is when I see comments that either outright say, or could be read to say, that the NC is nothing but a bunch of well-connected "good ole' boys" who take directions from the current ExComm to ensure that the status quo is maintained. That seems to be the gist of your comments, no? To use your words, you accuse the NC of being "collegial," and since I asked for, yet did not receive, a clarification of what you meant by that comment, I think I'm not being unreasonable as interpreting those comments as an accusation as outlined above. And given that interpretation, in addition to your comments above, do you have any wonder why individuals who have put in a lot of hard work might take comments essentally suggesting that those same individuals are nothing but a corrupt band of conspirators complicit in efforts to drive the Association to ruin with just a bit of a dim eye?

Can you elaborate on the bolded text? ...The BOD that has sufficent knowledge to present changes to itself??? Or who is presenting what to whom exacty?

And as to the underlined text: this is absolutely the reason the USFFC get my vote as a pose to the NomCom's.

Yes, I'll be happy to elaborate, since I left a word out that evidently made it difficult to parse and grasp the full implications of what was being said, by stating that the NC sought individuals who it believes, through experience of those individuals, have sufficient knowledge of the Association to be able to present recommended changes to the Board and to get the Board to pass those changes. This is important because the president doesn't get to dictate policy, but has to work with the Board to get changes implemented.

As my final comment on the matter, for those who are doubtful or even outright refuse to believe that the NC may have actually nominated individuals with the skills and vision to take the Association forward, but who wholeheartedly approve of the nominations of Greg Dilworth and Brad Baker, why don't you ask Greg & Brad who they want to work with for the next four years?

[Inquartata]

And as to the underlined text: this is absolutely the reason the USFFC get my vote as a pose to the NomCom's.

Whereas an "outsider" is, a fortiori, more likely to actually accomplish change?

Remember how effective Jimmy Carter was as President? Smartest man you could want, full of good intentions, and an "outsider". What good did it do him---or us?

I have said it before, and I'll say it again: where you are standing when elected has little or no correlation to the ability to get things done. The best predictor for being able to get things done in the future is a record of getting things done in the past.

[fencinginDC]

I think the limitations of posting information on a forum is part of the problem here. I honestly don't think, after reading through this thread and getting a better understanding of how decisions were made, that you and the nominating did anything wrong. The NC is caught at an unusual moment in the history of the USFA. From the perspective of how things have been done in the past, the NC appears to have done a very good job of making an unbiased selection on cadidates.

At the same time, the expectations are changing, and quickly. What we have done in the past is inadequate. The expectations of an increasing number of people focus on the modern interpretation of roles and responsibilities in a professionally run non-profit organization. Those expectations include finding the prople best qualified to lead, and those with the specific skills needed to do so, or the ability to find others with those skills and effectively utilize them as part of a well conceived strategy and plan or action. Under those expectations, the field of candidates considered was far too narrow.

Again, that's not the fault of the NC. An good Board would have provided a clear directive for your search. The work involved in selecting good leadership demands that more time was spent determining things like USFA strategy and knowing exactly what your needs are BEFORE the first person was contacted or even considered.

If anyone suggests that the NC made anything less than a honest effort to fulfill the task it was given, like I mistakenly did based on a comment that was made, that would be unfair and incorrect. I appreciate the time you have taken to clarify a number of issues.

I've never said that people have no right to question. I may be reading more into your comments than was warranted, but the thing that brings me out to comment in these threads is when I see comments that either outright say, or could be read to say, that the NC is nothing but a bunch of well-connected "good ole' boys" who take directions from the current ExComm to ensure that the status quo is maintained. That seems to be the gist of your comments, no? To use your words, you accuse the NC of being "collegial," and since I asked for, yet did not receive, a clarification of what you meant by that comment, I think I'm not being unreasonable as interpreting those comments as an accusation as outlined above. And given that interpretation, in addition to your comments above, do you have any wonder why individuals who have put in a lot of hard work might take comments essentally suggesting that those same individuals are nothing but a corrupt band of conspirators complicit in efforts to drive the Association to ruin with just a bit of a dim eye?



Yes, I'll be happy to elaborate, since I left a word out that evidently made it difficult to parse and grasp the full implications of what was being said, by stating that the NC sought individuals who it believes, through experience of those individuals, have sufficient knowledge of the Association to be able to present recommended changes to the Board and to get the Board to pass those changes. This is important because the president doesn't get to dictate policy, but has to work with the Board to get changes implemented.

As my final comment on the matter, for those who are doubtful or even outright refuse to believe that the NC may have actually nominated individuals with the skills and vision to take the Association forward, but who wholeheartedly approve of the nominations of Greg Dilworth and Brad Baker, why don't you ask Greg & Brad who they want to work with for the next four years?

[arc]

Okay, so it's not quite the last word.

The NC is caught at an unusual moment in the history of the USFA. From the perspective of how things have been done in the past, the NC appears to have done a very good job of making an unbiased selection on cadidates.

I appreciate you taking the time to post that.

The NC knew at the outset that the Association is at a turning point, and that the structures and mechanisms which were adopted during the transition from an all-volunteer Association run, essentially, by Carla Mae to one with a full-time professional staff are somewhat outdated, particularly since those existing processes appear dependent, and either succeed or fail, on the personalities in leadership positions, which can include some of the day-to-day leadership provided by the professional staff.

At the same time, the expectations are changing, and quickly. What we have done in the past is inadequate. The expectations of an increasing number of people focus on the modern interpretation of roles and responsibilities in a professionally run non-profit organization. Those expectations include finding the prople best qualified to lead, and those with the specific skills needed to do so, or the ability to find others with those skills and effectively utilize them as part of a well conceived strategy and plan or action. Under those expectations, the field of candidates considered was far too narrow.

So I take it that you are aware of who was considered for the presidency, since that appears to be the office receiving the most attention? Given the NC's tradition of (yes, I'll say it again) confidentiality, there's little more I can discuss there without getting into our deliberations, but I'm curious about the last comment, and how you would have done things differently. Tangentially, having read the threads as well, I take it that you are an advocate for the "model" one-size-fits-all structure that the USOC would like to push on all the NGB's, and which the USFA, being a more ... shall we say, egalitarian organization, has been resisting for some time?

There's no doubt that the model that is in existence, which was originally created as a stopgap measure to govern an Association between 5,000-10,000 strong is outdated, and without casting aspersions in any particular direction, the last four years have shown how ineffective the leadership can be; on the other hand, from everything I've seen and learned, the four years before that (under Stacey Johnson) provides a fairly effective demonstration of the opposite.

Again, that's not the fault of the NC. An good Board would have provided a clear directive for your search. The work involved in selecting good leadership demands that more time was spent determining things like USFA strategy and knowing exactly what your needs are BEFORE the first person was contacted or even considered.

See, and here's the difference between the NC process as implemented within the Association versus what many people seem to assume the process is in traditional corporate governance context. For instance, when a Board of Directors is looking for, say, a new CEO, it typically forms a committee from the Board to make that search, with guidance from the Board. In our circumstance, as I've noted before, the NC is indirectly elected, and serves without guidance from the ExComm or the Board. This can have its good points and bad points; I can't speak for the rest of the committee members in this regard, but a great deal of my time was spent on education. A great deal of time was spent examining issues and coming to the determination that, say, issues that are highly visible to the membership at large (lack of online registration) are really more reflective of deeper issues within the Association that require effective leadership to deal with. In large part, one of the perceived obstacles to accomplishing many of those tasks has already been dealt with, I suspect because of some of the choices made by the NC.

If anyone suggests that the NC made anything less than a honest effort to fulfill the task it was given, like I mistakenly did based on a comment that was made, that would be unfair and incorrect. I appreciate the time you have taken to clarify a number of issues.

Thank you very much for these comments as well.

[ivlobane]

You know, after all this discussion, I would love to see a visual org chart of the USFA.

[dberke]

You know, after all this discussion, I would love to see a visual org chart of the USFA.

Read the USFA bylaws, it's all in there. The bylaws describe the responsiblities of each governing body and their composition. In some cases, the names of the current people in each position can be found on the USFA website (i.e. the Officers and various committee members) and in other cases, not (the current BoD members.)

Once you understand how things are structured, you'll realize that this:

The BOD that has sufficent knowledge to present changes to itself??? Or who is presenting what to whom exacty?

... is a rather uninformed question.

Dan

[keith]

... is a rather uninformed question.

having just gone and browsed the bylaws I would disagree. The BoD has pretty sweeping powers - it can organise its subcommittees and delegate responsibilities essentially as it sees fit.

So I'll agree with Ivlobane that it would be interesting to see how the candidates would like to structure the organisation.

[dberke]

having just gone and browsed the bylaws I would disagree. The BoD has pretty sweeping powers - it can organise its subcommittees and delegate responsibilities essentially as it sees fit.

So I'll agree with Ivloblane that it would be interesting to see how the candidates would like to structure the organisation.

My point was that we are electing the officers, not the BoD. They are two separate entities, each with different responsibilites. The officers do have seats on the Board, but the Board is a much larger group of people than just the six officers.

arc's original point was that the new officers need to understand how to present proposals to the BoD and how to work with them to get those proposals approved and implemented.

Dan

[keith]

My point was that we are electing the officers, not the BoD. They are two separate entities, each with different responsibilites. The officers do have seats on the Board, but the Board is a much larger group of people than just the six officers.

That point is taken, however one would idly assume that the officers bear the principal responsibility for providing impetus and continuity (the other board members changing, or not, yearly). Given that some of the issues affecting the USFA are multi year, the question of how the USFA functions at the moment vs how candidates would like to persuade the BoD to change it in the future, is a relevant one.

Both sets of candidates mention committees and talking to members - great, fabulous, hugs all round. How are they going to structure this so those committees actually have any pull on the BoD?

arc's original point was that the new officers need to understand how to present proposals to the BoD and how to work with them to get those proposals approved and implemented.

I wasn't disagreeing with arc

[oso97]

That point is taken, however one would idly assume that the officers bear the principal responsibility for providing impetus and continuity (the other board members changing, or not, yearly).

From my observation of the BOD meetings I've attended... to a certain extent, yes, to a certain extent, no. If you leaf through the minutes for the last couple of years worth of BOD meetings, you'll find that the overwhelming majority of movement comes from motions made by "regular" BOD members.

And, if memory serves (its been awhile though, so I might be mistaken), in our last "highly effective" administration (the Stacey Johnson era), the officers worked very hard to build consensus before moving forward. One of the ways they accomplished this was to have the motions for projects, etc, come from non-officer members of the BOD.