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

[nyacfencing]

So I received an unsolicited spam email this morning from US Fencers for Change... telling me their slate, the problems "they" think are relevant, and their solutions.

My question is... where did they get these solutions?

Were they thoroughly tested to ensure that they would fix the issues? Did they consult with experts in the field to gather their data? Are there examples of these solutions being used successfully in other organizations? Any case studies... whitepapers... surveys... testimonials... anything? Did they pull these solutions out of their... um... out of the air?

Please... tell me where these "solutions" came from!

A great example is the tournament pipeline issue. They seemingly threw out a half-baked idea (that I could barely understand) on how to fix the problem with no backup documentation on how they arrived at it. Then... they tossed out a bunch of benefits... without explaining exactly how those benefits would be derived or proof that they would occur.

E.g. 6. The USFA will incur a much lower transportation and housing cost for all tournament officials due to the geographic dispersion of events.

How? What are their expenses now? How will changing locations reduce the cost of housing? Even with the current locations, certainly some refs are "local"... so how would this shift reduce that? Furthermore... what are the issues with this new concept? Any foreseeable problems? Worst case scenarios? Is separating NACs into three divisions going to be that much different than what we have today?

If I brought something like this to the heads of my company... I'd be sent packing. I have to thoroughly justify every idea with research and industry examples... and it is absolutely required that I give a long list of all the possible problems and bad scenarios that could be introduced. I don't see any of that here. I'm not saying they haven't done the research... but let's see it!!!

I thought these were fencers for "Change"... this just seems like more untested, unresearched ideas to me.

[fencinginDC]

Good timing. I just posted some related comments in the "Nominating Committee Candidates for USFA Office" thread. Proposals offered must provide enough details to address the related concerns. I like the fact that ideas are being offered, but there is a big difference between ideas and opinions, and a well-considered arguement supporting a change in the way the USFA has operating in the past.

nyacfencing: While you gave a good example, I hope we don't reject some ideas because the are not perfectly formed. I don't think we can anticipate every potential problem, and I believe you understand that too. Most people will be able to see the difference between half-baked and well-considered.

[edew]

I don't see how they're so far-fetched or ridiculous. I personally favor receiving a flat amount as a referee and letting me get my best deal. By regionalizing, referees will officiate within their own regions (presumably) and thus there's no need to fly someone from CA to NC or vice-versa. Indeed, they could even drive themselves there. With a flat fee payment, the referees would benefit from such a deal. Of course, the flat fee is tuned to an amount that is not exorbitant.

And it's hardly untested. I'd bet virtually ALL referees who officiate at local level are paid a fixed fee. No local tournament official asks for an expense sheet for distance traveled or amount paid for food or whatever. We pay a fixed fee, get the refs who are willing to work for that amount and voila. Done. Extend that concept to regional level and that's it. It's not as though they're reinventing wheel here.

I'm not here to defend the slate, but I don't see anything in their email that shows complete stupidity. Their "solutions" seem sound and probably would need to be tweaked. I'd say they have a much more thorough and clearer set of solutions than any of our candidates for POTUS (or any government office) and we don't seem to get our panties in a knot over those options.

I can see the possibility of bringing up problems if we split the NACs into three regions. For one thing, are our "contracts" through 2014 firm or can we get out of them? Who is going to negotiate 3x the number of venues (albeit it can be easier since the proposed venue sizes would be smaller, perhaps). Where are the equipment (strips, mainly) going to come from? Are they going to be stored within the region? Who's responsible for them? Coordinating the transportation of the equipment from one location to another is a big problem. It's not a simple one-step process. More infrastructure is needed. I don't think that's going to be impossible, but certainly not simple.

[keith]

Originally Posted by nyacfencing

If I brought something like this to the heads of my company... I'd be sent packing. I have to thoroughly justify every idea with research and industry examples... and it is absolutely required that I give a long list of all the possible problems and bad scenarios that could be introduced. I don't see any of that here. I'm not saying they haven't done the research... but let's see it!!!

So your point would be that a voluntary organisation cannot develop and research ideas to the same degree that many companies can?

Not sure that is much of a revelation.

[edew]

Also, nyacfencing, it sounds like your company has paralysis by analysis. The one company I worked at with such stringent analysis didn't last very long. Most companies I've worked in allowed quite a bit of flexibility in doing things and proposing a new way of doing things did not require reams of research support. Just do it. (Google actually offers their employees a certain amount of time, like 20% to work on things they care about. Maybe someone from google can back me up on that. Veeco?)

[nyacfencing]

Originally Posted by fencinginDC

nyacfencing: While you gave a good example, I hope we don't reject some ideas because the are not perfectly formed. I don't think we can anticipate every potential problem, and I believe you understand that too. Most people will be able to see the difference between half-baked and well-considered.

You're right. I didn't mean that their ideas were half-baked... just that we don't know if they are half-baked because they didn't give us enough information to actually determine that.

Originally Posted by edew

I don't see how they're so far-fetched or ridiculous.

I didn't say that any of their ideas were far-fetched or ridiculous. All I said was that they didn't give us enough details or information to determine whether or not their ideas have any actual merit.

Originally Posted by edew

Also, nyacfencing, it sounds like your company has paralysis by analysis. The one company I worked at with such stringent analysis didn't last very long. Most companies I've worked in allowed quite a bit of flexibility in doing things and proposing a new way of doing things did not require reams of research support.

Not at all. But you cannot just propose some random idea and expect the company to go full throtle with it when you haven't done any work to show why they should accept your proposal, what other organizations have done in similar situations and the outcomes, and/or the possible repercussions. I am guessing that even at the company you mentioned you had to do some research and explanation before they went with an idea.

"Just Do It" is something you employ after you've done some due diligence... other wise you end up "just doing" something stupid.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by nyacfencing

You're right. I didn't mean that their ideas were half-baked... just that we don't know if they are half-baked because they didn't give us enough information to actually determine that.

not really much different than any election or candidates

[edew]

And that's standard operating procedures for candidates: give enough to give an idea of what you plan to do, but not so much that the other candidate(s) steal your ideas or throw monkey wrenches into them, or have everyone parse over the plans, putting too many cooks to spoil the broth.

[JEC]

Perhaps, a little disclosure about your views is needed. As you were one of the members of the nominating committee, perhaps you evaluated other ideas that the general membership is unaware. Furthermore, any Nominating Committee of any organization would feel responsability for the actions and selections of such NC. Thus, justifying the selection of the committee would be a "prism" used to evaluate the ideas of other candidates after the selection.

Nevertheless, I have to say that I have seen less information or ideas from the official nominating slate (exception Brad and Greg), which was recommended by the NC.

[oso97]

Originally Posted by JEC

Perhaps, a little disclosure about your views is needed. As you were one of the members of the nominating committee, perhaps you evaluated other ideas that the general membership is unaware. Furthermore, any Nominating Committee of any organization would feel responsability for the actions and selections of such NC. Thus, justifying the selection of the committee would be a "prism" used to evaluate the ideas of other candidates after the selection.

To whom are you referring? NYACFENCING was not a member of the nominating committee, nor was anyone else who has posted on this thread previously, so far as I am aware, and, I'm pretty aware...

Originally Posted by JEC

Nevertheless, I have to say that I have seen less information or ideas from the official nominating slate (exception Brad and Greg), which was recommended by the NC.

Again, to be fair, it is worth pointing out that none of the other candidates of the USFFC slate besides Dr. Hurley has been overly active on F.net either. And, there are other ways to present one's ideas than F.net, as well.

[nyacfencing]

Sorry... I wasn't part of the nominating committee. You're no doubt thinking of Michael Aufrichtig.

Outside of their involvement on F.net, it would be a good exercise to compare the past involvement of the two slates to see which has more experience dealing with the problems our organization faces. What positions they held both within the USFA and/or sections and divisions. Length of involvement... role... etc.

[fencinginDC]

PLEASE don't use past experience with fencing as an indication of qualifications for USFA officers or anything else. The criteria should be determining what skills and experience they bring, and how it blends with the other officers/directors. Of course, you might have meant that we need to examine their past work with the USFA as an indication of the those skills/experience.

I would argue that there needs to be a radical change in the process of selecting USFA leadership. We have folks in our club with terrific experience in things like public relations and computer consulting, without much fencing experience. Two others have extensive experience with other sports, but not so much with fencing. These are the type of people we should be considering. If you can get someone with a good fencing history as well, that would be terrific.

Originally Posted by nyacfencing

Sorry... I wasn't part of the nominating committee. You're no doubt thinking of Michael Aufrichtig.

Outside of their involvement on F.net, it would be a good exercise to compare the past involvement of the two slates to see which has more experience dealing with the problems our organization faces. What positions they held both within the USFA and/or sections and divisions. Length of involvement... role... etc.

[JEC]

Originally Posted by nyacfencing

Sorry... I wasn't part of the nominating committee. You're no doubt thinking of Michael Aufrichtig.
.

My apologies to you. For some reason, I thought you were him.

[KD5MDK]

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.

[seven6ty]

Wouldn't you have been more likely to get answers by replying to the email, rather than posting on an anonymous message board?

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by seven6ty

Wouldn't you have been more likely to get answers by replying to the email, rather than posting on an anonymous message board?

I believe there was an invitation to a telephone call-in to meet and talk with the candidates in the e-mail. Or did I dream that?

Anyway the best thing about it that I've seen is that at least the "US Fencers for Change" are talking to the membership and maybe even listening. In the past my experience with the NGB was the opposite. And so far I've not seen anything from the nominating committee (nc) slate that suggests they're interested in dialogue. They've known since December that they were nominated and we haven't heard a word from them, or at least not in the name of the slate. For all I know some of those off the wall posts to FG could be from them.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

And so far I've not seen anything from the nominating committee (nc) slate that suggests they're interested in dialogue.

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

[seak]

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

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).

Greg and Brad, (whom the alternative slate wisely decided not to challenge not sure why they didn't do the same thing with Greg) both of whom are on the Nominating Comm. slate have both posted lots of things on this board, and always been receptive to input.

Additionally, Kallie and Brad did a coffee thing in Jersey this past weekend open to the membership. And the slate has put up a website etc, though admittedly it did take a while at least in part, I think, because they weren't put together as a slate.

On a slight tangent, it seems like one of Tracy's idea is something that Greg has also been talking about on fencing.net, so there's at least some overlap in the groups

Anyways for those folks who support either party, lets try not to paint super large brush strokes which cover every candidate on a slate. That way the discussion can actually stay focused on ideas, problems, gossip and inuendo, the stuff that matters

[nyacfencing]

Originally Posted by fencinginDC

PLEASE don't use past experience with fencing as an indication of qualifications for USFA officers or anything else. The criteria should be determining what skills and experience they bring, and how it blends with the other officers/directors. Of course, you might have meant that we need to examine their past work with the USFA as an indication of the those skills/experience.

If they had a slate that was chosen solely for their professional experience, I agree. But every single person on both slates comes directly from the fencing world... so I think the question is highly relevant. Have they been complaining from the sides without pitching in and now want to take over the whole show, or have they been fully involved all along willing to work to make our organization better?

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by seak

On a slight tangent, it seems like one of Tracy's idea is taking from Greg? or at least an idea that Greg was posting about on here, the ref flat pay thing.

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