Quick Summary of the RMS annual meeting held on April 12, 2008

[physicspackage]

Quick Summary of the RMS annual meeting held on April 12, 2008

Officer Election Results and Appointments
Chairman – Aaron Clements
Secretary – Bary Nusz
Treasurer – Herman Bonner
USFA Board of Directors Section Representative – Gerrie Baumgart

Host of 2009 Section Qualification Tournament – Kansas Division

The official minutes of the meeting will be posted shortly as well as the results of the tournament.

[physicspackage]

Attached is the minutes from the Rocky Mountain Section annual meeting on April 12, 2008.

RMS_Meeting_April_12_Minutes.pdf

[Amarillo Fencing]

Sounds like we now have a leadership that can carry us forward and do the job. Thanks for stepping up to the plate my fellow fencers.

WOW looks like we'll see everyone in Kansas for the 2009 Sectionals. I for one am glad to see the sectionals schedule on rotation again.

[Jengar]

Originally Posted by Amarillo Fencing

Sounds like we now have a leadership that can carry us forward and do the job. Thanks for stepping up to the plate my fellow fencers.

WOW looks like we'll see everyone in Kansas for the 2009 Sectionals. I for one am glad to see the sectionals schedule on rotation again.

Agreed. I read that RMS has two new people taking on the Section Secretary and Treasurer jobs. They might as well have been vacant positions the last two years.

However, according to the minutes, RMS is not on a true sectionals rotation. They still have sectionals twice in Colorado and then in another division, then twice in Colorado and so on. That doesn't sound like a true rotation to me. How did Colorado swing such a sweet deal for their fencers? I assume the Colorado Division must organize the tournament, provide the venue, set up and take down everything, host the referees, etc., in consideration for not having to travel?

[epeeforlife]

Dude, so many bad vibes against Colorado. Like… (puff puff) it’s all cool.

[arc]

Originally Posted by Jengar

However, according to the minutes, RMS is not on a true sectionals rotation. They still have sectionals twice in Colorado and then in another division, then twice in Colorado and so on. That doesn't sound like a true rotation to me.

The current sectionals rotation was decided upon at the Sectional meeting in 2003 (New Mexico), and can be changed by the Section at any time. Of course, getting a quorum of the Section ExComm together to actually do so happens rarely (we didn't have a quorum last year, and only had a quorum this year because I hounded fencers from the various division to see to it that their division excomms appointed the divisional representatives where possible) ... with that in mind, if a quorum gets together, it can vote to overturn that arrangement and send sectionals to the various divisions in whatever rotation it feels like.

Originally Posted by Jengar

How did Colorado swing such a sweet deal for their fencers?

The underlying rationale for the decision (having been present for the discussion and vote) is that Sectionals has a tendency to lose money hand over fist, and in theory, by having it in a central location, there will be increased participation in Sectionals combined with reduced costs from local referees giving their services. In my discussions with Jamey (my predecessor), I believe he indicated that the Section ran in the red on the tournament during his four years as chair, and I believe for a number of years before him. We ran in the black (barely, but signficantly not in the red) last year, mostly due to my own obsessive-compulsive efforts to ensure that the referee cadre showing up matched up with the number of participants. This year, we should run (slightly) in the red, but nowhere to the extent of the losses of previous years.

The problem I have found with the theory to date is that the Section is large enough that having it in Colorado doesn't really help with getting fencers to attend; while local referees are great (no transportation or housing costs), one also has to have at least a few outside referees present in order to have someone neutral for those wonderful conflict bouts; and finally, the Board of Directors' elimination of the trickledown qualifying pathways for Div II/Div III has some adverse effect, as well. Additionally, there appears to be the belief among not a few fencers/parents/etc. that one should only fence in the Sectional Championship (or the Divisional qualifiers) if one is actually planning on attending Nationals, on the basis that they don't want to possibly take up qualifying slots from someone who wants to go. I've always held that argument to be bogus, as it reduces the quality of the qualifers we end up sending to Nationals, which isn't good for the reputation of fencing from this region.

Originally Posted by Jengar

I assume the Colorado Division must organize the tournament, provide the venue, set up and take down everything, host the referees, etc., in consideration for not having to travel?

*cough* *sputter* *choke* Okay, I'll bite.

Last year, I took nine (count 'em, nine) strips, complete with stainless steel roll-out pistes, to Colorado for Sectionals, all in my Explorer. Colorado Division provided a Favero box. Apart from a little bit of communications & coordination help from one division officer, there was very little help provided. I organized the tournament; the venue was provided by CU Boulder with the help of Carol Pfarr, coordinating, and CU Boulder provided a few volunteers to help with setup. The students at CU involved were very helpful and "johnny-on-the-spot" throughout the weekend. I arranged for the referees, hotel, handled all of the payment matters, and personally prepared & sent out the postcards to all of the members. I also made sure that tournament committee was handled, and took my own computers & laser printer, weights, shims, power strips & even tables for the strips up there. Matt Hite ordered the medals at my request. Basically, I did almost everything else.

At the meeting last year, the non-quorum of the Section ExComm wanted to continue the 2-CO 1-other rotation, with the general sense of the membership being to try to have sectionals in Colorado Springs at the Air Force Academy, as an AFA-hosted event. The requested date was set fairly early after consultation with CO division officers, and was submitted to the AFA & Coach Salem for consideration by the AFA's Ath Department. After issues arose with the AFA venue, culminating in the conclusion that AFA could not give any kind of cost certainty and that the costs, whatever they might be, would be exorbitant, comparatively speaking, and after requests to other facilities in Colorado Springs would be fruitless, a few folks in Colorado were very helpful in obtaining the usual facility at CU Boulder, including Jennifer Ward (CO vice chair), Jill Miller, and Jessica Miltenberger (CU Boulder Fencing's president); CU Boulder agreed to give up a tournament they had planned on having the same weekend in favor of the Section matching its payment from the prior year for use of the facility.

With that arrangement having been made by mid-February, the postcards went out immediately (by me), registration set up through AskFRED again, this time with payment acceptance through that system (which went much smoother and took far less time at relatively nominal cost, and I arranged for referees, especially non-Colorado referees, and hired an armourer who was also able to bring in plate pistes (easier to set up & more durable than the roll-outs) at a very reasonable cost. Colorado Division and/or Denver Fencing Center provided five Favero boxes, while Rocky Sorensen brought in the plate pistes, all of the reels, and two boxes. CU Boulder provided volunteers to help takeup/takedown the pistes. Matt Hite ordered the medals again; other that the help of the aforementioned individuals, I did pretty much all of the organization, etc., myself.

In my discussions with various folks, there appears to be an attitude that Sectionals is a cash cow tournament, with divisions interested in discussing "how the net will be split up," and with interest in being involved in hosting waning rapidly with the information that the net is usually negative.

I am looking forward to working with Herman Bonner and Bary Nusz to try to turn this situation around. In particular, about a month ago, in light of the fact that no one seems to have the login information to administer the current division website (www.rms-usfa.org), I have registered a new domain (www.rockymountainfencing.org). At my request, Matt started work on a new website, and I believe Bary has many ideas for how the website can be used to make communciation in the Section more effective.

Anyhow. Sorry for the overkill response to what seem like simple questions ...

[oiuyt]

It's bits like this that are (part of the reason) why I like reading minutes of other divisions/sections:

Originally Posted by RMS Annual Meeting Minutes

j. Gerrie noted that she loves New Mexico.

Just as another note, Jennifer Ward managed to get on the attendance list twice. Might help if the list were sorted either alphabetically or by division.

Originally Posted by RMS Annual Meeting Minutes

7. USFA Members Present
...
f. Jennifer Ward – Colorado
...
o. Jennifer Ward – Colorado

-B

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by arc

Sectionals has a tendency to lose money hand over fist,

I find this interesting, considering the magnitude of the entry fees compared to other tournaments...

Is it because of the low number of entrants? Is the cost of the venue high? Or is most of the money going to pay, fly and lodge referees?

which isn't good for the reputation of fencing from this region.

Just out of curiosity, what are the benefits of this putative "reputation"? I can't think of any offhand...so why chase it as a desideratum?

in light of the fact that no one seems to have the login information to administer the current division website (www.rms-usfa.org), I have registered a new domain (www.rockymountainfencing.org). At my request, Matt started work on a new website, and I believe Bary has many ideas for how the website can be used to make communciation in the Section more effective.

Bravo!

[arc]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I find this interesting, considering the magnitude of the entry fees compared to other tournaments...

Is it because of the low number of entrants? Is the cost of the venue high? Or is most of the money going to pay, fly and lodge referees?

Or a combination of factors.

The general sense that I have had, having attended a number of Rocky Mountain sectionals going back into the 90's and even a couple of PCC's way before that is that the expections from the participants & the national office for a sectional tournament, given its status as the first round of nationals, blah, blah, blah, are that it should be somewhat more professionally run than a local pickup tournament, with grounded strips, a professional referee cadre, no self-refereeing, etc. All of that is expensive. Now, as to the costs before I became chair, it's my understanding that the lion's share of the cost has been those associated with importing and/or paying sufficient referees to cover all of the events, particularly with the requirement that an FOC member or designate be present, and to that end, I have gone to some lengths to ensure that sufficient referees are present without anyone being unused for a substantial period of time. In Colorado, about 2/3 of the referee cadre has typically come from Colorado division, from FOC's (Gerrie B. & Bill O.) through mid-level referees (such as Sue Borgos, Carol Pfarr, Alex Kovacs and Haley Ward) down to the developing refs (of which there have been a number). Even with keeping the referee cadre relatively constricted compared to prior years, the costs associated with referees total pretty close to 40% of the overall cost. The venue-associated costs, including the equipment and the actual space in the gym, are pretty close to 40% of the costs, with all the miscellaneous stuff (like awards, plus the postcards that have to go out, etc.) making up the remainder. Basically, if the tournament is going to be run fully professionally, with full, professional equipment that one would expect to find at a national-calibre tournament, it's going to cost money, and compared to the costs of getting to the tournament or to Nationals, for those that qualify and decide to attend, the entry fees aren't that high.

When Div II/III were rollover categories, the participation was noticeably higher. For instance, the total registrations in all events (registrations, not individual fencers; I don't have the stat on individual fencers) decreased about 40% from the last biennium of Jamey's chairmanship to the first biennium of mine: 2005, 167 registrations; 2006, 185 registrations; 2007, 92 registrations, and 2008, 101 registrations.

When planning for the number of strips needed last year, I had actually planned based on a running average of the prior three years' participation, which came out to ten strips' worth of fencing going essentially nonstop from 8:30 am through 5:30 pm on both days. Obviously, for those who've attended the past two years, and by the stats given above, the numbers have been nowhere near that high, with the seven strips available this past sectionals only being in complete use for about an hour and a half on each day ...

As a final afterthought in that discussion, it's worth noting, as well, that the fees in the 2007-2008 biennium are only $5 higher than they were in 2006, with the registration fee going from $25 to $30, and the per-weapon fees being the same. In 2005, the fee breakdown was $25 registration & $15 per weapon. All in all, not terribly cheaper than the current scheme, which was implemented with an eye towards the Section being able to pay for its responsibilities.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Just out of curiosity, what are the benefits of this putative "reputation"? I can't think of any offhand...so why chase it as a desideratum?

I don't believe I've advocated chasing reputation for its own sake, I simply noted that people not participating in Sectionals because they "don't want to take a qualifying slot from someone who wants to go to Nationals" has as a side effect the elimination of one of the quality controls for the National Championships for members qualifying from our region. However, I do think that a good reputation is desirable as national, regional, and local programs tend to build themselves based on reputation earned.

[epeeforlife]

Originally Posted by arc

Or a combination of factors.

The general sense that I have had, having attended a number of Rocky Mountain sectionals going back into the 90's and even a couple of PCC's way before that is that the expections from the participants & the national office for a sectional tournament, given its status as the first round of nationals, blah, blah, blah, are that it should be somewhat more professionally run than a local pickup tournament, with grounded strips, a professional referee cadre, no self-refereeing, etc. All of that is expensive. Now, as to the costs before I became chair, it's my understanding that the lion's share of the cost has been those associated with importing and/or paying sufficient referees to cover all of the events, particularly with the requirement that an FOC member or designate be present, and to that end, I have gone to some lengths to ensure that sufficient referees are present without anyone being unused for a substantial period of time. In Colorado, about 2/3 of the referee cadre has typically come from Colorado division, from FOC's (Gerrie B. & Bill O.) through mid-level referees (such as Sue Borgos, Carol Pfarr, Alex Kovacs and Haley Ward) down to the developing refs (of which there have been a number). Even with keeping the referee cadre relatively constricted compared to prior years, the costs associated with referees total pretty close to 40% of the overall cost. The venue-associated costs, including the equipment and the actual space in the gym, are pretty close to 40% of the costs, with all the miscellaneous stuff (like awards, plus the postcards that have to go out, etc.) making up the remainder. Basically, if the tournament is going to be run fully professionally, with full, professional equipment that one would expect to find at a national-calibre tournament, it's going to cost money, and compared to the costs of getting to the tournament or to Nationals, for those that qualify and decide to attend, the entry fees aren't that high.

When Div II/III were rollover categories, the participation was noticeably higher. For instance, the total registrations in all events (registrations, not individual fencers; I don't have the stat on individual fencers) decreased about 40% from the last biennium of Jamey's chairmanship to the first biennium of mine: 2005, 167 registrations; 2006, 185 registrations; 2007, 92 registrations, and 2008, 101 registrations.

When planning for the number of strips needed last year, I had actually planned based on a running average of the prior three years' participation, which came out to ten strips' worth of fencing going essentially nonstop from 8:30 am through 5:30 pm on both days. Obviously, for those who've attended the past two years, and by the stats given above, the numbers have been nowhere near that high, with the seven strips available this past sectionals only being in complete use for about an hour and a half on each day ...

As a final afterthought in that discussion, it's worth noting, as well, that the fees in the 2007-2008 biennium are only $5 higher than they were in 2006, with the registration fee going from $25 to $30, and the per-weapon fees being the same. In 2005, the fee breakdown was $25 registration & $15 per weapon. All in all, not terribly cheaper than the current scheme, which was implemented with an eye towards the Section being able to pay for its responsibilities.



I don't believe I've advocated chasing reputation for its own sake, I simply noted that people not participating in Sectionals because they "don't want to take a qualifying slot from someone who wants to go to Nationals" has as a side effect the elimination of one of the quality controls for the National Championships for members qualifying from our region. However, I do think that a good reputation is desirable as national, regional, and local programs tend to build themselves based on reputation earned.

These responses should be moved to a new thread called "Really Long Summary of the RMS annual meeting held on April 12, 2008 at Colorado University at Boulder, Colorado at 2:03PM"

[jmos58]

Originally Posted by epeeforlife

These responses should be moved to a new thread called "Really Long Summary of the RMS annual meeting held on April 12, 2008 at Colorado University at Boulder, Colorado at 2:03PM"

YES!!! Yes it should be.

[gorgie101]

Originally Posted by epeeforlife

These responses should be moved to a new thread called "Really Long Summary of the RMS annual meeting held on April 12, 2008 at Colorado University at Boulder, Colorado at 2:03PM"

Dude he is a lawyer. They get paid for the length of their posts.

[Jengar]

Originally Posted by gorgie101

Dude he is a lawyer. They get paid for the length of their posts.

Only a lawyer would write a book and call it a 'brief."

[epeeforlife]

Originally Posted by gorgie101

Dude he is a lawyer. They get paid for the length of their posts.

arc must be like a bazillionaire!

[arc]

Originally Posted by epeeforlife

arc must be like a bazillionaire!

I wish ...

(And no, I don't get paid by the word ...)

[Inquartata]

Well, then, since he's so flush I think Arc should personally subsidize Sectionals next year.