Usfa Calls Off Election

[TrainingDummy]

Were you there for the meeting where the USFA sent in lawyers and observers to rewrite the bylaws because Gulf Coast was allowing tournaments on top of each other?

No, and I'll fully admit to not being up on all the politics. I don't fence down there primarily anymore (maybe 3 or 4 times a year if I'm lucky), and before that I didn't think USFA politics would affect me too much so I didn't follow them. Clearly, I was wrong about that. Maybe I was mistaken about the overlapping tournaments issue (schlager7's link shows it's a nuanced discussion open to different interpretations), but I still strongly support having multiple slates because it's fundamental to the democratic process and I'm really happy that the USFA is going to hold a re-consideration hearing. In the meantime, I will be reading more about both slates before I vote. From personal experience I know Augie is an excellent businessman and he has his finger on the pulse of fencing growth (KB is mostly high school or younger fencers, which is exactly where the USFA needs to be heavily recruiting from if we want to gain members), so my initial bias is towards USFFC. Still, I remain undecided until I learn more about the slates.

rdg, you need to enable PM's! I know you!

[notalent]

You should change your handle. Dummy is no longer appropriate.

Its low hanging fruit but I still repped it

[seak]

there there have a cookie

[TrainingDummy]

Ohio isn't that much better.

[jjefferies]

:snip:
rdg, you need to enable PM's! I know you!

So does the health department! I would suggest shots unless it's an antibiotic resistant variety. And true confessions to FG will help overcome the trauma/angst.

[rdg]

rdg, you need to enable PM's! I know you!

OK. But I thought it was on. What should I look for on the CP?

Sam

[chefencer]

OK. But I thought it was on. What should I look for on the CP?

Sam

Left side of CP, click on 'edit options' and you'll see a check box.

[KD5MDK]

Yes, the lawyers win, but the situation is then muddy AND bloody, certainly not clearer.

I have this image of two groups of fencers with their lawyers on either side of a table with the bylaws, arbitration agreements and other paperwork in the middle. The lawyers all grab the papers, fight tooth and nail, shred them to bits, while trampling the fencers in their zeal.

When the lawyers are done, a judge walks in and doles out the confetti among the trampled fencers, most of whom just came in to see what happened.

From the timelines posted here, the petitioners have signed the arbitration agreement, so lawyers (or at least courts) should be kept out of this. I suppose they might have a lawyer for the arbitration sessions.

[HDG]

From the timelines posted here, the petitioners have signed the arbitration agreement, so lawyers (or at least courts) should be kept out of this. I suppose they might have a lawyer for the arbitration sessions.

It's generally a good idea to have legal representation during arbitral proceedings.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

But if it's the ElecCom's position that there is no candidacy because of failure to provide an arbirtration agreement, then this is not an arbitration meeting.

The USFFC would be well within their rights, and probably wise, to bring an an attorney to the meeting. Think the USFA general counsel will be there?

On the other hand, there is the PR value of: "Look, we are sooooo in the right, we didn't even NEED to bring a lawyer with us!"

[HDG]

I think most people would prefer being able to vindicate their rights to having a "moral victory".

[fencerX]

From the timelines posted here, the petitioners have signed the arbitration agreement, so lawyers (or at least courts) should be kept out of this. I suppose they might have a lawyer for the arbitration sessions.

What arbitration sessions?

Some people seem to think any arbitration is specified by the bylaws to be through the "American Arbitration Association". It's not. The bylaws specify the Election Committee is the Arbitrator.

It would seem ridiculous and unfair that the election committee could on one hand demand that the petitioning candidates submit to binding arbitration *by the Election Committee as the arbitrator* while the Election Commitee also disallows their candidicy because the candidates didn't submit to binding arbitration by the Election Committee in such form as prescribed by the Election Committee.

Next, in order for there to be arbitration there needs to be (at least) two adversaries. Who are they here? Did any of the NonComm candidates bring this matter up with the Election Committee and request the committee to make a decision? Did Alperstein file a complaint and request the committee to make a decision? Who exactly are the parties the Election Committee as arbitrator would hear from and decide for or against?

If there are no other parties besides the Election Committee and the affected petition candidates then it certainly can't go to arbitration with the Election Committee as arbitrator. One of the first standards of arbitration is "The Standards require mediators to (i) decline a mediation if the mediator cannot conduct it in an impartial manner, and (ii) disclose, as soon as practicable, all actual and potential conflicts of interest that are reasonably known to the mediator and could reasonably be seen as raising a question about the mediator's impartiality."

It's certainly a conflict of interest if the issue going to be arbitrated is the arbitrator's own decision.

So ...

1) Who filed what dispute that prompted the Election Committee to act?

2) When and where did this supposedly open meeting of the Election Committee take place? How and when did the membership get notified of this meeting where this dispute was raised, the matter discussed and the decision made? The bylaws require "the proceedings of the Committee shall be open", not just the record of the proceedings.

Finally the Election Committee should just grow a set or two and remember their prime directive:

The Election Committee shall be responsible to fairly administer the election of National officers and balloting on other issues brought before the membership.

Also note:

The Election Committee shall make such adjustments in the deadlines, due dates and procedures specified in Article XIII of these Bylaws as are necessary for the timely and fair conduct of the special election.

So while this isn't a special election, it certainly would be more fair to make an adjustment to the deadline than to go ...

Neener, neener! The general counsel told us, the Election Committee, about the deadline and the fact that he hadn't sent "form as prescribed by the Election Committee" to some candidates until after the deadline.

[alexsmom]

Since we are the USFA, why do we not have the right to see the financials, elect officials, and so forth? This isn't an exclusive club, pals. This is my money being spent and my child's future being played with. I would to like to see a little sunshine and democracy here.

[jjefferies]

Since we are the USFA, why do we not have the right to see the financials, elect officials, and so forth? This isn't an exclusive club, pals. This is my money being spent and my child's future being played with. I would to like to see a little sunshine and democracy here.

You dreamer you.

Have you read the threads prior to this? There are a number of people right here, on this list, who in the name of expediency, cost consciousness, prior activities or (in the case of Inq) pure curmudgeonness want to refuse you the right to exercise any civil rights (except through them) to select who runs this organization. Many of these same people have undoubtedly been allied with the current and previous administrations. But today they are going to reform the organization but without any help or real input from you... thank you very kindly. Just send in your money and make sure your child stays in the game, paying dues and going to tournaments. And hope that things will turn around of their own accord .

[HDG]

Since we are the USFA, why do we not have the right to see the financials, elect officials, and so forth? This isn't an exclusive club, pals. This is my money being spent and my child's future being played with. I would to like to see a little sunshine and democracy here.

It's a corporation.

[alexsmom]

The USFA is a Colorado Non Profit Organization and as such needs to follow the rule of law. (For example, yearly public financial reports.) If it takes a lawyer to force the current Czars to do so, so be it. Their own "rules" state they must report financials yearly. Why is the membership so afraid of change? Afraid of supporting the people who want to make some real change in the name of a true sport fencing group.

I will not go away; neither will many others. You are a dreamer in thinking change cannot happen. "either lead, follow, or get out of the way."

[KShan5[PrFC]]

The USFA is a Colorado Non Profit Organization and as such needs to follow the rule of law. (For example, yearly public financial reports.) If it takes a lawyer to force the current Czars to do so, so be it. Their own "rules" state they must report financials yearly. Why is the membership so afraid of change? Afraid of supporting the people who want to make some real change in the name of a true sport fencing group.

I will not go away; neither will many others. You are a dreamer in thinking change cannot happen. "either lead, follow, or get out of the way."

Stop it. FFC are not for change, or a good change, just b/c they weren't nominated. Nor does that make the NC slate the Old Guard.

I agree I want change....that's why I'm happy the NC slate was nominated.

[seak]

huh? ok I'm officially confused. Could someone please show me where the nominating comt, is the election comt? or has any of the same members? or has any say at all in how the election comt conducts itself? Or is or was on the outgoing exec comt?

Now please do the same for the Nom. Comt. candidates? Thanks I would appreciate it, then some of the claims being made by people on this thread might make sense.

alexsmom, I think anyone who is a regular poster on this board, or on the nominating comt slate, or the US fencers for change slate, wants to see the finances opened up to the public. We all share your frustration.

The reason some people didn't sign the petition to support the election is not because they are opposed to Democracy, it's because they support the already nominated slate, and don't feel the need to support the alternative slate (which is what signing the election is) so that there can be an election that costs the USFA money. When they support the people who will win if there isn't an election. It doesn't mean they don't want change.

[Chuck F.]

Talk about the ship hitting the sand!

Replace the "p" with a "t", replace the last "s" with an "f", and remove the "d".... that says it all.

[epeeforlife]

Stop it.

NEVER