Usfa Calls Off Election

[Jason]

Originally Posted by seak

and don't feel the need to support the alternative slate (which is what signing the election is)

You are incorrect. Supporting a process is not the same as supporting people. An election is a healthy thing even if you're happy with what you'd have otherwise.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

OTOH, if you were heading up the USFFC ticket, and this had happened to you (ElecComm in disarray, prejudicial treatment for NomCom slate members) would you be inclined to just throw up your hands and say: "Well, we tried!" and walk away with no further effort?

No. I am fine with filing a grievance, and with trying my best to get the decision reversed. There are a lot of good arguments on the FFC's side.

What I would not do is make threats of the sort that letter makes. Legal action is bad enough, without the "PR" angle.

Originally Posted by jjefferies

If not money then why this reaction to the petitioning slate? And what factors would provoke this reaction? I would guess an over whelming sense of ownership in the organization and a sense of being very central to the organization, of wanting the organization to remain the same as it was when we were young, bold and in charge and fear of losing that control/influence.

None of which excludes the money angle. A cost is a cost, especially for an organization perceived as "on the edge" financially.

Also, none of those putative reasons add up to taking the action in order to favor the NC candidates...

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Sounds to me like they have a legitimate grievance, have declared it forth rightly and are willing to follow it up.

Yes. However, I find the threats...unfortunate. If carried out they would after all harm not the few persons who decided that the election would not go forward but rather all of us, and American fencing generally. I mean, that bit about holding the organization up to public disrepute, and throwing in that heavy-handed reference to the Olympics? We are the ones who would pay for a legal and PR snit, not the officeholders.

An honest election ain't gonna kill us or the organization and therefore it must make us stronger.

Agreed.

Don't misunderstand me: while I would have preferred to avoid an election, once the FFC met its burden in terms of signatures I think it became the lesser evil to hold the thing, costs notwithstanding. It's simple fairness. And the way the cancellation was done reeks...

I think that the decision should be reversed, and the election held. Hopefully it will be---though frankly I think chances are not good. Anyone reading the minutes of the various meetings Brad has posted here over the years will have noticed the number of good proposals which were summarily voted down after a "fair hearing".

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by oso97

This is probably the most intelligent thing I've seen in this entire thread. Perhaps everyone should take a deep breath, consider their words, and limit speculation as to motives and conspiracy theories, until the situation runs its course, and actual facts are known.

Read the above in contrast to the text below.

From another thread dealing with the Tracy challenge to the nominated group, posted by the same author in February 14th, 2008 I snip the following. Deletions, underlinings and boldings are by me:

Originally Posted by oso97

<snip>
These guidelines were approved by several persons with extensive experience in protocols for ethical conduct. As you can see, they can be summed up in "Don't talk about what someone else said."

Every last word I or other former members of the NC have written has been in the spirit of this. But that does not mean that we are exempt from having opinions. I trust that having opinions does not arouse the ire of the Swedish Authorities? Because, I intend to espouse my opinions. Which, here in the US is a constitutionally protected right (one, which, I note is lacking in the Swedish Constitution - including the right to criticize the state).

Now then, to specifics.
<snip>
My criticisms of her are based upon her own statements, public record and my own criteria for who I would like to see as the President of the USFA, as a general member, not as a former member of the NC.

<snip>

I have the right to express my own personal opinions about any person who has declared themselves a candidate. I do not have the right to express anyone else's opinions about that person (nor do have I done so). Having served on the NC does not mean that I have signed away the right to express my own opinion, so long as my expression does not include confidential details. Which, in no case has it.

When I compare the text that I have bolded to the text in the first citation, I find them such that I would not be able to reconcile them, would I have been the one to write them. Consistency has its merits.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Peach]

I can't give seak any more rep.

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by 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.

This is mis-leading. In fact, the USFA (as far as I have been able to see) DOES file the required yearly financial reports (IRS 990 form) which is available to the public (I use Guidestar) and is within the letter of the law, as I understand it. I don't think it's accurate -- or fair -- to imply that the USFA is engaged in criminal conduct. But, see my earlier post in this thread.

Allen Evans

[seak]

Originally Posted by Jason

You are incorrect. Supporting a process is not the same as supporting people. An election is a healthy thing even if you're happy with what you'd have otherwise.

If you believe that a contested election is an integral part of the process then that's fine, I was merely explaining the thinking of those who didn't want a contested election, and that it might not be that they were in love with the current USFA powers that be.

That being said the petition is also part of the process. The point of the petition is to say there is enough interest in this person as a candidate that they should be added to the ballot for the election. Hence, if you aren't interested in them as a candidate then you are participating in the process by not signing.

For instance, to get on the ballot in a state for the presidential election you must have n petition signatures. This is why the Green and Libertarian parties are always asking you to sign things such that they can be on the ballot. Personally, I would really like to see the Democrats take back the White House this year, if I sign a petition for the Green party I am potentially hurting the Democrats chance to win, hence I do not sign the petition. This is all part of the process, not separate from it as you seem to be implying.

Peach: banging my head against this wall, gives me a break from banging my head against the wall that is my actual coursework

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

This is mis-leading. In fact, the USFA (as far as I have been able to see) DOES file the required yearly financial reports (IRS 990 form) which is available to the public (I use Guidestar) and is within the letter of the law, as I understand it. I don't think it's accurate -- or fair -- to imply that the USFA is engaged in criminal conduct. But, see my earlier post in this thread.

In fact, as I understand Colorado Non-profit law (which is, to be fair, not a whole lot ), there is no necessity for a public filing or dissimination of financial reports (other than Federal requirements for a 990). They must prepare financial statements--as I'm sure they do. But reports are only required by law to be made available to members in one of two ways:

1. Colo. Revised Statutes 7-136-106

Upon the written request of any member, a nonprofit corporation shall mail to such member its most recent annual financial statements, if any, and its most recently published financial statements, if any, showing in reasonable detail its assets and liabilities and results of its operations.

and

2. Colo. Rev. Statutes 7-136-102(1)

A member is entitled to inspect and copy, during regular business hours at the nonprofit corporation's principal office, any of the records of the nonprofit corporation described in section 7-136-101 (5) if the member gives the nonprofit corporation written demand at least five business days before the date on which the member wishes to inspect and copy such records.

7-136-101(5) includes "All financial statements prepared for periods ending during the last three years that a member could have requested under section 7-136-106."

I'm all for more disclosure--including making financial statments and other materials available on the USFA website. I think the rationale I've heard opposing this borders on the silly. That being said--I don't think it could be fairly stated that the USFA is doing anything wrong by not making them publically available.

--Philistine

[Allen Evans]

Before anyone misunderstands my previous post, I agree with Philistine....there isn't any reason to have a more transparent budget and financial process with the USFA (including publishing the broad outlines of the budget for the members) as I've publicly stated previously in my blog. I think that the reasons I've heard for not publishing the budget (in a general form) don't really hold water. The membership should see the outlines of how their money is spent.

But to imply that the USFA is engaged in attempting to circumvent the state or federal laws governing non-profit behavior is a little hysterical, in my opinion.

Allen

[Greg_D]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

Before anyone misunderstands my previous post, I agree with Philistine....there isn't any reason to have a more transparent budget and financial process with the USFA (including publishing the broad outlines of the budget for the members) as I've publicly stated previously in my blog. I think that the reasons I've heard for not publishing the budget (in a general form) don't really hold water. The membership should see the outlines of how their money is spent.

But to imply that the USFA is engaged in attempting to circumvent the state or federal laws governing non-profit behavior is a little hysterical, in my opinion.

Allen

I appreciate both Philistine and Allen responding to these questions. As a member of the Budget & Finance (Budget) committee I can confirm that the USFA is in legal compliance. As stated in the letter from the joint Budget and Audit committees that was posted in another thread earlier, outside auditors have reviewed our financial information. The 990 has been filed with the IRS as have required statements in the state of Colorado.

For the future, I know that everyone that has been nominated to be an officer in the next administration is committed to providing additional financial transparency to the membership. It is my opinion that this will be pretty easy to accomplish and that everyone should anticipate having easier access to information starting shortly after the 1st board meeting with the new officers.

In the interim, should anyone have questions about the financial status of the USFA, the Budget and Audit committees have established an email address. That address is usfafinance@yahoo.com. The committees will respond to your questions as quickly as possible.

Greg

[edew]

I'm guessing the first questions will be, "when is my Jan NAC referee check coming?"

[Jason]

Originally Posted by seak

If you believe that a contested election is an integral part of the process then that's fine, I was merely explaining the thinking of those who didn't want a contested election, and that it might not be that they were in love with the current USFA powers that be.

That being said the petition is also part of the process. The point of the petition is to say there is enough interest in this person as a candidate that they should be added to the ballot for the election. Hence, if you aren't interested in them as a candidate then you are participating in the process by not signing.

For instance, to get on the ballot in a state for the presidential election you must have n petition signatures. This is why the Green and Libertarian parties are always asking you to sign things such that they can be on the ballot. Personally, I would really like to see the Democrats take back the White House this year, if I sign a petition for the Green party I am potentially hurting the Democrats chance to win, hence I do not sign the petition. This is all part of the process, not separate from it as you seem to be implying.

Peach: banging my head against this wall, gives me a break from banging my head against the wall that is my actual coursework

The issue of the election being "contested" postdates the original question of gathering signatures and is not relevant to the point of what the value was of signing the petition.

In this case, the gathering of signatures was not simply to ask for support for specific candidates, but to alter the process of selecting members of the BOD.

To use your analogy: regardless of whether or not the Green Party is on the ballot, there is still a Presidential election. In the case of the USFA, if the petition wasn't signed by enough people, there would be no election at all (of course, there still may not be, but that's a separate issue)--hence, a different process (direct selection without election) of selecting members of the BOD.

Because there would otherwise be no election, signing the petition demonstrates support, not simply for the alternate slate, but for an alternate process.

[dekko]

Originally Posted by Greg_D

I appreciate both Philistine and Allen responding to these questions. As a member of the Budget & Finance (Budget) committee I can confirm that the USFA is in legal compliance. As stated in the letter from the joint Budget and Audit committees that was posted in another thread earlier, outside auditors have reviewed our financial information. The 990 has been filed with the IRS as have required statements in the state of Colorado.

For the future, I know that everyone that has been nominated to be an officer in the next administration is committed to providing additional financial transparency to the membership. It is my opinion that this will be pretty easy to accomplish and that everyone should anticipate having easier access to information starting shortly after the 1st board meeting with the new officers.

In the interim, should anyone have questions about the financial status of the USFA, the Budget and Audit committees have established an email address. That address is usfafinance@yahoo.com. The committees will respond to your questions as quickly as possible.

Greg

This is one of those issues where even if random people saw the budget they would likely not be able to comprehend what they are looking at. Also, not sure how much the USFA spends on copy paper or staples each year.

If possible may I suggest that moving forward, hopefully, the national events still happen and bills are paid sooner rather than later. Beyond that all the other expenses are necessary and useful but not as important.

Releasing such info to a group who really don't have a chance to understand the full scope of everything that could be seen would cause more problems than it might solve. As long as the forms and reports are legal and reported legally and legally filled out we should be fine.

[HDG]

Originally Posted by dekko

This is one of those issues where even if random people saw the budget they would likely not be able to comprehend what they are looking at. Also, not sure how much the USFA spends on copy paper or staples each year.

If possible may I suggest that moving forward, hopefully, the national events still happen and bills are paid sooner rather than later. Beyond that all the other expenses are necessary and useful but not as important.

Releasing such info to a group who really don't have a chance to understand the full scope of everything that could be seen would cause more problems than it might solve. As long as the forms and reports are legal and reported legally and legally filled out we should be fine.

PDF's are fine for this purpose; send those to anyone who asks.

[EpeeOdad]

I think the date for the arbitration consent should be changed in the bylaws. This could be done by the Board. The current Bylaws were misinterpreted by both the Election Committee and the candidates nominated by petition. This could be fixed by changing the date in teh Bylaws.

Amendment to Bylaws: Change date in XXV ARTICLE ELECTIONS Section 10 from "April 1" to "April 25". (Also, add a period at the end of the last sentence.)

The Election Committee seems to have also overlooked the April 1 deadline. They did not "prescribe" the form of the arbitration until April 18th. To prescribe is to "issue commands or orders for". The Election Board's lawyer is not the one being prescribed to. The Election Committee must prescibe the form to the candidates. In this case, this was not done until April 18th.


From Election Committee Chair, Gerrie Baumgart's April 5th email:
"The Election Committee has just completed a conference call and all have voted to accept your petitions for the various nominees for National Office."
"We will be sending paperwork to all the new candidates for their signature, this is an agreement that requires all candidates to submit to arbitration."

From Donald Alperstein's April 18th email:
"Turning to more mundane matters, Gerrie Baumgart has asked me to forward to you the arbitration agreement that the Bylaws mandate of all USFA officer candidates."



Bylaws
"10.Section Consent to Binding Arbitration of Election Committee. No person may be qualified
as a candidate for office except upon first agreeing in writing, in such form as may be prescribed
by the Election Committee, to be a candidate for the office nominated and to submit to binding
arbitration by the Election Committee of all disputes arising out of the election as the sole, final
and exclusive means of resolving such disputes. The signed agreement to be a candidate and to
accept binding arbitration must be submitted to the National Office: by candidates nominated by
the Nominating Committee, not later than three weeks after the submission of the Nominating
Committee Report in which they were nominated; and by candidates nominated by petition, not
later than April 1 in the year in which the election is to be conducted"


Ammendments to Bylaws
"The Board may adopt, repeal, or amend any Bylaws, provided however that such
adoption, repeal, or amendment must be approved at the next Annual Membership Meeting or
Special Membership Meeting that is held at least 60 days after such adoption, repeal, or
amendment, or it shall be automatically revoked."

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by dekko

{snip}Releasing such info to a group who really don't have a chance to understand the full scope of everything that could be seen would cause more problems than it might solve. As long as the forms and reports are legal and reported legally and legally filled out we should be fine.

What particular "problems" do you forsee?

Do you have any indications that other organizations that make financial reports available have had such problems?

--Philistine

[jfarmer]

Originally Posted by dekko

Releasing such info to a group who really don't have a chance to understand the full scope of everything that could be seen would cause more problems than it might solve. As long as the forms and reports are legal and reported legally and legally filled out we should be fine.

Sonny, just run along and play quietly, now. This here paperwork is adult stuff and you wouldn't understand it....

Sorry, it's my dues money being spent. I have little patience with opaque systems, be they election procedures or financial data. Having read financial reports from a number of for-profit and non-profit organizations, rare is the case that they are not understandable by the "average joe"...

[seak]

Originally Posted by Jason

The issue of the election being "contested" postdates the original question of gathering signatures and is not relevant to the point of what the value was of signing the petition.

In this case, the gathering of signatures was not simply to ask for support for specific candidates, but to alter the process of selecting members of the BOD.

To use your analogy: regardless of whether or not the Green Party is on the ballot, there is still a Presidential election. In the case of the USFA, if the petition wasn't signed by enough people, there would be no election at all (of course, there still may not be, but that's a separate issue)--hence, a different process (direct selection without election) of selecting members of the BOD.

Because there would otherwise be no election, signing the petition demonstrates support, not simply for the alternate slate, but for an alternate process.

Since I really hate writing works cited pages let's try this again:

The process is the totality by which the next officers of the USFA are elected or appointed. In the case of the USFA here's the process:

1) Nominating nominates candidates for position - those people are notified that they have been nominated
2) Individuals who were not nominated can get added to the ballot/force an election through an outlined petition measure
3) election or nominees assume roles, if no successful petitioners.

The petition is part of the overall process. If there are candidates nominated by petition it merely moves the process along a different branch of the tree. The tree being the totality of how new officers are selected.

[dekko]

Originally Posted by jfarmer

Sonny, just run along and play quietly, now. This here paperwork is adult stuff and you wouldn't understand it....

Sorry, it's my dues money being spent. I have little patience with opaque systems, be they election procedures or financial data. Having read financial reports from a number of for-profit and non-profit organizations, rare is the case that they are not understandable by the "average joe"...

Ok, let's say it is released, I have a hunch that someone out there would have a huge problem if they knew, thorwing out a number here, that the national office spent $1500 a year on copy paper. THAT'S AN OUTRAGE!!! They have better things to do, obsiously, than to answer questions about why they spend so much on copy paper. You might be one of the few who could comprehend the entire budget/P&L tyoe statement if it came out but you would be a vast minority.

Sorry, but the odds say 99.999999% of the posters on this chat board, myself very much included, would have no idea what they are looking at and would only confuse themselves and useful time would be wasted by trying to pick out one thing on what they saw and make a big deal about it. So, sorry but the run along and play now sonny, as YOU put it, will be very much in play and unless you attain a position within US Fencing that would be allowed to see the whole thing, likely, you will not. So, sonny, the sand box is over there here's you pail and shovel.

On a more serious note, not sure the year but this was discussed in the mid-late 90s, I believe, at a BOD meeting and it was decided then that an overview type list of P&L expenses, for lack of a better term, would be used for the membership. For instance, it would have a number for office expenses and not be broken down by each individual expenditure. I think it was early 90s that the USFA was actually sued by someone to release a detailed version of what was made available and the USFA won, I don't remember details, maybe someone else who has been around for a long time also will know.

Bottom line, Greg is best suited, IMO, to handle things going forward and is our best shot at maming things right sooner rather than later. If you wish to help in some way and truely could understand every detail of a budget like this then send him an email, he has supplied it, and that can be between you and him.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by dekko

Ok, let's say it is released, I have a hunch that someone out there would have a huge problem if they knew, thorwing out a number here, that the national office spent $1500 a year on copy paper. THAT'S AN OUTRAGE!!! They have better things to do, obsiously, than to answer questions about why they spend so much on copy paper. You might be one of the few who could comprehend the entire budget/P&L tyoe statement if it came out but you would be a vast minority.

Sorry, but the odds say 99.999999% of the posters on this chat board, myself very much included, would have no idea what they are looking at and would only confuse themselves and useful time would be wasted by trying to pick out one thing on what they saw and make a big deal about it.

Perhaps what might really happen is that people in the know--who, for instance, work in an office, might point out that $1500 for paper is not a very high expense. Thus, not only nipping such problem in the bud, but providing eduation....

Publicly-owned corporation have tens of thousands of shareholders--I'd hazard, with the same type of broad levels of experience as USFA members. Financial statments are provided publically there. Do you have any reason to believe that naive questions from the shareholders in such situations generally cause problems?

So, sorry but the run along and play now sonny, as YOU put it, will be very much in play and unless you attain a position within US Fencing that would be allowed to see the whole thing, likely, you will not.

He already has attained such a position (assuming he is a member). As noted above, all he has to do is request the finacials in writing.

On a more serious note, not sure the year but this was discussed in the mid-late 90s, I believe, at a BOD meeting and it was decided then that an overview type list of P&L expenses, for lack of a better term, would be used for the membership. For instance, it would have a number for office expenses and not be broken down by each individual expenditure. I think it was early 90s that the USFA was actually sued by someone to release a detailed version of what was made available and the USFA won, I don't remember details, maybe someone else who has been around for a long time also will know.

From Greg's post (and previous ones) as well as a number of Brad's posts (which have also given a great deal of information that previously was not made widely available), I feel pretty comfortable with the direction they are headed with regards to providing financial and other information to the membership. AIUI, both slates have as a stated goal an increase in financial and other transperancy to the membership.

This is a good thing, IMHO. Apparently, YMMV.

--Philistine

[dekko]

Even big publically traded companies release their financials they do not tell you how much they spend of copy paper. They might tell you over all office expense company wide but that would be about it.