Usfa Calls Off Election

[Philistine]

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.

And why do you think the USFA financial statements would contain line items comparable to copy paper?

--Philistine

[Jason]

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.

This is all fabulously true. It also is fairly immaterial to my point (which, to reiterate, is that this

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

is untrue).

[dekko]

And why do you think the USFA financial statements would contain line items comparable to copy paper?

--Philistine

Every detailed financial statement would, unless someone who claimed to be an accountant but was a very bad accountant did it and did so to line their own pockets instead of show the true situation a company was in, but that has never happened in fencing before.

But I digress...

Someone mentioned that $1500 wasn't that much and I agree with that thought, about this mythical number I pulled out of the air. But let's say a detailed report came out and some random person somewhere saw this and knows his company only pays $10 per box of paper. He/She then raises a big stink about that expense and wonders how an office of 3-5 people could use 750,000 pieces of paper in the given year. Now what? They waste lots of time and raise a big deal for nothing.

Stuff like this is why there will likely never be a detailed financial report will never be released. Too many different, and usually useless, views about what stuff and services cost or should cost that muddy the water and bog down more useful processes.

[CadetVet]

The key issue in my mind is transparency - in the election process, in governance and in rule-making and rule-enforcing. While I may disagree with a transparent process, I can at least understand it and build reasonable and principled arguments against it.

The problem in our governance is that it has historically been opaque, with occasional flashes of translucency. In many organizations, this is done so that the "shadowy puppet-masters" can retain power... (see this link to the onion video that was referenced earlier in this thread). The funny thing is that good governance, when transparent, usually results in the same people being elected - why? Because people like good, transparent governance.

We've seen rules bent (sometimes major rules bent - does anyone remember the national coach black-card on day 1 of nationals?) - sometimes for good reason, sometimes for bad reason - sometimes with good explanation, sometimes with tortured explanation. I would be surprised if every provision of the USFA by-laws are followed, to the letter, every day by everybody (and I know that isn't true in either sections and divisions). When something is missed, it is usually fixed quietly as it should be. This is rational behavior - nobody (including the USFA and its "shadowy puppet-masters") is perfect.

What we're talking about here is an occasional "mulligan" - something completely different from a systematic disregard of the organization's by-laws. No, I'm not suggesting that there is a systematic disregard of by-laws, but I am suggesting that, from time to time, mulligans have probably been granted - even by the super-compliant, superbly governed USFA. Why is this different?

Anyhow, back to transparency. I'm for any potential candidate who promises, in good faith, transparency throughout the organization. Again, I expect to agree with some things and disagree with others - we all will - but as long as I don't feel that the situation is being manipulated by "shadowy puppet-masters" (yes, I like that phrase - see the link above), I'm happy.

[fencerX]

Speaking of timelines and deadlines ...

How exactly did the candidates selected by the Nominating Committee sign and submit to the National Office their candidate acceptance and arbitration agreements "in such form as may be prescribed by the Election Committee" by the bylaw deadline of Jan 5th? (i.e. not later than three weeks after the submission of the Nominating Committee Report in which they were nominated)

Jan 5th?? The current Election Committee wasn't even properly formed and approved until 5 days later!

1. Executive Committee Reports of Action

January 10, 2008
• Approved the nominations to the Election Committee (Dan McCormick,
Charlie Schneider, Kathleen Pathi, Eric Hanson)

Oiuyt posted that the forms were not immediately available but were eventually finished and sent out to the candidates of the Nominating Committee on Dec 29th.

Gerrie Baumgart's letter stated "The required arbitration agreement form was available for distribution, having been prepared by the USFA’s general counsel in December."

So what Election Committee prescribed and approved of this form that was newly prepared between Dec 15th and Dec 29th when the current Election Committee didn't even exist?

[Philistine]

Every detailed financial statement would, unless someone who claimed to be an accountant but was a very bad accountant did it and did so to line their own pockets instead of show the true situation a company was in, but that has never happened in fencing before.

{snip}

Stuff like this is why there will likely never be a detailed financial report will never be released. Too many different, and usually useless, views about what stuff and services cost or should cost that muddy the water and bog down more useful processes.

Two general comments:

1. I think you are overestimating the level of detail in financial statements. The term "financial statements" has a pretty clear definition in terms of finance--and it would be extraordinary if expenses at the level of "copy paper" were on them. Though "office supplies" very well may be there.

2. More broadly, you raise an important point that publishing financial statements could lead to some people not understanding them and thinking that something wrong is going on. This is always present where financial statements are disseminated--but generally the modern tendency seems to be for increased transparency, under the general theory that it is better to have the information (even if someone is confused) than it is to not have the information--which has the same potential for disgruntled people asking questions etc. that you identify as a problem.

--Philistine

[notalent]

Speaking of timelines and deadlines ...

How exactly did the candidates selected by the Nominating Committee sign and submit to the National Office their candidate acceptance and arbitration agreements "in such form as may be prescribed by the Election Committee" by the bylaw deadline of Jan 5th? (i.e. not later than three weeks after the submission of the Nominating Committee Report in which they were nominated)

Jan 5th?? The current Election Committee wasn't even properly formed and approved until 5 days later!



Oiuyt posted that the forms were not immediately available but were eventually finished and sent out to the candidates of the Nominating Committee on Dec 29th.

Gerrie Baumgart's letter stated "The required arbitration agreement form was available for distribution, having been prepared by the USFA’s general counsel in December."

So what Election Committee prescribed and approved of this form that was newly prepared between Dec 15th and Dec 29th when the current Election Committee didn't even exist?

The commitee existed as its chair had been app at the july or sept BOD meeting. The timeline of when it was fully constituted was why the El Com decided to punt the decission up to the EC or BOD. An interesting point is that we have another deadline coming up, ballots are due out May 1

[Inquartata]

Even big publically traded companies release their financials

Inasmuch as the USFA is neither big nor publically traded nor a company, I wonder why you think this comparison is pertinent?

[kuroutesshin]

big publically traded companies would seem to have much more to hide than a non-profit sports association with a supposed duty to its members.

[TBean]

Every detailed financial statement would, unless someone who claimed to be an accountant but was a very bad accountant did it and did so to line their own pockets instead of show the true situation a company was in, but that has never happened in fencing before.

But I digress...

Someone mentioned that $1500 wasn't that much and I agree with that thought, about this mythical number I pulled out of the air. But let's say a detailed report came out and some random person somewhere saw this and knows his company only pays $10 per box of paper. He/She then raises a big stink about that expense and wonders how an office of 3-5 people could use 750,000 pieces of paper in the given year. Now what? They waste lots of time and raise a big deal for nothing.

Stuff like this is why there will likely never be a detailed financial report will never be released. Too many different, and usually useless, views about what stuff and services cost or should cost that muddy the water and bog down more useful processes.

This level of detail is not reported in financial statements for "public" consumption. Does it exist - sure any organization with a half-decent General Ledger can produce a docuement with a fair degree of granularity - but it doesn't mean that you do. Documents for review present broad catergories that most people will grasp. You don't put your general ledger out for the public to review. If you so chooce, a single page balance sheet, a single page statement of cash postion, and an operating budget can usually be condensed to two pages. I don't necessarily agree that A & B should be bandied about publically beyond Board members but no reason you cannot give people C along with the audit and taxes - although I admit those docments have limitations.

[Derobement]

Inasmuch as the USFA is neither big nor publically traded nor a company, I wonder why you think this comparison is pertinent?

The USFA is a corporation. A Colorado nonprofit corporation. As a non-public company, it's not required to create financial statements but if it does it is required, under Colorado law, to make those financials available to its members upon request. Depending on how much money the USFA raises, it may be required to file a Form 990 (or some version thereof) with the IRS. A 990 contains some very broad brush information about revenue and expenses but not the level of detail that people here are looking for (I doubt they'd even find that in a financial statement).

[fencinginDC]

A 990 would certainly be required for an organization the size of the USFA, and provides basic financial statement information. The USFA independent auditors might prepare that as part (but separate from) their engagement. I didn't have time to do a thorough search, but it couldn't find a current 990. They should have filed the one for 2006/2007 by now. If someone finds it, could you insert a link here? My apologies if it was already done.

People worrying about details of the financial statements are really worrying about the wrong things. There are many more important issues of financial controls and management that are needed before you start counting paper clips (an exaggeration, but not much from what I have read).

The USFA is a corporation. A Colorado nonprofit corporation. As a non-public company, it's not required to create financial statements but if it does it is required, under Colorado law, to make those financials available to its members upon request. Depending on how much money the USFA raises, it may be required to file a Form 990 (or some version thereof) with the IRS. A 990 contains some very broad brush information about revenue and expenses but not the level of detail that people here are looking for (I doubt they'd even find that in a financial statement).

[jjefferies]

So what was the resolution or was there a resolution coming from the appeals meeting? Was it bounced up the ladder? When will that finally happen.

[stillchris]

So what was the resolution or was there a resolution coming from the appeals meeting? Was it bounced up the ladder? When will that finally happen.

RESOLUTION OF THE USFA ELECTION COMMITTEE
The Election Committee was not duly elected by the Board of Directors at the annual meeting in
September, 2007, because the Board elected only a chairperson and not the other required
members. The Executive Committee did not fill the vacancies until after the deadline had passed
for acceptance of the required arbitration agreement by the Nominating Committee candidates.
Consequently, there has been a irreparable failure to adhere to the letter of the Bylaws.
Specifically, and for example, the Election Committee could not prescribe the arbitration
agreement in a timely manner.
The Election Committee therefore cannot acquit its responsibility under the Bylaws. The
Election Committee has no authority to alter, amend or vary the Bylaws.
The Election Committee has, albeit retroactively, approved the form of arbitration agreement that
was signed by all candidates for office, whether nominated by the Nominating Committee or by
petition. The Election Committee therefore asks the President of the USFA to convene the Board
of Directors or the Executive Committee and to make allowance for the acceptance of the
petitions already on file so that the election may proceed.
This decision by the Election Committee does not excuse the negligence of the petition
candidates in failing to pursue a process that they knew was in place, nor does it condone, accept
or yield to the threats and attempts to intimidate the Committee or the USFA. However, the
Committee takes seriously the charge it was given and feels it has no reasonable option but to
seek the relief set forth above.
Resolution approved by a vote of 4-1, April 25, 2008
Geraldine F. Baumgart,
Election Committee Chair

Seems to indicate that the grievence was upheld and an election will be held. Good news in my opinion.

[Philistine]

Seems to indicate that the grievence was upheld and an election will be held. Good news in my opinion.

As I read it, the Election Committee didn't actually uphold the grievance--but instead punted it upstairs. Leaving it for the full Board or the Executive Committee to decide.

--Philistine

[dekko]

Just curious, is it too late to put Christine in charge? She is great and actually gets things done.

On a serious note, is it a good idea to move this to a group of people who contains those running for some of the offices?

[HDG]

Just curious, is it too late to put Christine in charge? She is great and actually gets things done.

On a serious note, is it a good idea to move this to a group of people who contains those running for some of the offices?

I assume they would recuse themselves from any vote.

[bigdawg2121]

I assume they would recuse themselves from any vote.

Or vote in favor of having the election.

[dekko]

I assume they would recuse themselves from any vote.

I would hope you are right and I would hope they also remove themselves from discussions about this topic. Otherwise, seems like another opportunity to possibly appeal a decision that does not go a certain way.

[gorgie101]

RESOLUTION OF THE USFA ELECTION COMMITTEE (emphisis is mine)

...This decision by the Election Committee does not excuse the negligence of the petition
candidates in failing to pursue a process that they knew was in place, nor does it condone, accept
or yield to the threats and attempts to intimidate the Committee or the USFA. .......


It seems from the bolded statement that T's group admited they knew about the arbitration agreement and didn't bother to ask for it. Any one else read it this way?