I don't know all of the facts leading up to the submission of the petitions, but on the bright side (if there is one), if the grievance proves unstatisfactory to the alternate candidates, they are free to file a lawsuit and cannot be compelled to go to arbitration.
1. Seems as though we are delaing with two forms(?), form X and form Y. First off, are these the only forms in question?
2. Must Form X be submitted and approved before Form Y can be submitted?
3. Must Form Y have been submitted before April 1?
4. Is the problem Form Y did not make the deadline of April 1? Or, is there a second date for Form Y?
5. Was Form Y available to the public? Or, must one wait for Form X be approved before Form Y becomes available?
Dumb questions aside, this does seem odd. I do not suggest conspiracy as it would be better, for many reasons, to defeat an alternate set, or slate, of candidates as opposed to 'pulling' something that will, and has, gotten legal action. There are several threads mentioning money issues with USFencing currently and a legal battle would cost much more than an election.
The above not withstanding, this is a shocking situation that will not, likely, have a positive outcome. Regardless of the outcome I do hope there can be resolution workable for both sides that will prevent a split membership based on distrust. This could cause more problems than could possibly be solved.
Anyone who has useful info know if there is a positive solution to this or will this cause a nasty situation that can only be solved by a judge or group of judges?
1. Seems as though we are delaing with two forms(?), form X and form Y. First off, are these the only forms in question?
As far as I am aware, yes.
Quote:
2. Must Form X be submitted and approved before Form Y can be submitted?
No, they could be submitted in any order before the deadline.
Quote:
3. Must Form Y have been submitted before April 1?
Yes
Quote:
4. Is the problem Form Y did not make the deadline of April 1? Or, is there a second date for Form Y?
Yes, No in that order.
Quote:
5. Was Form Y available to the public? Or, must one wait for Form X be approved before Form Y becomes available?
The arbitration agreement was available to anyone who asked for it I believe.
Nobody made any mention at any point of a petition being required before an arbitration agreement.
How can they assert that they were able to fulfill the requirements of the bylaws through the first 17 pages (down to the petition requirements) but not all the way through the 19th page (the section addressing the arbitration agreement? I'm not, personally, convinced that any member of the alt candidates has read the bylaws, given that they published an ad in American Fencing announcing their candidacy for "the executive committee of the USFA Board of Directors," when the BoD is headed by a Chair, and the Executive Committee is comprised of some Board members, some Officers, and some other folk. They're two seperate entities if you read the bylaws. The same mistake has been made in other locations.
Since they are officially not candidates per the bylaw requirements, with whom was the grievance filed? I would consider it politic to have filed it with the ElComm anyway, indicating a willingness to abide by the spirit of the bylaws even though they failed to comply with the letter, but the grapevine does not yet reverberate loudly to that effect.
Did anyone from the alternative slate actively request the form from anyone? From the NC chair, who referred the NC's candidates to the counsel or ElComm? From the legal counsel who had the master copy? From the office or the ElComm, both of whom would have referred them to or forwarded their request to the counsel? From Brad, who publically stated that he had to do a form? I think the answer here is no.
I note that the letter of grievance, available here: http://usfencersforchange.files.word...-election1.pdf, states that the 1 April deadline was waived by a post-1 April communciation, at which point it had already been missed?
I note that the argument is made that the letter was sent to candidates nominated by the Committee. Those folks were candidates at the time that the arbitration agreement was sent to them. The candidates nominated by petition were not candidates until after the 1 April deadline, through their own action, which means they could not have been sent the letter as candidates until after the deadline. Until they were officially candidates (the petitions were validated), there was no duty anywhere for anyone to send them anything. The ElComm indicated that they were more than happy to send over the required paperwork without any additional request once everyone became a candidate, but it's not the ElComm's fault that that didn't happen until after the deadline to submit said required paperwork.
I *also* note that the alternate candidates are familiar enough with the bylaws to note the option of the AAA, but not familiar enough with them to know that the 1 April deadline existed and would need to be met?
I mean, are we clear on the difference here? Everyone who was a candidate on 1 April had already received and completed the required agreement. No one else was a candidate on or before 1 April, and so no one else needed to be sent the form. Anyone else, who still wanted to become a candidate and had done all the bylaws research on the topic, had the responsibility to *request* the necessary materials. I would have, had I wanted to contest the Secretary position, needed to take the intiative to request the arbitration agreement, since I would not have been a candidate in time. (Example only. I wouldn't *dream* of challenging Brad.)
In short, another way to think about it is this. One perspective is, "We made public our attempts to gain candidacy, so we should have been actively informed of the requirements. The publication of the bylaws some years ago (since they haven't changed in many years) does not constitute adequate notification of the requirements, even though that's how we know what we have to do to gain candidacy in terms of signatures." The second perspective is, "To be a candidate on the ballot by petition, you have to complete a petition and an arbitration agreement, and both must be at the NO by 1 April. No one succesfully completed both requirements as put forth in the bylaws to be put on the ballot as a candidate nominated by petition." One is a subjective argument stating that the bylaws should be ignored for a variety of reasons. One is an objective argument based on the rules governing the association.
ETA: Sorry. Didn't realize it came out quite that long. I tend to be verbose when attempting to explain how someone's position isn't really logical.
__________________
Sabre chicks are cutting edge
Last edited by FencingKitten; 04-19-2008 at 03:06 AM..
Reason: Disclaimer. 2nd Edit: Correction of fact. 3rd and subsequent: clarity.
I was under the impression that the petitions were completed and turned over to the national office well before April 1. If so, then it appears to be a clear case that the ball was dropped on the side of the entrenched regime (and I use that term with a clear understanding of the implications).
Somehow, I doubt that the alternative slate did all the work of ferreting out the requirements to petition and skipped the additional requirement.
Hmm, I wonder what would happen if the entire Congress voted "No" for all nominated officers...
In addition, we will contact the USOC and will submit press-releases to major newspapers and other public forums stating this position and the potential effect on Olympic athletes during this Olympic year. This process will take time and money and only the USFA and its members will be hurt.
Well, this certainly is an interesting appeal to the voters.
In addition, we will contact the USOC and will submit press-releases to major newspapers and other public forums stating this position and the potential effect on Olympic athletes during this Olympic year. This process will take time and money and only the USFA and its members will be hurt.
Finally! It's about time that we see some fencing-related press (even of the negative type)... In fact, just them knowing what a press release is ensures me of their superior competency.
Here's the thing... if there was no binding arbitration agreement in place, can't they sue their pants off?
While I felt it would be a pretty tight election... I cannot imagine that, after a fiasco like this, anybody would even consider electing the nominated slate. If they can get past this roadblock, victory is all but guaranteed. Just don't pull a Gore.
Clearly there's a lot of confusion about what all is going on here.
Just to be completely clear, the NC candidates had nothing to do with this. As best I can determine, the first any of the six of us heard about this happening was when Kalle received a courtesy email from Tracy late last night indicating that USFFC was filing a grievance.
The first I heard of it was about half an hour ago when I checked my email.
-B
__________________
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
Clearly there's a lot of confusion about what all is going on here.
Just to be completely clear, the NC candidates had nothing to do with this.
Brad: and I don't think anyone except that O. Stone guy who keeps calling me would think so.
Here's a question, though. When your name was submitted by the NomCom, did you specifically request a copy of the arbitration agreement from Donald Alperstein or other USFA functionary, or was it forwarded to you with other paperwork to fill out to complete your candidacy?
__________________
"Fraud is the creation of trust. And then: its betrayal."
William Black, Ph.D.
I'd say the "We have no money" incident shows that change is needed.
This says that, while the Election Committee/General Counsel/whomever may have dropped the ball by failing to send the required documents to the Alt Slate, the Alt Slate was remiss in asking for things that were spelled out in the Bylaws before the deadline.
If the homework is specified on the syllabus, you can't say you were not notified. The Bylaw may be dumb and need to be changed, or the EC may need to be better-prepared to deal with these challenges, but at the end of the day, the responsibility lies with the challengers to demand the stuff they need.
So a very simple question: Tracey, did you ask for these documents previous to April 1 or not?
If so, then you have a case. If not, you're effectively screaming "I'm suing the school district because the dog ate my homework!" I'll be interested to see how well that plays among the membership.
Brad: and I don't think anyone except that O. Stone guy who keeps calling me would think so.
Mmmm. Perhaps I'm interpreting some of the earlier posts on this thread differently than you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo
Here's a question, though. When your name was submitted by the NomCom, did you specifically request a copy of the arbitration agreement from Donald Alperstein or other USFA functionary, or was it forwarded to you with other paperwork to fill out to complete your candidacy?
I can only speak for myself and not anyone else who went through the process.
In the email where I was officially informed that the NC was submitting my name, Aaron Clements (NC Chair) noted the requirement. I was already aware of it, through having read the By-Laws*, but if I had not been I would have found out then. At the time the arbitration agreement was not yet ready.
About two weeks later, I received an email from Donald Alperstein with the agreement and instructions for how to complete and return it. I did so immediately, and, as noted further up this thread, posted about it on FNet (as part of a possible explanation for why the names of the nominees had not yet been posted to the USFA website).
-B
* One of the first things that I did once I decided that I was interested in putting myself forward as a candidate was re-read all of the applicable sections of the By-Laws.
__________________
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
Here's the thing... if there was no binding arbitration agreement in place, can't they sue their pants off?
I guess they could sue in a public court vs. arb, but doesn't doing so serve as an acknowledgement they failed to comply with the by-laws re the arb provision?
And what is the cause of action, fraud? By whom? From the facts (granted, provided by the NC) I don't think, "failure to tell me I had to carefully read the by-laws to determine what the rules are when I run for office" constitutes fraud.
So a very simple question: Tracey, did you ask for these documents previous to April 1 or not?
A critical point, indeed, and one which says volumes about their attention to detail in a effort they deemed so important. But it's not the only consideration. If it is the ElecCom's and Donald Alperstein's stance that you have to ASK for the arbitration paperwork, then I would suggest we need e-mails or letters from each of the NomCom candidates proving that they duly requested the paperwork on their own initiative, and showing that it was not provided to them as part of their official candidacy.
Otherwise, it begins to smack of gaming the election by certain members of the USFA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darius
If the homework is specified on the syllabus, you can't say you were not notified.
True to a point, but this case may not be that simple. To continue the school simile: You've been attending the World Championships. Your physics teacher has given you homework of a research paper on quarks, and a lab analysis of ferrous fractures in machined steel, due April 1. You file the quark paper online on March 25, but haven't finished the lab, because you're tied up winning the Junior World Championship. When you get back on April 5th, the teacher says: "Congratulations on the paper. You did more work than necessary, and passed with extra credit! I'll need you to turn in that lab paper, now that you're back, since the others in the class have already done so."
5 minutes later, you're summoned to the Principal's office, where he tells you: "Sorry, but the School Board policy is that all homework must be turned in by the due date. The teacher may not give you a waiver. You have now flunked Physics, and will not be allowed to retake the class. Kiss your MIT plans goodbye, and here's a nice application for Wendy's. Buh-bye!"
Or better yet, what if, while you were in Sicily, the School Board President came to the football quarterback, his backfield and the cheerleaders in your class, handed them all the research material, provided tutors, and had an Administrative Assistant personally escort them to the teacher's desk to hand in the material before April 1st. Then, they flunk you for not having the material submitted, even though you've been given a waiver in writing by the teacher. Think that might feel a little unfair?
__________________
"Fraud is the creation of trust. And then: its betrayal."
William Black, Ph.D.
Last edited by Capt. Slo-mo; 04-19-2008 at 01:09 PM..
Mmmm. Perhaps I'm interpreting some of the earlier posts on this thread differently than you are..
I think there are those who suspect skullduggery, but I don't anyone has intimated it was initiated by the NomCom slate members...and especially not the only consensus All-American candidate!
Quote:
Originally Posted by oiuyt
In the email where I was officially informed that the NC was submitting my name, Aaron Clements (NC Chair) noted the requirement..
And who from the NomCom or elsewhere in the USFA hierarchy offered the same courtesy--in writing--to the opposing slate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by oiuyt
About two weeks later, I received an email from Donald Alperstein with the agreement and instructions for how to complete and return it. .
OK...and once the petitions had arrived, (prior to the April 1 deadline) why did Donald not send an email to the FFC candidates, with the arbitration agreement and instructions for how to complete and return it? He was certainly able to throw his Barron's monkey wrench into the election gears after the deadline, and after the ElecCom chair had given a written waiver to the FFC slate.. It makes you wonder why he didn't feel obligated to help grease the gears as he did for the NomCom candidates.
As described, this sounds like prejudicial treatment for the NomCom candidates by the USFA counsel.
__________________
"Fraud is the creation of trust. And then: its betrayal."
William Black, Ph.D.
Last edited by Capt. Slo-mo; 04-19-2008 at 12:05 PM..
Linear Mode
