Usfa Calls Off Election

[edew]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

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!

[...]

I'm sure if people dig deep enough, our All-American may not be so lily white. I'm guessing that his username here having 3.5 vowels and the letter T has some secret conspiratorial connotations.

[the ancient one]

Hmm...

So the bylaws require the arbitration agreement, but the agreement was not drafted until December.

Did the bylaw requirement for the agreement exist before December?

If it was known that the required agreement did not exist at the time the requirement was codified, how and when was the general availability of the agreement announced?

[WJM]

As much as I want to know every last detail, some people who are materially involved in this affair, and discussion might need to consider that there will possibly be legal action somewhere along the line, and might want to refrain from making comments and statements they'll have to deal with later. I think a lot of us have respect for at least some of the people involved, and again, while I certainly would love to know everything going on, I don't want to see anybody have troubles for something they posted on here!

[sabrelion]

"We lie under the network of arching shells and live in a suspense of uncertainty. If a shot comes, we can duck, that is all; we neither know nor can determine where it will fall."

All Quiet On The Western Front

[seak]

Originally Posted by nyacfencing

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.

This post thoroughly confuses me - so to the first part, are you assuming that the nom. comt. candidates don't know what a press release is?

second part: why would this cause more people to vote for the alternative slate? The nom comt. candidates had absolutly nothing to do with this one way or another, so I'm not sure why it would reflect negatively on their candidacy.

And why would it positively impact the alternative slate? I feel bad for them, and think the situation is screwed up, but they clearly should've bugged someone about the paperwork, and it doesn't speak well to them closely reading the by-laws.

[Inquartata]

Well, here's a merry cock-up, eh?

If an election would have been costly, a lawsuit could bankrupt the USFA altogether.

You know, I thought holding an election was a waste of money. But lawyering your way out of one is just too weasely* even for my Machiavellian tastes...

* No offense to weasels, especially magical British ones.

[fatfencer]

I keep wondering who is the Senator Palpatine in all this?

The whole you have to ASK for the papers only one person was ever told about seems a silly argument.

The simple thing would be to let them run. I actually doubt they would win even though their platform seems very reasonable. Most of the people who would care to vote in this election probably know Tracey Hurley and how unpopular she is. Apparently she is loathed by a not so silent many.... I can't figger out why but Texas Epee politics doesn't interest me in the slightest.

Regardless, the process should be such that they are allowed to run. rules for rules sake args never flew well with me since there is so obviously a huge lack of communication.

Put my name down for any process or petition that allows them to run at this point.

For sure if the official slate actually makes it into office, they should take all of this under advisement. I don't know that F-net can be seen as representative of USFencing but I think its as good as any barometer. Even the people who are anti-USFFC would be raging idiots if they couldnt see that the USFA is a broken, wounded circus animal in need of an Old Yeller behind the shed thing....

Overworked, underpaid refs who arent really happy to do this anymore

NACs that are far, out of the way, overpriced and staffed by underpaid refs who are grumpy

An almost complete lack of modern business acumen and planning. F-net exists because the USFA website really bites and doesnt have all that it should have.

An almost complete ignoring of the adult div 2-3 fencer.

The no-mans land of the b fencer...only DIV1a is at Summer Nationals.

These are all really big issues that have to be dealt with and essentially aren't.

Time to call for a vote of 'no confidence' in Chancellor Valorum's leadership methinks.

FF

[CadetVet]

This is going to be ugly.

Since they were not "nominated by petition" until the petitions were accepted, and the petitions were accepted after the date, one must wonder the logic of this argument.

Frankly, I wasn't a fan of the FFC group - too epee-heavy for my taste - but this smacks of the empire striking back using whatever means are available.

It isn't good for our sport, facially, and the sure-to-ensue lawsuit will be horrible for it. Bad move by the USFA.

Instead, the USFA slate should have campaigned on their merits (I know most of these folks and there are plenty of merits for them to campaign on).

Next time, I suppose we should name the coaches, 3-and-above refs, and fencers with national points to be "superdelegates" and let them decide the nomination

CV

Originally Posted by FencingKitten

So:

The bylaws state: The signed agreement to be a candidate and to accept binding arbitration must be submitted to the National Office: ... by candidates nominated by petition, not later than April 1 of the year in which the election is to be conducted.

The EC states: The required arbitration agreement form was available for distribution, having been prepared by the USFA’s general counsel in December.

I suppose we'll wait to hear the results of the filed grievance.

[CvilleFencer]

Originally Posted by CadetVet

Instead, the USFA slate should have campaigned on their merits (I know most of these folks and there are plenty of merits for them to campaign on).
CV

Just to be completely clear, from everything I understand so far, the NomCom slate had absolutely nothing to do with this. This was the current staff and administration at work and they are the ones to blame/credit with how this plays out. I think we should be very careful in even casually associating the NomCom slate with how this went down. Lets be sure not to splash them with the fallout from decisions they had no input on.

[Allen Evans]

"Never ascribe to ill will what can be explained through simple incompetence" (my attorney)

I am afraid I don't buy the "dark hand of the USFA" stepping in to put an end to this election. Do I find it easy to believe that an organization which can't follow a budget, can't issue committee reports, and -- in fact -- seems to drop the ball on organizational issues (big and small) on a regular basis could fail to be proactive on getting this paperwork out to potential nominees? Yes, actually I find that easy to believe.

What I do find a little surprising is that five independent candidates for office EACH failed to note the requirement for the arbitration agreement. That has me scratching my head.

Allen Evans

[CadetVet]

I totally agree - these were two independent groups. The good folks of the nominating committee - and the candidates that they selected - should be spared from the fallout on this... unfortunately, I expect the splash will be pretty broad.

Originally Posted by CvilleFencer

Just to be completely clear, from everything I understand so far, the NomCom slate had absolutely nothing to do with this. This was the current staff and administration at work and they are the ones to blame/credit with how this plays out. I think we should be very careful in even casually associating the NomCom slate with how this went down. Lets be sure not to splash them with the fallout from decisions they had no input on.

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

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!

I doubt anyone believes that they, the Nominating Committee Slate, had a direct hand in it. BUT they are obviously the beneficiaries. Second question then is who put in the sleight of hand?

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

As described, this sounds like prejudicial treatment for the NomCom candidates by the USFA counsel.

I think this should end the argument that the NomCom candidates are the candidates of reform. Rather it would appear that they are the candidates who are least objectionable to the existing power structure (whoever that might be). And why are they the least objectionable candidates?? One might easily assume that is because they are the least threat to doing business as usual i.e. as has been done for the last umpteen years.

[Fencing Mom]

Okay, first there was that movement to impeach the USFA executive. Then the nominee challengers, the money problems, questionable procedures for picking the cadet and jr. national teams, and now the election incompetence on the part of someone. I get the feeling that about 24 hours after the last Olympic fencing event, the USFA will implode.

[jjefferies]

Implode? Not Likely. More likely is that it will continue to limp along keeping the sport in the US further and further behind.

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by the ancient one

Did the bylaw requirement for the agreement exist before December?

The bylaws have not been altered since 2001 or so.

Originally Posted by jjefferies

I think this should end the argument that the NomCom candidates are the candidates of reform. Rather it would appear that they are the candidates who are least objectionable to the existing power structure (whoever that might be). And why are they the least objectionable candidates?? One might easily assume that is because they are the least threat to doing business as usual i.e. as has been done for the last umpteen years.

This continues your demonstration you have not the slightest idea who these people are or what they're about.

[notalent]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

I doubt anyone believes that they, the Nominating Committee Slate, had a direct hand in it. BUT they are obviously the beneficiaries. Second question then is who put in the sleight of hand?

I think this should end the argument that the NomCom candidates are the candidates of reform. Rather it would appear that they are the candidates who are least objectionable to the existing power structure (whoever that might be). And why are they the least objectionable candidates?? One might easily assume that is because they are the least threat to doing business as usual i.e. as has been done for the last umpteen years.

Dude I now know why you have losr your hair. I had thought it was normal male pattern baldness, but now I see that it has been rubbed off by your tin foil hat.

[MHS Fencer]

Is the Election Committee technically correct in disallowing the petitions? Yes.

Is there any harm that has been created by the USFFC "slate" missing the deadline, were they to immediately submit the missing paperwork? No.

There's no good reason to hold them to this arbitrary deadline given that they had completed everything the knew about in good faith. Really, this comes off as a nit-picky power play rather than an effort to ensure a fair application of the rules. I would like to see an emergency meeting of whatever board has the power (via conference call) to suspend the bylaws in this instance, assuming that the USFFC slate sends in the arbitration forms immediately, and allow the election to go forth.

[dekko]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

I doubt anyone believes that they, the Nominating Committee Slate, had a direct hand in it. BUT they are obviously the beneficiaries.

As risky as this may be, we may need to see a little more evidence to take the original slate off the hook for this. I wish it weren't the case but it seems more likely they are puppets for someone(or group) else and not capable of acting on their own and need help from mommy and daddy.

If a procedural error was made after being misled in good faith by the group in charge of the potantial election, it would seem that it could be easily overcome to prevent a long term potentially ugly and expensive situation that will very likely insue in a legal battle. If these two groups were truely interested what is best for US Fencing then both sides would work to prevent an expensive legal battle and have a less expensive and quicker election.

Just curious, why didn't this come out on April 2, why did it wait until April 18th to be sent to the FFC folks and posted on the UF Fencing website? I am not looking out my window for black helicopters but this fact alone would fuel those type of thoughts.

In case it matters, I am not partial to either set of potential officers, I am interested in seeing the national organization move forward and overcome it's current problems and issues and not cause new ones that will destract from these and prevent these from being solved. This situation causes at least one new problem and prevents current problems and issues from being at least addressed.

I guess nationals will be very interesting this year to say the least.

[KD5MDK]

I'd like to have an emergency meeting to suspend the bylaws to get rid of this stupid Divisions and Sections business and move to an lower level structure than is transparent and effective, but I don't see that happening either.

[Jason]

This demonstrates a shocking level of PR incompetence from the USFA. At some point, someone actually said, "Hey, you what? Let's go ahead and now tell everyone that there won't be an election. This is the best thing to do."

There is literally no positive result that can come from doing that. Regardless of whether the motives were dubious or not, it's amazing that someone made the decision to do this without realizing how remarkable a mishandling of the situation it would be--and that there was no one in the USFA who said, "Hey, this is probably an extremely bad idea from a PR perspective."

Bylaws, shmylaws, this is being bungled fantastically.

I can't imagine what purpose the USFA could possibly have thought it would achieve