If the bylaw has been written this way since 2002, the petition candidates have no excuse for non-compliance.
I am a little confused. Is it that the arbitration agreement was updated?
Or was the bylaw updated to add an arbitration agreement that did not exist until the last few months?
To repeat myself (might as well, everyone else has), if there has been a bylaw in existence since 2002 that calls for an arbitration agreement, the petition candidates don't deserve any further consideration.
__________________
Anyone giving odds that I don't change out my Xmas avatar for another year?
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.
This continues the trend of people displaying they have no clue who they're talking about. Do you have any names of people that could plausibly be the puppetmasters for the nominated candidates?
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.
As I understand from Skopik who is on the alt slate, the last form was not available publicly, but only via request for USFA. It was then delivered after Apr 1. If that is incorrect then I need to be corrected. If on the other hand, it is correct it looks like gamemanship on the part of the existing organization.
In any case, what these fencers want is better fiscal accountability and more latititued at the local level to sponsor tournaments.
The issue as I understand it in the Gulf Coast is that local board is being far too restrictive with tournaments. Since I have spoken to Skopik a number of time, I am very certain that at least on thing item on his agenda is to create a board that is very tournament friendly, like we have out here in CA.
That sound like a very good thing to me.
I will be very disappointed if the alternative slate is not presented. On the other hand, we can still vote for these members, unless USFA does something strange. The names of the candidates is in the current edition of American Fencing.
To repeat myself (might as well, everyone else has), if there has been a bylaw in existence since 2002 that calls for an arbitration agreement, the petition candidates don't deserve any further consideration.
Pragmatically, the bylaws actually, at this point, have little to do with whether or not the petition candidates deserve consideration.
The USFA has already made the "mistake" of letting its "constituency" believe that there would be an election. If they wanted to hold to the bylaws, they should have been using that line since the beginning of April. Doing so now, only divides the members and ignites conspiracy theories.
If, starting April 1, the USFA had been using "you can't run without this form; it's in the bylaws," everyone would have gone along. It's too late now. They ****ed it up. Too many people have been convinced that there would be an election.
On April 1, this is just a rules problem. On April 18th, it's a PR problem. PR problems always trump rules problems, because it's actually the PR problems that turn into expensive political and legal ones.
Location: the Salle(I no longer have a home address)
Posts: 1,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by KD5MDK
This continues your demonstration you have not the slightest idea who these people are or what they're about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by notalent
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.
Gentlemen,
Something I learned long ago is that when people start losing their argument they turn their attacks personal rather than speaking to the subject. I assume that you've come in your heart of hearts to a realization. And I'm not bitter - towards you - about it. But come lets try to learn from this and leave behind the acrimony betwixt us. Do We need a weatherman to tell us which way the wind blows? No, surely we can read the patterns.
What is the pattern that I see? A challenge was made to the status quo. Rather than meet that challenge forthrightly the challenge was acknowledged but then in a back room a clause was found by which the challenge could be disallowed. The Nominating Committee may have done its duty to the best of its or anyone's ability. The nominated slate may be as pure in its intentions as the proverbial driven snow. But all of that is now to be sullied. Is this disheartening, disgraceful, disrespectful to the game and to this (US) body of fencers. I would say yes. I see no reason why this form cannot be signed anytime before the election is committed to. The excuse used to disallow the challenge is disingenuous at best.
Sorry gentlemen, you may make all the sad bad jokes about my bald pate that you wish. But I've not tucked it up where the sun don't shine nor bent it to others wishes. And I will call a spade a spade as I see it.
Best Regards,
__________________ J Jefferies
Last edited by jjefferies; 04-20-2008 at 02:59 AM..
Amazing. I don't see an easy way out of the problem. I'd be surprised if there was a lawsuit, but this sure will leave a nasty taste in everyone's mouth.
I thought that the by-laws provided for nominations from the floor for elections. Could somebody check on that (I can't at the moment)?
Please re-read my earlier comments regarding the need for a restructuring of the USFA. This situation further supports that need.
I also challenged the two groups to get together and decide on ONE slate that every agreed was best for the USFA.
People make choices about whether they want to do things the right way or not.
Location: the Salle(I no longer have a home address)
Posts: 1,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdg
I will be very disappointed if the alternative slate is not presented. On the other hand, we can still vote for these members, unless USFA does something strange. The names of the candidates is in the current edition of American Fencing.
Sam
I believe that without the alternate slate there is no election. The election is uncontested and the slate nominated by the Nominating Committee "shall be certified by the Election Committee as having been unanimously elected".
This is the reason why a number of us welcomed having an alternative slate. It would have enfranchised the USFA membership.
I remember many years ago when there was another challenge from someone (Michel Mamlouk) against the presiding structure. I was at that meeting and the claims that Mr. Mamlouk's application letter (or whatever it was) was US"G"A or some other NGB at One Olympic Center and thus was missing for 15 days or something and thus when US"F"A received it, it was past the deadline and thus should be considered invalid. Oops, sorry Mr. Mamlouk, your application for running for office does not count.
At what level of USFA incompetence does it actually become a good thing if either USOC or a FIE-appointed leadership steps in, and relieves the incompetents of their duties?
As a member of FIE, does USFA have a binding promise to FIE and the other fencing NGB´s in the Americas to provide at least a modicum of organizational functioning to fencers within its territory? If so, what is the formal sanction if it fails to provide in the outlined way? Can FIE disrecognize USFA as the legitimate fencing organization in the territory of USA, and start another? Can it disbar USFA athletes from competing in FIE-organized competitions (No more tiring trips to Beijing for you, Capt. Slo-Mo!) If so, could USFA members get around the problem by paying membership fees, and thus become members of other fencing NGB´s (CFF gets a windfall cash inflow!)?
What I am getting to is:
USFA members of all stripes, work together and get your act together. Otherwise, you may be in for problems of a magnitude which you could not have imagined a week ago.
Pragmatically, the bylaws actually, at this point, have little to do with whether or not the petition candidates deserve consideration.
The USFA has already made the "mistake" of letting its "constituency" believe that there would be an election. If they wanted to hold to the bylaws, they should have been using that line since the beginning of April. Doing so now, only divides the members and ignites conspiracy theories.
If, starting April 1, the USFA had been using "you can't run without this form; it's in the bylaws," everyone would have gone along. It's too late now. They ****ed it up. Too many people have been convinced that there would be an election.
On April 1, this is just a rules problem. On April 18th, it's a PR problem. PR problems always trump rules problems, because it's actually the PR problems that turn into expensive political and legal ones.
I think this is a great point. Regardless of the "rules," the membership has been under the impression that an election would be held. Now, if there is no election, everyone looks bad.
As evidence on how what kind of communication there is in another fencing NGB, I submit this. Read and compare:
Quote:
Originally Posted by President of Fencing New Zealand
» President's Report
First I would like to thank everyone for their contribution to our sport of fencing in New Zealand. As a small community, every contribution has a high value and is appreciated.
There are two sides to our coin. What we should have done and what was done. 2006 was certainly a big year with New Zealand hosting the Oceania Junior Championships and having a team compete at the Commonwealth Fencing Championships and then many going over to the World Championships.
Operationally we achieved results. We have managed to have fencers participate in the events from club level through to World Championships. However, with respect to governance, as an organisation we have performed very poorly, especially as we have not held FeNZ management meetings. For my part, I apologize. Mia culpa.
It remains a great concern to me that as an organisation we are dysfunctional. The failure to manage our sports governance is masked by our small hard working executive management team, managing the urgent and pressing day to day operational requirements. The wheels have not exactly fallen off, and I am not sure that FeNZ is fundamentally broken. However, the question has to be asked are we actually going anywhere?
To highlight this, our financial accounts will not show it, but there is an interesting story, one that has been repeated now for several years. In 2006, 16 fencers received financial value of approximately at least $36,000. This represents about 3% of our membership receiving value that is six times our income. Are all our members getting value for money? Was it well spent? What was the benefit return? If we had a spare $36,000 would we spend it differently? In another area we were also fortunate to be able to provide $8,000 towards training and development of four coaches. We are clearly seeing a return on that investment from membership. The value of coach training seems to be unquestionably important.
The current regionalization of fencing distances fencers from FeNZ (as our financials show) and isolates each region from each other (no reports, reporting or responsibility for any other region). I believe the independence of the regions is a massive barrier to our future progress as a national sport. The potential workability of FeNZ is evidence the machine is not totally broken. It is not a purely structural issue. We MUST bring our regions together as equal partners in FeNZ. The change we need is a change in mind set from being independent to one of regions being inter-dependent, supportive partners in each others well being and each others futures.
JJefferies, I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you that the current USFA exec comt. etc is incompetent, and that this whole mess makes the current people in charge of the USFA look bad.
The difference that many people are noting, is that the nom. comt. slate has nothing to do with the current USFA incompetence, nor did they have anything to do with this decision. Trying to paint those two disparate groups with the same brush does justice to no one.
That being said it seems to me that what occurred is, Alternative slate submitted petition signatures. They were verified (after April 1), Election Comt. says they will forward rest of paperwork. Donald Apperstein is written too asking for arbitration agreement. Donald provides it and then goes, oh wait this needed to be in by April 1, and notifies the election comt. Election Comt, decides that in accordance with by-laws they must call off the election.
It seems like everyone, the alternative slate, the exec comt, and Mr. Apperstein forgot about the requirement that the document needed to be in by April 1.
Seriously folks, the smartest thing said in this thread so far was Allen_Evan's quote a while back about not assuming conspiracy when incompetence will do.
__________________
What's the "real" world again? I don't think I can see it from my window
Given that exact and complete compliance with the letter of the bylaws is now the rule--I'm just wondering whether the Election Committee gave notice to the Presidential candidates to give them a "fair opportunity to attend all meetings of the Committee"? pursuant to Bylaw XXV, Sec. 5(e)? Had they done so, perhaps this could have been avoided.
Since they have now submitted the arbitration agreements, I'm at something of a loss to understand how this could possibly be a material violation of the bylaws--especially since the Election Committee had previously certified them as qualified.
That being said--I'm not sure the threat in their letter of lawsuit and/or PR blitz is that helpful (it certainly makes me less favorably inclined to the slate). To me an appropriate "threat" would be to mount a campaign to recall the newly elected officers (who are being contested)--to force a new election.
--Philistine
Last edited by Philistine; 04-20-2008 at 11:24 AM..
The Election Committee completed its validation of the petition signatures on April 5, 2008. It then advised Tracey Hurley, who was petitioning to be a candidate for USFA President, that the petitions had been approved. That notification indicated that necessary paperwork, specifically the arbitration agreement, would be provided at a later date. Then, after being asked to provide the arbitration agreement to the petitioners, the USFA general counsel brought the requirements of the Bylaw noted above to the Committee’s attention. While the Committee regrets perhaps having given the impression that it would supply the arbitration agreement, that fact cannot excuse the failure to submit the required documents or change the outcome.
The point I can get over is that the EC on April 5th told the petitioning group that the arbitration agreement would be provided at a later date.
In my mind, it is the EC's fault for not consulting with the GC before completing their validation. They knew about the arbitration because they were going to give it to them at a later date.
This is the EC's error and they should be gracious enough to do the right thing and correct it.
It seems like everyone, the alternative slate, the exec comt, and Mr. Apperstein forgot about the requirement that the document needed to be in by April 1.
Well, yes and no. Let's remember, the "Arbitration Agreement" is alleged to have been a document reworked late last year by USFA general counsel Donald Alperstein, which then resided on his computer--not on a database readily available to others. Try going to the forms and documents section of USFencing and download it.
The apparent smoking gun here is that Donald then reportedly made that arbitration document available by e-mail to the NOMCOM candiates, along with instructions on how to fill it out and return it...once the NOMCOM folks had been finalized.
On March 25, the FFC slate was in the same position: they had turned in their petitions and signatures, and (with the subsequent verification) were equally valid candidates...except for the arbitration document.
Which Donald apparently still had sequestered on his computer.
Now, the question all fairness fans need to ask themselves: five minutes after the FFC petitions were received, why didn't Donald Alperstein send the FFC slate candidates the exact same e-mail containing the arbitration agreement and the instructions?
If it was appropriate to forward the agreement to the NOMCOM folks, then it is a gross miscarriage of justice to have withheld it from the FFC folks. To then have the Election Committee certify the petitions on April 5, only to then withdraw the FFC candidacy and point to the deadline...because the "Committee confirmed that none of the individuals for whom petitions were submitted had asked for a copy..." indicates an incredible breakdown of function on the ElecComm's part.
Regardless of your feelings about the members of the different slates...this situation smells worse than the dumpsters in front of the Sicilian squid restaurants.
And let me tell you, my friend; in the full sun, the olfactory assault from those dumpsters would take the paint off your car.
__________________
"Fraud is the creation of trust. And then: its betrayal."
William Black, Ph.D.
I want to expand on the adage against imputing conspiracy where simple incompetence will do. This suspension of the election certainly strikes me as incompetent. I suspect it's also ill-intentioned. However, I am not inclined to think that the various people involved in messing this up have any particularly strong inclinations to support the nominated slate, either, OR for that matter the people who served on the nominating committee. In other words, though there may not be a systemic conspiracy, I'm not inclined to impute conspiracy where I could more reasonably assume that the people are just being simple-minded jerks.
Not to mention that if they were conspiring, they'd do it a heck of a lot better than this.
__________________ I'm not anonymous. We just haven't been properly introduced.
Given that exact and complete compliance with the letter of the bylaws is now the rule--I'm just wondering whether the Election Committee gave notice to the Presidential candidates to give them a "fair opportunity to attend all meetings of the Committee"? pursuant to Bylaw XXV, Sec. 5(e)? Had they done so, perhaps this could have been avoided.
Good question. Ms. Baumgart? Mr. Alperstein? Bueller?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philistine
That being said--I'm not sure the threat in their letter of lawsuit and/or PR blitz is that helpful (it certainly makes me less favorably inclined to the slate). To me an appropriate "threat" would be to mount a campaign to recall the newly elected officers (who are being contested)--to force a new election.
--Philistine
The PR blitz also struck me as unlikely to achieve much notice or movement outside the fencing world, and comes across as not only a largely empty threat, but a little spiteful.
However; if I were on the FFC slate, I would argue strenously against just letting the DQ stand, and trying for a recall later. The time to fix this is right now.
A hypothetical question for you, Philistine:
You're the lawyer for the FFC slate, having magically taken up residence in Colorado. What is your legal assessment of the alleged actions of the general counsel, (sauce is good for the goose, the gander cooks dry) and the role of the ElecComm?
__________________
"Fraud is the creation of trust. And then: its betrayal."
William Black, Ph.D.
Given that our current US administration seems to turn incompetence into an art form, I think there is this "success through incompetence" factor going on. The proper remedy to incompetence is to correct the incompetence, not to punish those who were negatively impacted by the incompetence, whether it's the USFFC or Katrina victims or fired DAs.
I will not accept incompetence as an excuse, whether it's my incompetence or anyone elses.
The PR blitz also struck me as unlikely to achieve much notice or movement outside the fencing world, and comes across as not only a largely empty threat, but a little spiteful.
Well empty probably, unless the USOC decides that the level of incompetence is such that they are the only ones who can fix it.
Whether or not it is spiteful depends on if they got a reach around, or not.
indicates an incredible breakdown of function on the ElecComm's part.
Linear Mode
