Usfa Calls Off Election

[fencerbill]

I went to the USFA web site and downloaded a copy of the by-laws. The document directory shows that the current copy of the by-laws was loaded on Jan 10, 2007.

From page 17 of the by-laws:

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.

This requirement is not new. The candidates of the Nominating Committee have only 3 weeks to complete this requirement. They have to be told that they are candidates, it is not illogical for the arbitration agreement to be included.

The petition candidates knew there was a April Fool's day requirement to submit their petition, how did they miss the deadline for the arbitration agreement?

The whole section of the bylaws on elections is only 3 pages long. All they had to do was write down "I agree to arbitration" and sign it and they would be covered.

I don't feel they have any right to expect special treatment.

[jjefferies]

Hi!
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?
:

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.

Have a nice time!
Peter Gustafsson

Hi Peter,
You know I enjoy your posts and am sure I would enjoy your company. But in this one case may I suggest you bugger off!
Best Regards

[Philistine]

{snip}
Not to mention that if they were conspiring, they'd do it a heck of a lot better than this.

Isn't that the truth.

Makes me almost wish for a conspiracy. Then, at least, I'd feel somebody knew what they were doing....

--Philistine

[keith]

All they had to do was write down "I agree to arbitration" and sign it and they would be covered.

Really? I always thought arbitration agreements where a bit more complex.

But given such a blanket agreement perhaps next time the USFA has a contested election everything can be simplified by running a series of cage fights - would finally provide the TV ratings.

[fencerbill]

Really? I always thought arbitration agreements where a bit more complex.

But given such a blanket agreement perhaps next time the USFA has a contested election everything can be simplified by running a series of cage fights - would finally provide the TV ratings.

If we were arguing about the form of the arbitration agreement, I would support the petitioners.

We are talking about the existence of any arbitration agreement.

[keith]

IWe are talking about the existence of any arbitration agreement.

Agreeing to arbitration is not the same as signing an arbitration document.

After all, I may agree to arbitration right up to the moment I see the arbitration agreement I have to sign.

[seak]

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.

oh don't get me wrong, I think there was quite a bit of incompetence here, most of it from the USFA. In reading things it appears that Mr. Alperstein himself may have forgotten about the deadline until after he had sent the agreement to the exec comt. to forward to Ms. Hurley's slate. I just think that what you smell is incompetence as opposed to conspiracy.

Would it have been intelligent (and arguably more fair) of Mr. Alperstein to have sent the document to the alternative slate on March 25? Absolutely

Should the exec comt have mentioned it earlier? Absolutely

but it appears both of these parties forgot about the deadline

If I was an alternative candidate, had thoroughly read the bylaws, knew of the requirement and hadn't heard anything would I have emailed the exec comt. or Mr. Alperstein prior to the deadline? Probably

As I said more then enough incompetence to go around without claiming conspiracy. Currently, it's a mess. I don't think not having this election behooves anyone. I don't think not selectively ignoring by-laws is great practice either.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Hi Peter,
You know I enjoy your posts and am sure I would enjoy your company. But in this one case may I suggest you bugger off!
Best Regards

No such luck - I will laugh hard while various USFA people get to publicly wallow in the mud of their own incompetence!: blah:


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[fencerwallet]

I went to the USFA web site and downloaded a copy of the by-laws. The document directory shows that the current copy of the by-laws was loaded on Jan 10, 2007.

From page 17 of the by-laws:

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.

This requirement is not new. The candidates of the Nominating Committee have only 3 weeks to complete this requirement. They have to be told that they are candidates, it is not illogical for the arbitration agreement to be included.

The petition candidates knew there was a April Fool's day requirement to submit their petition, how did they miss the deadline for the arbitration agreement?

The whole section of the bylaws on elections is only 3 pages long. All they had to do was write down "I agree to arbitration" and sign it and they would be covered.

I don't feel they have any right to expect special treatment.

The language, "The signed agreement to be a candidate and to accept binding arbitration must be submitted to the National Office..." implies with singular use of the word "agreement" and it's conjunctive that there is one agreement, not a separate arbitration agreement. Moreover, it is fairly typical for arbitration provisions to be clauses within a document vs. a separate, stand alone document.

[Inquartata]

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??

I think that you are confusing correlation with causation here. Being a "beneficiary" of an act does not mean that creating a benefit for one was the cause of the act. IMO it is much more likely we can find the source of the act by following the money. That is, the USFA has just saved itself the cost of holding an election. As an economist I recognize this as a very familiar motive...

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.

Yes.

However, the intelligent person---especially one challenging an existing power elite---does not wait for a member of said power elite to do things for them. That is a recipe for failure in any walk of life. Such a person had better take matters into their own hands if they know what's good for them.

The FFC candidates should have been requesting the forms, not only from Alperstein but from anyone else who might be expected to have had a copy. Such as the NC candidates. Does anyone think that Brad, for instance, would not have sent them a copy of his own form if asked? And additionally, they might have sent in their own forms, just in case. Then intent to comply with the bylaws would have been clearly established, especially if accompanied by a letter setting forth the reasons for submission of a self-created form...

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.

Also yes.

Whatever the mechanical workings of this particular breakdown, the appearance is one of naked skullduggery---even to those who were against an election in the first place.

NB The theory that "no conspiracy existed because if it had it would have been better managed" is fallacious, I'm afraid. One has only to look at the history of conspiracies to note that incompetence is no more rare in that realm than in any other.

[whtouche]

Everybody keeps saying "we need a change of leadership" and using that as a rally cry for the petition candidates. Personally I think the nominated slate represents a change of leadership. Obviously nobody is interested in perpetuating the problems that the USFA has had in the past, so why are so many people now assuming that that is what would happen if the nominated slate were elected?

I particularly think that Brad Baker and Greg Dillworth have demonstrated a willingness, and ability, to think outside of the framework which has trapped the organization for so long.

Just because the candidates who would be best for the job were nominated by the nominating committee does not mean that they represent a continuation of the status quo.

In my opinion.

[keith]

Obviously nobody is interested in perpetuating the problems that the USFA has had in the past, so why are so many people now assuming that that is what would happen if the nominated slate were elected?

So here are a few observations;

1) the conjunction of the ideas that; the USFA has been in decline for the past dot years and that the NC slate has the many years of experience with the USFA and its committees, is a little incongruous.

2) a fair few of us do not know the NC slate, we have not sat and got drunk with them nor discussed the merits of mid 18th century Italian prose.

3) for a group of people who have much experience and ideas their web site (and postings) seem remarkably bereft of them. Now I appreciate that they have a great many ideas but, for those of us for whom (2) does not apply none of the reasons for keeping silent are particularly confidence inspiring.

4) this is apparently all moot

[Capt. Slo-mo]

However, the intelligent person---especially one challenging an existing power elite---does not wait for a member of said power elite to do things for them. That is a recipe for failure in any walk of life. Such a person had better take matters into their own hands if they know what's good for them

Absolutely, and I'm still mystified how the FFC slate let this get by them, right at the finish line. Whether it's the NFL playoffs or the USFA elections, you never want your future to be in someone else's hands.

It would have also been a nice gesture on Michael Massik's part to have reminded Tracy of the missing paperwork in his e-mail of March 26th, when he acknowledged receiving the petitions and starting the count. Required? Probably not. Given the USFA's machinations on behalf of the NomCom candidates, though...a nice "head's up" might have been in order.

[jjefferies]

Hi!
No such luck - I will laugh hard while various USFA people get to publicly wallow in the mud of their own incompetence!: blah:
Have a nice time!
Peter Gustafsson

Laugher I can stand. But your comment about the FIE is the same red herring we've seen dragged around anytime there is dissension within the USFA. My understanding is that the USFA is acknowledged by the USOC as the NGB for fencing in the US as pertains to qualifying fencers for the Olympics. The USFA is given money by the USOC from time to time depending on the fencing communities contribution (performance) to the Olympics. For much the same reason the FIE acknowledges it. But neither the USOC nor the FIE have control over the USFA which is a self governing body. They have influence but they cannot come down and order the USFA to do anything. In fact the AFLA/ USFA (Amateur Fencers League of America, or AFLA) was founded on April 22, 1891 and precedes the FIE, founded in November 29, 1913 in Paris, France and the IOC founded in 1894.

Ok, Sorry for the impromptu history lesson. But all too often we have people crying that the "FIE WOLF" or the "USOC POLICE" will come down and force this or that as though the USFA is a child of their creation.

[keith]

Ok, Sorry for the impromptu history lesson. But all too often we have people crying that the "FIE WOLF" or the "USOC POLICE" will come down and force this or that as though the USFA is a child of their creation.

The USFA is only a NGB by the say of the USOC. If the USOC wanted to establish/recognize a new NGB for fencing it could.

As per; modern pentathalon, tae kwon do, bob sleigh/skeleton & volley ball.

[ysbadadden]

This just stinks. It's a result that no one in his right mind could want, because it taints the whole election process and violates any sense of fairness, even if it upholds the letter of the Bylaws.

But I'm also curious about the language of the Bylaws. Look at the clause I've bolded:


[QUOTE=fencerbill;681916]From page 17 of the by-laws:

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. QUOTE]

Doesn't the EC have a positive obligation to make known to the candidates the form of agreement that it prescribes? Admittedly, it behooves the candidates to make an effort to find out -- and I guess we're not hearing why they didn't because they don't want to prejudice a possible lawsuit -- but if there's a particular form that the EC requires, the EC has to provide it.

I'm not sure but that Peter Gustafsson is right, and it's time for the USOC to replace the dysfunctional USFA clown show, which has run far too long, with a new NGB.

[jjefferies]

The USFA is only a NGB by the say of the USOC. If the USOC wanted to establish/recognize a new NGB for fencing it could.

As per; modern pentathalon, tae kwon do, bob sleigh/skeleton & volley ball.

We've had this discussion before. At one level you are correct with regard to being the body that certifies athletes to the Olympics and that is their right. But there are caveats: 1.) if you look at the examples you cite I believe you will find that in each case the organization was dependent upon the USOC for financial support, i.e. the USOC basically owned them. And I believe that in each example you cite the problem came down to financial mismanagement coupled with other issues. 2.) despite the recent bad financial news we've had, we've been assured that the USFA is still financially sound.

Is the USOC going to attempt to meddle in the internal affairs of a solvent and still functioning NGB (functioning meaning still providing for the high level athletes who will compete in the Olympics). Not very likely and for very good reasons. Disregarding the legal issues and there would be many, trying to establish an alternate NGB with an existing organization on the ground would be a nightmare. There are so many alternate scenarios and problems with that approach that you can only say that it would be the choice of last resort.

Truthfully it would be nice to think that Big Daddy USOC will come down and make it all alright. But I don't really see that as being in the cards.

[rdg]

When we, in a small org that I belong to, want to continue with the status quo, we throw up a nominating committee, but we still have elections. To the best of my recollection no one has ever beaten the nominating committee's slate in this little group.

However, USFA is our organization, run by our dollars. What I would like to know is how we get the new slate up for election. It is hard to beat incumbunent officers in any org., but it is appearant from this thread that there is more that a little desire for an election in the USFA.

This deadline for an arbitration agreement is very weak.

Are we expected to wait a year and put off the inevitable election, or can we somehow make USFA work for us by forcing them to hold an election this year?

I don't have much respect for groups that shelter themselves behind capricious clauses and dates. I have less for unelected dynasties. Consequently I would like to see an open election via mail out ballots regardless of when the agreement was signed and delivered.

Sam

[KD5MDK]

Absolutely, and I'm still mystified how the FFC slate let this get by them, right at the finish line. Whether it's the NFL playoffs or the USFA elections, you never want your future to be in someone else's hands.

Quite right.

It would have also been a nice gesture on Michael Massik's part to have reminded Tracy of the missing paperwork in his e-mail of March 26th, when he acknowledged receiving the petitions and starting the count. Required? Probably not.

Very true. It would have been an excellent time to say "We have received your petition, we're still waiting on your arbitration agreement. The form is {attached, available from the USFA General Counsel}. However, that sounds like a disappointment on the Executive Director's part, and he's on his way out anyhow. Again, not required either. But it would have been nice.

Given the USFA's machinations on behalf of the NomCom candidates, though...a nice "head's up" might have been in order.

What "mechinations"? The nominating committee, a body selected by the USFA Congress and therefore by your Divisions, nominated candidates and notified them that if they accepted the nomination they needed to return a form within 3 weeks. The candidates requested the form from the USFA General Counsel, and it was provided to everyone who requested it as soon as it was prepared. It was then provided to everyone else who requested it I believe (0).

I think people are really failing to see the independence of the nominating committee, the nominated candidates, from the current National Office, the Board of Directors, and the Executive Committee (which are all separate groups currently pulling in different directions, it appears to me).

[lewis]

I have been reading this thread and it is not clear what actually happened except that the usfa has stated there will be no election. What exactly are the remedies available to the membership? What actions, other than not fencing, are possible? I do not know how I would have voted, but I sure would have liked the chance to do it.

When I told my kid about this thread he sent me this link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBrDzZCOQtI