Usfa Calls Off Election

[epeemike81]

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.

Yes, one might easily assume this... if one had no experience or knowledge of national USFA politics whatsoever. if, however, one had even a little such knowledge, they would realize that those on the nominating committee slate have done more to change and improve USFA "business as usual" already than anybody else. The concept that the nominated candidates are supporters of business as usual is a laughable and staggering example of extreme ignorance of the situation.

-m

[epeemike81]

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 they 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.

(Emphasis mine)

While I don't support the Hurly slate, I agree that this is a bad decision which serves only to undermine the legitimacy of the Nominated candidates. Frankly, I think they'd agree.

That said, why wasn't this requirement which is CLEARLY STATED IN THE BYLAWS among the set of things the Hurley Slate knew about? At least to me this speaks quite negatively about their ability to handle the job. As Brad noted, the first thing he did when he decided to put his name forward was re-read all the bylaws and make sure he was aware of ALL requirements. They clearly either didn't or (more frighteningly) didn't comprehend them.

-m

[epeemike81]

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.

Wow... I thought you of all people, who know many of these candidates would realize that they are quite independent and nobody's puppets. what in your experience with them would lead you to believe that this could possibly be true?

-m

[Allen Evans]

I'd like to chime in with EpeeMike on his above posts. I don't support the Hurley slate, myself, but I think this is a poor conclusion to their bid for an alternative group of canidates.

On the other hand, the alternate slate seems to have been unable to either recognize or communicate their need for the arbitration agreement, even though it's clearly stated in the by-laws of the organization they intend to run, and was mentioned at least once in threads concerning the election*. This is hardly a good argument for being able to manuever the USFA through the next four years.

Allen Evans



*And except for Brad -- I believe -- no one else on F.net brought this requirement up either, which would lead me to believe that the "conspiricy" to deny the alternate slate extends all the way down to....well....us.

[epeemike81]

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

Exactly. If I was petitioning, I'd have read the bylaws, and made damned sure that there was a record of me requesting the arb agreement before the deadline. That way, if there was an issue such as this I could clearly show that the ball was dropped at the counsel's office, and not by me. Do any of the petitioners have such evidence of a request? if so, I predict their grievance will succeed. If not, then they showed some pretty gross incompetence on their side of the issue as well.

-m

[edew]

Yes, one might easily assume this... if one had no experience or knowledge of national USFA politics whatsoever. if, however, one had even a little such knowledge, they would realize that those on the nominating committee slate have done more to change and improve USFA "business as usual" already than anybody else. The concept that the nominated candidates are supporters of business as usual is a laughable and staggering example of extreme ignorance of the situation.

-m

It's not all black and white, Mike. I see the NC slate and I see some names there that can be on the grayer side of "business as usual" than some of the others. It's not a staggering example of extreme ignorance at all.

I think that the NC slate is a positive step away from the entrenched status quo, but hardly a complete disassociation from it.

[Philistine]

{snip}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).

To be fair--as nearly as I can tell--none of the nominated officer actually made a request for it. Going from Brad's posts--it appears they were informed they needed to turn one in by the nominating committee (which was sensible), and then were directly emailed it by the USFA counsel (apparently on 12/29). They then filled them out and submitted them by 1/5.

(If this is incorrect, someone please correct me).

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).

I agree, there's really several different layers here, and as near as I can tell, nobody was trying to snooker anybody into not submitting anything. As best I can piece together, the timeline goes like:

12/15 -- Nominating commitee recommends its slate. Emails prospective officers and reminds them of acceptance and arbitration requirement. Per the bylaws, Such arbitration agreement is to be on a "form prescribed by the election committee."

12/29 -- USFA counsel sends form to nominated officers.

12/30 -- Brad posts "The candidates all have to sign and return a written form, which was sent out yesterday. Until that happens it's quite reasonable for US Fencing not to send out the official notification. Due date for those agreements to be returned is Jan. 5th (mine's already been faxed, with the original sitting in a mailbox for pick-up)." Link (This appears to be the only mention of the Board that I've seen of any agreement due).

1/5 -- Due date for nominees arbitration agreements (and acceptance of nomination).

3/25 -- Submission of Petitions to National Office.

3/26 -- National Office writes back and says they got it and will submit to Election Committee.

4/1 -- Submission to Ekection Committee by National Office of results of Petition

4/5 -- Election Committee votes to accept petition - send email saying "We will be sending paperwork to all the new candidates for their signature, this is an agreement that requires all candidates to submit to arbitration."

4/16 -- Election Committee says they have voted not to validate the submissions on the Petitions (they had been informed of the deadline for counsel, who told them about it when he was asked to email the agreement)

4/18 -- Counsel emails the agreements.

4/19 -- Slate submits signed agreements.

From this--I more or less get the impression the Election Committee had no idea of the timing requirement (or didn't consider it important), until notified by counsel. At that point they took the position that they did not have the authority to change a clear requirement of the bylaws--which is certainly an understandable position.

It also appears (pursuant to the bylaws) that the election committee itself is the body which determines the grievance of its prior decision. Which may not have been the best idea....

--Philistine

[dekko]

Wow... I thought you of all people, who know many of these candidates would realize that they are quite independent and nobody's puppets. what in your experience with them would lead you to believe that this could possibly be true?

-m

As much as I would love to believe there is a division between the commitee the nominees and such, this situation makes me wonder.

Let’s see. Let’s start with the letter on the USFA website saying they would be allowed to run being dated April 18th not April 2nd. Let’s then go to the fact that this letter was done by the nominating committee of US Fencing not US Fencing itself. This alone would lend itself to a conflict of interest argument not to mention they would be the repository of the forms and process for the election? I seem to recall another thread mentioning all they do is nominate the candidates, but maybe I missed that. Let’s go to the fact this form is supposed to be publically available but I can’t find it on the US Fencing website. Heaven forbid, if someone else wanted to run, where would they get these forms? Also, suddenly this group ‘got rid of’ the competition in a very interesting way making sure their people would get in the offices they wanted them in for whatever reason. Also, Jeff Bukantz mentions in his interview with Serge that the new president will be Kalle Weeks after it was know that Tracy and company was running.There just seems to be too many interesting aspects of this situation to dismiss ‘something else’ going on.

Maybe the puppets verbiage was too harsh but this really doesn’t pass the smell test as being handled in a professional way. Like I said, I have no preference to either group but this really does seem as though it was/is personal and too many balls dropped by both sides.

On the flip side I am curious if Tracy or anyone from her group, running or not, asked the question if there was anything else they needed to do, any forms or deadlines they had missed or needed to be aware of under the ‘just in case’ principle. Someone else brought up a good point; it would have been appropriate to mention that this form was due but had not been handled, in one way or another.

Bottom line to all of this, it appears that many aspects of this were not handled properly on both sides. And, if these are the two groups who want to run this organization, or could have(?), this does not bode well for the future. I hope we don’t hear in a month or so from the FIE/IOC/USOC that our fencers can not fence at the Olympics because they did not submit a form in time.

[Philistine]

{snip}
Let’s see. Let’s start with the letter on the USFA website saying they would be allowed to run being dated April 18th not April 2nd. Let’s then go to the fact that this letter was done by the nominating committee of US Fencing not US Fencing itself. This alone would lend itself to a conflict of interest argument not to mention they would be the repository of the forms and process for the election? I seem to recall another thread mentioning all they do is nominate the candidates, but maybe I missed that. {snip}

I think you are confusing the Nominating Committe and the Election Committee.

--Philistine

[Capt. Slo-mo]

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).

According to all accounts so far, we have no evidence at all that any NOMCOM candidate requested the form, which was located on Alperstein's computer. The NOMCOM slate was thoughtfully notified of the arbitration requirement, and then seems to have had the form provided to them by USFA attorney Alperstein.

It begins to look a bit like palace insiders vs the barbarians at the gate.

I still look forward to understanding how the FFC slate allowed this to happen in the first place. Their letter of grievance was not all that illuminating on this point.

[Redblade]

This actually strikes me as a pretty typical problem with the USFA: one side doesn't seem to have read all the rules. One side doesn't seem to have communicated the rules properly. Chaos breaks out. There are accusations about intentions and motives. ...

A not-uncommon occurance in bouts, too.

But seriously, isn't this the sort of problem that hit the Clinton campaign during the primary delegate count in Texas? Someone sorta kinda thought they knew how the election worked, and then it all fell apart the day-of ... while Obama walked away with more points than was expected.

This sucks. Badly. (And really hurts the image of those in charge.) But in sport, politics, traffic law - whatever - we're all responsible for knowing and following the rules, no matter how esoteric and petty they might seem. Ignorance is never a valid excuse.

I hope we don’t hear in a month or so from the FIE/IOC/USOC that our fencers can not fence at the Olympics because they did not submit a form in time.

Scary thought.

[Padawan]

How about the nominated slate refuse to accept their positions unless the alternate slate is allowed to run? Just a crazy idea, I'll be quiet now.

[ivlobane]

To all those nitpicking the rules and implying the USFFC should have read the bylaws better:

The deadlines for validating the petitions and returning the signed arbitration letters were in potential conflict. Therefore, the arbitration letter deadline was waived by the election committee, as implied in attachment B of the USSFC grievance letter. This is why this is not over yet.

Also, who is running the election, Alperstein or the election committee? Why did he pop up at the last minute and throw this wrench in the gears? Did they have to act on this? Or could the election committe simply said "Thanks for the info, we'll keep that in mind and take our chances..."

[MHS Fencer]

...That said, why wasn't this requirement which is CLEARLY STATED IN THE BYLAWS among the set of things the Hurley Slate knew about? At least to me this speaks quite negatively about their ability to handle the job. As Brad noted, the first thing he did when he decided to put his name forward was re-read all the bylaws and make sure he was aware of ALL requirements. They clearly either didn't or (more frighteningly) didn't comprehend them.

That's true, which provides a reason not to vote for them in an election. I don't think this dispute ought to break down along the lines of you're for the FFC "slate"/against it, because that seems (to me, at least) to perpetuate the notion that this is a power play.

I think that the conscientiousness that Brad applies in approaching his responsibilities to the USFA is, sadly, not indicative of everybody's methodology, and I can't help but wonder how many of the NomCom "slate" would have missed this requirement on their own. Not having seen any of the forms or paperwork outside of the pertinent bylaws section, I can't make an informed judgment of the level of potential irresponsibility required to miss the arbitration agreement, but I do know that it was volunteered to one group and not another, which makes me uneasy given that, while technically correct, the decision was made to disqualify the opposing "slate" when there was no harm caused.

Either way, I would prefer not to see this get ugly(/uglier), and I am less than thrilled with the way that this is currently proceeding.

[ivlobane]

How about the nominated slate refuse to accept their positions unless the alternate slate is allowed to run? Just a crazy idea, I'll be quiet now.

This is a very strong idea. It would clear all doubt about their "intimacy" with the current power structure. It would also send a powerful message to the general USFA membership.

[ivlobane]

...snip... I can't make an informed judgment of the level of potential irresponsibility required to miss the arbitration agreement, but I do know that it was volunteered to one group and not another, which makes me uneasy given that, while technically correct, the decision was made to disqualify the opposing "slate" when there was no harm caused.

Either way, I would prefer not to see this get ugly(/uglier), and I am less than thrilled with the way that this is currently proceeding.

Very good point, decision made by whom? Would the Election Committe let the election proceed if the "legal counsel" let it? What does that say about the USFA?

[TBean]

This is a very strong idea. It would clear all doubt about their "intimacy" with the current power structure. It would also send a powerful message to the general USFA membership.

Or, as someone else has suggested, why don't all of you get together and agree on a single slate of officers. Perhaps if you all spoke with one another, you might find that the goals everyone wants to achieve are not that far apart. That also sends a powerful message to the general USFA membership.

[epeemike81]

Or, as someone else has suggested, why don't all of you get together and agree on a single slate of officers. Perhaps if you all spoke with one another, you might find that the goals everyone wants to achieve are not that far apart. That also sends a powerful message to the general USFA membership.

It's worth noting that ivlobane isn't actually a candidate on either slate. He's just the Hurley Slate's Information Minister.

-m

[dcmdale]

I've been out of pocket for a couple of weeks. Wow.

First, from the information presented on this thread (which is undoubtedly not the whole story), I would opine that neither side likely has a slam-dunk case although my experience suggests that judges would generally tend to favor the electoral process over technical compliance--especially where there are circumstances where the judge can find fault on both sides. In general, judges take the position that if an election goes forward, the electorate can take into account technical lapses, but if you prevent the election, then you have taken the decision away from the voters.

Over the last several years, I have been seriously underwhelmed by the quality of legal representation that the USFA has had. I think that however this is resolved, the next board should consider whether current representation should continue.

All of the above said, I hope that T and the "Change" candidates will not resort to the courts if rebuffed on their grievance.

[the ancient one]

Sounds more like a yellow card to me, not a black card.

A badly written by-law, poorly executed on all sides should not be allowed to impair the democratic process.