Usfa Calls Off Election

[keith]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

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

while I kind of agree I have my suspicions that a good law suit is exactly what the USFA needs.

[Peach]

Originally Posted by keith

while I kind of agree I have my suspicions that a good law suit is exactly what the USFA needs.

Nothing like large amounts of money expended on both sides and liberal distribution of bad feelings all around to ginger up a dysfunctional and moderately impoverished organization, hm?

However, I have seen the fear of lawsuits do wonders for the functioning of some outfits.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Peach

Nothing like large amounts of money expended on both sides and liberal distribution of bad feelings all around to ginger up a dysfunctional and moderately impoverished organization, hm?

well people kept saying that whatever happened the USFA wouldn't be same after the election....

Originally Posted by Peach

However, I have seen the fear of lawsuits do wonders for the functioning of some outfits.

But only some.

[dcrocket]

ALL. Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble.

[Inquartata]

From the previously cited grievance letter:

"...we are prepared to file an Arbitration Dispute through the American Arbitration Association as specified in the USFA Bylaws as well as solicit legal services from an attorney in Colorado. 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.

Hmm. Yes, that certainly sounds as though they have the best interests of US fencing at heart. I begin to wonder whether, whatever the method, we may not have dodged a bullet here. Does this sound to anyone like a mind-set we want in our officers? Not to me, I have to say.

That said, why on earth would the NC slate want to enable such a possibility, by taking an action ( "refusing to accept office" ) which, by the attitudes expressed above, the FFC slate is unlikely to have taken were the shoes on the other foot?

This process will take time and money and only the USFA and its members will be hurt.

Again...thanks so much. Clearly you are our best friends. "We will have our way, or we're going to cause more damage than the current regime ever thought of causing". Not very salubrious.

If I do not receive a positive response indicating that the Election Committee has decided to validate our Nominations by Petition or a date/time of an immediate and pending Election Committee or Grievance Review process by 5:00pm Central time, Tuesday April 22, 2008, I will begin legal proceedings and a public awareness campaign as specified above

Once people commit to a threat, the likelihood is that they will follow it up.

I hope that Peach is right and that the threats are just a lever. I very much fear that they are not threats but promise, though...

I told you this was going to get ugly no matter what happened, way back when the FFC began its campaign. But I guess my comparisons to the Mamluk Wars fell rather short of the mark...

[Capt. Slo-mo]

OTOH, if you were heading up the USFFC ticket, and this had happened to you (ElecComm in disarray, prejudicial treatment for NomCom slate members) would you be inclined to just throw up your hands and say: "Well, we tried!" and walk away with no further effort?

It wouldn't say much for the convictions of your candidacy.

That being said, burning down the castle may not be the most elegant solution.

[jkdjeff]

Speaking as a newbie rank and file fencer who doesn't know much about USFA politics, so solely from a "common sense" standpoint:

(I know, common sense isn't always either of those things, but I'm trying to make it clear that I'm not an expert on USFA politics or any applicable legal issues):

Pursuing this through a grievance and/or arbitration is probably a really good idea. The fact that there's been so much discussion about whether the Fencers For Change group has a legitimate beef with the process or not indicates to me that, at best, the procedures for getting the election to happen were unclear; at worst they may have been deliberately obfuscated.

However, potentially expensive legal battles (especially when a central point of your platform was increased fiscal responsibility) and trying to raise a big public stink with the USOC (isn't supporting our Olympians in an Olympic year more important, especially at a critical growth period for the sport?) and/or the general public (who won't understand the issues anyway in all likelihood) probably isn't the way to go about this, and will do more harm than good.

And yes, I need to stop using so many parentheses!

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

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...

Inq, I didn't recognize you with your economist hat on. Normally I would agree with your approach of following the money. But in the present situation I just don't see money as the primary motivating factor (15 thou. rapidly devaluing dollars vs a possible lawsuit which could eat more? and add in all the recriminations?). But hey, I'll admit to having been wrong before. Like the time I admitted to being wrong.

If not money then why this reaction to the petitioning slate? And what factors would provoke this reaction? I would guess an over whelming sense of ownership in the organization and a sense of being very central to the organization, of wanting the organization to remain the same as it was when we were young, bold and in charge and fear of losing that control/influence. As I've indicated I'm guessing as to what is going on. And on that note let me re-iterate that I am not arguing that the USFA nominated slate is responsible or had any hand in this latest contretemps or the nominating committee for that matter. I simply don't know them well enough to know.

Seak (and others) have argued incompetence is the only rational explanation. But if it were simple incompetence then in the spirit of wholesome competitiveness we would have heard "well the challengers missed the deadline to turn in signed arbitration agreements but we can stretch that". But that's not what we've heard. Rather what we've heard is (paraphrasing) "it's not our responsibility to advise you that you have to request the proper forms from us, you didn't file all the right forms as detailed in the by-laws by the designated hour, too bad, so sad, you lose". To me this argues that the play is hard ball politics not collegial, "lets do what's best for the organization and save money". Although one could rationalize that it's a combination.

But I've watched churches and businesses get pulled down because one or two founders could not bear to let go and see the organization, their child, change/grow. And I don't know all the politics or personalities of the USFA well enough to identify the players though if I read here long enough I'm sure I'll learn. So to some degree I'm conjecturing based on my own experiences in the USFA and outside. But looking at this in the simplest terms it looks like, smells like and tastes like a power play and it's favoring one side versus the other. In truth the favored side may be merely the lesser of two evils but that is another argument.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

{snip}As I've indicated I'm guessing as to what is going on. And on that note let me re-iterate that I am not arguing that the USFA nominated slate is responsible or had any hand in this latest contretemps or the nominating committee for that matter. I simply don't know them well enough to know.

Even beyond that--AFAICT, neither the Nominating Committee nor the nominated slate had any involvement in this process whatsoever, and, in fact, appear to have had no contact with the Election Committee at all since January 5th.

Seak (and others) have argued incompetence is the only rational explanation. But if it were simple incompetence then in the spirit of wholesome competitiveness we would have heard "well the challengers missed the deadline to turn in signed arbitration agreements but we can stretch that". But that's not what we've heard. Rather what we've heard is (paraphrasing) "it's not our responsibility to advise you that you have to request the proper forms from us, you didn't file all the right forms as detailed in the by-laws by the designated hour, too bad, so sad, you lose". To me this argues that the play is hard ball politics not collegial, "lets do what's best for the organization and save money". Although one could rationalize that it's a combination.

I could be wrong--but that's not how I see it.

What I see is the Election Committee, exhibiting the exact same cluelessness as the petitioning slate, either didn't realize the timing date, or didn't think it was a big deal. Clearly, on April 5, the Election Committee realized there was a requirement the slate turn in Arbitration Agreements, and they still approved the nominations and told the Slate the Committee would get the Agreements to the Slate. So--for me, the clock stops running on the Slate on April 5, at the latest. (Which doesn't do them a ton of good, but it's something).

It appears they finally got around to telling Legal Counsel they needed him to email the Agreements to the Slate (which does raise the issue of whether they actually ever approved the form, as required by the bylaws....) and he said something to the effect of: "Uh, guys, read the bylaws, it should have been in a couple of weeks ago."

Then the Election Committee unanimously took the position that their hands were tied by the bylaws--which may actually be true. That may have been what counsel told them they had to do. What they then said they were doing was not approving the nomination--but in fact they had already approved it, so they were actually revoking their approval--something that they arguably don't have the power to do.

Now it appears it is proceeding through the grievance process-though as it appears that is merely the Election Committee looking at the question again, I'm not sure how effective that will really be. If the Election Committee feels it does not have the power or ability to waive strict application of the bylaws under these circumstances, I question whether it believes there is any entity which can.

On the other hand, I agree with Inquartata that the Petitioning Slate's letter was poorly drafted--and seemed petulant. If you're trying to get someone to agree, IMHO, it's probably not the best idea to threaten to pull the house down around everybody if you lose, when you're looking to be elected to a position that requires you to try and balance everyone's best interests.

Also, the threat of lawsuit seems a bit overblown since it appears that they actually have now signed arbitration agreements....

Anyway--my hope is everybody cools down a bit, and works together to come up with an equitable solution (which to me seems to be to reinstate the previous approval and let the election continue).

--Philistine

[KD5MDK]

Where was the later submission of arbitration forms by the USFFC group announced? I saw a mention of it by someone else here but I don't see it on their website.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Where was the later submission of arbitration forms by the USFFC group announced? I saw a mention of it by someone else here but I don't see it on their website.

From their April 18, 2008 Grievance Letter

Since Mr. Alperstein sent the letters of arbitration to us today, the USFA should be in receipt of them by all candidates Nominated by Petition by April 19, 2008.

I am assuming they actually went ahead and sent them.

--Philistine

[Philistine]

All right. I know this is completely unfair--and isn't really analogous, but dammit, it's what I first thought of:

"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine month."

"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."

"But the plans were on display ..."

"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."

"That's the display department."

"With a flashlight."

"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."

"So had the stairs."

"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"

"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."

--Philistine

[slartibartfast]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

I am not arguing that the USFA nominated slate is responsible or had any hand in this latest contretemps or the nominating committee for that matter. I simply don't know them well enough to know.

Here's another conspiracy theory: Suppose that the nominated slate effectively stocked the committee with people supporting it, so as to bring about a coup dislodging the entrenched old guard of the USFA. In other words, they are doing in a less obvious manner and more politically adept manner exactly what the alternate slate is trying to do. Now, the alternate slate comes in with free handouts, a fancy website, a naive understanding of how to go about effecting change, and lots of chatter, and annoys the Powers That Be. Is the officially nominated slate going to jump in and admit they're engineering a coup, or are they going to let the USFA old guard think the official slate is all Good Old Guys, and let the USFA shoot the alternate slate in the foot? If you can get your enemies to kill one another, you've won the war.

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by slartibartfast

: sniip :
If you can get your enemies to kill one another, you've won the war.

Well you've beat all the other conspiracy theories hands down.
But then one might say on the other hand even paranoids have enemies.

[hpfencing]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Anyway--my hope is everybody cools down a bit, and works together to come up with an equitable solution (which to me seems to be to reinstate the previous approval and let the election continue).

--Philistine

Agreed... I am actually a strong supporter of the current slate because they seem right for the job after looking into both groups BUT I think the USFA does not like change and the new BoD which-ever it may be, is going to create some change.

I think the slate is more likely too do the best coarse becasue they have ALL been involved for a LONG time and know what needs to be done.

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by Philistine

From their April 18, 2008 Grievance Letter

I am assuming they actually went ahead and sent them.

--Philistine

Ahh. Somehow I totally missed that.

Originally Posted by Philistine

All right. I know this is completely unfair--and isn't really analogous, but dammit, it's what I first thought of:

--Philistine

Yes, if we made a movie or something this would have to be worked in, sort of like how Bible movies have to have a white cast.

[geofmclean]

What the.....???

This is going to be a mess. They (the USFA) waived formalities with their responses and now have no legal recourse in case of litigation.

Any lawyers out there with an opinion?

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

From the previously cited grievance letter:

Hmm. Yes, that certainly sounds as though they have the best interests of US fencing at heart. I begin to wonder whether, whatever the method, we may not have dodged a bullet here. Does this sound to anyone like a mind-set we want in our officers? Not to me, I have to say.
(

Sounds to me like they have a legitimate grievance, have declared it forth rightly and are willing to follow it up.

Way back when all this started I was mostly interested in an alternate slate because under the USFA's rules it is required in order to enfranchise the membership and I wanted to have even one vote's worth of say in the next set of USFA officers. Maybe that is still possible. But one thing that is coming out of this is that we're getting to learn our way around some of the USFA's regulations. We're seeing how politics in the USFA works. And we're getting to know more about potential leaders in the USFA. I'm still interested and wanting to hear from Ms Weeks something that is more than a canned message. But I'm getting the strong impression that Tracy Hurley is a fighter.
AND I like that.

Nit pick how you like cur mudgeon. An honest election ain't gonna kill us or the organization and therefore it must make us stronger.

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by geofmclean

What the.....???

This is going to be a mess. They (the USFA) waived formalities with their responses and now have no legal recourse in case of litigation.

Any lawyers out there with an opinion?

It doesn't sound like you're an attorney to me. I'm not either, but I certainly don't see things as being the way you see them in the sentence I bolded.

[sabrelion]

Unlike the USFA, FFC clearly did not engage legal counsel to ensure that all the T's were crossed