Usfa Calls Off Election

[Soberin]

Unless I misunderstand, the message on today's USFA homepage has canceled the election of the alternative slate of officers.

[CvilleFencer]

Okay, I was not a huge fan of some of the alternative slates proposals for various reasons (mainly because I was unsure that they could accomplish what they wanted with the financial means available/proposed) but they were well within their rights to the election and had some good ideas and fair points that I was glad to see get attention and discussion.

However it now sounds like the powers that be decided to pull an underhanded trick to deprive the membership of the right to chose and that just ain't right. When did Mugabe start running the USFA? I don't see this move ending well...

[carlos]

Interim Report of the USFA Election Committee

The USFA Election Committee has recently made an important decision regarding the 2008 USFA National Officer Elections about which there may be questions and discussion. The purpose of this report is to set forth that decision and the reasons behind it.
Petitions were submitted on behalf of several individuals seeking to run for USFA office against the persons nominated by the USFA Nominating Committee. The USFA Election Committee has unanimously voted to disallow those petitions, on the ground that they did not meet the requirements of the USFA Bylaws.
The USFA Bylaws, which are readily available to all interested persons, prescribe the process by which candidates are nominated and qualified to run for the national offices of the USFA. Although the Election Committee determined that the submitted petitions satisfied all requirements regarding the number of signatures required, the membership status of the signatories and the necessary geographical distribution, the petitions were not accompanied by the agreement to submit all election disputes to binding arbitration, and none was submitted by April 1. The Bylaw in question (Article XIII, Sec. 10) reads as follows:
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 of the year in which the election is to be conducted.

The required arbitration agreement form was available for distribution, having been prepared by the USFA’s general counsel in December. The candidates nominated by the Nominating Committee had all supplied a signed form by the deadline established in the Bylaws.

Before making a final determination, the Election Committee felt it was important to be sure that the failure to submit the required agreement was not the result of reliance on the statement of any official USFA spokesperson. Consequently, inquires were made and the Committee confirmed that none of the individuals for whom petitions were submitted had asked for a copy of the agreement from any Election Committee member, the USFA’s general counsel or any member of the USFA office staff, and than none of these people had been asked to advise the petitioners on the procedures or requirements of the petition process.
The Election Committee does not have authority to ignore or change the Bylaws. On the contrary, the section of the Bylaws that creates the Election Committee specifically
charges that group with responsibility for enforcing the Bylaws governing election procedures. Under the circumstances, the Election Committee felt that it had not legal option and invalidated the submissions.
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 notification came after the deadline had already passed. In other words, the petitioners could not have relied to their disadvantage on the unfortunate, but inconsequential, statement. Nonetheless, we regret the error.

Respectfully submitted:
USFA Election Committee
Gerrie Baumgart (Chair)
Charles Schneider, Esq.
Dan McCormick
Kathleen Pathi
Eric Hansen (Athlete Representative).

downloaded from USFA
web site
http://www.usfencing.org/usfa/component/option,com_remository/Itemid,95/func,startdown/id,1722/

[happy]

Wow, reading through that, it feels like a pretty weak reason to invalidate their candidacy.

It seems like they are leaping at an opportunity to avoid an election, rather than accept what has seemed to be a civilized and fair challenge to the status quo, a challenge clearly supported by a lot of people.

Of course, it looks like they are on solid ground LEGALLY to do this, but the fact that they are invalidating this so late, and based on something that could easily have been submitted after the deadline without any negative consequences - just feels wrong.

We should be doing what's best for the organization and the sport - not slavishly following the letter of the law, even if it gives the current slate an advantage. (BTW I haven't made any decisions yet about what slate I support).

Again, it's probably technically right, but the perception I have is that they are hiding and afraid to have a real debate and contest. And perception is very important.

[Hobbes]

oh the drama, this should raise quite the stink.

[fencerbill]

Talk about the ship hitting the sand!

Do we want an organization that is run by its own bylaws or not?

Perhaps it is indicative of the opposing slate that they did not know this. Don't they have anyone that reads the bylaws?

I wish they had complied and done what they should have, they certainly started a lot of discussion.

But if they don't know how to get elected, should they be elected?

Early in the makeup of the challenging slate they had a retired judge for a candidate, shouldn't he have been able to get them to do it right?

Certainly it can be said that someone should have made them aware of this requirement. But does that excuse them?

[Capt. Slo-mo]

"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. (snip) 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."

Ok, so what the Election Committee is saying is: "well, even though WE didn't understand the rules, and duly demonstrated our ignorance...because YOU didn't winkle it out in time...sux to be you!"

Now, not being a conspiracy theorist or anything...if the ElecComm folks didn't understand the ins and outs of the arbitration paperwork...I wonder how every candidate of the NC slate knew to obtain and complete their forms in a timely manner...while the competing slate remained in the dark?

[CvilleFencer]

Certainly it can be said that someone should have made them aware of this requirement. But does that excuse them?

Actually, just going from the wording of the last paragraph of the USFA's letter it sounds rather suspeciously like someone in a position of authority told them one thing and then pulled the rug out from under them. If that is the case you can certainly argue about the wisdom of trusting the word/opinion of someone you want to put out of office, but then again do we want someone in office that will pull a stunt like that to begin with...

Again, no direct knowledge and I am just trying to read between the lines. I look forward to a more thorough explanation from both sides as I find the possibilities troubling to say the least.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

The Bylaw in question (Article XIII, Sec. 10) reads as follows:
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.

If I'm Tracy, I make the argument that the determination made by the Election Committee--everything's cool with your petition, we'll provide the arbitration paperwork at a later date--is indeed the "form as may be prescribed", and as such, would supercede the absolute April 1st requirement language.

But then, I'm not a lawyer...

[Allen Evans]

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. In the shouting, Occam's razor is ignored.

AE

[chefencer]

Bill Nye:

Humor is everywhere, in that there's irony in just about anything a human does...We're always setting up expectations, whether scientific or otherwise, and failing to meet them. That creates comedic tension. The more you find out about the world, the more opportunities there are to laugh at it.

And this is Pretty Funny in a sad way. I came into this forum during the 'Recall Thread' Era and this might be just as messy.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

On the surface, it appears to be a huge paperwork FTL (failure to launch) faux pas on behalf of the challengers.

However; it makes one wonder. Did each and every one of the NomCom candidates identify, locate and complete their arbitration paperwork solely on their own initiative, or did they in any way receive a deadline "heads-up" from anyone other than a fellow member of the NomCom slate?

Not saying there's been skullduggery, mind you, but if a NomCom candiate got a "hey, you're missing the arb paperwork" when filing, and the opposing slate got only a "thanks for the petitions"...

[KD5MDK]

I suspect the nominees were informed "You have been nominated, if you accept please return the following form." In fact, I recall oiuyt posting about the form and having sent it in when he acknowledged he had been nominated.

Given the USFA has no official way of knowing who the petitioners will be prior to submitting their petition, and no way of knowing if they intended to submit additional documentation, it seems more reasonable to me that they didn't send out notices to people who wanted to be president beyond what was already in the bylaws.

[FencingKitten]

IANAL (I am not a lawyer) but I date them if they're cute. That said, I'm also not a conspiracy theorist, but I wonder that the challengers were not *scrutinizing* the bylaws. Given the concerns about the expense of an election, following so closely on the discovery of the budget issues, if I had submitted a petition for president, I would have been *scrutinizing* the letter of the bylaws to be DAMN CERTAIN (that was typed all in caps for emphasis, even though it will probably be *'d out (eta: which in naturally wasn't)) that I dotted my i's and crossed my t's and minded every p and q in the book, just in case someone did not find it necessary to provide me with the necessary direction.

Of course, it would have been nice if someone had said, "Hey Tracey and gang... fill out more paperwork, or no presidency for yuo!" but for someone who proposes to direct the USFA for four years, verifying that they didn't need to do anything else (possibly via an email reading "Hey, is there anything else we need to do?" to the elections comm) might have been a good idea.

[T]

Obviously, there were problems on both sides of the table.

At this point, I will only state that we have filed a grievance and hope to hear back next week. The issue revolves around the availability of the "paperwork", statements that were made by the chairman of the election committee, and action/inaction on the part of the attorney for the USFA (who had the paperwork).

[happy]

The problem looks pretty clear, and I'm frankly surprised the USFA posted so much information in an open letter:

The bylaws say:

"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."

The EC says:

"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."

First of all, how would they possibly turn in the agreement by April 1 if they weren't officially notified they were candidates until April 5th? Second, how could they submit an agreement if the USFA hadn't provided it?

Unless there was a generally available arbitration agreement, this was an impossible requirement and should be waived if they're to be at all fair.

[DieterS]

First of all, how would they possibly turn in the agreement by April 1 if they weren't officially notified they were candidates until April 5th? Second, how could they submit an agreement if the USFA hadn't provided it?

Unless there was a generally available arbitration agreement, this was an impossible requirement and should be waived if they're to be at all fair.

Now, you're finally getting it!

No, obviously you must submit the agreement prior to official notification, and of course the forms are not made available until after official notification.

And we do need to abide strictly by the bylaws don't we?

[Mr Epee]

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=u3S3q_5newo&feature=related[/youtube]
C'mon you knew someone was going to do it.... :-)


Have a nice weekend.

[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.

[KD5MDK]

Now, you're finally getting it!

No, obviously you must submit the agreement prior to official notification, and of course the forms are not made available until after official notification.

Actually, it sounds like the forms were available to anyone who asked for them.



There are so many epeeists involved you'd think the rules were clear to everyone, but doesn't seem to be the case on any side.