USFA accepts Election

[oso97]

Going totally off memory here, from what I remember from a couple of board meetings I've attended as an observer, I believe the directors of the foundation are elected by the USFA BOD. I believe the USFA Treasurer is automatically a member. For some reason I have the belief that there are also rotating terms for the members (not all are replaced at the same time).

[Greg_D]

Originally Posted by TBean

Does the audit list these as a permanently restricted asset or a temporarily restricted asset and the USFA has opted to only use the income generated from the funds. Just curious.

The foundation is a completely separate non profit corporation with its own Board. The assets are not on the USFA balance sheet at all. They have a policy about the percentage of assets they disburse to the USFA elite athlete programs each year.

[arc]

Originally Posted by ysbadadden

Wasn't there formerly a fencing endowment fund created out of the LA Olympics and previous years' surpluses? Is that all gone?

From the Ops Manual:

Originally Posted by 2006 USFA Operations Manual

Section 9: United States Fencing Foundation [USFF]
A. USFF History
The United States Fencing Foundation (USFF was established in 1986 when the 1984 LA Olympics achieved unprecedented financial success, 40% of the surplus was awarded to the USOC, 40% to the Los Angeles Organizing Committee, and 20% was split among the NGBs. The USFA share was $1,285,218. It was invested in the USFF to provide a revenue stream for future grants to the USFA.

Originally Posted by dekko

Who(person or group) is in charge of the USF Foundation and disbursement?

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Steve Sobel
Robert Prifrel
Sherry Postumus
Derek Cotton
Robert Dow
Stephen Trevor
Ed Wright

Also from the Ops Manual:

Originally Posted by 2006 USFA Operations Manual

B. TRUSTEES
The USFA Board of Directors elects the USFF Board of Trustees in accordance with the USFF Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. Two trustees must be nationally elected USFA officers currently serving, and five must be USFA members not serving as nationally elected officers. At least one of the five non-officer members shall have been a past officer of the Association.

Originally Posted by TBean

It is not merely inappropriate to use the funds for another purpose, its not legal. Without authorization from the donor or Orphans Court you cannot use the funds for anything but what the donor orginally specified ....

Thank you. I always like learning about other states' legal systems; orphan's courts are generally holdovers from colonial days. Out west, we give the jurisdictional power to exercise oversight of charitable foundations to our courts of general jurisdiction (i.e., district courts in Texas) or, in some cases, probate courts.

Originally Posted by oso97

Going totally off memory here, from what I remember from a couple of board meetings I've attended as an observer, I believe the directors of the foundation are elected by the USFA BOD. I believe the USFA Treasurer is automatically a member. For some reason I have the belief that there are also rotating terms for the members (not all are replaced at the same time).

More detailed information from the Ops Manual (Appendix A):

Originally Posted by 2006 USFA Operations Manual

D. United States Fencing Foundation (USSF) [S. Sobel Memo to BOD, 1/29/2005].

The United States Fencing Foundation (USFF) is a Colorado Corporation. It was established in 1986 as one of similar corporations formed by National Governing Bodies of Olympic Sports (NGBs). When the 1984 LA Olympics achieved unprecedented financial success, 40% of the surplus was awarded to the USOC, 40% to the Los Angeles Organizing Committee, and 20% was split among the NGBs. The USFA share was $1,285,218. It was invested in the USFF to shield the money from immediate use and provide a revenue stream for future grants to the USFA.

The goals of the USFF are to maximize income to provide financial aid to carry out the purposes of the USFA, and to preserve the principal fund for the future. Under the leadership of Irwin Bernstein, since 1986 the USFF has earned and distributed to the USFA over 2 million dollars and still holds and invests a balance of over 1.5 million dollars.

The USFA Board of Directors elects the USFF Board of Trustees in accordance with the USFF Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. The election shall be for 7 trustees to serve until the end of the next quadrennial. [The period of time between each Summer Olympic Games is defined as the quadrennial period.] Two trustees must be nationally elected USFA officers currently serving, and five must be USFA members not serving as nationally elected officers. At least one of the five non-officer members shall have been a past officer of the Association. Should the officer or non-officer member status of any trustees change, the trustees shall be automatically removed. The Bylaws provide that vacancies may be filled by a majority vote of the remaining trustees, until the next meeting of the Board of Directors. [Excerpts from S. Sobel Memo to BOD, 1/29/2005]

Board of Trustees for the USFF (2004-2008), Stephen B. Sobel, Derek W. Cotton, Edward Wright, Sherry Posthumus, Robert J. Prifrel, Robert S. Dow and Stephen S. Trevor. [BOD Feb. 05}

Just FYI.

[ysbadadden]

QUOTE: The goals of the USFF are to maximize income to provide financial aid to carry out the purposes of the USFA, and to preserve the principal fund for the future. Under the leadership of Irwin Bernstein, since 1986 the USFF has earned and distributed to the USFA over 2 million dollars and still holds and invests a balance of over 1.5 million dollars. END QUOTE

So -- contrary to what has been stated -- it's not to support elite athletes, it's to carry out the "purposes of the USFA" as well as to preserve principal.

I'm absolutely not saying that the US Fencing Foundation should go broke trying to rescue the USFA from its atrocious errors. But some of the funds could completely legally go to easing some of the pain. I remember Irwin Berstein literally changing hats in order to soften our temporary overexpenditures.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by T

. According to some people we should have just packed up our tents and gone home with no questions asked.

Pardon, but there is a largish middle ground between this and the sort of threats you made. Those were very disappointing to read.

I'm certain that Henry V believed that chevauchee was needed because that was "the only sort of communication" that the French nobility understood. It did not however endear him very much to the common people.

IOW, you believe that you took a tack "against" one man, but you did not word it as "against" him. You worded it as "against" US fencing. And that's all of us...

[jfarmer]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Pardon, but there is a largish middle ground between this and the sort of threats you made. Those were very disappointing to read.

I'm certain that Henry V believed that chevauchee was needed because that was "the only sort of communication" that the French nobility understood. It did not however endear him very much to the common people.

IOW, you believe that you took a tack "against" one man, but you did not word it as "against" him. You worded it as "against" US fencing. And that's all of us...

Take it as you will, but what Dr. Hurley and the USFFC slate did in handling the initial rejection of the petitions was exactly correct and appropriate. They offered to enter into mediated discussions, even if at that time, they were not bound by any arbitration agreement. And because there was a very real and serious deadline that had to be met if the issue was going to be resolved, they specified a "respond by" date that they felt was fair to both sides. Explaining that they would be undertaking legal action, in a public forum, is also appropriate, the financial status of the USFA not withstanding.

This is the way that disputes are handled in this country. While I may or may not agree with all positions of the USFFC, their actions in response to the Election Committe, including the possibility of a lawsuit, were appropriate, legal, and ethical.

[Inquartata]

Yes? And you think it was appropriate to threaten to go to the USOC and smear US fencing in an Olympic year, and to the media to hold US fencing up to disrepute, if they didn't get their way?

Just what in your opinion WOULD rise to the level of "inappropriate"? Anything short of a drive-by shooting?

[notalent]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Just what in your opinion WOULD rise to the level of "inappropriate"? Anything short of a drive-by shooting?

This is the way dissputes are handled in south central

[keith]

Originally Posted by ysbadadden

So -- contrary to what has been stated -- it's not to support elite athletes, it's to carry out the "purposes of the USFA" as well as to preserve principal.

Since one of the purposes of the USFA is to support elite athletes, and the funds in the USFF are in large part (total?) due to the elite end of the sport, using these funds for elite level support is appropriate.

Now if the next set of officials were to use the USFF as the recipient of donations (which would seem sensible) then it would be appropriate for the emphasis to shift.

Originally Posted by ysbadadden

I'm absolutely not saying that the US Fencing Foundation should go broke trying to rescue the USFA from its atrocious errors. But some of the funds could completely legally go to easing some of the pain. I remember Irwin Berstein literally changing hats in order to soften our temporary overexpenditures.

The problem is how you replace the funds - and the ongoing revenue. Taking a cash withdrawal from the USFF would reduce future disbursements meaning more of a contribution from the general operating budget for activities supported by the USFF. Although with the lavish funds the USFA currently squanders on elite athletes that might be acceptable.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Lavish. Squanders. Har.

You forgot the sarcasm smiley.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

Lavish. Squanders. Har.

You forgot the sarcasm smiley.

Well, I was hoping for some mouth frothing responses to cheer up my monday morning