I know I can look in the athlete's handbook or operating manual but...
Does a member has to be 18 at the time of the election or by the beginning of the season, Aug. 1, 1007, in order to be able to vote?
(no longer able to resist)
I have to point out that anyone who was 18 as of this date who can still breathe, much less fence, definitely deserves a separate vet's category ...
Just as a side note in there, and in response to the suggestion that the member and age requirements are separate, I have to point out the Bylaws themselves incorporate both requirements in the implied definition of "voting member":
Quote:
Originally Posted by USFA Bylaws
Art. IV, Sec. 2., Para. 2. Only those individual members who have paid their dues, as specified by the Board of Directors, on or before February 1st of each membership year and who have attained their 18th birthday as of that date and whose dues have been received by the USFA National Office on or before that date shall have the right to vote on all matters that may be voted on by the USFA pursuant to these Bylaws and to hold any office to which they may be elected or appointed. The date of admission to membership is determined according to the provisions of Article V. To be eligible to vote or hold USFA office, members must have either provided their date of birth to the USFA National Office or notified the National Office on or before February 1st of the year at issue that they have, or will attain their 18th birthday as of that date.
__________________ "Better living through chemistry."
It's a little silly, but now that the election issue has been resolved, I'd still like to know the following: "Did the USFFC candidates know of and/or request the arbitration document previous to April 1?"
My reasoning; I'd like to know if they're the type of folks who dot is and cross ts, or have read the bylaws of the organization. That's not the most important measure of a leader, but it is one measure. To be honest, an admission of "whoops, we missed that" would sit fine with me, but we'll see if T is still reading this board, now that she's got an election again.
There are several perfectly legit reasons why one would want to stop people from joining last minute Cap. I'm sure you don't need me to argue any of them.
Well, I guess it's moot, since the dues have to be paid by Feb 1st, as well as the Feb 1st age requirement.
But sure, tell me why it wouldn't be a case of "No Johhny Come Latelies in OUR Election" for you to have last minute sign-ups.
__________________
"Fraud is the creation of trust. And then: its betrayal."
William Black, Ph.D.
So that people who come to the meeting with a stack of membership forms and are waiting too see how many votes are needed to win can't just turn in as many as necessary and no more, saving the extra membership fees?
It has the side affect of forcing elections to be held after that date, rather than say scheduling them at the start of JO Quals before the competence or incompetence of the Division officers has been demonstrated.
It means it's possible to send each Division and Section secretary a list of eligable voting members, rather than have them research each member individually, when verifying eligability.
It makes sure that a member will be or not be eligable to vote in Divisional, Sectional and National elections, as opposed to just some, in a given year.
So that people who come to the meeting with a stack of membership forms and are waiting too see how many votes are needed to win can't just turn in as many as necessary and no more, saving the extra membership fees?
Wow...any group that Machiavellian is probably dominating the Division, anyway!
Other arguments seem pretty valid. Thanks for pointing them out! Of course, if there was on-line, real-time eligibility info at the finger tips of the Division officials...
__________________
"Fraud is the creation of trust. And then: its betrayal."
William Black, Ph.D.
So that people who come to the meeting with a stack of membership forms and are waiting too see how many votes are needed to win can't just turn in as many as necessary and no more, saving the extra membership fees?
It has the side affect of forcing elections to be held after that date, rather than say scheduling them at the start of JO Quals before the competence or incompetence of the Division officers has been demonstrated.
It means it's possible to send each Division and Section secretary a list of eligable voting members, rather than have them research each member individually, when verifying eligability.
It makes sure that a member will be or not be eligable to vote in Divisional, Sectional and National elections, as opposed to just some, in a given year.
Also, I feel like there's an argument to be made concerning rights with respect to voluntary and involuntary associations, a la Nagel. While some aspects of the argument could certainly be questioned there are some good parallels to be made. However, I'm not really interested in writing another phil/ethics essay.
__________________ I now dangle to the left....my tassle. Get your minds out of the gutter.
"Martin was not an optimist; he was a prisoner of hope." Optimism is about assuming there's evidence that justifies your outlook while hope is about creating the evidence and procuring your own happiness or vision of the world. - Professor West
So, does this mean that the group that was nominated by the EC will finally post their game plan so we can review each candidate fairly?
I assume you mean the group nominated by the NC (Nominating Committee). The EC has no role in nominations.
http://www.usfanominess.com has been active for about a month. I expect a considerable amount of additional information to get posted in the next week or less. If you have topics that you'd specifically like to see addressed feel free to either PM me or drop an email to the group (usfanominess@gmail.com).
-B
__________________
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
It doesn't matter who you elected do you really thinks things will change. I got news for you all it's will be like it always been for the elite fencers and the rest of will geted crumbs. I know all the people involed in the election. No matter what they say nothing will be done for the lower fencers the ones that paid the bills. Will you all have the chance to train with national level coaches. I have been a life menber for 30 plus years and nothing has every change. Mark my words all Tracy want is to get more money for her daughter. Don't get me wrong she earened the right to have supporrt. But for the nonelite fencers they promise thing and don't come though with it. like I said nothing has been done for average fencer. It's all about money
__________________
Tim Loomis
Ye Olde Armourer MASTER ARMOURER
DO YOU TRUST YOUR ARMOURER
GOD Loves His Warriors www.yeoldearmourer.com
Last edited by yeoldearmourer; 05-03-2008 at 07:35 PM..
This quote is from the group nominated by the nominating committee's website.
"We also must not only explore the use of technology at our tournaments, including the use of projection systems and more efficient software, but see that it is implemented as soon as is practical."
Why can't proven technolgy be used immediately? It is practical now. Other countries have been doing it for years. Why do we need to wait?
This quote is from the group nominated by the nominating committee's website.
"We also must not only explore the use of technology at our tournaments, including the use of projection systems and more efficient software, but see that it is implemented as soon as is practical."
Why can't proven technolgy be used immediately? It is practical now. Other countries have been doing it for years. Why do we need to wait?
Well, the obvious short answer is that we have to figure out how to pay for it.
Something that has not really been mentioned is that these people will now be elected in their nominated office not as a slate. Kallie and big T will have to duke it out against each other for the position of President etc...
What if some of each slate are elected but not all? How will two competing groups work well with each other after an election is over?
This is the reason I am not that excited about the election. I think in the end it will only make things worse.
__________________ I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.-Galileo Galilei
teacup is entirely correct. The cost of attaching a digital projector to a computer is not expensive. Getting one donated from Canon, NEC, Hewlitt Packard, Mitsubishi, Sony, or Toshiba, etc. would make even that a non-issue.
I believe the point teacup is trying to make is that there are lots of things that not only could be done now, but could have been done already. It takes someone willing to drive the effort instead of listing all the reasons why it can't. I don't think mgriff was trying to make excuses at all, but extraordinary things can be done if you have the right person focused on the right activities. We must change the way we do things, AND the way we think about doing them.
yeoldarmourer... I think everyone is justifiably skeptical, but I believe there is an opportunity to get some important changes made. That will be up to people like you, so get your thinking cap on and come up with some well considered solutions about things that can be done to help our grass roots fencers, and present a proposal that is very specific, including all financial implications. I also believe it's unfair to make that claim against Tracy. I might not feel she is best qualified to be president (or the other candidate either) but I've seen nothing to indicate her motives are unethical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgriff
Well, the obvious short answer is that we have to figure out how to pay for it.
[quote=fencinginDC;685895]teacup is entirely correct. The cost of attaching a digital projector to a computer is not expensive. Getting one donated from Canon, NEC, Hewlitt Packard, Mitsubishi, Sony, or Toshiba, etc. would make even that a non-issue.
I believe the point teacup is trying to make is that there are lots of things that not only could be done now, but could have been done already. It takes someone willing to drive the effort instead of listing all the reasons why it can't. I don't think mgriff was trying to make excuses at all, but extraordinary things can be done if you have the right person focused on the right activities. We must change the way we do things, AND the way we think about doing them./QUOTE]
I was being flippant, of course.
The cost of attaching a digital projector to a computer is not expensive, and seeking equipment donations is certainly an idea worth pursuing. But projecting competition data at tournaments is just one item on a long list of worthwhile objectives. What we need to do is establish priorities for all the things we want to accomplish, and to do that, we need to figure out exactly what it is we want to accomplish in the first place.
Every effective nonprofit I've ever been involved with has developed a strategic plan, with goals for both the near term and longer range, and budget and financial systems for making them happen. All of us can--and most of us do, here on f.net and during innumerable lengthy (and often lubricated) sessions at the ends of tournaments days--throw out our considered opinions of what needs doing, but what we need are leaders who can focus all that random energy.
My own preference is for the NomCom slate, simply because I've come to know them by working with them in the many roles I've had in fencing during the past decade--as a parent, as a local organizing committee member, as a division officer, as a Congress rep, as a section officer, and as a bout committee staff member and chair. I know how they work and how well they work with others because I've seen them at it.
Some years back, I was outraged about the administration of my section and toddled off to my first section meeting, where I ran for section chair. I lost. But Paul Soter then nominated me for one of the vice chair positions, on the principle that someone who was interested enough to run for section office shouldn't be left to escape but should be encouraged to get involved and learn enough to become useful. I learned a lot during that year as a section officer, even though I was unable to promote all the changes I'd like to have seen in the section's governance (but that's another story--and very common in divisions and sections all over the country, unfortunately). The point, though, is that people who know an organization, who know who gets things done and who is a bottleneck, who has specialized knowledge and experience that we need and who just likes to spout opinions of what other people should be doing, people who know where we already are in the processes we want to continue--those are the people we need. A clean slate of officers who have not yet been involved in USFA governance, who have yet to learn all that about the organization they want to lead, however well-intentioned they are, will cost us time we can ill afford to take.
I can see what Greg has already done with the new budgeting and finance committees. I've seen Brad's board motions to improve qualification paths. I've had useful advice from Jerry Benson and Mark Stasinos about working with clubs and divisions. I know what Kalle's managed to do with the Tournament Committee because I've seen how we've managed to keep national tournaments working with limited resources and numbers that have grown 20% or more from year to year, and I know some of what she still wants to do. Though I have little personal experience working with Ro, I know what he's done in developing youth programs. These are people with the skills and vision to prompt the strategic focus we need.
The NomCom slate consists of people who are already doing what they can to improve US Fencing. I'd like to see them continue, with the power to be even more effective.
http://www.usfanominess.com has been active for about a month. I expect a considerable amount of additional information to get posted in the next week or less. If you have topics that you'd specifically like to see addressed feel free to either PM me or drop an email to the group (usfanominess@gmail.com).
-B
Brad is a good guy which is why the USFFC candidates support his election and did not place a candidate to contest that position. It is not that we couldn't find anyone - we had several qualified people inquire about it. So, my comments are not directed at Brad. It is just that he is the only one from that slate (besides a comment here and there by Greg) that regularly posts to this discussion board (which is a good thing on a couple of levels).
Since Dec 15, the NC slate of candidates knew that they were the likely annointees and new officers of the USFA (I highly suspect that most of them knew at least a month before that). Not one piece of information about their view of the future, what they thought the problems were, what strategies should be pursued, etc. came forward for many months. Not until the election became contested did they see it fit to communicate at all with the rest of the fencing community (as their website came online the same day, April 5, that the Election Committee originally approved our petitions). They knew for at least 4 months that they would likely be responsible for addressing the USFA issues for the next 4 years. Over this 4-month period, not one piece of communication was posted, emailed, discussed, etc. Not one. But perhaps they were using their time to plan their strategies and priorities. The recent videos, however, suggest that this was not the case. Not until forced to do so (because of a contested election) did they feel that they should publish a website. I suggest that their website and any communication whatsoever would not have been forthcoming if there would have been no contested election. I also suggest that all of the political discussions that have taken place on f.net and at your clubs and tournaments would not have taken place had there not been a contested election. These discussions have been interesting, to say the least. Many ideas and opinions have been presented that confirm that the USFA has a wealth of resources that are not being tapped (information has also been presented that suggests why these resources are not being tapped and why new ideas are discouraged).
OK, so they publish their website and for 1 month, it has not been updated with any additional ideas besides global glowing statements like 'reaching out' and 'as soon as practical'. I suppose that the timing is not 'practical' yet. I suspect it won't be practical until the ballots go out primarily because the information is intended to win an election - not to provide information, accountability, or transparency. We should all question the motives of officers with this philosophy. Will it continue if they are elected? If so, can we expect anything different than what we are currently getting from the association?
Is buying a projector and hooking it to a computer (with something larger than a 10 pitch font) such a big problem that it can't be resolved over a weekend?
Does online registration present such huge obstacles that it cannot be resolved by the beginning of next season?
Are preparing financial statements and allowing members access to that information such a huge security problem that it would topple the association?
Are putting on profitable NACs such an unreasonable expectation that we are willing to accept it and not ask why?
Is the fact that USFA membership has actually declined not raise a red flag as to the direction our organization is headed?
Is the idea that we were able to collect 551 signatures in 2.5 weekends not indicative of how many USFA members feel about the direction we are headed?
The USFA has not had a contested election since at least 1996 (and someone told me that it may have been 1992). This means that it has been at least 12 years since any major political discussions have taken place within the USFA walls. I have no doubt that this is why the USFA is in the position that it is in now. While we have a great deal of assets in terms of people, we have a lot of dysfunctional elements as well. Unfortunately, the dysfunctional elements have more stamina than the assets.
__________________
Tracy
www.usfencersforchange.com An Alternate Slate for the Executive Committee of the USFA Board of Directors
Not until forced to do so (because of a contested election) did they feel that they should publish a website. I suggest that their website and any communication whatsoever would not have been forthcoming if there would have been no contested election.
Why campaign if there's no election? The fact that you automatically ascribe some sort of malice to an NC slate of folks most of us know to be passionate about the development of the sport is troubling, but in my eyes it speaks more about you than it does them.
I've had conversations with many of the NC nominees, before and after they were nominated. They may have not always been relevant to running the organization, but they've always given me the impression that they're well-reasoned rational individuals who have been walking the walk at various levels for some time. Greg Dilworth has already been working on the finance angle, which is IMO our most pressing problem...he has the ability to hit the ground running, and I have no ability to say that for the USFFC slate.
What were you doing before you wanted to be president? Outside of coaching and advocating for your own girls (a worthy goal), how were you involved in bettering the organization? If reaching out to coaches was a high-priority, why haven't we heard anything from the USFCA regarding your goals?
The only interaction I've had with you was one-sided, and has no reflection of your capability. It does, however, speak poorly of your character, which is important if you're making decisions for an organization on whose existence my livelihood depends (to some extent).
Mike Marx told me that in his involvement with the USFA, the NC slate was easily the best group of candidates he's ever seen nominated. I'm not sure I should say that without clearing it with him first, but hell ... it's pertinent information -- he's been around a long time and involved with fencing in nearly every capacity.
Given all these things, my mind's made up, unless there's a smoking gun or something incredible that the USFFC slate brings to the table. The USFFC slate may be qualified to run an organization, but given the amount of acrimony (lawsuit? media blitz? negative assertions?) that you've injected into this, I question your ability to effectively lead such a diverse organization.
Given all these things, my mind's made up, unless there's a smoking gun or something incredible that the USFFC slate brings to the table. The USFFC slate may be qualified to run an organization, but given the amount of acrimony (lawsuit? media blitz? negative assertions?) that you've injected into this, I question your ability to effectively lead such a diverse organization.
darius
My thoughts exactly. You may have gotten an election, but you lost my vote in the process. I am sure that you have lost many others too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darius
It's a little silly, but now that the election issue has been resolved, I'd still like to know the following: "Did the USFFC candidates know of and/or request the arbitration document previous to April 1?"
You still have not answered the above question. I would like to know the answer and I am sure I am not the only one.
__________________ I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.-Galileo Galilei
Linear Mode
