USFA accepts Election

[KShan5[PrFC]]

I would say my largest concern of the USFFC slate is Ms. Pestotnik. Cash flow seems to be the most necessary issue for the upcoming group of officers to address, so the qualifications of the Treasurer candidates should be scrutinized. Managing the finances of a fencing club and a 50 person business strikes me as very low watermark of experience for somebody who endeavors to control and guide the finances of a national governing body.

Mr. Dilworth has experience managing finances on a national and global scale, and both an MBA and BS in Economics. What sort of degree does Ms. Pestotnik have? Does she have any advanced financial education? It's not that I have anything against the FFC slate or Ms. Pestotnik, the reasons I'm so concerned is that Mr. Dilworth seems so much more qualified for the position that should be held in the highest regard in this upcoming election.

[Excerpt from the Nom Slate website:]

Outside of fencing, Greg has a BS in Economics from Texas A&M University in College Station, TX and an MBA from Babson College in Wellesley, MA. He began his career in the financial services industry, working as a representative for Fidelity Investments where he was a National Association of Securities Dealers licensed representative and supervisor. Since moving away from dealing in securities directly he has allowed these licenses to lapse. After leaving financial services he was involved with corporate equity compensation for over five years – acting as both a vendor at Fidelity and Wachovia and as an in-house manager of equity programs for Tyco Electronics. Greg has recently started to work as the Manager of HR Global Programs for UTC Fire & Security (a United Technologies Company). In this role he has global responsibilities for a number of projects dealing with compensation, benefits, policies, and procedures.

[IHateMrPotatohead]

Isn't that why there is an OPTION to vote for a mix of candidates?

I feel like the best thing that comes out of this whole thing is a choice. It doesn't so much matter which candidates win, but that they were chosen by the membership. I think that's really important.

.....just my 2 cents....

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Isn't that why there is an OPTION to vote for a mix of candidates?

I feel like the best thing that comes out of this whole thing is a choice. It doesn't so much matter which candidates win, but that they were chosen by the membership. I think that's really important.

.....just my 2 cents....

Wait.....no.

It does matter who gets elected. Hypothetically, if you have a candidate who can save the USFA $50,000 a year and one who saves the USFA $12,000 a year, and you chose the later, then you made a bad choice. Elections are good I guess, but having the best possible candidates serve office over the next 4 years is better.

[KD5MDK]

Isn't that why there is an OPTION to vote for a mix of candidates?

I feel like the best thing that comes out of this whole thing is a choice. It doesn't so much matter which candidates win, but that they were chosen by the membership. I think that's really important.

.....just my 2 cents....

Well, you should vote for the best qualified candidates who will perform as the best team. For example, having (famous executive jerk*) as a VP might obtain a highly skilled individual, but someone who would spend all the Executive Committee meetings undercutting and attacking the other members to the point nothing gets done. So the ability to work with the other ExCom members is an important qualification. For an older example, the USA didn't work as well when the 2nd place Presidential candidate was VP, at least for Aaron Burr.

I also think it is highly important that the best candidates win. Just having a choice and not caring if the better or worse person wins is bad government. Saying "they're all the same, who cares who actually wins" is as inaccurate and hopeless at this level as it is in regular US politics.



* I was going to use Donald Trump as an example but figured it would just drive the discussion into a tailspin of discussion on the merits of Donald Trump.

[epeemike81]

Let me ask this directly: Regardless of which slate is elected, there will be an effort to drastically improve the organization of tournaments. The Tournament Committee in the next quadrennial will preside over and guide a very large number of changes to the way we run tournaments. It is, thus, quite key that somebody with a strategic vision for how tournaments should be run chair that committee. Tracy, should the position be open, who would you appoint as Tournament Committee Chair?

-m

Tracy,

You seem to have missed this question in your efforts to reply to this thread. This is completely understandable: there was a lot to respond to.

I'm re-posting it here in the hopes that you will answer it.

-m

[Mr Epee]

Tracy,

You seem to have missed this question in your efforts to reply to this thread. This is completely understandable: there was a lot to respond to.

I'm re-posting it here in the hopes that you will answer it.

-m

Why is this specific position so important to you?

Has Kalle already announced her selection for this position?

Who do you think would make a good choice for this position? Be specific.

[epeemike81]

Why is this specific position so important to you?

Because this position is so important for the organization.

Has Kalle already announced her selection for this position?

Not to my knowledge, but I have a lot more confidence that she knows the parties involved in the discussion. how about this: Tracy, just give me a short list of candidates... no need to list a specific person, just who's on the list of candidates.

Who do you think would make a good choice for this position? Be specific.

I have some ideas, but my opinion is unimportant, as I'm not running for office.

Moderator: Senator McCain, what are your plans for dealing with the situation in Iraq?
Sentator McCain: Well, what are YOUR plans for dealing with the situation in Iraq?

Brilliant.

-m

[Mr Epee]

Your opinions are important to me, buddy.

If you had a short list of qualified folks, who makes your list?

Are you or Wayne ready for this sort of thing?

By all accounts you guys do a wonderful job.

Moderator: Senator McCain, what are your plans for dealing with the situation in Iraq?
Sentator McCain: Well what are YOUR plans for dealing with the situation in Iraq?

-m

Isn't that scary close to Kalle's position at the NJ Coffee Talk?

Plans, plans, plans, we need plans. The USFA needs plans.
Now, please send your plans to our gmail acct.

[Jason]

Moderator: Senator McCain, what are your plans for dealing with the situation in Iraq?
Sentator McCain: Well, what are YOUR plans for dealing with the situation in Iraq?

Brilliant.

More like:
Senator McCain, who would you pick for Secretary of State?

It's an important job, but I don't hear anybody listing names yet.

It's good to be asking questions, but I'm not sure you're asking the best ones.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

There is no special talent in curiosity.

This just cries out for a response: I have on numerous occasions seen people who appear to be patently unable to be curious. That is a personal trait which I have never noticed to be beneficial in any case whatsoever.

One could say that such people lack a talent for curiosity.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Your opinions are important to me, buddy.

If you had a short list of qualified folks, who makes your list?

Are you or Wayne ready for this sort of thing?

By all accounts you guys do a wonderful job.



Isn't that scary close to Kalle's position at the NJ Coffee Talk?

Plans, plans, plans, we need plans. The USFA needs plans.
Now, please send your plans to our gmail acct.

I dunno I think the fact that they want input from the USFA membership is a good thing. In fact it's a way to bring the concerns of the general membership to the leadership of the USFA, and not just the voices of the elite athletes (an issue many on fnet have expressed is a concern). I mean we could just have answers like the very intricate More means Better and Better means More! and You Deserve More and Better from your USFA Membership; Don’t Settle for Less! as expressed on the USFFC website.

You can have a slate that wants to listen to the membership before making drastic changes to the USFA. Or you can have policy proposals that are specific, but unresearched and far fetched.

I guess I'm just confused as to how asking for input is a bad thing.

[Jason]

I dunno I think the fact that they want input from the USFA membership is a good thing. In fact it's a way to bring the concerns of the general membership to the leadership of the USFA, and not just the voices of the elite athletes (an issue many on fnet have expressed is a concern). I mean we could just have answers like the very intricate More means Better and Better means More! and You Deserve More and Better from your USFA Membership; Don’t Settle for Less! as expressed on the USFFC website.

You can have a slate that wants to listen to the membership before making drastic changes to the USFA. Or you can have policy proposals that are specific, but unresearched and far fetched.

I guess I'm just confused as to how asking for input is a bad thing.

Input is a great thing. If, in her video, Kalle had said that she'd like to hear input from the membership in addition to stating plans for the USFA, it would have been a very strong statement. Unfortunately, the entirety of her "plan" to move the USFA forward seemed to be limited to hearing input from the membership. There were no ideas, just a plea for help.

The USFA leadership absolutely needs to be receptive to the membership. However, it needs to be leadership first. If all a candidate says is, "Tell us what you want and we'll see about doing that," why should anyone vote for him? He's telling you that he will abstain from leading.

Maybe Kalle is not actually as weak as she appeared in the video, but she definitely presented herself as someone looking to be given direction, not take charge.

[gorgie101]

[QUOTE=lewis;686514]... as I understand it each candidate is stand alone - so that we are voting for each person for each position. I want to know how these candidates are going to deal with each other if there is a mix and match - QUOTE]

Thank you for saying this. I asked a similar question earlier and no one responded to it. Maybe you will have better luck.

[oso97]

Input is a great thing. If, in her video, Kalle had said that she'd like to hear input from the membership in addition to stating plans for the USFA, it would have been a very strong statement. Unfortunately, the entirety of her "plan" to move the USFA forward seemed to be limited to hearing input from the membership. There were no ideas, just a plea for help.

The USFA leadership absolutely needs to be receptive to the membership. However, it needs to be leadership first. If all a candidate says is, "Tell us what you want and we'll see about doing that," why should anyone vote for him? He's telling you that he will abstain from leading.

Maybe Kalle is not actually as weak as she appeared in the video, but she definitely presented herself as someone looking to be given direction, not take charge.

I can see how one might draw that conclusion, but there is another, extremely pertinent wrinkle in the whole situation. Kalle and the rest of the group running with her, are extremely cognizant of the fact that they cannot do it all themselves. Whatever plans are dreamed up, designed and gamed out, ultimately, the implementation is what is going to be important. They are quite aware of the fact that the membership is going to have to be SOLD on whatever changes are brought forward. Without an active and involved membership, the leadership can make all the plans it wants, but they're going to go nowhere, unless the leadership can inspire the membership to transform the organization.

Which, tangentially, brings us to around to another key point. Ultimately, do you know who is responsible for the rudderless direction of the USFA and the constant infighting that has plagued the Executive Committee for the past 4 years? We, the membership are. We did not elect responsible informed members to USFA Congress - the body that is supposed to represent >US< the membership. And so, without a strong voice there to represent the membership interests, a Nominating Committee was elected in July 2003 by an apathetic Congress that put the current officers into power. They were put into power by a group who took advantage of a leadership vacuum to install them into power for certain quid pro quo and political favors. We bear the ultimate blame and responsibility for our inaction, lack of concern and attention to our organization. In short, we got the leadership we deserved.

Contrast the Congress of 2003 with the Congress of 2007. It was well attended by many people from lots of divisions. We elected four outstanding members to the BOD (Greg, Brad, David and Evan) who have been at the BOD meetings arguing for our interests. We also elected the Nominating Committee. That's right folks, the direct representatives of the membership elected the Nominating Committee - it was NOT appointed by the operatives on the Executive Committee. And it was an ELECTION. Multiple people ran for each position to represent the various Sections. Their relative merits were discussed and debated and there wasn't a single member of the Old Guard on it. And for the first time in a LONG time, we had a Nominating Committee who DID ITS JOB and actually conducted a *gasp* SEARCH! The Nominating Committee made some hard choices, and rejected the Old Guard - and don't think that certain people on it haven't paid a price for that.

But, now we, the membership have another choice to make. This is our opportunity to get the leadership we need, crave and deserve. Think about it carefully. Consider the candidates and how they are behaving, right now. What actions have they been taking leading up to the election? Which group will truly listen to your interests and concerns? Which group has more experience with the needs of the rank and file member? Which group will make the fencing experience better for us? Which group has demonstrated its capacity for doing tangible things for the average member? Which group is in this because they hope for benefits for their own projects?

Remember, we will get the leadership we deserve.

[Mr Epee]

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Truly, that was a useful post.

[Mr Epee]

The Nominating Committee made some hard choices, and rejected the Old Guard - and don't think that certain people on it haven't paid a price for that.

I'm very curious about this statement.

Let's put the cards on the table, buddy.

When you refer to the "Old Guard", who exactly are you talking about?

What "price" are members of the NC now paying? This sounds like a VERY serious situation. Has the NC been receiving threats? Are you guys in danger? Have you been ordered to live on a reservation, and march the Trail of Tears?

[Snowbabe]

There are so many statements on this thread that are interesting to say the least.
For those of you who have been around for awhile, remember when we had a combination of slates elected? It was a painful four years on many levels. Stacey Johnson and her officers help come up with a strategic plan and set goals.They got the job done because they could all work together as a cohesive group.
Having known Kalle for many years, I can tell you that she is a parent of two fencers and when her kids fencing careers slowed down, her involvement in fencing grew. She has always asked for input. She is always open to comments. Kalle has implemented several new ideas over the time she has been TC chair. As for the comments of how Dan has been leading the changes with the programs and such, I believe that it has been a two way street with input from both Dan and Kalle. All of the TC members look for ways to make our tournaments better with what is given to them. I think that it is about time that we stopped with how our info at NAC's should be posted(I think that there are many viable ideas on this thread that can be explored) and spend time on determining who are the best to lead the USFA out of the financial issues we face and how to bring fencing forward into the future.
Who ever wins the elections will have to deal with many issues. For years we have been putting bandaids on a leaking dam. Now we have so many bandaids on the dam that if we pull one, they all are going to come off. We need the type of people who are going to be able to handle this when it happens. I feel that the NC knew this when the were looking for viable candidates. I think that they chose well. We have a group of individuals that come from different areas of fencing. I think that they can create a plan of attack to bring fencing forward. I also believe that since many of them have been on many committees in the past, that they can take what still works and use it. They also know what doesn't work and can change it.

[Jason]

unless the leadership can inspire the membership to transform the organization.

This point is extremely relevant. You cannot inspire the membership without demonstrating leadership. You cannot inspire the membership without presenting a plan. Plans might need to be changed over the course of their implementation, but you have to start with something.

Giving the impression you don't know what to do and are waiting for someone else to come up with the plan does anything but inspire the membership. It also demonstrates that no one is looking to increase accountability--which has been a big problem with the USFA leadership.

I am certain everyone on both slates is looking for change in the USFA, but good-intentions mean nothing without leadership. And nothing can happen if no one is willing to say, "I'm in charge. Here's the plan."

The leadership must listen to the members. But nothing will happen if the membership doesn't hear anything from the leadership first.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

This point is extremely relevant. You cannot inspire the membership without demonstrating leadership. You cannot inspire the membership without presenting a plan. Plans might need to be changed over the course of their implementation, but you have to start with something.

Scholastic and Collegiate Programs

As part of the continued growth of our sport in this country, and in light of the truly staggering explosion in the number of junior and youth competitors, it is well past time for us to expand our efforts with regards to scholastic and collegiate programs.



Where are all of those fencers going to continue in the sport? Currently, fencing is offered as an NCAA varsity sport at only 44 institutions. That includes Division I, II, and III programs.



There are hundreds of club-level collegiate programs, ranging from groups of 5-6 people who meet recreationally once a week to teams of 50-60 athletes with a intercollegiate schedule of 25 or more dual meets a year against a mix of club and varsity opponents.



At the scholastic level, we are all aware of New Jersey, with approximately 60 high school programs (and growing!). Outside of that state, however, we are looking mostly at isolated pockets or clusters of schools that compete against each other. Yet many areas of the country have active efforts to expand what offerings are available or to create leagues where there have never even been programs before.



These efforts shouldn’t be isolated and unsupported.



We have, in the past, had a “Schools/Clubs Committee”. That committee needs to be revitalized and tasked with looking at the following areas:

* Working with National Office staff to develop strategic data identifying the best areas in which to increase growth in high school and collegiate programs.
* Working with volunteers and existing committees to reach out to nationally-targeted areas.
* Development of an information packet and materials for “New School Program” presentations.
* Proactively working to maintain relationships with, and support the continued existence of, current NCAA varsity programs.
* Methods of supporting efforts towards the creation of new NCAA varsity programs, whether from scratch or from the elevation of existing collegiate club programs.
* How best to foster the creation of new collegiate club programs.
* Means of helping boost collegiate club programs from recreational to competitive status.



When a group of people in an area such as Northern Virginia are trying to generate interest in high school fencing they should have easily-identifiable points of contact for support, resources, presentation materials, and suggestions. What has worked in Connecticut that can be transferred elsewhere? What can we learn from Chicago? Are there easily-identifiable answers to common concerns posed by school administrators? Studies of the injury risks involved with the sport? How is liability coverage handled? How do we handle the Catch-22 of not being able to create programs in an area until there are other programs to compete against?



USFencing can also help serve as a clearinghouse for information. We should have presentations at select national tournaments – certainly Junior Olympics and Summer Nationals, perhaps also NAC B – targeted at junior fencers and their parents to help inform them about options for continuing to compete in college. Many varsity collegiate programs display media guides at national tournaments. Means should be explored for helping collegiate club programs provide at least basic information there as well.



We should expand existing relationships with the organizing bodies of scholastic and collegiate competition. We should invite a representative of the NCAA fencing committee to sit on the Board as a non-voting member and liaison between our two organizations. We should engage in regular and formal communications with the USACFC (United States Association of Collegiate Fencing Clubs), the body that organizes and puts on the national championship tournament for collegiate club programs. We should have formal ties with the NJIFA (New Jersey Interscholastic Fencing Association), the Great Lakes High School Fencing Conference, and other, similar, organizations.

There is also: http://usfanominees.com/proposals/vo...r-development/

Just a few examples, I'm sure more will follow. Those are from the NC Slate's website. They have ideas, but they're also soliciting input from everyone across the membership.