USFA accepts Election

[Allen Evans]

Focus on creating/supporting programs which are on the border of present fencing-rich areas. From there fencing can spread by diffusion until previously separate fencing areas merge. USFA should identify presently unserved/underserved markets which are viable as fencing centers. Here, viability should - among other things - be evaluated based on local population base, local transport situation, etc.

Rather than a diffuse model, you might be creating a fractal one. Suppose you decide that clubs are created such that a fencer should not be more than 30 minutes travel from a club. This could produce clubs on the outskirts of a geographical boundry, but it might also build up clubs INSIDE that boundry if the population is sufficiently dense and travel time is large.

For instance, in N Virginia, it can take me an hour to go 15 miles, depending on traffic, while in Central Alaska I can travel the same distance in less than 15 minutes.

It reminds me of that Seattle joke about Starbucks : "Guess where they are opening the next Starbucks franchise?" Answer: "Inside another Starbucks".

AE

[fencerX]

The focusing should also entail that USFA should choose not to financially support upstart fencing clubs in non-promising locations, provided that there are sufficient number of applicants from better places. Focus also means to abstain from spending limited resources on all sorts of stuff. As an example, an upstart fencing club in Point Barrow, Alaska, should only receive limited aid (print material, legal info, etc) while those on the outskirts of the NJ hotbed should get more.

Don't be a hater.

NJ has plenty of fencing clubs. Helping Barrow set up a fencing club could be a masterstroke of genius on the USFA's part for the publicity alone.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/etick...ry?page=tundra
http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=tundrapart2

Go Whalers!

[fencinginDC]

There might be people smarter than Greg in the field of finance, but we don't need someone to strucure interest rate swaps in municipal auction rate certificates (fortunately). What Greg brings to this aspect of the USFA is a broad understanding of finance, accounting and governance. Add to that, a good understanding of the USFA and its challenges. What further makes him exceptional is a willingness to develop solutions, and then put those solutions into action. It's not just one thing (like being a finance expect) that makes him so valuable to the USFA.

We need people who are very capable in their respective field, and can focus on the task and get things done. Unfortunately, this combination is not that common and you have to seek out those individuals/abilities.

Please stop trying to cut corners because you think that's all we can do. The most important job that the newly elected officers have is to identify the most effective specialists and ask them to lead USFA efforts in their particular area of expertise.

One advantage of having someone like Greg involved is that he will expect others to be as capable and committed, and has no patience for political crap. (Pay attention... the following sentence represents a very important point) It is that expectation that will have the greatest impact on improvements at the USFA. It is that expectation that brought me out of apathy. It is that expectation which will spark other very capable people to get involved. And it is that expectation that has me excited about our future.

I don't think anyone has said that Greg is a "lord of international commercial finance." The skills that he does bring to the table though are considerable. Additionally, Greg has an established history of pulling through on his commitments. He does not take on projects and leave them standing. I am confident that if he agreed to serve as Treasurer, he will make the time necessary to do the job.

[Greg_D]

Since Tracy asked some fairly specific questions in her post over the weekend we figured we ought to respond. I should mention that, since the officers proposed by the nominating committee are working as a group rather than appointing only one person as the spokesperson, it sometimes takes a little longer to respond than were we to simply post off the cuff answers. That said, most of the thoughts below are mine...

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?

I think this one has been pretty well covered. The simple answer is yes, it is a sufficiently large problem that it can't be solved over a weekend.

Does online registration present such huge obstacles that it cannot be resolved by the beginning of next season?

Yes. Could we do just a pure website that could take entries? Probably. However, this would be a quick fix and wouldn't address the underlying problems. Online registration for NACs needs to link to the membership database. Once the membership database is fixed, we can add online NAC registration. Doing otherwise would only put more work on the National Office and we'd almost certainly have to rewrite the program once we did get the data base program running. Keep an eye on our website www.usfanominees.com. We should have a proposal posted soon (within the next couple of days) that was developed by other members of our organization, is a comprehensive solution rather than a quick fix, and has the general support of the candidates posted there.

Are preparing financial statements and allowing members access to that information such a huge security problem that it would topple the association?

Of course not. There are some concerns. These were addressed in a number of board meetings. Had Tracy or anyone else from her team been there she/they would know them somewhat better. That said, it's clear that we need to get more financial information to the membership and need to increase the transparency of financial information to the Board of Directors. That's one of my personal priorities. It WILL be fixed very shortly after a change in administrations.

Are putting on profitable NACs such an unreasonable expectation that we are willing to accept it and not ask why?

What makes you think we're not making money on NACs? Have you looked at the financial information that's available to those who go to the Board meetings? It's publicly available at those meetings and there are a number of individuals who are not on the board who attend in order to understand our organization better. That said, in the 2006/2007 season we lost money on the majority of the NACs. The tournament committee (in other words Kalle) realized that this was happening as airfares, hotels, venues, meal costs and everything else were going up. They therefore proposed an increase in the fees for NACs to the Board. This motion passed and, thus far this year, for all NACs where the expenses have finished arriving, we have made a profit. So... I guess it's not unreasonable. People didn't accept it. They asked questions and then actually fixed it.

Is the fact that USFA membership has actually declined not raise a red flag as to the direction our organization is headed?

After asking some questions from those with experience, I have been informed that membership generally declines a little in the year immediately before an Olympics and then generally rises the year after. In addition, fencing is something that those experiencing a tighter budget might decide to go without. Unfortunately that's the US economic situation right now. We can certainly debate this point, but I'm not sure that there is a causal relationship that has been identified between the organization's direction and membership.

Further, regardless of what group of individuals end up being elected, I think it's safe to say that there will be some significant shifts in direction very shortly. Hopefully those shifts will put us on a path to a larger membership and more success.

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?

Tracey could be right the reason they got around 2% of the total membership (or around 6% of the voting membership) to sign a petition was that those who signed wanted a change in direction. I'm not sure that I'm willing to assume that they supported her to direct that change. Not everyone that signed did so because they necessarily supported or even now support Tracy's platform or slate. Who knows? Maybe they just wanted to have an election and liked, what was it, moose crunch?

The group of officers proposed by the nominating committee also wants change and we've been working for it for in a very bad and barren environment for the last 4 years. I've personally talked to many who signed the petition. The ONLY reason they signed was because they thought an election could be a good thing. Frankly, so do we. Everyone should note that we never made an objection when bribes were offered for signatures. Neither did we fight against their protest when they made procedural mistakes that could have stopeed an election before it even started.

That being said it's interesting that out of an organization of around 9,000 voting members FFC was only able to get 551 signatures if many felt they weren't being served. Does the ability to bribe 2% of the membership give Tracy the right to speak for the other 98%?

Kalle, Brad, and Jerry have been listening to the membership for over a year with their work on the Tournament Task Force. Much of that has been on the USFA web site for people to see what the membership is really saying. This was way before there was even any talk about an election or any of us being nominated. Jerry and I have been asking questions about the finances of the USFA at Board meetings long before we decided to run. After all, why do you think I'm running in the first place? When the answers weren't acceptable we did something about it, going through all the of the appropriate steps outlined in the bylaws (first hearing items, second hearing items, etc.) to make it happen. I was even able to get the necessary information to the USFA Secretary in the time frames required... Ro has worked to improve and expand upon the competitive opportunities for Youth fencers. It's been a huge success. Do the Youth program, the way we run NACs, and the finances all need improvements? Of course they do and all of us have been working to make it happen. Should we be elected, we'll continue to do so and will have the ability to influence events more quickly than in our current roles. That's why we're running.

Greg

[whtouche]

There might be people smarter than Greg in the field of finance, but we don't need someone to strucure interest rate swaps in municipal auction rate certificates (fortunately). What Greg brings to this aspect of the USFA is a broad understanding of finance, accounting and governance. Add to that, a good understanding of the USFA and its challenges. What further makes him exceptional is a willingness to develop solutions, and then put those solutions into action. It's not just one thing (like being a finance expect) that makes him so valuable to the USFA.

Of course we all know that we are electing specific people to specific positions, and that those positions entail specific responsibilities, but I think it's important to understand that each candidate is not bound by the limits of the responsibilities of their specific positions. If Greg is elected, I hope will be the case, nobody is going to shush him if he attempts to talk about anything other than financial data. We need to remember that the elected officers will need to work together as a team, there will be overlap among their responsibilities. I think this fact strengthens Greg's candidacy, as I have had conversations with him in the past about things very unrelated to the financial underbelly of the USFA. In fact I think this team aspect solidifies the candidacy of the entire nominated in general, because not only is it comprised of people who are capable of fulfilling their specific duties as officers, but by people who have already demonstrated a capacity to reach out to each other and recognize that the whole can be greater than the sum of it's parts. Greg mentions continuous involvement in USFA board meetings before ever deciding to run as an officer, and that decision being born out of the recognition that he, and they, could do more. That is part of the reason I think that using the "rejection of the old guard" mentality when supporting the FFC slate; it appears to me that the reason the nominated slate is running is the same sort of rejection of the status quo.

I hope everyone gets a chance to read Greg's response, above. It is possibly the most illuminating thing posted here by any of the candidates so far, and it's a shame it's buried five pages deep in this thread.

[IHateMrPotatohead]

What makes you think we're not making money on NACs? Have you looked at the financial information that's available to those who go to the Board meetings? It's publicly available at those meetings and there are a number of individuals who are not on the board who attend in order to understand our organization better. That said, in the 2006/2007 season we lost money on the majority of the NACs. The tournament committee (in other words Kalle) realized that this was happening as airfares, hotels, venues, meal costs and everything else were going up. They therefore proposed an increase in the fees for NACs to the Board. This motion passed and, thus far this year, for all NACs where the expenses have finished arriving, we have made a profit. So... I guess it's not unreasonable. People didn't accept it. They asked questions and then actually fixed it.

The question this brings up in my mind is that, if the NACs are indeed making money, then why haven't officials been paid since December? I am in this situation, waiting for two checks from the USFA, so I know it's not a rumor. If there is a profit, then why is the A/P not being taken care of.

There may be a simple answer/explanation, which is why I'm asking you, Greg.


Just an honest question here.....I'm not voting for or against anyone at this point.

[epeemike81]

Greg,

I can't rep you right now.

Nice post.

-m

[DJ Apostrophe]

The question this brings up in my mind is that, if the NACs are indeed making money, then why haven't officials been paid since December? I am in this situation, waiting for two checks from the USFA, so I know it's not a rumor. If there is a profit, then why is the A/P not being taken care of.

There may be a simple answer/explanation, which is why I'm asking you, Greg.


Just an honest question here.....I'm not voting for or against anyone at this point.

Just because NACs are making money doesn't mean there isn't a cash flow issue.

If US Fencing was in the hole a million dollars prior to this season (which was the number bandied about here a few months ago), it is going to take a while to get out of that hole. You can't just owe a million dollars to people and ignore that while paying the bills that came in later. The NACs may be making money, but that money isn't 'profit' for the US Fencing, it is revenue that is being used to pay other debts.

-w

[epeeforlife]

I hope everyone gets a chance to read Greg's response, above. It is possibly the most illuminating thing posted here by any of the candidates so far, and it's a shame it's buried five pages deep in this thread.

Yes, very informative indeed! Condescension dripping from almost every paragraph. No wonder oso97 nominated him

[KD5MDK]

I'm sure any extra money the NACs take in this year (and is it possible we made any money on Portland?) will be spent by the HPC post-haste.

[oso97]

Yes, very informative indeed! Condescension dripping from almost every paragraph. No wonder oso97 nominated him

Ummm, yea, because afterall, I was the only member of the NC capable of independent thought, the other 12 members were just my puppets.

[gorgie101]

oso97,

I can't rep you anymore.

[gorgie101]

Tracey could be right the reason they got around 2% of the total membership (or around 6% of the voting membership) to sign a petition was that those who signed wanted a change in direction. I'm not sure that I'm willing to assume that they supported her to direct that change. Not everyone that signed did so because they necessarily supported or even now support Tracy's platform or slate. Who knows? Maybe they just wanted to have an election and liked, what was it, moose crunch?

Oh and don't forget the bags and water bottles. Personally I think it was in very poor taste for them to give anything away to people while trying to get signatures for their petition. To me it was unethical for them to to that. IMHO.

Great post Greg. You answered all of my questions.

[Greg_D]

The question this brings up in my mind is that, if the NACs are indeed making money, then why haven't officials been paid since December? I am in this situation, waiting for two checks from the USFA, so I know it's not a rumor. If there is a profit, then why is the A/P not being taken care of.

There may be a simple answer/explanation, which is why I'm asking you, Greg.


Just an honest question here.....I'm not voting for or against anyone at this point.

I'm with you on this one, and have outstanding bills as do most active referees, armorers, and BC staff (not to mention athletes with performance grants, coaches and other cadre who travel internationally, etc., etc.).

DJ covered this earlier, but to reiterate... The simple answer is that we have a deficit hanging over us from the end of last season. We're using current income to pay old debts. As money comes in from NACs we use the cash to pay debts from 3+ months ago. Fortunately, and unlike last year, the NACs are actually improving the situation rather than digging us into a bigger hole.

It's going to take us a couple of years to get back to even. To do so we need to have budgets in 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 that anticipate a significant surplus. That will allow us to catch up with our old bills. (And yes, I'm essentially saying that if you help at a NAC for the next couple of years that it's going to take some time to get paid. Hopefully less time at each event, but some time.) By the 2010/2011 season I'd like to think we'll be current with our bills and will be able to pay people right after we get the reimbursement forms. Then in 2011/2012 we can move to a system in which people get paid as they walk out the door at the end of the tournament.

The above may be a little pessimistic, but, at the same time, I would prefer to give everyone realistic expectations about our situation. If we can do better than we will.

Greg

[SEM Fencer]

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.

darius

More than 150 posts later, this question still hasn't been answered.

It was a good question with great reasoning, and has been completely ignored. It's not the only direct question in this post that hasn't been addressed. Rhetoric, excuses and huge plans for the future aside, I prefer my is dotted and ts crossed. The answer to this question is fundamental as we try to pick the appropriate people to move the USFA forward effectively in the coming years. Details count. I know for whom I'm voting now.

[gorgie101]

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.

darius

Come on big T answer the question!

[WickedWitch]

I would like to know how the NACs can be identified as making money, if all the expenses have not been paid. Expenses for the NACs should include payment of all the individuals as well as payment for the site and any services related.

[epeemike81]

I would like to know how the NACs can be identified as making money, if all the expenses have not been paid. Expenses for the NACs should include payment of all the individuals as well as payment for the site and any services related.

You really can't figure this out?

Just because the USFA has not issued the checks yet, doesn't mean they don't know how much those checks will be for when they do issue them.

The expenditures and income are known. Thus, they can determine the net profit/loss.

Hardly high finance...

-m

[epeeforlife]

oso97,

I can't rep you anymore.

Don’t sweat it too much -- your rep is no good until you get to 50 posts. While I appreciate the rep I’ve gotten from you before (don’t worry I won’t tell the NC ), it’ll mean so much more after you get to 50.

[WickedWitch]

High finance, I think you might mean for profit corporate finance. Non-profit is very much diffferent.

There is a big difference between corporate accrual based accounting and government/non-profit accounting.