USFA Election 2008 Debate Question #1: Women’s Epee Program

[Right-Handed Lefty]

Well I asked it in another thread....it wasn't answered. So I'm asking in a thread in which T is participating in. You want me to start a thread just to ask this one question?

Also....thank you for being such a great moderator...oh, wait.

Sorry, but I was polite. I even said please AND thank you. Regardless of whether you want your totally off-topic question answered, some of us actually care to keep this thread involved in women's epee. What do you think about the competing plans to resurrect the WE program?

And yes, ask your question in a stand alone thread. If you care about it, others may as well. They would appreciate not having to dig through WE stuff to get to the answer to your finance question.

Thank you.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Sorry, but I was polite. I even said please AND thank you. Regardless of whether you want your totally off-topic question answered, some of us actually care to keep this thread involved in women's epee. What do you think about the competing plans to resurrect the WE program?

And yes, ask your question in a stand alone thread. If you care about it, others may as well. They would appreciate not having to dig through WE stuff to get to the answer to your finance question.

Thank you.

Keeping a thread on topic....that's a pretty novel idea for f.net.

[T]

Instead of you all demanding answers from T, I'd like to see some of you answer the original question: how does Ro's plan compare to T's plan? Which one is better for WE?

KShan5[PrFC],

If you answer Right-Handed Lefty's question... I'll answer your's...

[seak]

Seriously? I mean I'm all for a discussion of the issues, but Kshan's not running for office you are. I thank both you and Ro for providing answers, not knowing much about elite women's epee, it was still interesting to be able to read and evaluate both answers, but I don't feel the need to post that analysis on the board, I did it for me.

OTOH I must admit that I was totally baffled when you decided to run someone against Greg for treasurer. I thought it was an incredibly smart move not to run someone against Brad. Is this really going to affect my vote? No, other then in the sense that I thought you showed wisdom in recognizing that Brad was the best choice for secretary, and I'm not sure why you didn't see the same with Greg.

Do you have to answer the question clearly not, and I think you have been more then generous in the number of questions you have answered here. I just think a polite I'm not going to answer that question or actually answering the question would've been a better response.

[Right-Handed Lefty]

Does anyone who actually knows about WE and who has cared enough to read both proposals care to chime in with any insight?


Or is WE well and truly dead? RIP

[KShan5[PrFC]]

KShan5[PrFC],

If you answer Right-Handed Lefty's question... I'll answer your's...

There are many concerns for me about the USFA and the upcoming election. I asked the question about Women's Epee that I personally wanted answered. I'll be completely honest, the Women's Epee program is not one of my big concerns for the upcoming group. My question, that you have now failed to answer twice, is about the qualifications of a candidate you are running with (I understand these are individual elections, but still). I don't see why I should have to do a benefits/disadvantages analysis of two proposals for the WE program to get an answer to that question.

Again, the only reason I posted in here was because the first time I asked the question was not answered and T left the thread, so I searched out a thread she was posting in and asked it there.

[Jason]

(I understand these are individual elections, but still).

Your question assumes Tracy was the mastermind behind the entire slate--that she hand-picked each member. It's not entirely clear how their slate was formed. Perhaps Sharol Pestotnik picked Tracy? I doubt that is the case, but a better question to start with here is "How was the slate formed?" From there you can decide if Tracy needs to answer for the presence of all the candidates.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Your question assumes Tracy was the mastermind behind the entire slate--that she hand-picked each member. It's not entirely clear how their slate was formed. Perhaps Sharol Pestotnik picked Tracy? I doubt that is the case, but a better question to start with here is "How was the slate formed?" From there you can decide if Tracy needs to answer for the presence of all the candidates.

From Post #37

So I decided to run for President to try to bring no-nonsense, business-based, real, substantial, and positive changes to the organization. I then set out to recruit candidates that had the specific skills I thought were needed to move the organization forward on all fronts. These candidates had similar experiences as the ones I described above and also felt that positive changes were needed.

It's not so much that I assumed anything. I just read what she wrote and believed her.

[Right-Handed Lefty]

I don't see why I should have to do a benefits/disadvantages analysis of two proposals for the WE program to get an answer to that question.

Because you are in the WE thread. Debate Question #2 is just waiting to be asked. I see it having the word "Finance" somewhere in the title.

Back to the topic at hand...

I like the idea of regional fencing opportunities. Not all of us live in areas where there are 15 A-rated fencers within a 10-mi radius. You get better by fencing better people. Duh, right? Some of us are languishing in the Rocky Mountain Section. Give us somewhere to go fairly close by (we are in the RMS after all) and we'll be there.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Because you are in the WE thread. Debate Question #2 is just waiting to be asked. I see it having the word "Finance" somewhere in the title.

Back to the topic at hand...

I like the idea of regional fencing opportunities. Not all of us live in areas where there are 15 A-rated fencers within a 10-mi radius. You get better by fencing better people. Duh, right? Some of us are languishing in the Rocky Mountain Section. Give us somewhere to go fairly close by (we are in the RMS after all) and we'll be there.

Well I asked my WE question then asked a question that has (now) repeatedly been avoided. Under your suggestion and that of others Debate Question #2 has been posted.

[Right-Handed Lefty]

Thank you. I think you'll be pleased with your decision.

[ysbadadden]

Until we got into this totally off-topic stuff, this was a really enlightening discussion, not just about the problems in Women's Epee, but about the way the USFA operates. We had a greater degree of candor and transparency here than we usually get in any other forum. Including Board of Directors meetings (I can't speak for Executive Committee).

What we saw raised questions -- not just about the quality of the leadership -- but about the structure of the USFA. Apparently there are unaccountable fiefdoms within the USFA that can operate for years at a time below (or above?) the radar, managing, or mismanaging, or non-managing key areas without having to provide a detailed account of what's happening to anyone except the Executive Committee (maybe). I'm talking here about the High Performance Commitee in regard to Women's Epee, but this can't be the only example.

This forum provides a unique opportunity for accountability and transparency for these entities (e.g., the elite committees for each weapon, the FOC, the tournament committee). There should be a section on this forum for each such entity where the officials could post, and the affected members could discuss, the actions taken. (Or not taken. How could WE have gone for a year and a half without a national coach?)

If every committee had a duty to report to the membership on this forum (or on a blog on the USFA website, for that matter), we'd all know much better what's going on and be in a much better position to evaluate the actions of our officers and their committees.

[oso97]

If every committee had a duty to report to the membership on this forum (or on a blog on the USFA website, for that matter), we'd all know much better what's going on and be in a much better position to evaluate the actions of our officers and their committees.

One of the major initiatives that Kalle and the other NC Slate members intend to pursue is a top to bottom reorganization of the entire committee structure. Non-performing committees will get the ax or have their members replaced. And all will be required to submit regular reports that will be made public.

I'm not sure that this website is the best place to do that, but a place on the USFA website dedicated specifically to committee reports would be invaluable.

[T]

One of the major initiatives that Kalle and the other NC Slate members intend to pursue is a top to bottom reorganization of the entire committee structure. Non-performing committees will get the ax or have their members replaced. And all will be required to submit regular reports that will be made public.

I'm not sure that this website is the best place to do that, but a place on the USFA website dedicated specifically to committee reports would be invaluable.

Well, that's good news! I suppose they will be just like the reports that have been posted by the Tournament Committee the last 6 years she has been chair?

[T]

What we saw raised questions -- not just about the quality of the leadership -- but about the structure of the USFA. Apparently there are unaccountable fiefdoms within the USFA that can operate for years at a time below (or above?) the radar, managing, or mismanaging, or non-managing key areas without having to provide a detailed account of what's happening to anyone except the Executive Committee (maybe). I'm talking here about the High Performance Commitee in regard to Women's Epee, but this can't be the only example.

As I mentioned above (somewhere in this thread), this type of structure and leadership which we see evidence of in this thread is a reflection of the the USFA in general and how they operate. There is no transparency or accountability (and I am not referring to financial issues although they are relevant as well) and all USFA members are paying the price.

The fencers need to take center-stage of this organization; not the committees. The organization needs to develop a structure that does not rely on committees for making most of the decisions. Committees should provide an oversight and support role and provide direction. There are too many opportunities for power-hungry individuals to control the processes when committees are involved too heavily as decision-making units. The HPC is the tip of the iceberg.

[oso97]

Well, that's good news! I suppose they will be just like the reports that have been posted by the Tournament Committee the last 6 years she has been chair?

Kalle has submitted reports for every single BOD meeting during her tenure as chair, as even a CURSORY examination of the minutes from those meetings would tell you. Blaming her for the fact that the current EC deliberately decided not to promulgate those reports is like blaming a beach for the ocean eroding it. Not only is not her responsibility to promulgate them, the Tournament Committee chair has no mechanism for distributing them. All such things go through the >Secretary< and the >National Office<. Such statements merely continue to highlight your inexperience and unawareness of the mechanisms of good governance.

[epeemike81]

Well, that's good news! I suppose they will be just like the reports that have been posted by the Tournament Committee the last 6 years she has been chair?

Kalle has submitted reports for every single BOD meeting during her tenure as chair, as even a CURSORY examination of the minutes from those meetings would tell you. Blaming her for the fact that the current EC deliberately decided not to promulgate those reports is like blaming a beach for the ocean eroding it. Not only is not her responsibility to promulgate them, the Tournament Committee chair has no mechanism for distributing them. All such things go through the >Secretary< and the >National Office<. Such statements merely continue to highlight your inexperience and unawareness of the mechanisms of good governance.

T, Just for the record, your above attack (which was either disingenuous or ill-informed) may be considered by many (myself included) to be the very mud-slinging you purport to not engage in.

-m

[T]

Kalle has submitted reports for every single BOD meeting during her tenure as chair, as even a CURSORY examination of the minutes from those meetings would tell you. Blaming her for the fact that the current EC deliberately decided not to promulgate those reports is like blaming a beach for the ocean eroding it. Not only is not her responsibility to promulgate them, the Tournament Committee chair has no mechanism for distributing them. All such things go through the >Secretary< and the >National Office<. Such statements merely continue to highlight your inexperience and unawareness of the mechanisms of good governance.

T, Just for the record, your above attack (which was either disingenuous or ill-informed) may be considered by many (myself included) to be the very mud-slinging you purport to not engage in.

-m

It was neither disingenuous or ill-informed. It is not candidate bashing, it was stating a fact.

Like this report? Found http://www.usfencing.org/usfa/compon...tdown/id,1618/

The Tournament Committee wishes to commend Corinne Greenman for ensuring that schedules for all NACs and the JOs were posted by mid-August. This is the earliest that our schedules have been available and her efforts are most appreciated; not only by the committee, but also by the fencing community at large. The committee is working with the National Office to evaluate potential venues for the 2008-2009 season and beyond.
We will meet this fall to consider a variety of topics, including afternoon resource usage, strategies for enhancing our volunteer pool and ways of working with clubs, divisions and sections to support their volunteer base.

________________

You still don't get it do you? We don't dislike any of the NC slate candidates. I know they are all wonderful people and love fencing. I know this is true of all of our candidates as well. We simply see a different approach to taking care of business than the other slate. Ours is a business-based approach that focuses on customer service and based on not accepting a broken system to work.

[ivlobane]

Kalle has submitted reports for every single BOD meeting during her tenure as chair, as even a CURSORY examination of the minutes from those meetings would tell you. Blaming her for the fact that the current EC deliberately decided not to promulgate those reports is like blaming a beach for the ocean eroding it. Not only is not her responsibility to promulgate them, the Tournament Committee chair has no mechanism for distributing them. All such things go through the >Secretary< and the >National Office<. Such statements merely continue to highlight your inexperience and unawareness of the mechanisms of good governance.

The same National office that is mostly busy processing faxes? Sorry, such statements actually confirm the org is broken and needs a severe restructure.

[epeemike81]

The same National office that is mostly busy processing faxes? Sorry, such statements actually confirm the org is broken and needs a severe restructure.

Which nobody disagrees with. OSO's point was that as committee chair, all Kalle could do was submit reports. it was beyond her purview to distribute those reports to the membership. As President, she can (and has stated she will) not only ensure timely reporting from all committees but also ensure that those reports are distributed via a reliable website to the membership.

One thing everybody agrees with on both sides of this election is that the USFA is in need of EXTENSIVE reform. This election is a choice between two sets of reformers. The questions you have to ask are:
Who do you have more confidence in being able to execute their ideas of reform?
Who has the most realistic and fleshed out ideas for reform?

I think we all know my answer to that question...

-m