From the USFA Nominees, "The first 100 days in Office."

[telkanuru]

Is there a problem with that? I thought the object here was to plan and implement at all levels including the youth. What do you have against the youth program? ...I know there is not a problem. We all want the Association to grow, develop and prosper. I look forward being able to assemble and work for the changes that our Association requires.
MD Stasinos
hppt://www.usfanominees.com

Mark-

Read the below post

Prise de Fer Fencing Club Endorsement

Mr. E is um... rubbing a point in?

[mdstasinos]

Here is the question. If you were to list the top three things you would want to see fixed, changed, overhauled, tweaked, removed, etc. what would they be in the order that you would list and why? There has been all kinds of discussions on the other threads focusing on plenty of issues and everybody has their pet issue but what, if you could change three things this season, would it be?
Md Stasinos
http://www.usfanominees.com

[Mr Epee]

Thanks for asking Mark!

Here's my short-list.

1. The adoption of additional tournament formats that allow for more competitive bouts at all levels. Organizers would be free to select the event format they feel would be most appropriate for their event and the fencers they desire to attract.

2. Standardization of tournament sanctioning requirements across the country. Remove sanctioning power from divisions. Sanctioning would be granted by the national office once a set of established conditions are met.

3. Encourage privatization of tournament and regional circuit creation/management. I believe that this would result in the rapid/efficient development of profitable/sustainable events and circuits around the country.

[tchwojko]

3. Encourage privatization of tournament and regional circuit creation/management. I believe that this would result in the rapid/efficient development of profitable/sustainable events and circuits around the country.

What would be the means of such encouragement? (I've found the big regional tournaments to be the most fun for me, so I like the idea of more of them.)

[dcrocket]

Thanks for asking Mark!

Here's my short-list.

1. The adoption of additional tournament formats that allow for more competitive bouts at all levels. Organizers would be free to select the event format they feel would be most appropriate for their event and the fencers they desire to attract.

2. Standardization of tournament sanctioning requirements across the country. Remove sanctioning power from divisions. Sanctioning would be granted by the national office once a set of established conditions had met.

3. Encourage privatization of tournament and regional circuit creation/management. I believe that this would result in the rapid/efficient development of profitable/sustainable events and circuits around the country.

Why should functional Divisions and Sections have their sanctioning privileges revoked for the ills of the dis-functional ones? Fixing the problem Divisions and Sections makes more sense.

Dan Crocket
Chair, Green Mountain Division

[Mr Epee]

Why should functional Divisions and Sections have their sanctioning privileges revoked for the ills of the dis-functional ones? Fixing the problem Divisions and Sections makes more sense.

Dan Crocket
Chair, Green Mountain Division

Because a hamburger in Texas should be the same as a hamburger in Washington. I don't think it would be a punishment for any division. It's just a change in mission and a move towards a more consistent fencing product.

That's all.

[oso97]

Because a hamburger in Texas should be the same as a hamburger in Washington. I don't think it would be a punishment for any division. It's just a change in mission and a move towards a more consistent fencing product.

That's all.

*nods* I see your point. Its important to think this through though and imagine all the possible repercussions. I say this not to immediately dis your idea, because it has merit, but merely to dialog about it.

What then becomes the purpose of the Divisions and Sections? Just to hold qualifiers? Can qualifiers be replaced by some sort of regional circuit type of thing? Should they?

Another issue - a large chunk of our governance is accounted for by the Divisions and Sections. Divisions elect representatives to Congress, which has certain duties, and also elects 4 members of the BOD. Each Section elects a representative to the BOD as well. If we do a way with Divisions and Sections (which, I realize you didn't explicitly propose, but could be a side effect) how will these governance duties be re-administered?

[SJCFU#2]

2. Standardization of tournament sanctioning requirements across the country. Remove sanctioning power from divisions. Sanctioning would be granted by the national office once a set of established conditions are met.

I can understand a desire for standardization, but wouldn't requiring the national office review every local tournament to determine whether or not it meets requirements for sanctioning add a significant workload to an office that is by all accounts already overworked and understaffed?

[Mr Epee]

*nods* I see your point. Its important to think this through though and imagine all the possible repercussions. I say this not to immediately dis your idea, because it has merit, but merely to dialog about it.

The largest repercussions reveal themselves in two parts.
1. Follow the money. Some Divisions have loads of money, others do not.
2. Volunteers surrendering authority is always tricky.

What then becomes the purpose of the Divisions and Sections? Just to hold qualifiers?

There are still many things that divisions can do. Most divisions have a long list of responsibilities. Sanctioning events is only one thing. Most divisions I've encountered claim responsibility for "promotion of the sport"... maybe they could spend more time with that?
Maybe they could deal with coach/referee development. Surely there are many areas on which they could focus.

Can qualifiers be replaced by some sort of regional circuit type of thing? Should they?

^^^ Unrelated comment. ^^^

Another issue - a large chunk of our governance is accounted for by the Divisions and Sections. Divisions elect representatives to Congress, which has certain duties, and also elects 4 members of the BOD. Each Section elects a representative to the BOD as well. If we do a way with Divisions and Sections (which, I realize you didn't explicitly propose, but could be a side effect) how will these governance duties be re-administered?

This can continue unchanged. It, also, is unrelated to centralization of tournament sanctioning authority.

[Jason]

I can understand a desire for standardization, but wouldn't requiring the national office review every local tournament to determine whether or not it meets requirements for sanctioning add a significant workload to an office that is by all accounts already overworked and understaffed?

McDonald's headquarters doesn't check every hamburger to make sure it's compliant with their standards. There is a chain of command. I imagine it would not be too unthinkable for the national office to create a kind of operations manual that would then be enforced at lower levels (perhaps sectionally and divisionally). The national office's job would then be to manage the lower levels and make sure they are performing to standard.

[Mr Epee]

I can understand a desire for standardization, but wouldn't requiring the national office review every local tournament to determine whether or not it meets requirements for sanctioning add a significant workload to an office that is by all accounts already overworked and understaffed?

The national office already receives and processes results from local competitions regarding ratings changes. Right?

A tournament official / head referee / licensed observer could be in charge of ensuring that sanctioning standards are met.

[Jason]

The national office already receives and processes results from local competitions regarding ratings changes. Right?

A tournament official / head referee / licensed observer could be in charge of ensuring that sanctioning standards are met.

You know there are quite a few models in which standardization could be achieved. It also seems like a pretty obvious boon to the organization and the sport.

Naturally, you can therefore assume it won't happen.

[dcrocket]

A tournament official / head referee / licensed observer could be in charge of ensuring that sanctioning standards are met.

That is already in place for Qualifiers. Does it result in standardization? I think not.

[gorgie101]

I can understand a desire for standardization, but wouldn't requiring the national office review every local tournament to determine whether or not it meets requirements for sanctioning add a significant workload to an office that is by all accounts already overworked and understaffed?

True. You could have one person/group that handles this and nothing else. but how you would do that with out having to hire more people or spend more money I am not sure.

Something to think about.

[notalent]

Because a hamburger in Texas should be the same as a hamburger in Washington. I don't think it would be a punishment for any division. It's just a change in mission and a move towards a more consistent fencing product.

That's all.

The problem is that some places have plenty of beef, others only have bull. If you are saying that a club shouldn't be kept from holding event because of local politics, I agree. If you expect an event in Nebraska to have the same type of staffing that an event in Mass has then we have a problem. I think a solution would be allowing section the ability to mediate a dispute between division and club.

[Mr Epee]

The problem is that some places have plenty of beef, others only have bull.

Well phrased...

Obviously, different regions have different resources... however, I don't see that as a road block. The sanctioning requirements don't have to be static. You could have Class A, Class B, Class C sanctioning requirements.

At the basic level, I'd start with things like

1) Event must be scheduled and posted X days in advance.

2) Event must not illegally discriminate

3) Event format must be registered and approved by the USFA

4) Event organizers agree to follow USFA rules, etc...

Something along the lines of:
Class C = self refereed
Class B = referee's provided
Class A = referees, provided, grounded pistes and scoring machines with score/time display.

Someone could easily put together a tournament manual with requirements, best practices, and other information. The goal is to manage expectations

I think a solution would be allowing section the ability to mediate a dispute between division and club.

We currently have a volunteer committee that is in charge with mediating division/club disputes. It has some very smart/capable people serving, but there is little they are able to do to help resolve anything.

[oso97]

Well phrased...

Obviously, different regions have different resources... however, I don't see that as a road block. The sanctioning requirements don't have to be static. You could have Class A, Class B, Class C sanctioning requirements.

At the basic level, I'd start with things like
1) Event must be scheduled and posted X days in advance.
2) Event must not illegally discriminate
3) Event format must be registered and approved by the USFA
4) Event organizers agree to follow USFA rules, etc...
Something along the lines of:
Class C = self refereed
Class B = referee's provided
Class A = referees, provided, grounded pistes and scoring machines with score/time display.

Again, good idea. I'd probably make the suggestion that for the top level, it shouldn't just be referees provided, but a certain rating and number of referees provided, as well as a certain level of bout committee and armoury competence.

Someone could easily put together a tournament manual with requirements, best practices, and other information. The goal is to manage expectations

We've actually got one of these we've been working on for SSCC events... It started as suggestions which people started thinking were "requirements" so they weren't included in the new organizational documents. But we still have the background data on how to run an event.

[mdstasinos]

Here is the question. If you were to list the top three things you would want to see fixed, changed, overhauled, tweaked, removed, etc. what would they be in the order that you would list and why? There has been all kinds of discussions on the other threads focusing on plenty of issues and everybody has their pet issue but what, if you could change three things this season, would it be?
Md Stasinos
http://www.usfanominees.com

Soooo... is Mr. Epee the only one who had a top three list of things you would want to see ...as I said above. Also, I do agree about the hamburger analogy. I want the same burger wherever I go! But there is more to live than burgers...this coming from a nutritionist!!!
MD Stasinos
http://www.usfanominees.com

[oso97]

Here is the question. If you were to list the top three things you would want to see fixed, changed, overhauled, tweaked, removed, etc. what would they be in the order that you would list and why? There has been all kinds of discussions on the other threads focusing on plenty of issues and everybody has their pet issue but what, if you could change three things this season, would it be?
Md Stasinos
http://www.usfanominees.com

Since you asked:

1) Adoption of a comprehensive technology solution, designed to meet current needs and able to grow and be modified in the future as additional resources and needs become realized. This would include, but certainly not be limited to: online registration for membership and tournaments, publishing of complete results in a searchable format, back-end database support to take paperwork and admin load off staff members, a methodology for official promulgation of information and news, and resources available to local tournaments to allow them to do their job properly at tournaments they run (i.e. age-eligibilities and club affiliations/representations).

2) Creation of regional circuits that would be developed and promoted to replace the current one-shot qualifier system within one or two seasons.

3) Creation of an integrated referee development system, such as the one Greg_D has posted.

Thats my short list

[mdstasinos]

Since you asked:

1) Adoption of a comprehensive technology solution, designed to meet current needs and able to grow and be modified in the future as additional resources and needs become realized. This would include, but certainly not be limited to: online registration for membership and tournaments, publishing of complete results in a searchable format, back-end database support to take paperwork and admin load off staff members, a methodology for official promulgation of information and news, and resources available to local tournaments to allow them to do their job properly at tournaments they run (i.e. age-eligibilities and club affiliations/representations).

2) Creation of regional circuits that would be developed and promoted to replace the current one-shot qualifier system within one or two seasons.

3) Creation of an integrated referee development system, such as the one Greg_D has posted.

Thats my short list

Excellent choices! I would agree that these would produce greater value to our Association. Any other takers? Your top three items of change that you would like to se happen.
MD Stasinos
http://www.usfanominees.com