Call for a Clean Election

[seak]

The reality is whether certain people like it or not we have an election. Therefore I'm proposing that we actually hold the election based on the issues, not mudslinging. To whit, discussion revolves around candidate proposals and ideas and the merits, rather then on whose mother someone is, or who was nominated by whom.

Some other things that have been discussed to death:
- The nominating committee: They aren't part of the Executive committee, they were elected indirectly by the membership. They put time and effort into their job, and gave us who they thought would do the best job. Reasonable people can disagree with their choices (heck they weren't even all unanimous within the committee). However, they're not puppets of the Board, or Exec Comt. or old guard either.
- The Nominated Committee candidates aren't old guards who don't want to changed anything
- Implications of bribery in the signing of the petition
- Issues surrounding the Arbitration agreements
- saying one side or the other doesn't have any ideas
- Slamming or disagreeing with someone else's characterization of a person's actions (when initial characterization was positive, see dberke's comment regarding fencing time at the NAC's and T's response).
- etc

Ok, I may be a little bit (or a lot) naive, but really it would be nice to have an election that was positive and run on the issues.

[Wafath]

I am just a poor, dumb computer geek, so I don't know much about these high-flutin political science thingies. So I ask you, miss "I have a degree in political science" girl:

In real-life elections, how many times has a plea for reduced mudslinging resulted in a measurable reduction?



W

[seak]

Hey, just because I know better doesn't mean I can't hope, or try. Mr. "I keep banging my head against walls and becoming an officer of collegiate club organizations"

[jjefferies]

Let the mudslinging be viewed as part of the process. What I think would be most helpful is if Craig would allow a sticky thread to be posted so that everyone can follow the discussion/debate/argument without a lot of searching. Then the unwashed masses could post questions and allow the candidates to answer.

I really think f.net can be a great help to the over all process of selecting the new leadership. For the first time the entire national membership can gather together, at least virtually, to discuss the election. The Candidates themselves will have to realize that they have to work with some of the same people they are competing against. Course we do that in real life as well.

[epeemike81]

Let the mudslinging be viewed as part of the process. What I think would be most helpful is if Craig would allow a sticky thread to be posted so that everyone can follow the discussion/debate/argument without a lot of searching. Then the unwashed masses could post questions and allow the candidates to answer.

I really think f.net can be a great help to the over all process of selecting the new leadership. For the first time the entire national membership can gather together, at least virtually, to discuss the election. The Candidates themselves will have to realize that they have to work with some of the same people they are competing against. Course we do that in real life as well.

I don't know if a Sticky is necessary... the election threads don't seem to be having any problem staying at the top of the list all on their own.

-m

[mdstasinos]

Just some food for thought...

In order to be able to create truly effective change with the new administration in the next quadrennial, one important element must be in place, the relationship between the new Executive Committee and the Board of Directors. The two must effectively plan and work together and having a working relationship to create change. So, how does the USFA Nominees verses the Petition Nominees compare. First, every member of the USFA slate has been or currently are members of the Board of Directors. This is a plus for the fact that the current Board knows these individuals, their responsibilities, their actions and commitment in working for and on behalf of the fencers and the Association. Not one of the Petition Slate has ever served on the BOD. It simply means that the first thing they would have to do would be to develop a trust and a working relationship with the Board of Directors if they wanted truly affect policy and positive change. How long would that take? With the USFA slate, who the BOD are familiar with, can hit the ground running and start the work on day one, on the contrary those who they are not familiar with, they possibly will have to be measured and weighed over a period of unspecified time

As Nominees for the USFA, we have all served in many capacities in the Association, accepting callings, assignments, challenges for the betterment of the sport. We are collectively a group of highly motivated individuals that have not taken lightly our responsibilities and believe in leading by example. Unlike those running against us, we do not threaten the Association and its Athletes with lawsuits and negative press if we do not get our way. Is that the leadership we need or truly want. The USFA Nominees have the experience of leadership and service, knowledge and understanding of the organization and the desire to serve its membership in creating effective positive change for the growth, development and management of the USFA. Elect our slate and through our experience, relationship with the BOD and desire to effect change for the good of the membership we can hit the ground running to serve our members.

Mark Stasinos
http://www.usfanominees.com

[hpfencing]

WOW, glad to see you on the f.net board Mark. I hope this is a clean election. I have personally worked with Mark S and Jerry B for years and they are ALWAYS their to help at tournaments and are there to better the sport. They are both excellent coaches, referees and friends. They will help a beginner or an advanced athelete with the same gusto and pride. they are NOT just about winning metals, they are about the sport.


I do NOT personally know any of the members of the other slate so I have no personal knowledge of how they interact with the everyday coach and fencer

[mdstasinos]

Matt,

Thanks for the kind words and endorsement.
Mark Stasinos

http://www.usfanominees.com

[Capt. Slo-mo]

First, every member of the USFA slate has been or currently are members of the Board of Directors.

Mark: It's a great experience argument...but it cuts both ways. The BoD over the past two quads has fallen short in a number of ways...failing to re-educate or remove an ED who, by many accounts, was a better wall than a door; technologically advance the organization commensurately with its growth; and secure adequate funding and accounting protocols...just to name a few. There are more.

If I were a jaded cynic, I could just as easily interpret your above statement as: "Well, we've all whiffed big time in the past, but THIS time, baby, we'll do you right!!"

Unlike those running against us, we do not threaten the Association and its Athletes with lawsuits and negative press if we do not get our way.

The rest of your post was largely positive and a credit to the slate. However; this statement was disingenous. First of all, you received some arguably preferential treatment which prevented any need for a lawsuit threat. Secondly, if the situation was reversed, and the NomCom slate was DQ'd on the same sort of technicality...and the USFCC had been given the arbitration paperwork, but not the NomCom slate...would you and all your fellow candidates have meekly said: "Righto. Unlucky break, what? Off we go..."

You had no cause nor opportunity to resort to lawsuits, so you shouldn't really use that as some impeccable measure of virtue. Otherwise, it's like a PR guy from Hooker Chemicals standing on the banks of the Love Canal and proclaiming: "At least we didn't file a lawsuit demanding these residents get clean water!"

That being said: I'm glad you and the NomCom slate have joined the dialog. I'm seeing some good ideas, and get the feeling that just about everyone in the race truly wants substantial change in the way the USFA is run.

And that's a good thing.

[arc]

Mark: It's a great experience argument...but it cuts both ways. The BoD over the past two quads has fallen short in a number of ways...failing to re-educate or remove an ED who, by many accounts, was a better wall than a door; technologically advance the organization commensurately with its growth; and secure adequate funding and accounting protocols...just to name a few. There are more.

If I were a jaded cynic, I could just as easily interpret your above statement as: "Well, we've all whiffed big time in the past, but THIS time, baby, we'll do you right!!"

Here's a question ... how many people have attended more than one BoD meeting in the last quad as guests and have actually seen what has been going on of late?

In response to the criticism, I would point out that while Mark has been a director in the past, I'm pretty sure that he hasn't served in that role during the most recent couple of quads. He can correct me if I'm wrong. As TC chair, Kalle gets a seat at the ExComm table & attends BoD meetings as a guest, without vote; Ro, of course, spent this quad as a rookie member of the ExComm & BoD. Of the other members, we've got Greg, Jerry, and our Secretary-Elect, Brad, who are all current & active members of the BoD.

Before anyone paints all Directors with the broad brush of failure to exercise oversight, I'd recommend speaking with someone who attended the most recent BoD meeting, where that trio (Greg, Jerry, Brad) played a masterful job off of each other in asking hard questions in an effort to provide the oversight that the membership deserves and upon which the survival of the Association depends ... in short, just because they may be members of the BoD doesn't necessarily mean they're part of the problem.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Recent BoD reports are definately cause for hope.

But if one touts long term BoD experience as part of the slate resume, it also becomes part of the slate baggage.

[griffindm]

I am just a poor, dumb computer geek, so I don't know much about these high-flutin political science thingies. So I ask you, miss "I have a degree in political science" girl:

In real-life elections, how many times has a plea for reduced mudslinging resulted in a measurable reduction?



W

Hey, just because I know better doesn't mean I can't hope, or try. Mr. "I keep banging my head against walls and becoming an officer of collegiate club organizations"

Hey, here's a novel thought: How about an end to mudslinging between current and former coaches of the above refernced (avatar) clubs?

Just kidding. I know we're just one happy family.

Dave

[ysbadadden]

The question isn't just who has the better ideas. Even more, it's a question of who has the leadership skills to implement whatever ideas come up. Not just who gets along with the BoD, but who can get the BoD to move.

We also need an analysis of where the logjams are. Maybe it's not the BoD, but some kind of disconnect between the elected officers and the National Office. But it's been years and years since the USFA went to a new structure with a smaller BoD that was less representative of the membership at large, but presumably more efficient and more effective at decision-making. Yet my sense is that there is still a lot of institutional inertia.

Let's give recent administrations (and the existing structure) some credit, too. Our international results, which are the official measure of our success, have been much better than ever before. Granted, a lot of factors go into that, starting with the breakup of the East Bloc. But I think that if we're going to blame, we need to give credit as well.

[hello?]

The rest of your post was largely positive and a credit to the slate. However; this statement was disingenous. First of all, you received some arguably preferential treatment which prevented any need for a lawsuit threat.

You could also say, "you managed to read the bylaws and follow the rules...which prevented any need for a lawsuit threat." Give me a break. And, knowing three of the people on the NC slate fairly well, I would bet they would most certainly not have resorted to threats if the same thing had happened to them (which, again, would not have happened to them since they would have read the rules and abided by them).

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Yes. Well.

Not filing a lawsuit when there was no need--and nothing to gain--is not nearly as virtuous as not filing a lawsuit out of principle, even when disadvantaged.

I still have a polite bit of scepticism that, had the positions been reversed, the NomCom folks would have meekly and quietly tip-toed off into the night, with no further ado.

[mdstasinos]

I still have a polite bit of scepticism that, had the positions been reversed, the NomCom folks would have meekly and quietly tip-toed off into the night, with no further ado.

I cannot speak for the others in the NC Slate but I would not hire an attorney and threaten the Association with a lawsuit. I would not threaten to take the action to the USOC and then threaten our Olympic athletes with the negative press to get my way. This was all done. Perhaps in the future if Tracy actually airs her April Webaire, that she claims had technical problems, which actually continued to record her slate after she thought everyone had gone, in which she talks to her slate and apologized to the members of the slate for knowing the deadline for arbitration but assumed it didn't apply to her. I would challenge her and her slate to air the entire webaire instead of not posting it at all or editing it. I was not the only one who listened to her discussion and was surprised. I would have assumed nothing when it came to the election. I would have asked questions to have procedures clarified if it was unclear. That's just what I would have done. The NC Slate did not receive special treatment, we followed the procedures set forth in the bylaws. With those wishing to contest the election the procedures are stated, and the timeline outlined. It is their responsibility to follow that procedure and ask questions if it was not clear to them, not to assume.
Those individuals that comprise the NC slate have a history of service to fencers in this Association and I am honored to have the opportunity to have served with them in our assignments and look forward to be serving with them on the EC. We have all been proactive at all levels of service: Divisional, Sectional, National and International. If you see the need for change then look to those who have been proactive in working within the Association. Elect those who are already active in making changes and working with the Board of Directors. Elect those who believe actions speak louder than words, that are willing to work side by side with the membership and understand the internal workings of the Association and procedures.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Yes. Well.

Not filing a lawsuit when there was no need--and nothing to gain--is not nearly as virtuous as not filing a lawsuit out of principle, even when disadvantaged.

I still have a polite bit of scepticism that, had the positions been reversed, the NomCom folks would have meekly and quietly tip-toed off into the night, with no further ado.

I also suspect those on the NomCom would have gotten the paper work in on time.

Seeing how Brad is on the NomCom and all he does is read bylaws/rule books.

(One might say their experience on the BoD allows them to know how to read the Bylaws correctly....)

[mdstasinos]

Kevin

Brad is very detailed in what he does. This is a plus. I can assure you all of the Nom Slate read the bylaws and followed the procedures. We knew it was essential to do so, and we knew of our deadline to submit our arbitration papers and did not hesitate to get them submitted.
The leaders we need are ones that understand how to get the job done correctly...the first time.

http://www.usfanominees.com

[ysbadadden]

On the whole, it's better to bear the cost of a contested election every four years, if it leads to constructive debate, than to bear the cost of silence.

[T]

Kevin

Brad is very detailed in what he does. This is a plus. I can assure you all of the Nom Slate read the bylaws and followed the procedures. We knew it was essential to do so, and we knew of our deadline to submit our arbitration papers and did not hesitate to get them submitted.
The leaders we need are ones that understand how to get the job done correctly...the first time.

http://www.usfanominees.com

If the NC slate read the bylaws and if the NC read the bylaws and anyone else involved at whatever level read the bylaws, then why did they not attend to or suggest or bring out the point that the Election Committee should get formed before the deadline for the arbitration agreements to be signed by the NC candidates? Technically, the NC slate candidates wouldn't be official candidates either. I suspect that if there wasn't a contested election that this detail would have been swept under the carpet. Instead, it highlights another organizational process that is in need of major repair.