USFA Election 2008 Debate Question #2: Qualification Concerns about Candidates

[T]

Originally Posted by tchwojko

There are a lot of others who read this message board beside those "3 guys" who have not made their minds up. (Well, maybe not, but I know there's at least one...)

If you weren't interested in a debate, even if you believe the questions have an agenda behind them, then I'm not sure what you were expecting in the election.

It was a reasonable question, stated politely. You chose to interpret it as a personal attack. As a president of a large organization, you would see a lot of reasonable and unreasonable questions, stated politely and rudely, which are sometimes personal and sometimes not, with larger consequences to the answers. I wonder how you will deal with that stress?

So far I find your tone more informative than your answer.

I really would like all the candidates to answer the tough questions and see how they respond to that pressure, because it's only going to get harder...

And I apologize for any rudeness that I may have demonstrated.

I highly suspect the comments made by the other postings were a personal attack as demonstrated repeatedly in other threads. Presidents of large organizations have to deal with attacks - no doubt. I also doubt that any President of any major company would be involved in a discussion thread like this. I am involved because I think we can make a positive change in the organization and a discussion on this board, in spite of its huge limitations, is one forum for that discussion. I don't see the other presidential candidate making any comments or bringing about any discussion. One strategy for me is to quit participating at all. I could do that but just like you, there are other lurkers out that that see where I am coming from. I know this because they PM or email me regularly about it. They just aren't quite as noisy as the posters that typically post on this board.

People say that we want to expand the front office and hire new staff (when most of it is re-shuffling current professional staff positions and adding mostly support staff positions). That is correct. A CFO (or business manager) or whatever you want to call that role is needed. All you have to do is look at our website for information about how we propose to pay for it
http://usfencersforchange.com/proble...ng-for-growth/ .
You could also look and see that I have been responsible for raising several million $ in grants and contracts as part of a national nonprofit organization. And one of our VP candidates (August Skopik) has had major marketing experience. We can't continue to operate on a 'can't do' model. Marketing and promotion and fundraising are key ingredients to a successful NGB.
But for some people, generating discussion topics like this are more entertaining.

The qualifications of our candidates are available on our website. If anyone wants to see who we are and what our qualifications are, they simply need to click the link below. Everythng is there. If there is a candidate that you don't believe is qualified then you shouldn't vote for them. I believe that everyone can make that choice if they look at all of the candidates.

If you have followed other threads, you will see that all of the discussions are a bit one-sided. Fine. I understand that and if I don't like it, I can walk away or choose not to answer. Do you see any questions about the qualifications of the other slate's candidates? Do they have no faults?

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

As to the six figure salary, Mike Massik had one.

I thought the ED was in the high 5s, like 85 or 90k.

Do you see any questions about the qualifications of the other slate's candidates?

Everybody I know who has looked at the nominated candidates considers them highly qualified. Perhaps that's why there are few questions.

[ivlobane]

Originally Posted by TBean

This goes back to a post I made previously. Dr. Hurley's plans require an investment in interal capacity that is simply not feasible at this moment in time. Any leadership MUST find a way to work with the current system and make it better and be more accountable. In the short run there is not the money available to do anything else. Perhaps, in three or more years some of these ideas can be acheived, but what is the plan until then. Don't tell me the answer is to hire a CFO, when that is clearly not feasible.

But why is it not feasable? If we're in a 1mil deficit, what difference does it make to go into 1.1mil deficit when the next year can result in a severe improvement? An ED that is mainly tasked with fundraising is a part of that.
I have no faith in the current system at all! The new leadership must find a way not to work with the current system, but use current resourses within it! The USFA is a tremendous pool of talent, yet so much seems to get bogged down in analysis paralysis, comittee swamp or shot down by legal council. Why not get a legal council that finds reasons to do things instead of not do? Four years ago I spoke to a very prominent someone that wanted to improve it and they recieved the same attitude I'm hearing from the NomCom slate's advocates on this forum now!
The The NomCom database paper is great! The requirements are right on the money, but the timeline and tone of "we must consult multiple parties indefinitely" is not.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

Why not get a legal council that finds reasons to do things instead of not do?

Maybe it's just me, but I'd like a legal council who has no compunctions about warning me about potential pitfalls. the legal council's job is not to create policy or generate ideas, but rather to advise on the legality of such. If he says it's a legal problem, that's because it is.

(btw, how did we get onto the topic of legal council???)

-m

[ivlobane]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

Maybe it's just me, but I'd like a legal council who has no compunctions about warning me about potential pitfalls. the legal council's job is not to create policy or generate ideas, but rather to advise on the legality of such. If he says it's a legal problem, that's because it is.

(btw, how did we get onto the topic of legal council???)

-m

Because one of the reason askFRED was shot down was that supposedly it would cause legal issues with release signatures. Which is crap, that can be remedied with a credit card processing agreement.
And a good legal council would say exactly that: "There is a problem, but here's how you solve it." Instead of just "There is a problem."

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by T

And I apologize for any rudeness that I may have demonstrated.

I never said that you were rude. I think the discourse has been fairly civil, as far as these things go.

I highly suspect the comments made by the other postings were a personal attack as demonstrated repeatedly in other threads.

But in this thread, there was a straight up question. It was an opportunity, even if you perceived it had other motivations.

Presidents of large organizations have to deal with attacks - no doubt. I also doubt that any President of any major company would be involved in a discussion thread like this.

Yes, communication is good.

One strategy for me is to quit participating at all. I could do that but just like you, there are other lurkers out that that see where I am coming from. I know this because they PM or email me regularly about it. They just aren't quite as noisy as the posters that typically post on this board.

I would suggest that if you're going to write a defensive post, rather than an informative one, that you take a breath, and give me information relevant to the question.

People say that we want to expand the front office and hire new staff (when most of it is re-shuffling current professional staff positions and adding mostly support staff positions). That is correct. A CFO (or business manager) or whatever you want to call that role is needed. All you have to do is look at our website for information about how we propose to pay for it
http://usfencersforchange.com/proble...ng-for-growth/ .

The above is a better answer than:

I agree, candidate qualifications are a good topic but this forum doesn't exactly offer the prospects of an objective look at it. So I will not answer your question.

If you have followed other threads, you will see that all of the discussions are a bit one-sided. Fine. I understand that and if I don't like it, I can walk away or choose not to answer. Do you see any questions about the qualifications of the other slate's candidates? Do they have no faults?

I don't think it has been one-sided. You have made claims, and you are being questioned about those claims. It looks like a great opportunity to state your case, and get into more detail with a community who cares about the various topics.

I have been a bit disappointed to see defensiveness rear its head.

As an epee fencer, I love getting my opponents to attack, because there are so many wonderful ripostes and counter-attacks to be had.

It's great to see the USFA's ideas being challenged, because that means people are working on problems. It's great to see your platform being challenged, because it means you'll have the opportunity to respond to those challenges.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally Posted by T

The qualifications of our candidates are available on our website. If anyone wants to see who we are and what our qualifications are, they simply need to click the link below. Everythng is there. If there is a candidate that you don't believe is qualified then you shouldn't vote for them. I believe that everyone can make that choice if they look at all of the candidates.

If you have followed other threads, you will see that all of the discussions are a bit one-sided. Fine. I understand that and if I don't like it, I can walk away or choose not to answer. Do you see any questions about the qualifications of the other slate's candidates? Do they have no faults?

Okay....but my question still has remained unanswered. I read both websites before I posted anything. My question was if Ms. Pestotnik had any formal financial education. It has still remained unanswered. I don't see how it's unfair to think that is viable information during an election.

[epeemike81]

In regards to the issues raised here about re-organizing the National office, I think it's important to see the proposals from both sides. A link has already been posted to the Hurley Slate's proposal (thanks, Ivlobane). Here's a link to the USFA Nominees proposal:
http://usfanominees.com/proposals/national-office/

-m

[TBean]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

But why is it not feasable? If we're in a 1mil deficit, what difference does it make to go into 1.1mil deficit when the next year can result in a severe improvement? An ED that is mainly tasked with fundraising is a part of that.

Because it is blatently irresponsible to not do all that you can do to reduce your deficit. Funder's tend to lack faith in organizations that run in the red. I, as a member, lack faith in leadership that provides me with solutions that do not address reducing this deficit prior to doing many other things. Spending money on a CFO or business manager, while I can agree that it is a needed position, it not stewarding the resources I provide to the USFA well. Money for the USFA is not going to magically come from new grants - I've raised millions as well - there are limited pools for that and given the mission of the organization there are not a whole lot of sources for support. Corporations, anyone think about the economy lately, corporate giving is going to continue its nosedive. That leaves only one source of support, individuals and boy of boy does the USFA have a long way to go on that road. New money is going to be hard coming.

Originally Posted by ivlobane

I have no faith in the current system at all! The new leadership must find a way not to work with the current system, but use current resourses within it! The USFA is a tremendous pool of talent, yet so much seems to get bogged down in analysis paralysis, comittee swamp or shot down by legal council. Why not get a legal council that finds reasons to do things instead of not do? Four years ago I spoke to a very prominent someone that wanted to improve it and they recieved the same attitude I'm hearing from the NomCom slate's advocates on this forum now!
The The NomCom database paper is great! The requirements are right on the money, but the timeline and tone of "we must consult multiple parties indefinitely" is not.

The current system has problems no doubt and no one wants to see paralysis but look at the situation - the organization is $1million in debt, there is no Executive Director to raise more money and to believe that anything substantive will change before the ED is in place is again not realistic. You must have a plan to work with the current structures and move towards a healthier, better governed business model. Dr. Hurley has execellent long-range ideas for the organization - I don't disagree with that - but I see few intermediate steps. Her ideas and her model are solid for three years from today.

You can argue with me all you want, but you are not going to change my mind, nor will I change yours. I would love to see Dr. Hurley involved with organization nationally in the next years, helping the organization evolve and become stonger. I think she is an excellent choice for president fours years from now when she could really make it shine and the USFA would be more organizationally ready for her level of leadership.

[ivlobane]

Originally Posted by TBean

You can argue with me all you want, but you are not going to change my mind, nor will I change yours. I would love to see Dr. Hurley involved with organization nationally in the next years, helping the organization evolve and become stonger. I think she is an excellent choice for president fours years from now when she could really make it shine and the USFA would be more organizationally ready for her level of leadership.

Well, my mind is not made of wood, and neither is yours, so that's good. I'm happy to see that you have faith four years forward. I see no reason to have to take so long. Reading both websites, the issues are starting to look very cross-pollinated.
I just do not see a reason to take until 2012. It does not take four years to implement a database. Lol, maybe at my NIH contract it does, but that's an example of how not to do things. When I worked at INTEL, such a timeline would get people laughed at, then fired.

[bigdawg2121]

Originally Posted by T

The USFA needs a professional CFO to handle the finances of the organization - not an MBA volunteer treasurer to do it. I point to our current treasurer - he has an MBA and our finances still got into trouble. So, while this is a potential good quality for a treasurer, the presence of it does not ensure that the finances will get any better. Again, I am not diss'ing Greg - it's the system that needs diss'ing. It would be challenging to find another $4million organization that predominantly relies on a committee to run their finances. And if you happen to find one, their finances would probably look a lot like ours. So, I would like to hire Greg as the CFO - he would probably do a high quality job. But I want him 100% on the job -- not his leftover time (I'm making the assumption that Greg is not going to quit his day job to become a volunteer treasurer).

Originally Posted by KShan5[PrFC]

Okay....but my question still has remained unanswered. I read both websites before I posted anything. My question was if Ms. Pestotnik had any formal financial education. It has still remained unanswered. I don't see how it's unfair to think that is viable information during an election.

There you go. Bolded for emphasis - it seems that not promoting Greg for treasurer frees him up to be hired full time as CFO. While the actual treasurer....can do other things b/c we're not as worried that she's only volunteering part time?**


**I honestly haven't taken part in any bashing, but this is the only reading I can come up with for this.

[oso97]

Umm.... I have severe doubts as to weather the USFA could AFFORD Greg, or someone of his talents, as CFO.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by oso97

Umm.... I have severe doubts as to weather the USFA could AFFORD Greg, or someone of his talents, as CFO.

How much does a can of pomade go for these days?

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by oso97

Umm.... I have severe doubts as to weather the USFA could AFFORD Greg, or someone of his talents, as CFO.

QFT.

-m

[T]

Originally Posted by oso97

Umm.... I have severe doubts as to weather the USFA could AFFORD Greg, or someone of his talents, as CFO.

Well, I don't know specifically about a salary for someone of 'Greg's talents' but in a recent salary survey (2007) conducted by the Nonprofit Times, CFOs, nationwide, for nonprofit organizations with a budget between $1mil-$10mil, the average salary was about $67k; a Marketing Director $38k; a Development Director 47k; and a CEO $100k.

I don't see these salaries as being out of line with a $4million budget nor do I see $67k as being an unreasonable expense to secure the organizational finances with a paid CFO. As I have argued in the past, the way to pay for these expenses and to get the organization back on track financially is through cost containment measures (a link is given above for how we will pay for growth). I also agree that we can't rely on fund raising for this although marketing and fund raising are part of a comprehensive financial plan.

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by T

in a recent salary survey (2007) conducted by the Nonprofit Times, CFOs, nationwide, for nonprofit organizations with a budget between $1mil-$10mil, the average salary was about $67k; a Marketing Director $38k; a Development Director 47k; and a CEO $100k.

Your website (http://usfencersforchange.com/problems-solutions/) states that the CFO will also function as a COO. That's adding responsibility, and I assume, adding pay?

What is the salary range you would consider? (Averages on their own can be easily skewed. Were there any $0 or low budget volunteer CFO's to skew the data?)