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

[gorgie101]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

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

I was thinking the same thing.

It could also be that, at least in my case, people don't know members of the respective slates very well; if at all.

[counterattack]

whtouche, (and epeemike81, and KShan), I can see why she feels that the MA crowd has it in for her. The MA crowd posts are the most argumentative and angry lately. Your questions don't seem framed to actually extract information (though you do ask for information), they seem like debate questions trying to bring out the worst in an opponent. Except T's opponents aren't posting, so these aren't exactly debates, are they? You can't claim "just asking an innocent question" when your tone and your previous posts indicate you aren't merely curious, you are a partisan. And since you are a known partisan it is fair for her to treat you like one.

That being said, Ms. Pestotnik's qualifications are fair game for questioning, the problems IMHO really come down to tone and civility.

-philip

[Jason]

Originally Posted by counterattack

whtouche, (and epeemike81, and KShan), I can see why she feels that the MA crowd has it in for her. The MA crowd posts are the most argumentative and angry lately. Your questions don't seem framed to actually extract information (though you do ask for information), they seem like debate questions trying to bring out the worst in an opponent. Except T's opponents aren't posting, so these aren't exactly debates, are they? You can't claim "just asking an innocent question" when your tone and your previous posts indicate you aren't merely curious, you are a partisan. And since you are a known partisan it is fair for her to treat you like one.

That being said, Ms. Pestotnik's qualifications are fair game for questioning, the problems IMHO really come down to tone and civility.

-philip

I believe you violated the "emotional responses only" rule of this thread. Take your reason and go elsewhere, sir!

[whtouche]

Originally Posted by counterattack

whtouche, (and epeemike81, and KShan), I can see why she feels that the MA crowd has it in for her. The MA crowd posts are the most argumentative and angry lately. Your questions don't seem framed to actually extract information (though you do ask for information), they seem like debate questions trying to bring out the worst in an opponent. Except T's opponents aren't posting, so these aren't exactly debates, are they? You can't claim "just asking an innocent question" when your tone and your previous posts indicate you aren't merely curious, you are a partisan. And since you are a known partisan it is fair for her to treat you like one.

That being said, Ms. Pestotnik's qualifications are fair game for questioning, the problems IMHO really come down to tone and civility.

-philip

I can see why you would think that these posts which contain legitimate questions seem combative, but I would say that rather than angry or confrontational, the tone you detect is most likely frustration. This is especially true I think given that the most 'angry' seeming posts are the ones which are the third or fourth iterations of questions which T refuses to answer.

And T's opponents, the nominated slate, have been posting. Brad, Greg, Mark Stasinos have all made posts on this board in various places, and as Mark states in one of his posts they are convening as a group in order to answer questions posed to them.

To me this is part of the reason why their answers have seemed better informed, and is certainly a reason why their responses have been slower to trickle in.

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

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.

I don't recall the tech proposal saying the database would take 4 years to implement. Can you cite where I'm wrong?

If you don't think it will take several years of incremental progress for us to erase a >20% budget deficit, please provide more infomation on how you expect to make such sweeping changes while spending even more money.

[keith]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I don't recall the tech proposal saying the database would take 4 years to implement. Can you cite where I'm wrong?

Can you cite anyone who has any idea of how long it will take?

The whole point of the NC proposal is that it is not an off the shelf solution but a fully integrated database specific to the needs of the USFA. Sounds wonderful, totally unnecessary, but wonderful.

[arc]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

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."

The rumour stated above is incorrect.

While I am not General Counsel, I do have some passing knowledge of the issues involved. I can't go into detail because first, I haven't been involved in any analysis or in giving advice thereon, and second, even if I had, that advice would be for the Association as a client, and as any good attorney would note, advice given to a client is not given in public.

However, having spoken with a number of people involved in the discussions regarding askFRED, I think it's generally common knowledge amongst those who have actually been involved in the decision making process that the concern is the publication of information regarding identification of minors. This is hardly a trivial concern in this day and age, as organizations can be held liable for negligently making information regarding minors available, and because there are substantial privacy laws in place regarding data. There are also concerns regarding the security of the FRED database, from my understanding. This is why the published membership lists do not include ages, addresses, or any identifying information other than name and gender, and among the concerns stated in the minutes of the February Board meeting with respect to the recent motion regarding the sharing of database information with FRED.

And with respect to the final complaint, I think you are assuming quite a bit much, i.e, that advice for how to satisfy the relevant legal requirements has not been given. As noted, legal advice is generally not given publicly, nor should it be, in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege.

All summed up, perhaps everyone should consider that specific complaints should be made in light of actual knowledge, rather than on gut reaction, rumour, and innuendo. But then again, forming opinions based on actual knowledge requires some work on self-education, and as has already been stated, some people just have too much to do ...

[TBean]

Originally Posted by keith

Can you cite anyone who has any idea of how long it will take?

The whole point of the NC proposal is that it is not an off the shelf solution but a fully integrated database specific to the needs of the USFA. Sounds wonderful, totally unnecessary, but wonderful.

I think the one thing that they cannot give up on, is the online portion integrated to the database. Without that the only thing that will be different is that data entry from one system to another will be taking place from a speadsheet instead of faxes. The technology must be implemented in a way to not only provide convenience to the membership but also make the workload more efficient for the staff. One without the other makes little sense.

Does the entire thing need to be custom built to the exact needs of the USFA or would it be easier to start everything over with an on-line system and new database. More technologically savy people than myself need to be answering that question. But from a management standpoint I can understand why an integrated system is necessary.

[peet]

Originally Posted by arc

However, having spoken with a number of people involved in the discussions regarding askFRED, I think it's generally common knowledge amongst those who have actually been involved in the decision making process that the concern is the publication of information regarding identification of minors. This is hardly a trivial concern in this day and age, as organizations can be held liable for negligently making information regarding minors available, and because there are substantial privacy laws in place regarding data. There are also concerns regarding the security of the FRED database, from my understanding. This is why the published membership lists do not include ages, addresses, or any identifying information other than name and gender, and why the recent motion regarding the sharing of database information with FRED was rejected at the February Board meeting.

Ok, my turn to clear some misconceptions:

I attended the BoD meeting in Feb, and unless there was a vote on Brad's motion in the re-convened session later that night, the motion was not voted down; rather it got it's first hearing and no vote at all, in accordance with the standard first hearing, second hearing, vote on second hearing process.

Unfortunately, there was almost no discussion of the motion at all, which gives its proponents little opportunity to answer the privacy concerns you mentioned.

WRT those concerns: There are always solutions to those, some of which are very easy to implement. I would be only too happy to have some guidance from USFA legal council as to what information should be publicly available, what information should be available only to authorized users, and what should be secret from everyone. Then I could implement that on FRED (would probably take me the weekend), and I would have some legal basis for the policy. As it is right now, I have just the various input from various users to go on. I've gone back and forth between showing more info and showing less, but never with an authoritative call on what is appropriate.

Of note, I have investigated the competition results postings on a few other olympic sports websites (swimming, tennis, others), and I see that there is age and club affiliation information available* there for minor competitors. I'm not saying the USFA should just do what other NGB's do, I'm just saying that other NGB's don't seem to let these concerns stop them from using the web. They make a decision as to what they think is appropriate, and implement it.


* examples here, here, and here.


-p

[peet]

Originally Posted by TBean

I think the one thing that they cannot give up on, is the online portion integrated to the database. Without that the only thing that will be different is that data entry from one system to another will be taking place from a speadsheet instead of faxes. The technology must be implemented in a way to not only provide convenience to the membership but also make the workload more efficient for the staff. One without the other makes little sense.

Does the entire thing need to be custom built to the exact needs of the USFA or would it be easier to start everything over with an on-line system and new database. More technologically savy people than myself need to be answering that question. But from a management standpoint I can understand why an integrated system is necessary.

Agreed, an integrated system is an important thing, for the process efficiency reasons you mention. That said, it could be argued that a non-integrated interim solution could be a good thing, just until the "real thing" can be set up. In other words: using a simple online form that takes registrations and provides the data to the national office staff as an excel download might be an ok thing to do for 6 months to a year while we build a better solution.

At least if it's in a spreadsheet, someone might be able to crowbar the data into the offline systems in a useful way.

All that said, it's important to build something purpose-built eventually. A system that knows the rules of fencing can enforce eligibility, prevent data entry errors, maintain results and points lists, etc, etc.

The fortunate thing there is that 90% of this work is already done. All that would need to be done to make FRED work for the USFA would be to add some additional controls (e.g. FRED accepts tournament entries from non-USFA members. NAC entries should not), and implement a USFA-approved privacy policy (as mentioned above).

-p

[noodle]

Originally Posted by keith

Can you cite anyone who has any idea of how long it will take?

realistically, it depends on how its done, what is done, who does it, and how much money is involved in the process.

[peet]

Originally Posted by keith

Can you cite anyone who has any idea of how long it will take?

We do three kinds of jobs:
Quick, Good, and Cheap.


You may pick any two.

-p

[arc]

Originally Posted by peet

Ok, my turn to clear some misconceptions:

I attended the BoD meeting in Feb, and unless there was a vote on Brad's motion in the re-convened session later that night, the motion was not voted down; rather it got it's first hearing and no vote at all, in accordance with the standard first hearing, second hearing, vote on second hearing process.

Thanks for that, Peet. I was fairly certain that it was procedural concern, but as I was in-and-out of the meeting (spectators don't get excused from refereeing duties), I missed that part of the meeting, and got it confused with the defeat of the following motion.

Originally Posted by peet

WRT those concerns: There are always solutions to those, some of which are very easy to implement. I would be only too happy to have some guidance from USFA legal council as to what information should be publicly available, what information should be available only to authorized users, and what should be secret from everyone. Then I could implement that on FRED (would probably take me the weekend), and I would have some legal basis for the policy. As it is right now, I have just the various input from various users to go on. I've gone back and forth between showing more info and showing less, but never with an authoritative call on what is appropriate.

I'm glad to hear that. My only quibble with the above is one that is entirely minor, non-substantive, and a bit pedantic, but it's the reason I had bolded certain words in my original reply: it's counsel, not council. The former is advice or one who gives it, the latter is a committee, panel, or other governing board.

Originally Posted by peet

Of note, I have investigated the competition results postings on a few other olympic sports websites (swimming, tennis, others), and I see that there is age and club affiliation information available* there for minor competitors. I'm not saying the USFA should just do what other NGB's do, I'm just saying that other NGB's don't seem to let these concerns stop them from using the web. They make a decision as to what they think is appropriate, and implement it.

As you say, just because other sports are careless doesn't mean we should follow suit ... one instance of a predator using information given out by our organization to victimize a minor, and you can probably kiss the Association goodbye, as many states have started to enact specific statutes modifying the usual civil immunities of nonprofits and their officers in the case of sexual abuse of minors.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by peet

{snip}
Of note, I have investigated the competition results postings on a few other olympic sports websites (swimming, tennis, others), and I see that there is age and club affiliation information available* there for minor competitors. I'm not saying the USFA should just do what other NGB's do, I'm just saying that other NGB's don't seem to let these concerns stop them from using the web. They make a decision as to what they think is appropriate, and implement it.


* examples here, here, and here.

That's an interesting point. I wonder if the USOC has the ability/desire to provide advice on the applicability of the requirements of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act on NGB's posting of results which would include minors since this would seem to be an issue relevant to a number of sports.

Interestingly, to merge a couple of threads--AIUI (which is not particularly well), COPPA (rather unfortunate acronym, IMHO) only restricts dissimenation of information collected about children under 13, so providing another reason to have 13 as a cutoff to fence in opens.

--Philistine

[peet]

Originally Posted by arc

As you say, just because other sports are careless doesn't mean we should follow suit ... one instance of a predator using information given out by our organization to victimize a minor, and you can probably kiss the Association goodbye, as many states have started to enact specific statutes modifying the usual civil immunities of nonprofits and their officers in the case of sexual abuse of minors.

Agreed.

I just get a bit frustrated sometimes, because people say "we can't use FRED because of X " (it's not secure, it shows club affiliations of NCAA eligible fencers, etc.), but they say these things to each other or to themselves, rather than to me, so that I could address the issues.

Most of the objections are easily addressed, and some of them are just plain wrong.

-p

[telkanuru]

By the by, when it comes to personal attacks from Massachusetts, that's really my purvue, not theirs.

So, with that in mind, stop acting like a presidential press liason and answer the damn question. I mean, you've already screwed the pooch by not immediately responding with the relevant information, which makes you seem like you think the information will be hurtful to your cause, regardless as to if it actually is.

Really, this whole opposition thing seems a bit like it's put together with duct tape and spit.