With regard to epeemike81's curiosity about August Skopik, I would like to share the two most memorable personal encounters I have had with him in his home division that give me pause in considering him as a vice president. At the outset, I will emphasize that in both encounters, from the perspective of one of his students, Auggie demonstrated qualities *very* desirable in a coach, but qualities that also leave me with concerns.
At a Southwest Section Circuit Cup event, there are very strict seeding protocols; first the standard seeding protocols used at the national level, plus additional priority given to fencers who are on our section rolling points list. Auggie had several fencers in a particular event, and right after seedings were posted, he was immediately at the bout committee table protesting and insisting that we alter the pool layout, without giving any member of the bout committee and opportunity to explain why two of his fencers were in the same pool when he had fewer fencers than pools. We, two national BC staff members and the most detail-oriented person in the section (and possibly nation), had already studied pools for several minutes to the point of delaying the event, trying to figure out a way to separate the relevant fencers without unfairly unbalancing the pools. Once we were able to get a word in, he understood and returned to coaching, but I would have personally preferred a less confrontational approach.
Second, Gulf Coast Division's JO qualifiers were held in a high school gym with the traditional wood floors. Several fencers were having difficulty with traction in changing directions, to the point that two fencers withdrew under verified medical withdrawls; if I recall correctly, both were from Auggie's club. Several times during the day, we had to continue trying to run the tournament in spite of his forceful comments with regard to possible lawsuits, injury to fencers, etc. The issue that I had with this is that this incident was disruptive to the bout committee's work when every other coach present found the venue to be satisfactory, and no other club's fencers felt the need to withdraw on the basis of an injury due to the flooring.
In summary, I have consistently noticed about Auggie that he is *always, 100%* acting in what he perceives to be the best interests of his fencers. Always. I even find him a likable person. Were he my coach, I would feel secure that my interests were being represented (I appreciate this from my own coach as well, oso ) Frequently, however, I have observed that Auggie allows his desire to get things accomplished to override the need to, quite frankly, "play well with others" within a collective organization in a way that is counterproductive, and that is why I would not recommend him as a vice president of an already-contentious organization.
I am perfectly willing to believe that Mr. Skopik is capable of successfully wearing different hats. The fact that he acts so strongly in the interest of his fencers while coaching does not preclude him from acting in the interests of the USFA as VP. The mention of threat of lawsuits does strike me as over the top...
That said, neither of these stories would prevent me from voting for him.
I'm still very curious about the issues in his division, though. I'd be interested in hearing any accounts of the issues in Gulf Coast Division that people are willing to give.
Location: the Salle(I no longer have a home address)
Posts: 1,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by arc
Have you not been paying attention to the astronomical sums various Catholic dioceses have been paying out in recent years? And do you realize that if our leadership evinced the same attitude, and such a situation came to pass, that blowing off the legitimate advice of counsel would most likely result in a finding of gross negligence, additionally opening up the Association to punitive damages? But hey, what do I know? I'm just a member of two state bars, two federal bars, and licensed by the PTO ... but beyond that, you might take a read of some actual legal sources:
I'm quite willing to believe you've read enough law to quibble and throw barriers in the way of any progress. Most lawyers are quite capable of doing so. But as an educated person I also recognize that oranges and apples are different. The problems of the Catholic Dioceses derive from trying to hide what was a problem so systemic that it was a bad joke. What we are talking about is how to make a system work without hurting anyone. As Peet commented he can build such a system if someone would define the rules. So if you are so legally endowed why not help instead of hindering?
Quote:
Originally Posted by arc
Seems pretty clear that when an organization is negligent with dissemination of personal information of its members that the organization can be held liable for that; so no, I don't think it's "over the top" for that concern to be expressed or acted upon.
But when we get another dollop of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) it is over the top. As regards your legal quotes I would point out that there is a difference between "when an organization is negligent " and when the organization has a stated policy with safeguards that are enforced. My view is that we have a problem and we need to produce a solution not arguments for paralysis.
FDR said: "Take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly, and try another. But by all means, try something."
Part of our current situation is due to the death of a person similar to Greg (Irwin Bernstein). He ran the finances with an iron hand for many years. He provided a wonderful service but after he died, no one paid much attention to the needed processses anymore.
__________________
Tracy
www.usfencersforchange.com An Alternate Slate for the Executive Committee of the USFA Board of Directors
I'm quite willing to believe you've read enough law to quibble and throw barriers in the way of any progress. Most lawyers are quite capable of doing so.
This issue isn't "quibbling." The consequences of a mistake are large, and my understanding is the liability for those consequences can be directed at both individuals and the organization.
I'd be perfectly happy with new USFA leadership taking the time to do things right.
I've seen lots of software and service implementations end up being a larger problem than they were intended to solve because they were rushed. The first 80% looks easy, and it often is. That last 20% that has all the devilish non-obvious details is what hurts.
I'm quite willing to believe you've read enough law to quibble and throw barriers in the way of any progress. Most lawyers are quite capable of doing so.
I don't belive he is trying to throw barriers in the way. He is simply trying to explain one BIG reason why we can't just thow this information willy nilly on to the internet for anyone to see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjefferies
As Peet commented he can build such a system if someone would define the rules. So if you are so legally endowed why not help instead of hindering?
I belive that the USFA legal group is in the process of "defining the rules".
As far as I am concerned it is better for the association to be proactive on this matter NOW rather than having to endure the cost of a lawsuit later on. We have not had the technology before now, waiting a little longer to make sure it works right and that all of our bases are coverd, isn't going to hurt anyone.
__________________ I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.-Galileo Galilei
Location: the Salle(I no longer have a home address)
Posts: 1,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tchwojko
This issue isn't "quibbling." The consequences of a mistake are large, and my understanding is the liability for those consequences can be directed at both individuals and the organization.
I'd be perfectly happy with new USFA leadership taking the time to do things right.
How long???? I was told by Michael Massik, 3 years ago that on-line registration would be implemented by that fall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tchwojko
I've seen lots of software and service implementations end up being a larger problem than they were intended to solve because they were rushed. The first 80% looks easy, and it often is. That last 20% that has all the devilish non-obvious details is what hurts.
But that's not the issue. We already have working systems in place that are being integrated. Heck they are already largely integrated. They're up and running and I used them this past weekend. Sure there are bugs and enhancements needed. But as long as the systems are in use that will be true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gorgie101
I don't belive he is trying to throw barriers in the way. He is simply trying to explain one BIG reason why we can't just thow this information willy nilly on to the internet for anyone to see.
If you're citing reasons why you can't do it and not offering help in how to do it? What do you call it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gorgie101
I belive that the USFA legal group is in the process of "defining the rules".
As far as I am concerned it is better for the association to be proactive on this matter NOW rather than having to endure the cost of a lawsuit later on. We have not had the technology before now, waiting a little longer to make sure it works right and that all of our bases are coverd, isn't going to hurt anyone.
Again, on the matter of on-line registration the USFA has studied this for years. And if allowed they will study it for many more years. I've begun wondering if the USFA leadership has been stalling on the issue for reasons they've not been fully forth coming about. There is a working system, AskFred, whose team - from what I've heard - would love to take on the USFA's business and probably for less than it costs the USFA to do the same function in-house. All they need is the go ahead. How much longer should we have to wait for that?
What I am seeing is what someone termed "Paralysis by Analysis". And this is one reason why I am unhappy with the past USFA leadership, two of whom are on the official slate for this upcoming election.
Epeemike81: I am also willing to believe that Auggie can wear a number of hats; I've seen him ref, coach, be a club owner, etc. He really believes in doing a job well.
The issue that I have, and I suppose I may not have communicated this clearly, is that he has difficulty doing these jobs effectively AND in such a way as to continue to get along with others. There is a difference between approaching the computer and saying "Change the pools!" and saying "Hey, I have two fencers in the same pool, but I have fewer fencers than pools. Why is it like this, and could it please be changed?" Likewise, there are different approaches to communicating with committees, third parties, etc, and my stories were intended to illustrate that I personally really only remember him using the first style of approach, even in situations where the second is far and away the more appropriate.
I have requested that those more familiar with his specific division issues post about them if they're willing to; I can't guarantee that they are, because that division is finally relatively stable and it will only hurt them locally to bring everything back up again. The only facts I have about the issues there are that two seperate national representatives were required at different times to go there personally and iron things out.
How long???? I was told by Michael Massik, 3 years ago that on-line registration would be implemented by that fall.
But that's not the issue. We already have working systems in place that are being integrated. Heck they are already largely integrated. They're up and running and I used them this past weekend. Sure there are bugs and enhancements needed. But as long as the systems are in use that will be true.
If you're citing reasons why you can't do it and not offering help in how to do it? What do you call it?
Again, on the matter of on-line registration the USFA has studied this for years. And if allowed they will study it for many more years. I've begun wondering if the USFA leadership has been stalling on the issue for reasons they've not been fully forth coming about. There is a working system, AskFred, whose team - from what I've heard - would love to take on the USFA's business and probably for less than it costs the USFA to do the same function in-house. All they need is the go ahead. How much longer should we have to wait for that?
What I am seeing is what someone termed "Paralysis by Analysis". And this is one reason why I am unhappy with the past USFA leadership, two of whom are on the official slate for this upcoming election.
If they have been contemplating online registration for years then perhaps the problem is not the legal end. It could simply be the right hand not knowing what the left is doing.
In an attempt to get this back on topic. What does all of this have to do with qualifications of the canidates?
__________________ I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.-Galileo Galilei
I was angry when I had two 13 - 14 year old young ladies hurt their knees exactly in the manner I had predicted in the months before in emails to the officers. There was a pattern of these injuries at this location, and this was ignored by the officers leaving the fencers at risk. There were three knee injuries exactly as I predicted at the tournament, and the officials denied that the flooring had anything to contribute. I personally had been injured there two years before because of the floor, and now have seven fencers in total injured in there. These type of injuries do not happen at the other facilities and we had a "free" excellent facility offered. One of the girls will have knee surgery as a result. Is this best for the fencers?
I went to the bout committee at the SYC when I had three Y14 fencers with national points in one pool when there were 7 pools and only 8 fencers with Y14 points. The USFA did not get back to Terry Harkey until after the event began and told her to use Y14 points. Having youth work hard for Y14 points and then not receive the benefits from them upsetting to them. Their parents wonder why they travel to these events if they aren't being used, and they have to fence their teammates. TERRY HARKEY APOLOGIZED TO ME THEN AND LATER. After she explained, I turned away and did not discuss it further.
Me defending my fencers is better than having the parents confront the bout committee, as happened in Houston last weekend. I took the blame for the seeding issue, even though it was a USFA issue.
I do have issues in the division. One of these is outlined in the previous post concerning the issue of safety for the fencers. I strongly argue for fencer's rights and safety. I also strongly argue for my opportunities to fence. This is often at the request of the youth and junior fencers of the division AND THEIR PARENTS, who are often ignored by our division. Many of the fencers know me and ask me to take their issues to the EC of our division. Unfortunately, these issues are often ignored or made to appear that they are only important to myself.
My wife was personally told at a USFA division meeting that she could not vote because there was no confirmation for her age, and she had her DL and two fencers in the Cadet epee. She was among 20 parents in my club that had USFA membership whose vote was denied by the division.
I could discuss these issues at length, but the issue is the USFA. The questions are:
Who will develop programs to benefit all fencers?
Who will develop programs to bring media attention to the sport?
Who will develop programs to help develop existing and new fencing clubs?
We have outlined our ideas, and will have a telephone election discussion this Sunday from 6 - 7 pm CST. Be involved, and find out what each of the candidates bring to the table.
No one has disputed your passion Augie. Just your style of handling things. Do you conceed that a slightly less antagonistic style would get you the same result without engendering hard feelings on all side? Something to consider. If you can't make nice and play well with the members of your own division, how are you going to help run the entire organization? And believe me, the people in Gulf Coast don't even hold a candle to the real personalities you'd have to deal with.
__________________
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado." - Emiliano Zapata
My wife was personally told at a USFA division meeting that she could not vote because there was no confirmation for her age, and she had her DL and two fencers in the Cadet epee. She was among 20 parents in my club that had USFA membership whose vote was denied by the division.
Augie, I've been hearing you say this same kind of thing for half a decade now. And yes, the various memberships were denied votes because they didn't have a signature, or birth year (Note: I'm not in the Gulf Coast Division, I just have a really good understanding of the issues down there). And you keep saying how important it is to you. Why have you not made PERSONALLY SURE that all the i's were dotted and t's were crossed? Why have you not personally checked the forms to make sure that all the signatures and birth years were there, and then submitted them to the USFA National Office YOURSELF instead of doing it through your Division? These are the kinds of details that you may see as "wasting of time" but by following them you demonstrate your ability to handle the "big" details.
When I was running for Section Office, I started lining up my support in >SEPTEMBER.< I made sure that people got their memberships in, and were listed as having confirmed membership. Then I went back around and gathered proxies. Its a multi-step process. These kinds of things demonstrate one's ability to handle details of importance...
__________________
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado." - Emiliano Zapata
I do want to address Fencing Kitten's statement that two national officials came to Houston to straighten things out. They did come, and we voted. Excellent things were discussed. Compromises were made.
The bylaws still have not been approved by the division two years later. I have statements attributed to me that were not correct, and asked that they were removed. The things that we agreed to in front of the two officials were changed and never implemented.
I have asked every parent there what was agreed upon, if that parent was not a USFA officer, and all of them are in agreement that what is in place is not what was agreed upon.
What is happening in this division is happening in several in the USFA. We can't eliminate the divisions, but just put checks and balances in place. Adaptability is important for an organization as large and diverse as ours.
I am glad you responded, David. You personally were very involved in the selection process of the current slate.
What is the platform? What will they do? What are their ideas for USFA development?
What the USFA members are voting on is what will best serve their interests in developing fencing and offering fencing opportunities.
We are on opposite sides of the fence for offering USFA opportunities for fencing. We have been many, many, times over the past 6 years. I want more fencing opportunities and for the USFA to take advantage of the media access. I have specific plans for this, and many times in the section you have ruled specifically against more fencing and more USFA tournaments. I have been in sectional meeting where you disregarded the upcoming youth opportunities and developing avenues for them (Austin, TX). I think all voting USFA members deserve the ideas and platforms to be in the open.
Location: the Salle(I no longer have a home address)
Posts: 1,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by KD5MDK
How do you arrive at the number two? Of the six candidates nominated, only Ro is a current officer.
I believe you have the correct of it. I was but recollecting that both Kalle and Ro most properly excused themselves from an executive board discussion of the election as they were involved. My error. Kalle isn't an officer, she sits as a chair I believe. I'm open to correction if I got it wrong.
Location: the Salle(I no longer have a home address)
Posts: 1,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by gorgie101
If they have been contemplating online registration for years then perhaps the problem is not the legal end. It could simply be the right hand not knowing what the left is doing.
In an attempt to get this back on topic. What does all of this have to do with qualifications of the canidates?
No left hand of darkness was involved here. I believe the thread drift began when your husband, ARC, began putting up FUD about why we don't have on-line registration based on his premise that if the USFA puts any personal information on-line it will result in death and damnation of the association and an ascendancy of the Dark Side if "a predator using information given out by our organization to victimize a minor". Note that the USFA already posts all the membership lists on-line and that would be essentially the same information other than age restrictions.
One wonders why the lady VETS don't feel particularly threatened by this.
) Frequently, however, I have observed that Auggie allows his desire to get things accomplished to override the need to, quite frankly, "play well with others" within a collective organization in a way that is counterproductive, and that is why I would not recommend him as a vice president of an already-contentious organization.
Note that the USFA already posts all the membership lists on-line and that would be essentially the same information other than age restrictions. 
Linear Mode
