New President's Biggest Job

[stillchris]

Originally Posted by gorgie101

So very true.

Of course if the election had not been contested the search for a new ED would be going on right now.

Now now children if you would just let the adults run this it would be all right.

[KD5MDK]

I have the impression from the several Board meetings I've attended that the current Board members campaigning for office have a good working relationshiop with a majority of members and will probably be able to get things done with it.

[mdstasinos]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I have the impression from the several Board meetings I've attended that the current Board members campaigning for office have a good working relationshiop with a majority of members and will probably be able to get things done with it.

I would strongly agree with this point. If you want change then you need that relationship with the Board of Directors. If it is not there then you will spend the first part of your administration having to build that relationship. It is a matter of how quick you want the changes to be effected and implemented.
Mark Stasinos
http://www.usfanominees.com

[stillchris]

Originally Posted by mdstasinos

I would strongly agree with this point. If you want change then you need that relationship with the Board of Directors. If it is not there then you will spend the first part of your administration having to build that relationship. It is a matter of how quick you want the changes to be effected and implemented.
Mark Stasinos
http://www.usfanominees.com

The flip side of this attitude is there will never be any change because everyone is comfortable with everyone else and no one wants to rock the boat. I would hope that whomever is elected would be adult enough to work with each other and would have the best interests of the USFA and it's membership in mind and not let the relationship sink to a personal power trip.

However, looking at these election threads that may not be the case. But I think Jimminy Cricket said that sometimes fantasies come true.

[mdstasinos]

Originally Posted by stillchris

The flip side of this attitude is there will never be any change because everyone is comfortable with everyone else and no one wants to rock the boat. I would hope that whomever is elected would be adult enough to work with each other and would have the best interests of the USFA and it's membership in mind and not let the relationship sink to a personal power trip.

However, looking at these election threads that may not be the case. But I think Jimminy Cricket said that sometimes fantasies come true.

I do not think it is a matter of being comfortable, it a matter of the working relationship and ability to post needed changes. If you go to "the fist 100 days" thread and refer to my last post, you will see some of the things I was able to do because of the working relationship and ability to push for the changes that were needed for the growth and activity of our fencers and Association. Yes, it is a matter of being adults but it is a bigger matter of trust, supported by our service to the Association that shows who we are and that we are willing to do to effect necessary change in our Association.
Mark Stasinos
http://www.usfanominees.com

[gorgie101]

Originally Posted by stillchris

Now now children if you would just let the adults run this it would be all right.

Comment was all in jest, hence the

Actually the whole election thing is growing on me. I just fear that we will end up with a mixed group of officers. Some from one slate and some from the other and that they might not be able to work as well together as they would with their own slate.

Which brings me to a question.

President canidates how would you handle a mixed group of officers if that happens?

It might very well be the first biggest job of the next president.

[T]

Originally Posted by gorgie101

Comment was all in jest, hence the

Actually the whole election thing is growing on me. I just fear that we will end up with a mixed group of officers. Some from one slate and some from the other and that they might not be able to work as well together as they would with their own slate.

Which brings me to a question.

President canidates how would you handle a mixed group of officers if that happens?

It might very well be the first biggest job of the next president.

I'm not exactly sure why you would fear this outcome (especially since it is the most likely outcome). I think all candidates want nothing but good things for USFencing. If we didn't we wouldn't have put our names on the ballot. With that said, I suspect there are some significant differences in how our candidates would approach leading the USFA and how the other slate would chose to do so. But I think after all of the votes are counted, we will all come together with the overriding goal of 'getting on with business' of US Fencing. The election process has brought out significant questions, honest answers, and valid opinions about a number of important items on the agenda for the next 4 years. I think it has been a very fruitful process for the USFA and has opened the eyes of many lurkers out there as to what are the important issues and what are the potential solutions. It is my hope that this election will spur on an open debate and accountability of the next administration (regardless of who wins). Some argued that the election would divide the association but on the contrary, I think it has provided an awareness of the issues that we would not have achieved otherwise.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by T

I'm not exactly sure why you would fear this outcome (especially since it is the most likely outcome). I think all candidates want nothing but good things for USFencing. If we didn't we wouldn't have put our names on the ballot. With that said, I suspect there are some significant differences in how our candidates would approach leading the USFA and how the other slate would chose to do so. But I think after all of the votes are counted, we will all come together with the overriding goal of 'getting on with business' of US Fencing. The election process has brought out significant questions, honest answers, and valid opinions about a number of important items on the agenda for the next 4 years. I think it has been a very fruitful process for the USFA and has opened the eyes of many lurkers out there as to what are the important issues and what are the potential solutions. It is my hope that this election will spur on an open debate and accountability of the next administration (regardless of who wins). Some argued that the election would divide the association but on the contrary, I think it has provided an awareness of the issues that we would not have achieved otherwise.

T, when not nominated by the committee you chose to recruit people to contest the other positions. When the NC was conducting their search for candidates, none of these individuals put their names forward for consideration. Given your confidence in your ability to work with whoever is elected, I'm curious why you would go out of your way to recruit people who'd shown no interest in office to run against the other nominated candidates instead of simply contesting the presidency and accepting the other candidates?

-m

[gorgie101]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

T, when not nominated by the committee you chose to recruit people to contest the other positions. When the NC was conducting their search for candidates, none of these individuals put their names forward for consideration. Given your confidence in your ability to work with whoever is elected, I'm curious why you would go out of your way to recruit people who'd shown no interest in office to run against the other nominated candidates instead of simply contesting the presidency and accepting the other candidates?

-m

Wow. Good question.

[T]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

T, when not nominated by the committee you chose to recruit people to contest the other positions. When the NC was conducting their search for candidates, none of these individuals put their names forward for consideration. Given your confidence in your ability to work with whoever is elected, I'm curious why you would go out of your way to recruit people who'd shown no interest in office to run against the other nominated candidates instead of simply contesting the presidency and accepting the other candidates?

-m

This response from jjefferies answers your question completely. I couldn't have said it better myself.

From this thread jjefferies wrote:

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Both sides, USFFC and NomCom slates, are vitally interested in the organization and both are saying there have to be changes. My understanding though is that the NomCom party represents the establishment and is largely made up of facilitators. By facilitators - AND I most certainly do not mean to disrespect anyone as they are vital to the sport - I am speaking of the people who are more interested in organizing the sport, running tournaments and the like. It's almost an entirely different world than fencing itself. As such they are greatly disturbed that the usual and approved method of selecting the leadership by an internally nominated slate is being challenged. Particularly as they feel they have worked long and hard to come up with the best leadership from their point of view. And that's before we bring in the question of persons. The USFFC party on the other hand - it seems to me - is more interested in the sport itself, performance nationally and internationally and are mounting their challenge because they perceive that a lack of responsive leadership is threatening the sport or at least limiting the US's performance.

My question then is the NomCom slate as a whole really capable of making any necessary changes to the organization? From the beginning of this effort I've been in favor of the USFA membership being enfranchised. But looking at the issue of the NomCom slate making changes, an analogy might be where the bureaucracy of the US were to select the President, Vice-President and major cabinet officers. Is such a group going to do more than tweak the existing system? Not saying I want revolution. But some of what has been discussed will almost certainly seem revolutionary in some quarters.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by T

This response from jjefferies answers your question completely. I couldn't have said it better myself.

From this thread jjefferies wrote:

Actually, no it doesn't. My question was about YOUR motivation to recruit other candidates to run against the nominated slate. As I see it, there are two possibilities:
1) you feel the nominated candidates are qualified and good choices or
2) you feel the nominated candidates are not qualified and would be poor choices to run the USFA.

If the answer is the former, then I don't understand why you would go out of your way to recruit candidates to run against them.

If the answer is the latter, then I don't see how you can take the position (as you have earlier in this thread) that you are confident you can work well with whoever is elected.

Please clarify this for me.

-m

[ivlobane]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

As I see it, there are two possibilities:
1) you feel the nominated candidates are qualified and good choices or
2) you feel the nominated candidates are not qualified and would be poor choices to run the USFA.

-m

Slim pickin's of possibilities, there could be a #3rd perhaps:

3) you feel the nominated candidates are qualified and good choices, but do not feel they will drive the USFA in the right direction.

An extreme example of the same idea is that Dick Cheney is definitely a very qualified candidate and obviously a good choice for someone, but not everyone. Especially if one wants a progressive, transparent and inclusive government.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

Slim pickin's of possibilities, there could be a #3rd perhaps:

3) you feel the nominated candidates are qualified and good choices, but do not feel they will drive the USFA in the right direction.

An extreme example of the same idea is that Dick Cheney is definitely a very qualified candidate and obviously a good choice for someone, but not everyone. Especially if one wants a progressive, transparent and inclusive government.

No, if you want a progressive, transparent, and inclusive gov't, Dick is NOT A GOOD CHOICE.

When you're talking about subjective language, you're talking about opinions. If you don't feel like they will drive the USFA in the right direction, you DON'T THINK THEY ARE A GOOD CHOICE.

You can't actually have it both ways.

I think my brain got significantly dumber from reading the above.

[ivlobane]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

No, if you want a progressive, transparent, and inclusive gov't, Dick is NOT A GOOD CHOICE.

When you're talking about subjective language, you're talking about opinions. If you don't feel like they will drive the USFA in the right direction, you DON'T THINK THEY ARE A GOOD CHOICE.

You can't actually have it both ways.

I think my brain got significantly dumber from reading the above.

The previous post emphasized qualifications of the candidates. Not the manner in which they would use them. It implied: "If you think the NomCom was qualified, why did you bring your own slate? Why not use what you got?"
It then implied that: "Since they obviously are qualified, but you don't think so, you are not justified to say that you can work well with others."

It was a limited set of options, to which I provided a possible alternative:

"They are well qualified, but they will use their skillset toward different goals than I"

Re-read this carefully: (jjeffries)

My understanding though is that the NomCom party represents the establishment and is largely made up of facilitators. By facilitators - AND I most certainly do not mean to disrespect anyone as they are vital to the sport - I am speaking of the people who are more interested in organizing the sport, running tournaments and the like. It's almost an entirely different world than fencing itself. As such they are greatly disturbed that the usual and approved method of selecting the leadership by an internally nominated slate is being challenged. Particularly as they feel they have worked long and hard to come up with the best leadership from their point of view. And that's before we bring in the question of persons. The USFFC party on the other hand - it seems to me - is more interested in the sport itself

[T]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

3) you feel the nominated candidates are qualified and good choices, but do not feel they will drive the USFA in the right direction.

yeah, what he said. Perhaps the phrasing should be that they are 'qualified candidates and good people'.

I have said from the very beginning that contesting the election had NOTHING to do with personalities or personally, who the other candidates were on the other slate or even that it was about where they want the organization to go. It is about direction and how to get there.

Facilitation is a good skill but in an organization of this size and budget, it is not likely to get you very far because you're constantly worried about stepping on toes, dividing up the fiefdoms for 'powerful' volunteers, and making decisions where someone might be unhappy (all we have to do is look at the USFA now to see an example of this). To move the organization forward, tough decisions will need to be made and I do not think that giving that charge to a committee is the best choice. The organizational system is broken -- it needs fixing -- committees can't/won't do it no matter how many times you ask them 'pretty-please'.

It's not the other candidates that we are challenging. After all, they are a product of the system (and the NC was bound to select candidates that were a product of the system) and it's the system and processes that the USFA relies on that will 'facilitate' the USFA down the same path it has been traveling down for 20 years.

Here is a classic committee response that was posted to the FIE thread a day or 2 ago (which took them 2 days to collectively to plan).

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Collective response from the NC-nominated candidates:

We are aware that our expertise and experience in the international arena is limited, and have begun to take steps to address this lack. We feel it is important that we be ready to make decisions promptly after the ballots are counted, should the results be in our favor.

While it is typical that the president serves as the delegate to the FIE congress, it is by no means required or necessary. Historically, for example, Chaba Palagy, Sam Cheris and Sunil Subharwal served as our delegates, as did Stacey Johnson and Nancy Anderson prior to their presidencies. Kalle is prepared to serve in this role; alternatively, we may ask someone with established ties in the international community to be our delegate. We are talking with people with experience in this area about their views of the FIE political scene, relationships with other federations, and how best to ensure that we continue to have significant influence internationally. This information will inform our decision concerning who to name to this post.

We also will meet with those who have an interest in serving immediately after the election and will make a decision soon thereafter so that that individual (if it is not Kalle) will be included in our conversations about international matters from the start. Whoever serves as our representative will be expected to consult with those who have knowledge and experience with the matters on the agenda in advance of the meeting, to have a clear understanding of the positions to be taken during the debate and during the voting, and to report promptly concerning all discussions and actions taken at the meeting.

And by the way, I see a noticeable lack of posting on this thread and other political threads by the NC slate lately... Did someone call a committee meeting?

[KD5MDK]

Does this mean you plan to replace Executive Committee meetings with Presidential authority to avoid these pitfalls and increase accountability?

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by ivlobane

3) you feel the nominated candidates are qualified and good choices, but do not feel they will drive the USFA in the right direction.

Originally Posted by ivlobane

"They are well qualified, but they will use their skill set toward different goals than I"

So you changed your post from being utterly stupid to legit. The second quote is distinctly NOT what you said the first time. If you do not feel they will drive the USFA in the right direction, then they cannot by definition be a good choice.

[ivlobane]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

So you changed your post from being utterly stupid t