New President's Biggest Job

[ivlobane]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

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

"Read the bylaws."

[seak]

As a side note to some of the comments on this thread: within an organization you can hold people responsible for what the organization has done, or you can spend 5 minutes looking at things and determine how those people voted, and what they tried to do, whether they were in the majority etc.

For instance in Congress, Republicans and Democrats have very different ideas about certain procedural rules, committee structure, where funding should go, and different political views (and that's within parties too). So when evaluating someone in Congress you have to look at their views and votes, not necessarily what Congress has done. Basically, just because someone is within an organization doesn't mean they don't want to change it, or agree with its current direction, or how it's currently being run.

In this case instead look at the BoD minutes (which Oiuyt has been helpfully posting here), see what types of reports they're writing, what they're proposing in those minutes, and then decide whether or not you agree with them.

Lumping them in with the current USFA is good politics for T, but not really informed voting for the rest of us.

[gorgie101]

Tracy, thanks for the response. Perhaps “fear” was not the best choice of words. It probably should have been more of a “concern”.

Epeemike did make a good point, one that had been in the back of my mind for a while. Why you didn’t just contest the president’s position after you were not nominated by the NC? You have not answered this question IMHO.

Originally Posted by T

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.

So selecting people that had a desire to run for office is a bad thing?

The above quote ties into the question that Epeemike asked. So far on this board you have been the only person from your “slate”, with the exception of August Skopik, that has posted on the forum. This fact, along with the fact that NONE of your “slate” expressed a desire to run for office prior to you recruiting them, makes it seem that YOU are calling all of the shots and that these ideas are all yours; with little if any input from your slates members. It seems that you only recruited these candidates to improve your chances of winning the election.

I would have had far more faith in your convictions had you simply ran against Kalle.

Originally Posted by T

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).

What is wrong with planning collectively? I do not see the collective responses as a negative thing. To me it shows that each of the NC candidates are willing to ensure they are all on the same page before committing to a response.

Originally Posted by T

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?

This part was entirely unnessesary and I suspect the product of poor planning.

Again these are just my thoughts on the subject.

J. Clements

[worldchamp03]

People either have (understandably) forgotten or do not know the history of the ED position. It was proposed around 1992 by the Strategic Planning Committee with the idea that the person be a good fundraiser for fencing. So the "fencers for change" (FFC) proposal is in line with this thinking. In the 1990s the USFA decided to hire a person from a large NGB (swimming) who had a good record in raising monies. However, that person failed to raise money for the USFA and was asked to resign. Eventually Mike Massik took the job, Carla Mae Richards retired and he ended up devoting a lot of time to the National Office and other tasks.

Therefore finding someone for ED to raise money is a return to the original good purpose envisioned for the position. The key is finding the right person for the job.

[epeemike81]

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 T

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

So, again I come back to a similar question... If you don't feel that they will drive the USFA in the right direction (to such a degree that you went out and recruited formerly disinterested candidates to run against them), then how can you be confident and not worried at all about your ability to work with them should a mixed slate be elected?

-m

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

recruited formerly disinterested candidates

-m

The USFA Bylaws do not specify that candidates selected by the NC are inherently superior to candidates who qualify by petition. We also should not make that assumption.

The fact that an individual did not submit themselves to be reviewed by the NC does not make an individual unsuited for office.

It's possible that candidates would only be motivated to seek office once after the NC candidates were announced. In fact, this is quite likely.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

The USFA Bylaws do not specify that candidates selected by the NC are inherently superior to candidates who qualify by petition. We also should not make that assumption.

I didn't.

The fact that an individual did not submit themselves to be reviewed by the NC does not make an individual unsuited for office.

nor did I ever make that claim.

It's possible that candidates would only be motivated to seek office once after the NC candidates were announced. In fact, this is quite likely.

Yet another statement which is unrelated to the question I asked. It is perfectly understandable that Tracy would after seeing the list of candidates recruit other candidates that she felt would be better. Where we run into trouble is trying to reconcile that with the statement that she would have no trouble and isn't worried at all about trying to work with the nominated candidates. If she doesn't think that the nominated candidates would have an effect on her ability to forward her agenda, then why go out of her way to recruit opponents? If she does think that they will hinder her attempts to forward her agenda, then how can she say that she isn't worried about working with a mixed result?

-m

[T]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

I didn't.
Where we run into trouble is trying to reconcile that with the statement that she would have no trouble and isn't worried at all about trying to work with the nominated candidates. If she doesn't think that the nominated candidates would have an effect on her ability to forward her agenda, then why go out of her way to recruit opponents? If she does think that they will hinder her attempts to forward her agenda, then how can she say that she isn't worried about working with a mixed result?

-m

In US Presidential elections, it is not uncommon for 2 candidates to compete quite aggressively in primaries and then join the same ticket for a general election as Pres and VP. It has happened quite a bit.

With that said, the only person that I see as not apparently willing to work with a diverse slate is you. I think that everyone on the ballot is adult enough to find common ground and work to solve problems to move the organization forward.

If you look at both slate's agendas, you will find a lot of common ground. We are not that far apart on what we see for the future. The difference is how we will get there and how long it will take. The goals are the same, the difference is in the process.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

Where we run into trouble is trying to reconcile that with the statement that she would have no trouble and isn't worried at all about trying to work with the nominated candidates. If she doesn't think that the nominated candidates would have an effect on her ability to forward her agenda, then why go out of her way to recruit opponents? If she does think that they will hinder her attempts to forward her agenda, then how can she say that she isn't worried about working with a mixed result?

-m

Originally Posted by T

In US Presidential elections, it is not uncommon for 2 candidates to compete quite aggressively in primaries and then join the same ticket for a general election as Pres and VP. It has happened quite a bit.

With that said, the only person that I see as not apparently willing to work with a diverse slate is you. I think that everyone on the ballot is adult enough to find common ground and work to solve problems to move the organization forward.

If you look at both slate's agendas, you will find a lot of common ground. We are not that far apart on what we see for the future. The difference is how we will get there and how long it will take. The goals are the same, the difference is in the process.

This is still unresponsive to the apparent inconsistency I mentioned.

luckily, as I'm not a candidate for anything, you need not worry about my willingness to work with you or anybody else.

-m

[Swordmaster]

Originally Posted by T

...The paid staff should be conducting the 'business of the USFA'....

I am involved with a cooperative through one of my businesses that has done just as T is suggesting the USFA do if she is elected.
This is what I can tell you from my experience with that cooperative:
Before the office of CEO was created the coop was run by the board with input from the ED and the committees functioned to advise the board on directions the coop should consider pursuing. The membership was given an opportunity to participate in this process twice a year at annual meeting where these final recommendations of the board where presented and voted on, by the membership.
After the PAID staff member got himself voted in as the CEO and President of the coop, (yes the chairman of the board, who was also the president of the cooperative gave up their title) the new CEO, who was previously the Chief Council, started advising the board to take certain action to protect it's self and informed them of their power to make resolutions without approval from the membership, because afterall they were the elected representatives of the membership; committee involvement was limited to members of the board, and the only involvement the membership now has, at large, is to elect the board. If they are fought on any issue - there is some reason found to get rid of those who are against the wishes of the CEO and the board.

That is why I don't agree that a organization founded and run by volunteers should seek to hire those "professionals" to do the jobs that can be done by those who are able from within the organization. Loss of oversight and control is easy when someone is not focused on the big picture, but on one tiny area.
WE

[ysbadadden]

And it's not just the Executive Director (and am I the only one who thinks that if we have trouble with the ED we should be considering Cialis?)
-- There are also all these absolutely crucial positions out there like Director of High Performance, Director of Sport Performance, and so on. Talk about lack of transparency -- if I Google "Director of High Performance" along with "US Fencing" I come up with no information on how this individual is selected, what he does, how he is compensated, etc. This is not a criticism of any actual Dir of HP; it's a question of how he's picked, how he's compensated, what he does. How are his actions made known to us lowly folk huddled outside the sacred precinct?
--Where's the accountability?
--What role does the president have in selecting and evaluating these folk and how does she propose to go about her task?

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by ysbadadden

if I Google "Director of High Performance" along with "US Fencing" I come up with no information on how this individual is selected, what he does, how he is compensated, etc.

Lack of a public web presence is not the same as lack of transparency. "Google" != "Information". (And Wikipedia is not a primary source, kids.) The web is still a fraction of the information that's out there.

Not that I think the USFA is particularly transparent, but the ups and downs of the USFA website and its usage of technology is a different (albeit related) issue.

[ysbadadden]

Originally Posted by tchwojko

Lack of a public web presence is not the same as lack of transparency. "Google" != "Information". (And Wikipedia is not a primary source, kids.) The web is still a fraction of the information that's out there. Not that I think the USFA is particularly transparent, but the ups and downs of the USFA website and its usage of technology is a different (albeit related) issue.

The reason that I Googled is that I expected the minutes of various committees or other bodies that discussed the Director of High Performance to be on the website. They aren't. And they aren't in American Fencing magazine. And they aren't distributed to members who attend national meetings.

I completely agree that Google isn't the totality of information. Point well taken. But in an organization that cared about making information public, the information should be Googlable. Or at least dittoed by a purple-fingered functionary who gets the info to someone who reports to me.

[arc]

Originally Posted by worldchamp03

People either have (understandably) forgotten or do not know the history of the ED position. It was proposed around 1992 by the Strategic Planning Committee with the idea that the person be a good fundraiser for fencing. So the "fencers for change" (FFC) proposal is in line with this thinking. In the 1990s the USFA decided to hire a person from a large NGB (swimming) who had a good record in raising monies. However, that person failed to raise money for the USFA and was asked to resign. Eventually Mike Massik took the job, Carla Mae Richards retired and he ended up devoting a lot of time to the National Office and other tasks.

Therefore finding someone for ED to raise money is a return to the original good purpose envisioned for the position. The key is finding the right person for the job.

Actually, just to set the dates & full history straight, the position of Executive Director was established in 1983, with Carla-Mae hired as the first ED at that time, shortly after the first National Office was formally established in 1982. Carla-Mae served in that position until 1994, with Ralph Zimmerman filling in as Interim ED in 1992 while Mrs. Richards took sick leave.

Selden Fritschner (who was formerly director of international programs for U.S. Swimming, and now is evidently affiliated with the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators) served as ED after Carla-Mae left in 1994 through February 1995, when Bill Goering took over as Interim ED until January 1996, when Mr. Massik took over.

It's my understanding that the establishment of the position was not with a principal eye towards fundraising, but towards management of the new National Office. I can't speak as to whether the ExComm of the day did, in fact, intend to shift the ED to engage in principally fundraising, it is apparent that whatever experiment begun with Mr. Fritschner in 1994 was extraordinarily short-lived, with the current holder of the position, Mr. Massik, being hired shortly thereafter.

[Goldgar]

Originally Posted by ysbadadden

The reason that I Googled is that I expected the minutes of various committees or other bodies that discussed the Director of High Performance to be on the website. They aren't.

Are you sure? There's a whole bunch of minutes available from the "Organizational Docs" section of the "Documents" section of the USFA website.

[KD5MDK]

Perhaps

"Google" != "Information".

is more true than many realize.