USFA Election 2008 Debate Question #8: USFA back payments

[IHateMrPotatohead]

Peet:

I totally and completely agree. (and I have to spread rep before giving it to you again!)

[peet]

Peet:

I totally and completely agree. (and I have to spread rep before giving it to you again!)

Except that I may have misread the offer. Looks like it's a $200 discount.

I'm still not sure that's a enough incentive for me, but it's something at least.

-p

[teacup]

...The meet in Portland, one of the only NAC's I have been to this year was fabulous. Part of it was due to the LOC but a huge part was due to Christine Simmons and staff. They work year round and leave their families to make sure that the NAC meets are held in places that are accessable and cost efficient to as many fencers, even UNRATED fencers as possible....The Momster

I too, love Christine Simmons and the wonderful people in the office and all of the hordes of volunteers.

With that stated, I don't know if my post was missed because no one wanted to comment or it was overlooked due to later posts but I am still curious, was the NAC F in Portland profitable?

Nac F
If the expectation was to pay overdue expenses from NAC's, I do not know the details, but I can't imagine that the April NAC made a huge profit on a four day event with 44 strips, refs, etc. seeing the number of fencers that attended.

Now maybe it did make money but even so, when it was realized that the April NAC was going to be small relative to the venue and strips, etc, why didn't the TC suggest adding a Div IA or other event to make additional revenue?

Maybe I am wrong and the NAC in Portland made lots of money and maybe no group is responsible for staying within a budget and therefore that would include the TC, but why did the Tournament Committee which I believe is headed by Kalle Weeks, not anticipate that the turnout might be small since it was the Div I championships and with an extra SYC and the SN's also on the West Coast, the youth turnout might be lower?

Anticipating low turnout, couldn't the TC have scheduled all of the Div I team events, the day after the individual events to encourage participation? Or in order to save costs schedule a three day event instead of four?

If it was too late to change the convention dates, or if they didn't anticipate low turnout, once it was known why weren't additional events scheduled to increase revenue? Of course, only if there were enough refs, strips, etc. but if there was, I think there would be lots of A/B Senior fencers willing to attend an event on relatively short notice. (Div IA, II or III have no national point involved.)

(And maybe anticipating turnout isn't the responsibility of the tournament committee and there is some rule somewhere stating that no additional tournaments can be added.)

Did anyone on the TC who may have known about the financial problems of the USFA, attempt to curtail expenses if a loss was anticipated or increase revenue to help pay expenses, for the event in Portland?

Is the TC, and the coaches, etc. responsible to stay within their budgets? Or maybe the TC has no control over scheduling? Which could be possible if it is up to the BOD or president or whoever. Please excuse my ignorance as to the exact responsibilities or each group, I am just curious, trying to understand how things work.

(Or maybe this question should be moved somewhere to questions about ways to restructure and reorganize future national tournament scheduling.)

[oiuyt]

And you can believe this (or not) if you want, that I really wasn't referring to you about the knowledge hoarding behavior.

I don't know whether or not Greg will believe you. I don't see how the following can be dismissed as "poorly worded", rather than a direct reference to Greg and/or his behavior:

What is so interesting about this type of behavior among people who hoard the knowledge is that if they just leak a little bit of this knowledge out, people are so excited that they forget that 95% of the info is still missing -- safely tucked away until another time when it will be advantageous to release it.

The kind of response that people give when a little bit of knowledge is given out is something like this:

Wow! Greg, thanks for an excellent post! Keep up the good work.

While I think that the explanation that Greg provided was good - the basis for his plan is information that no one else has access to. So, of course gorgie101 and others are going to be grateful for the morsels being dished out.

[SNIP]

Hmmm... knowledge hoarding behavior? I wonder if the Budget & Finance committee were on the conference call with the Audit Committee (and their report) this past Saturday?

Speaking completely for myself, in my personal role, I was upset by T's post. Despite the fact that nothing in it seemed directed at me, as an individual.

I don't feel that paychecks or political power are even close to near the top of my list of reasons why I volunteer for the USFA. I think that this is a gross over-simplification of the huge number of motivations present in the thousands of volunteers and near-volunteers in the Association and one that disparages the contributions willingly given.

Whether or not I'm one of Tracy's "knowledge hoarders" -- I'll let my record answer that -- the REST of her post still offends me.

To save Mr. Epee's delicate sensibilities, I've deleted an account of what I DO feel motivates my volunteering.

-B

[Utility Man]

There have been several comments about some of the members of the NomCom not posting to this site. I have been one who has not. It might suprise people but this is not everyones favorite form of communication. Typing (yes typing not keyboarding) was the only class I failed in highschool. All of us have things we do well and other things we don't. I am much better at communicating face to face than typing.

I have been watching very closely this thread on the USFA election because I like the other members of our slate want to know what the membership is thinking and asking. What you feel and think is important to us. Enabling this this to happen is why all of us decided to serve. Why are we posting as a team? In our opinion it will take a team and not just one person to get this organization back on it's feet, start caring about and serving it's members, and to put us back on tract. This is why we have mostly let Greg, Brad, and Mark convey to you our ideas and solutions to the myriad of problems the USFA is now facing. We all felt we were nominated to make changes. It may not be in the title of our group but we are also all about change. Little did we know the extent of the problems but my experience with the current EC for the last 4 years showed me one thing for sure. If that group can not work together strongly we will end up where we currently are, whole system fails. Imagine if we tacked on 4 more years. No matter how hard some of us on the BOD tried to hold it together or to make changes the infighting amoung the EC members was able to keep us off track. Some are saying that it is only the Pres. position that is important to think about. I disagree because the leadership and knowledge of a team is greater that that of any one person. I know Kalle understands this and I assume T does also. Any leader who thinks they have the sole power and right to control everything is not a leader but a dictator. This election can not be about the power of any one person but about who can moblize the membership to once again believe in this organization and be willing to help us get out of this mess we are in. Not to cry wolf but I totally believe we could be looking at the end of the USFA if we don't make some big changes and soon. No one person can do this at the level and speed we need. It is going to take the work of all of us, members, officers, staff, and those pesky self serving volunteers.

Now for the reasons I thought I had to change my lurking status to that of a poster. Two things, one T's post on Knowledge Management and August's attempt to personally attack me.

One:
[QUOTE=T "The applied theory of Knowledge Management suggests several things. People who work or volunteer for an organization do so for a variety of reasons. Some are truly altruistic and the intrinsic satisfaction from helping your fellow man (or woman) is motivation enough (and kudos to those individuals). However, that accounts for a VERY small percentage of the motivations behind human behavior. In reality, people volunteer or work for an organization with the intention of getting something in return whether it be a paycheck or political power (or a little of both). When an organization that doesn't pay a competitive market wage (such as most nonprofit organizations), employees will develop strategies that provide them with the motivations to do their job (since they could obviously make more money in a for-profit organization)."

How can some one want to be president of an organization who believes that the majority the volunteers in that organization are and will only do what they do for organization for power or money. This may be true in T's world but in mine there are others who have different motivations. In my many years of working with the grassroots people of this organization I have found by far the majority do what they do because of the love and passion they have for this sport. I assure you that all the members on the slate with me have this as their motivation. I will let my and their records over the last several years and especially recently speak to the truth of that statement. We are not about power or money. Many of you posting or lurking know me and know one of the things I have always done is to enable others to excell so that they can take over positions I have. At my age I have learned that power is a drug that causes illusions. The more you want it and try to take it the more you want. You may start out thinking your motives are rightous but that is soon replaced by the addiction. I think those are the few people T is talking about. Yes they are out there and I have seen them but I believe they are not the majority in our membership. So T. I am very proud to call myself a volunteer and I assure you my love and passion is stronger than any of your power or money.


Two: Auggie. You know what, I think I will just let those who have responded to your made up accusations about my voting record pretty well be my response. Again please show me any minutes or any witness attending your divisional meetings where I attended and voted against you being allowed to have a sanctioned competition. This is just last minute politics and a huge smokscreen hiding the truth. Oh I will answer your question just in case you are confused NO I AM NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENTAL FENCING!!!! To you even suggesting this and falsely (even you own "proof" does not show it) accuse me of it is a character statement IMO. If anyone wants to know the difference in electing Jerry Benson and August and how we will conduct ourselves and relate to the membership please read the thread Voting Record.

I apologize for the length of this and by the way it took me over an hour to be able to type this (and OMG there is no spell checker). I will probably go back to lurking and continue working closely with the other members of my slate (yep volunteers every one) trying to address your real concerns and hopes for this organization we ALL (yep probably even members of the other group) love and have a passion for.

JB

[Mike Ross]

Please move discussion of the lifetime reimbursement membership to the following location:

USFA Lifetime Membership for Tournament Officals

[Mr Epee]

To save Mr. Epee's delicate sensibilities, I've deleted an account of what I DO feel motivates my volunteering.

-B

Thank you.

"I'm sensitive and I'd like to stay that way" - Jewel

I still don't get why you guys are so mad.

This is silly... grow up.

[KD5MDK]

Other than that it questions the candidate's personal integrity, you have a point.

[Mr Epee]

Other than that it questions the candidate's personal integrity, you have a point.

Politicians? Integrity?

What???

[T]

This statement is extremely disingenuous. Nothing like condemning an entire organization.

The meet in Portland, one of the only NAC's I have been to this year was fabulous. Part of it was due to the LOC but a huge part was due to Christine Simmons and staff. They work year round and leave their families to make sure that the NAC meets are held in places that are accessable and cost efficient to as many fencers, even UNRATED fencers as possible.

Wow, Portland NAC...held in places that are accessable and cost efficient... hmmm...Most of us would probably consider this to be true if a NAC was held 15 mins from our house (even if was the worst run event of the year - and I'm not saying that it was).

My oh my, talk about lightening up. Yes, it was a generic statement. And it was directed at a few people and policies -- Christine Simmons, Corrinne Greenman were not included in that list but I can name several people that ruin it for a lot of fencers.

There has also been some financial relief in the form of PEA checks too that many of the fencers have been receiving.

Great, maybe we will have one in the mail when I get home.

There are business cycles. The US is in a recession and everyone is suffering. That is actually NOT the USFA's fault.

huh?

Aren't you just a bit thrilled by the power you have from your two daughters making world teams and you yourself being taken seriously due to their accomplishments?

I, unlike you, was a fencer long before my kids became successful. My kids didn't earn my Ph.D and my kids don't run a College of Business. I have not once suggested that my kids' successes are a valid reason for running for president although I have said that it gives me a different perspective than others may have (so, it is relevant). If my only credentials to be president were that my kids are successful fencers, I would hope that no one would take me seriously.

What I am not thrilled about are biased decisions and behaviors made by people without any explanation that, on the surface, appear to be unfair and motivated by power. This is not just at the national level but it is entrenched at the divisional and sectional levels too. Is that everyone in the USFA front office, BoD, and Exec Committee, etc.? No but I bet many of them know who (or the type of people) I'm talking about.

[dcrocket]

How can some one want to be president of an organization who believes that the majority the volunteers in that organization are and will only do what they do for organization for power or money. This may be true in T's world but in mine there are others who have different motivations. In my many years of working with the grassroots people of this organization I have found by far the majority do what they do because of the love and passion they have for this sport.

JB

YES!!!

[T]

OK. I apologize to everyone who ever volunteered for the USFA. All people who volunteer or work for the USFA belong to that group of people that are truly engaged in altruistic behavior. I sincerely hope that everyone offended accepts my sincere apology. We all love the sport and are trying to make it better by our efforts.

I was making generalization from research that used samples that were not fencers. Perhaps in the area of fencing and fencing organizations, the true altruistic individuals make up larger percent and those that are aligned more with the power-seeking behavior make up the smaller percent.

So, let me hypothesize a different scenario: the generalizations I made before applies to 5% of the volunteers and workers. It just seems like it is more pervasive because those 5% get in powerful positions that affect the other 95% of us. We all know who many of these 5% of the people are (and they aren't any of the members of the other slate of candidates).

[KatyFencing]

Dear Jerry,

I am glad you are not against developmental fencing. What are your ideas in dealing with the situations we have in the Southwest Section? You were our USFA Rep, and you are aware of the problems. You were the person that Nancy referred me to when the issues first came up. Nothing was done or suggested.

Do you support the idea of the USFA being able to sanction tournaments from the national office using a checks and balances system? The issue we have now is that we have the potential for for-profit clubs and individuals ruling against other not-for-profit and for-profit clubs hosting tournaments. The Gulf Coast Division is not the only division this happening in. Do you or the NomCom have a solution for it?

[tchwojko]

I was making generalization from research that used samples that were not fencers. Perhaps in the area of fencing and fencing organizations, the true altruistic individuals make up larger percent and those that are aligned more with the power-seeking behavior make up the smaller percent.

So, let me hypothesize a different scenario: the generalizations I made before applies to 5% of the volunteers and workers. It just seems like it is more pervasive because those 5% get in powerful positions that affect the other 95% of us. We all know who many of these 5% of the people are (and they aren't any of the members of the other slate of candidates).

There seems to be a tendency here to make sweeping general statements without details and facts that apply the specific situations. I make this generalization from just observing 5% of the threads and the posts that I happen to recall, but those are the ones that seem to make the most accusations of motive and bias.

I apologize if anyone takes offense.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Whether or not I'm one of Tracy's "knowledge hoarders" -- I'll let my record answer that -- the REST of her post still offends me. -B

As far as I'm concerned, Brad is the anti-hoarder, which is why I'm thrilled he was unopposed. Not that it would have been a tough vote to decide...

[FencingKitten]

Dear Jerry,

I am glad you are not against developmental fencing. What are your ideas in dealing with the situations we have in the Southwest Section? You were our USFA Rep, and you are aware of the problems. You were the person that Nancy referred me to when the issues first came up. Nothing was done or suggested.

Do you support the idea of the USFA being able to sanction tournaments from the national office using a checks and balances system? The issue we have now is that we have the potential for for-profit clubs and individuals ruling against other not-for-profit and for-profit clubs hosting tournaments. The Gulf Coast Division is not the only division this happening in. Do you or the NomCom have a solution for it?

Relative to USFA back-payments how?

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread derailment.

[arc]

I was making generalization from research that used samples that were not fencers. . . . So, let me hypothesize a different scenario: the generalizations I made before applies to 5% of the volunteers and workers. It just seems like it is more pervasive because those 5% get in powerful positions that affect the other 95% of us. We all know who many of these 5% of the people are (and they aren't any of the members of the other slate of candidates).

There seems to be a tendency here to make sweeping general statements without details and facts that apply the specific situations. I make this generalization from just observing 5% of the threads and the posts that I happen to recall, but those are the ones that seem to make the most accusations of motive and bias.

"No generalisation is wholly true -- including this one."

-- Benjamin Disraeli

[tchwojko]

"No generalisation is wholly true -- including this one."

-- Benjamin Disraeli

I've had some wine and now I have no idea if you got the intent of my post or not. I also will probably be using the "edit" button tomorrow if I continue posting messages.

[Inquartata]

Obviously we can do this either by cutting costs or by raising revenues.

Or, hopefully, both, insofar as possible...

However, I don't think that air fares are going to go down next year.

Or transportation costs for all those crates one sees being trundled about on the first and last days of NACs...

...some of the revenue sources (USOC and US Fencing Foundation) are restricted to only these programs, and, in fact, to specific line items within them.

This leads me to ask whether these mandatory uses of these funds force the expenditure of regular USFA funds. That is, if USOC money must be spent on X, Y and Z, are there expenses ancillary to X, Y and Z on which those monies cannot be spent, but must still be paid from some source?

So... it's likely that we'll need to raise revenues. This could involve some combination of increasing membership dues (above the $10 that is already scheduled), increasing tournament fees,

This is what I've said whenever someone complains that "NACs are too large". We operate in a market economy. If you want to reduce the quantity demanded of your product, nothing will do it like increasing the price. Two birds with one stone, depending on where the USFA is on its cost and revenue curves...I doubt we are maximizing profit.

And we have heard so much from Kalle? If we follow your logic...

Don't look now, but your tu quoque clock is striking.

Really, you know, "Well, they do it TOO!" is not a particularly useful ( or convincing ) answer...

However, I for one do not take either person to task for not spending their doubtless valuable time feeding the voracious Question Machine which this forum has become. Some people have lives, after all. ( Not me, of course. )

[oso97]

This leads me to ask whether these mandatory uses of these funds force the expenditure of regular USFA funds. That is, if USOC money must be spent on X, Y and Z, are there expenses ancillary to X, Y and Z on which those monies cannot be spent, but must still be paid from some source?

Well, the cost of referees to World Cups has to come from somewhere, for example.

I think that some portion of this cost should come from the budget of the Weapon Squad attending the event.