USFA Election 2008 Debate Question #8: USFA back payments

[CadetVet]

I don't mind that you keep trying to recycle ideas that have already been studied (fixed stipends, a USFA-owned central tournament location, active.com, etc., etc.). The problem is that you don't seem to bother to even inquire what conclusions were reached by the previous study(ies). What worked? What didn't? What show-stopper or potential show-stoppers were identified? What didn't work but might if we changed things slightly like this?

Without taking that step you're throwing away experience and virtually guaranteeing that we'll hit predictable brick walls. But in this case at full speed, rather than on a limited experimental basis.

In the two whole weeks that I've been Section Chair-elect, I have been told by various parties within my section what will, and more importantly, what will not work. What is interesting about this is they each say that the other person's approach "can't work." If I took the lead of each of these very experience cadres, I would be forced to do nothing - as nothing would work.

My point is that we have to try something and get out of this approach that nothing can be changed. Pilots are instructive, certainly, but they can also be used to torpedo otherwise workable plans (it all depends on who participates). I think we're at the point where taking a few calculated risks are in order.

If it were me, I'd do the following:

Cap referee reimbursement in the following way: Get the lowest fares from each market to the venue city 4 weeks out and set that as the cap for people flying from such cities. It will require an hour or two of time on Kayak, but it will give us a fair cost - and will encourage even earlier booking and bargain hunting by our cadre.

As said earlier, I'd take the risk on AskFred/FencingTime. It's part of the family. If it sucks, there will be a bunch of ticked off people hunting for Peet and Dan (a great incentive to make it not suck - right Peet/Dan?).

I'd raise the event (not the registration) fee by 20/event.

I'd raise the entry fee by 20 and provide a really cool t-shirt with it (idea from previous posts)

I'd contact a hotel chain - Marriott, Hilton - and see if we can get a long term deal on space. In Europe, I'd look to work with Ibis and try to steer people there.

I'd contact Southwest and see if we can get beneficial terms on reservations (allowing for last-minute travel, etc.) and use Southwest fares as the reimbursement fare in markets that they serve. (Pretty much everywhere except for Dallas, Atlanta and Mpls... sorry).

I'd use a USFA-contracted travel agent to do the international coaches travel. We don't need to route coaches through their hometowns in Balukistan at double the cost.

I'd look to bring Starbucks in as the official provider of caffeine to the referee and bout committee cadres. If not them, Dunkin Donuts. That there has rarely been all-day coffee at venues is a travesty!

I'd start polishing up some of our superstars. Nearly every carmaker now has an "aura" car - one that brings people into the showroom. They come to look at the Corvette but leave with the Malibu. Same with fencing - let's get our top athletes (our Corvettes) in the media - we make a lot more money on Malibus.

Will all of this work? No. Most of it? Probably not. Some of it? Definitely. But we can all sit here reading our Ouiji boards, flipping our Tarot cards and counting our tea leaves and say that they wont work - instead of getting out there and trying it.

But a pilot cannot be one event - it's got to be an entire season - after all, any change has to be given time to settle in. We need to have realistic expectations with regard to success - and be a little tolerant of failure - to move forward.

After all, every trip begins with a stumble.

[oiuyt]

Okay, now that I've dealt with the issue I have with your method, let's actually look at the proposal.

Here it would be useful to have the input of one or more participants from the pilot program. I've sent email to a couple of people I believe were in it and will bring their feedback to the discussion once I hear back.

For now I'll just play Devil's Advocate and try to identify potential concerns.

First, short-term is defined as less than 1 year. As I mentioned above, this type of program would need to be phased-in and it could not happen until the overall financial situation was better (unless we could find a financial instrument that allowed refs to charge things to an account that was not exactly a pre-paid credit card but could be used in a similar fashion). However, it might be possible to develop and implement the phase-in toward the end of next season.

Mmmm, your website identifies this as a cost containment/cutting proposal for 2008-2009. I assumed that meant that you intended for it to contain or cut costs during the rapidly-approaching season.

Let me clarify what is intended for the fixed rate payment system. It is based on 4 ideas:
1) a sliding scale will be developed based on venue location/referee location that reflects a market-rate for travel

I think we have different definitions of "fixed".

I think I (and everyone else following the discussion) need WAY more specifics of how you (or Sharol?) are proposing to structure the process to set this sliding scale.

2) payments (for at least the airfare and hotel) will be 'paid upfront' which will mean that refs are not out-of-pocket for the 'volunteer' efforts.
3) exceptions to the rule can be made if last minute travel is necessitated by last minute cancellations from referees who had accepted to invitation as we don't want a cancellation to negatively affect the quality of refs
4) referees will have a choice to travel as they want and stay where they want (even at the host hotel) as they will be able to prioritize what they want based on a cost-savings model that will benefit them directly.

Other than the referee being able to pocket potential savings I don't see a change from current practice here.

The stipend will include:
1) geographic-based travel expense (if the event is held in SoCal then refs from SoCal will receive a significantly less amount for the 'travel' portion of the stipend than a ref that is coming from NY).
2) the usual honorarium that is paid to refs based on the rating
3) hotel expense (equal to 1/2 of the host hotel rate)
4) the usual food stipend.

Okay, so it IS exactly like what we have now, but with a geographic-based travel expense (more on that below) in place of the actual costs of the airfare.

Benefits from the USFA end
1) cost control - travel and hotel will be based on a market rate (approx 1 month in advance)
2) eliminating travel agent fees
3) this program has a much broader impact if NACs are smaller, require fewer refs, and are more geographically dispersed (and therefore able to take advantage of more local/regional refs).

Benefits from the Ref end
1) Refs get to prioritize what they prefer and can make decisions based on that preference (ie., they can stay at the host hotel or pocket the difference if they choose to stay at a cheaper hotel; they can take a cheaper flight if they have flexibility in their travel schedule).

USFA benefits:

1) Travel and hotel are set "on a market rate". Not the ACTUAL cost that the market charges (that's what we do currently), but a "market rate" that's artificially set some other way.

2) Conceded. And I frequently booked my own travel to avoid this very fee until the reimbursement periods finally stretched too far for me to be willing to continue carrying airfare, as of the beginning of this season. I can routinely find airfare within $5 of that found by the USFA's travel agent, prior to the $37 fee. It's rare that the TA books me on flights other than those I've already identified (I still spend considerable time to find the cheapest options that fit; being allowed to pocket the savings isn't a motivator for me, I'll do that work anyway to save the Association the money).

3) Having refs from nearby should have the same effect on the costs whether actual costs are paid or a pre-set stipend. This is irrelevant to the case you're making.

Ref benefits:

1) Oops, we can already do this. I think the benefit that you meant to include was that a referee can find a way to squeeze a bit of additional profit out of the volunteer service if s/he is good at playing the travel game and the USFA doesn't set the stipend low enough that any non-optimal ref gets tagged with an extra charge.

Okay, some obvious issues with the proposal:

Housing. Many of the NACs that I attend I'm roomed with my wife (also a high-level referee). When she can't go due to work commitments I still know that I'll be with SOMEONE. I don't have to worry about calling all of my acquantances around the country to find another singleton. Or worry about receiving half the room rate for a room I'm paying all of. Fortunately, I have many other contacts in the world of tournament officials. Woe is the new referee who DOESN'T have dozens of people to check with to find a roommate.

It also disregards the fact that the USFA officials rooms are frequently billed at a rate below market (and below the THS rates). Or that the USFA receives comp'd rooms that reduce that further.

(Incidently, a little-known benefit occurs when the USFA ends up with more comp rooms than needed for officials and they randomly select one or more USFA members staying in the host hotel and cover their room charges.)

Travel.

Geographic-based travel stipends. This MIGHT be a workable solution if travel costs were predictable based on distance or other easily-identifiable criteria.

Then again, I attended (as a referee, referee/fencer, or coach/fencer) every national tournament this season with the exception of Rosemont. I drove to Richmond and flew everywhere else. In all cases traveling from Philadelphia. My least expensive flight was Portland. Atlanta, which would be a reasonable choice if we were "regionalizing" NACs, was one of the most expensive.

Okay, so what are the goals of the process? To contain or cut costs.

This can be accomplished by a fixed stipend in one of three ways:
* If currently some officials use excessively-priced options
* If the amount given as reimbursement to officials is lower than the reasonably-priced options currently used.
* Officials are choosing good, but slightly sub-optimal choices. There's a little bit of slack without actually cutting into what we give the officials.

The first case has an easier solution. Pay attention. We already require approval prior to booking. That approval starts with the travel agent and is back-stopped by a check at the National Office. If we have people that are routinely costing us too much through excessive charges both of these checks are somehow failing. Fix the problem. And if there are referees who routinely STILL have an issue even after the checks on them are made effective deal with those special cases.

The second solution effectively boils down to finding a way to squeeze money out of the corps of officials. We'll intentionally set the stipend below what is reasonable in order to cut costs.

The third solution is the only one that might be reasonable. Really it's a mild case of the first example. If referees are intentionally spending more just because they don't care ("enh, it's not MY money") that's the problem. Officials should treat the travel costs as if it's their money. "How would I travel if _I_ were paying." Maybe I live in an idealized bubble, but that's already how I make my decisions. I'm a big fan of capitalizism, and I can readily believe that some other people put a lower priority on saving the USFA money. There might be a small margin here that can be exploited in some cases.

Of course in the third case if the excess is because the official just isn't as good at finding bargins then it becomes a second-case situation, rather than a third-case and we're penalizing the official. More frequently, if the official has a restricted schedule (as many professionals or students will) we're extraordinarily likely to turn this into a second-case situation and we'll start taking the savings out of the official.

Now while trying to set reasonable fixed stipends we have to play a balancing game. Too high and we're leaving money on the table (or rather adding extra costs in the form of a hidden bonus to the referees). Too low and we'll save money, but quickly run out of officials willing to work for the reduced compensation. Best guess is that we'll lurch back and forth between the two cases unpredictably, while spending very little time in the sweet spot where officials are at worst not disadvantaged, while the Association still spends less.

There may be legal ramifications behind the change in how reimbursements are handled. We'd need to consult with a taxation specialist to confirm that we either haven't changed the taxable status of this money or are willing to accept whatever changes have been incurred.

Now a fixed stipend might very well be an improvement over what we have now. There's a reason that Greg suggested it a couple of years ago and we started a pilot program. I could probably write at least as strong a post taking the pro- side. Without even looking at the pilot experience to see if any of the above concerns were actualized, or others identified, is foolish.

-B

[oiuyt]

In the two whole weeks that I've been Section Chair-elect, I have been told by various parties within my section what will, and more importantly, what will not work. What is interesting about this is they each say that the other person's approach "can't work." If I took the lead of each of these very experience cadres, I would be forced to do nothing - as nothing would work.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself sufficiently clearly.

I'm not saying that we should always go with the "that can't be done" or "we did that 8 (10, 15, 30) years ago and it's horrible!" crowd. We SHOULD always examine those experiences to see WHY we chose not to go that way. Does it still apply? Do we have a way of modifying what we tried before to come up with an improved solution?

Ignoring information from past experience is NOT a good way of ensuring good decision-making. It's quite likely to lead to the opposite, in fact.

As a younger member of the group of people that are involved in various ways with national decision-making, I frequently come up with approaches that are different from what we're currently doing. Sometimes this results in better methods because I'm coming from a less constrained perspective. Sometimes my ideas are things that have already been shown to fail for some non-obvious reason. There needs to be a balance. The new ideas (and "new" ideas) can benefit from seeing what has been previously tried.

A lot of this boils down to asking "Why?"

"Why do we do things this way?" (and "because we've ALWAYS done things this way" is generally NOT a good answer!)

"Why don't we do it this way?"

"Why did we stop doing it that way?"

"What problems did we encounter when we did this some other way that's similar to my theorized solution?"

Come up with ideas. Use past experience to help sanity-filter them. Then put them into small-scale trials (aka pilot programs). Evaluate. When we find improvements, actually start putting them into practice (entirely too often good ideas are identified, tested, approved, and then ignored).

-B

[CadetVet]

Perhaps I didn't explain myself sufficiently clearly.

I'm not saying that we should always go with the "that can't be done" or "we did that 8 (10, 15, 30) years ago and it's horrible!" crowd. We SHOULD always examine those experiences to see WHY we chose not to go that way. Does it still apply? Do we have a way of modifying what we tried before to come up with an improved solution?

Ignoring information from past experience is NOT a good way of ensuring good decision-making. It's quite likely to lead to the opposite, in fact.

As a younger member of the group of people that are involved in various ways with national decision-making, I frequently come up with approaches that are different from what we're currently doing. Sometimes this results in better methods because I'm coming from a less constrained perspective. Sometimes my ideas are things that have already been shown to fail for some non-obvious reason. There needs to be a balance. The new ideas (and "new" ideas) can benefit from seeing what has been previously tried.

A lot of this boils down to asking "Why?"

"Why do we do things this way?" (and "because we've ALWAYS done things this way" is generally NOT a good answer!)

"Why don't we do it this way?"

"Why did we stop doing it that way?"

"What problems did we encounter when we did this some other way that's similar to my theorized solution?"

Come up with ideas. Use past experience to help sanity-filter them. Then put them into small-scale trials (aka pilot programs). Evaluate. When we find improvements, actually start putting them into practice (entirely too often good ideas are identified, tested, approved, and then ignored).

-B

Brad:

My concern with pilots is that they often don't scale properly - plus one looses the "strike when the iron is hot" benefit of moving more boldly. To a certain extent, it depends on which project we're talking about.

For example, online registration should be at a NAC for pilot purposes - no question. If the system breaks, we need to have backup and we need to fix it.

On the other hand, a change to the reimbursement structure has to be imposed for the entire season. Like anything else, there will be perceived winners and losers, and the losers will - the first few times - be overwhelmingly vocal and obstructive.

Other proposals run the gamut, but I don't think that everything can be piloted - things need the opportunity to reach equilibrium before the final judgment can be made.

A good analogy is timing in foil/sabre. To many, an unmitigated disaster. But to the rest of the community, it is something to adjust to - and some actually benefitted from it. I doubt a pilot would have changed that result.

G

[mdstasinos]

[QUOTE=T;693449]
5) Do you have an studies or evidence that reducing the size of National Tournaments would be more cost effective, as opposed to just reducing our economies of scale? Right now we concentrate of 4 day tournaments where shipping and airfare is amortized across 4 days. If we go with more frequent tournaments, our volunteers don't have the time to spend on tournaments of equal length, therefore they will have to be shortened to 3 or 2 day events, which doubles the cost/day of shipping and airfare.



Food for thought!
A number of years ago when I was chair of the TC, as a committee examined the Idea of splitting the tournaments up In to weapons weekends, having multiple smaller sites and ran the numbers.
This is what you had then: For one NAC weekend with junior/senior=men's/women's foil, saber and epee, You as a coordinator needed 46 strips, (remember this was a few years ago) we still looked for 100,000 sq. ft. convention center, have them throw in for free, (if Possible and not always so), tables, chairs, power, phone stations, extension cords, and ice for the trainer. I am sure I have forgotten one or two items. Then we dealt with the logistics of equipment needed for that event, shipping, delivery, set up, maintaining, take down, repair packing and shipping and storing the said equipment. Then it was the shipping of all the support equipment for the event: computers, printers, weights, shims watches, files, forms, all registration materials, awards, etc. Then you need set up crews, take down crews, runners, technicians, bout committee personal, BC chair, FOC assigners, and referees. That is for the course of 12 events in four days.
If you were to spread that over three regions and did it for each weapon, potentially your numbers would be less but the cost to run the events in the current model would be elevated. Here's why: let's say we are doing junior/senior foil in three regions of the country. Let's say the cost of the venue is half and the number of strips are 24. if the fall on the same weekend you would be required to have 72 strips available in total for the events to be held, in addition to all the scoring equipment, personal,etc., as listed above. In theory if the equipment was available in three areas of the country in prime locations, it would still have to be shipped and reshipped after the event. Multiple this with the other weapons if also held on a two day weekend for the event and the cost for running the events would soon triple, if not greater, for the same weekend as a 4 day NAC. Your requirements for personal would have to be greatly relaxed to get enough to cover multiple events in multiple areas of the country.
If you are then considering regionalizing the events, then is there going to be a need for the NAC's? In current time that could break our current system to require both. When we did our study it was first built on the ability to do it cost effective, next looking at our current staffing requirements, and potential numbers to run such events. I would suggest if you want to develop this country to have the ability to run multiple regional type events at the same time, this will not be done without extensive planning, financial analysis, a true time table for implementation, coordination of supportive staff for the event, and pilot testing.
Our main product is our National events. Contrary to what Tracy believes, they do not all run in the red. This is our product and it has come a long way since Tracy or I started fencing back in the 70's. Can they be improved? Yes!! But you better elect individuals that are current with the needs and requirements those events before you put someone in that will damage it and create more expense as a result. We looked at fixed locations or centers and again, yes, it would benefit some but it would still disadvantage most of the members unless you place centers around the country and the likelyhood of doing that in the near future is nil to none. Again, as Brad has stated, much of the research and work has been done, many of the potential ideas and many of the pitfalls of those have been addressed. It is better to learn from the efforts that have been exercised than to waste time and effort to recreate the same outcomes. Elect those who have worked to and have improve your national events, those with this experience, who have taken their time to serve and assist in all levels in our association.
My last comment is ditto to everything brad wrote.
MD Stasinos
http://www.usfanominees.com

[T]

Note that everything mentioned above are all proposals and are where the discussions start – they are not necessarily where the discussions end. I encourage you to examine the proposals. Make suggestions for improvement; provide constructive criticisms; explore additional ideas and bring those to the table.

Then again, I'm not out pushing it as a top solution.

Not solution...but proposal (there is a big difference).

So what WAS my point then?

I don't mind that you keep trying to recycle ideas that have already been studied (fixed stipends, a USFA-owned central tournament location, active.com, etc., etc.). The problem is that you don't seem to bother to even inquire what conclusions were reached by the previous study(ies). What worked? What didn't? What show-stopper or potential show-stoppers were identified? What didn't work but might if we changed things slightly like this?

Without taking that step you're throwing away experience and virtually guaranteeing that we'll hit predictable brick walls. But in this case at full speed, rather than on a limited experimental basis.

-B

I'm not making decisions here. Again, these are proposals and as I have said many times, this is where the discussions begin...not where they end. Does research need to be done? Sure. Should we examine examples (or pilot studies) that have been conducted. Of course. I'm not advocating throwing out all of our collective knowledge. That would be absurd. Do I have all of the answers? No. Do you have all of the answers? No. Am I willing to discuss things and compromise? Always. But as CadetVet says:

In the two whole weeks that I've been Section Chair-elect, I have been told by various parties within my section what will, and more importantly, what will not work. What is interesting about this is they each say that the other person's approach "can't work." If I took the lead of each of these very experience cadres, I would be forced to do nothing - as nothing would work.

My point is that we have to try something and get out of this approach that nothing can be changed. Pilots are instructive, certainly, but they can also be used to torpedo otherwise workable plans (it all depends on who participates). I think we're at the point where taking a few calculated risks are in order.

If it were me, I'd do the following:

Cap referee reimbursement in the following way: Get the lowest fares from each market to the venue city 4 weeks out and set that as the cap for people flying from such cities. It will require an hour or two of time on Kayak, but it will give us a fair cost - and will encourage even earlier booking and bargain hunting by our cadre.

Excellent point. We don't need to fight about it. Discussion; learn; adjust; compromise; make a decision and move forward; learn from our mistakes; make adjustments; move forward again.

Our website makes specific proposals...not specific decisions. We start at point A in an attempt to solve a serious problem. Point A might not work as proposed and modifications might need to be made leading to Decision B.

As said earlier, I'd take the risk on AskFred/FencingTime. It's part of the family. If it sucks, there will be a bunch of ticked off people hunting for Peet and Dan (a great incentive to make it not suck - right Peet/Dan?).

Again, I'm open to this idea but not because Peet or Dan are going to give it to us but because it is the best solution (and it might very well be).

Will all of this work? No. Most of it? Probably not. Some of it? Definitely. But we can all sit here reading our Ouiji boards, flipping our Tarot cards and counting our tea leaves and say that they wont work - instead of getting out there and trying it.

But a pilot cannot be one event - it's got to be an entire season - after all, any change has to be given time to settle in. We need to have realistic expectations with regard to success - and be a little tolerant of failure - to move forward.

After all, every trip begins with a stumble.

All excellent points.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself sufficiently clearly.

I'm not saying that we should always go with the "that can't be done" or "we did that 8 (10, 15, 30) years ago and it's horrible!" crowd. We SHOULD always examine those experiences to see WHY we chose not to go that way. Does it still apply? Do we have a way of modifying what we tried before to come up with an improved solution?

Ignoring information from past experience is NOT a good way of ensuring good decision-making. It's quite likely to lead to the opposite, in fact.
-B

No argument here except that often, we over analyze and what-if everything. And as a result no decision is made and below acceptable level performances (or the status quo) continue.

Is there a reason why we didn't contest the Secretary position? I'll let everyone use their imagination to answer that question.

The entire BoD or Exec Comm will make these decisions -- not one person; people that have a good knowledge of what has been tried in the past and what has worked/not worked, etc.; and again, I quote from CadetVet:

Will all of this work? No. Most of it? Probably not. Some of it? Definitely. But we can all sit here reading our Ouiji boards, flipping our Tarot cards and counting our tea leaves and say that they wont work - instead of getting out there and trying it.

[oiuyt]

Brad:

My concern with pilots is that they often don't scale properly - plus one looses the "strike when the iron is hot" benefit of moving more boldly. To a certain extent, it depends on which project we're talking about.

For example, online registration should be at a NAC for pilot purposes - no question. If the system breaks, we need to have backup and we need to fix it.

On the other hand, a change to the reimbursement structure has to be imposed for the entire season. Like anything else, there will be perceived winners and losers, and the losers will - the first few times - be overwhelmingly vocal and obstructive.

Other proposals run the gamut, but I don't think that everything can be piloted - things need the opportunity to reach equilibrium before the final judgment can be made.

A good analogy is timing in foil/sabre. To many, an unmitigated disaster. But to the rest of the community, it is something to adjust to - and some actually benefitted from it. I doubt a pilot would have changed that result.

G

Several very reasonable points.

However, once a pilot has actually been conducted, I'd rather see us look at the results, rather than ignore any possible gain of information from what we've already done and just push ahead because More [Change] means Better and Better means More [Change]!

If this were 2 years ago and we didn't have experience with fixed-stipend reimbursement, we could decide between two approaches -- a measured approach with a pilot program or a strike while the iron is hot wholesale approach. Maybe one is better, maybe the other is better. But that's not the situation in which we currently find ourselves. We DO have access to additional information. Why ignore it?

I really don't see this fixed-stipend proposal as the issue. My concern is that Tracy (and her slate? it's unclear) is throwing out grand plans without including details, and, in many cases, without even trying to find out what conclusions or discoveries other groups looking at the same ideas have come up with.

The fixed stipend idea isn't new. Yet Tracy has said that she hasn't talked to any of the people that actually tried it.

The centralized tournament location idea isn't new. As far as I know Tracy hasn't tried to learn about the feedback to the Tournament Task Force when exactly that proposal was floated to the membership for comment.

Active.com as a online registration solution for fencing isn't new. At least here Tracy talked to Active Sports. She didn't, apparently, talk to any of the fencers with experience with the system. Multiple people here have experience using active.com in non-fencing settings, or have done research by talking to people that have. Those opinions, at least as expressed here, were universally negative, so I'd assume that Tracy didn't interact with any such people. While I disagree with Tracy's proposed solution, this is probably one of the places where I'm most okay with her approach.

This is a pattern. It covers large issues such as those above. It covers small issues: The FFC website's first two listed examples of increased overhead were for postage and printing; There was a big jump from 2005 to 2006.

Why? Because due to a delay in printing American Fencing had 3 issues in FY05 and 5 issues in FY06. Unsurprisingly, that meant FY06 had a big jump in printing and postage costs. USPS additionally raised rates in FY06. Okay, that's an obscure bit of information (two, actually). It could even be "hoarded knowledge".*

It's still important to ask "Why" and gather information when it's available. As a fencer one gathers information before deciding what strategy to employ. Before deciding what tactics to use. One watches how other people approach a future opponent and what works and what doesn't. We should expect at least as much from our leaders.

-B

* It wasn't, at least not by me. I flipped through the FFC website just now, was reminded of that statement, and have the past couple of years worth of budget reports conveniently nearby due to looking things up for the Veterans Fencing thread yesterday. So I did 2 minutes of research and found a note in the budget report from each year (FY05 had 2 notes mentioning the slide of an issue to the following fiscal year, FY06 had a note mentioning the increased postage rate).

[tchwojko]

Is there a reason why we didn't contest the Secretary position? I'll let everyone use their imagination to answer that question.

Hoarding knowledge, are we?

Or we can read your website:

"USFENCERSFORCHANGE support Brad Baker for Secretary due to his open communication on Fencing.net with respect to the BoD minutes, motions, etc. as well as his introduction of new ideas to old problems on the BoD."
http://usfencersforchange.com/candidates/

Not solution...but proposal (there is a big difference).

So, you're NOT offering solutions to the current problems facing the USFA, they're "proposals" designed to...um...why are they there again? Maybe to elicit dialog and analyze the problems, get feedback from those...no that wouldn't fit with:

No argument here except that often, we over analyze and what-if everything. And as a result no decision is made and below acceptable level performances (or the status quo) continue.

Discuss, but don't analyze. Decide, but don't think too hard about it. I'm getting a bit dizzy now.

The entire BoD or Exec Comm will make these decisions -- not one person; people that have a good knowledge of what has been tried in the past and what has worked/not worked, etc.; and again, I quote from CadetVet:
Quote:
Will all of this work? No. Most of it? Probably not.

Ok, more than a bit dizzy.

[zéphirin]

...I don't mind that you keep trying to recycle ideas that have already been studied (fixed stipends, a USFA-owned central tournament location, active.com, etc., etc.). The problem is that you don't seem to bother to even inquire what conclusions were reached by the previous study(ies). What worked? What didn't? What show-stopper or potential show-stoppers were identified? What didn't work but might if we changed things slightly like this?

Without taking that step you're throwing away experience and virtually guaranteeing that we'll hit predictable brick walls. But in this case at full speed, rather than on a limited experimental basis.

That's a problem for me. I had hoped that my estimation was wrong and that you had actually done the research. Guess not.

(my emphasis)


I've been reading off and on some of these political post(uring)s but this post by Brad in reply to T really tickles me.

Brad is the only elected official, I believe, since he was/is unopposed and T says she wants him on her team. But unless there is a humor I cannot understand, my impression is that where Brad comes from (and wants to go) and where T comes from (and wants to go) are not in the same direction, to put it mildly.

Question for Brad: If T wins, what will you do? Stay on and fight or resign?

Question for T: What will you do if Brad stays on and fights you all the way, fire him? Or if he doesn't want to play with you, who will be the secretary of your admin?

Question for both: You guys are both ready to kiss AND make up?

Just curious...

PS: Congrats Brad for being elected! You have my vote also!

[oiuyt]

Question for Brad: If T wins, what will you do? Stay on and fight or resign?

I would phrase it as stay on and serve, rather than stay on and fight. I intend to be the Secretary for the next quad no matter who is elected for the other five officer positions.

I don't know if where we want to go is all that far apart. Ways of getting there will diverge. Methods used to present solutions differs. How we each prefer to get feedback, support from the wider fencing community, and member buy-in may differ. How we handle conflict certainly differs. Some of the exact emphasis is different, as, likely, are the ordering of some priorities. The large-picture goals are mostly the same or very similar.

I think that the approach taken by the USFA Nominees candidates is a better approach. I feel that it's better for the organization, better for the membership, more responsive to feedback, and does a better job of using information and experience that we've already accumulated. And, perhaps most importantly, I feel that it's most likely to be successful.

I have decided preferences for who, among the various candidates for office, I feel should be elected. Looking at each position separately, if I were to pick between the head-to-head match-ups (or the more convoluted arrangement for VP), I would select the candidate(s) from the USFA Nominees group. I also feel that the six of us have significant positive synergies that will provide additional benefits if elected as a whole.

If we end up with a mixed group of officers there will be some initial issues with assimilating the group into a coherent whole. What those issues are will partially depend on who the people are and how set on specific plans, programs, or ways of doing things some of those people are. For example, the Nominees group has proposed a significant change in how the duties of the officers are divvied up. If all six of us are elected we know how that will take place. If we have a mixed group it may or may not work out that way. If that structure is used it may require modification to fit the personnel available.

After the election is done all eleven of us are (hopefully!) still interested in helping US Fencing move forward. I would hope that the five non-elected candidates, whoever they may be, still choose to contribute in other roles (including those that haven't previously been particularly involved with volunteer efforts in the past).

PS: Congrats Brad for being elected! You have my vote also!

Thanks!

-B

[epeemike81]

Active.com as a online registration solution for fencing isn't new. At least here Tracy talked to Active Sports. She didn't, apparently, talk to any of the fencers with experience with the system. Multiple people here have experience using active.com in non-fencing settings, or have done research by talking to people that have. Those opinions, at least as expressed here, were universally negative, so I'd assume that Tracy didn't interact with any such people. While I disagree with Tracy's proposed solution, this is probably one of the places where I'm most okay with her approach.

In this case, she seems to be willfully ignoring widespread accounts of negative experiences in order to push the one option she's investigated. I, personally, find that worse.

-m

[keith]

So I did 2 minutes of research and found a note in the budget report from each year (FY05 had 2 notes mentioning the slide of an issue to the following fiscal year, FY06 had a note mentioning the increased postage rate).

Which is nice for you, but two minutes of research failed to reveal that information to me on the USFA website.

[epeemike81]

Which is nice for you, but two minutes of research failed to reveal that information to me on the USFA website.

Which just proves that oiuyt is more efficient than you.

-m

[keith]

Which just proves that oiuyt is more efficient than you.

-m

Ah but while an organisation should not have to compensate for the terminally stupid what will the USFA do for the averagely slow witted?

[tchwojko]

Ah but while an organisation should not have to compensate for the terminally stupid what will the USFA do for the averagely slow witted?

Keep hitting until they learn to riposte?

[tchwojko]

Ah but while an organisation should not have to compensate for the terminally stupid what will the USFA do for the averagely slow witted?

It's also a tactic to find volunteers.

[oiuyt]

Which just proves that oiuyt is more efficient than you.

Well, in this case my effeciency includes having access to information contained in my paper files which isn't available online (I suppose the USPS rate change is, but not as obviously).

I raised it as a minor point. Something looks unusual. There are (at least) two approaches. One is to inquire about the discrepency. Another is to assume that it's proof of financial failings in the National Office and "tied directly to the use of old and inefficient technology."

The first method comes up with a reasonable explanation fairly easily.

The second method... I suppose it helps with campaigning, depending on one's approach.

I prefer the first approach.

-B

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Honestly, he and everyone else probably read into it exactly what you intended.
Don't play dumb.

I must profess my innocence, in this instance. While it is true that I have laced posts with innuendo on more than occasion, this is not one of those.

What - that Usmanov might want - can the incoming USFA leadership offer, than can not be offered by someone else at least as well?

Two things:
1. Some heavy-duty public groveling
2. Votes at the FIE congress

Anything else that he might desire he can get easier and closer to home.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Inquartata]

As an NGB, the USFA has as its top goal to support elite athletes, select teams, etc.

Ah...excuse me?

Who decided that?

Have you read the Bylaws? Nowhere does it say this, and in fact international results and teams and so on are pretty far down the list of priorities...

There are not too many options to reduce economies of scale.

Again, excuse me, but---why would we want to reduce economies of scale? That means higher costs. Why do we want to pay MORE for what we are getting?

Economies of scale are good things to have, and should be sought out and increased, not reduced...

By requiring venues to be able to accommodate 54 strips?, we already exceed the space limits of many convention centers.

Define "many".

Alanta and Denver were absolutely cavernous. The sheer size of those convention centers swallowed our events. Multiple other rooms of the same size available.

Even places like Tucson will work fine, when they are not forced to share a third of the space with an auto show or a craft show or whatever...

WTF?

[tchwojko]

It's also a tactic to find volunteers.

And by "volunteers" I mean "power hungry egomaniacs", according to some theories.

Ah...excuse me?

Who decided that?

Don't worry, it's just a proposal.