USFA Election 2008 Debate Question #8: USFA back payments

[keith]

Who decided that?

The fates probably.

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...

Of course given that there are really only two fundamental priorities of a governing body;

1) running a selection process to decide on representation at international events.

2) to support and develop all levels of the sport.

If you are planning on voting for the NC slate in the hope of them emphasising (2) you will probably be more disappointed than usual.

Now where the USFA to be truly adventurous it might examine splitting those two functions.

[keith]

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

What could possibly induce any self respecting power hungry egomaniac to run for USFA office? I understand there's a recession and opportunities are limited, but still

[Inquartata]

Of course given that there are really only two fundamental priorities of a governing body;

1) running a selection process to decide on representation at international events.

2) to support and develop all levels of the sport.

Three, actually, the third being the most vehemently operative, in my experience:

3) To maintain and indeed to expand its budget, its prequisites, the number of persons under its control, and its prestige. ( See the aforementioned "power-hungry egomaniacs"; see also "bureaucratic dysfunction". )

If you are planning on voting for the NC slate in the hope of them emphasising (2) you will probably be more disappointed than usual.

I have scant hope of that whoever gets elected.

The virtue in pessimism as a philosophical position is that if something good happens you are pleasantly surprised, and if not you have at least the comfort of being able to say "I told you so".

I will however venture to wonder whether the FFC is driven almost entirely by a focus on elite fencing ( and specifically elite epee fencing ).

Probably that's an unworthy thing to wonder. But again, see "pessimism", above.

[oiuyt]

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.

Just a quick follow-up, as I've heard back from one of the people I contacted.

From what he writes, the program was conducted for a full season. He really liked it, but got the sense that the other participants, while favorable, were somewhat less enthusiastic about it.

His best guess for why it was discontinued, rather than expanded? Because the USFA didn't (and now really doesn't) have the cash available on hand to pay current (or, better for this, near-term future) expenses. The more expenses are shifted to volunteer officials, the harder it is to (successfully) ask them to carry the expenses for long periods of time.

-B