This Election is Over Already

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Jeff is the COO of the Center, and responsible for procuring adequate eyedrop stocks for the re-education sessions.

[worldchamp03]

It may seem like an imposition to write on the ballot envelope but its standard procedure for extra security. If you want real change then vote for fencers for change. Please read my statement below.

I am supporting Tracy Hurley for President because she will make a difference. The current officers and committee members have had enormous influence on our organization in the past, but the USFA has become slow-moving and resistant. Many of the nominating committee candidates have been major players on the Tournament Committee and Fencing Officials Commission (FOC) for years. Yet today the way tournaments are organized/run and referees are selected remains basically unchanged from the way it was many years ago. Some of the promises of the nominating committee slate sound good, e.g. “work with the FOC to expand our referee development system”. But these people were already in a position (on the FOC) to propose this and it didn’t happen. Almost all of the first “100 days” proposals of the USFA nominees are to “develop” strategies or “form” new committees. Contrast this with the carefully thought out good ideas of the “fencers for change” candidates, starting with on-line registration. The USFA badly needs to be updated so that it can positively respond to change, offering more and better programs, opportunities, and services to its members. As a business management expert who has been an active member of USFA/AFLA since 1974, Tracy will lead the way with a more professional, transparent, and efficient approach to our organization’s business. She will combine paradigm-shifting ideas that can improve the USFA, her drive to creatively implement those ideas, and her management expertise and interpersonal skills to make our UFSA experience better!
For example, consider our financial situation: despite three Olympic medals, a plethora of international medals, and dozens of talented coaches and their dedicated, elite fencers, the USFA has failed to attract a major sponsor. Even with $100 entry fees at tournaments, the USFA struggles financially. Tracy offers a future with better promotion and fundraising, and transparency of how money is spent and why. How refreshing it will be under Tracy’s leadership, when the USFA improves the use of its resources. Think how much better our fencing experience will become.
Don’t settle for status quo and promises! Read the “fencers for change” platform at http://usfencersforchange.com/, discuss their ideas, and ask them questions, as I have. Imagine a better, brighter future for the UFSA. Then, take a significant step in the right direction: vote for Tracy Hurley and the USFFC slate.
Larry Pinkus
President NIH Recreation and Welfare Fencing Club, Bethesda, MD
World Champion 2005 Vet 60+ saber
Former member USFA Strategic Planning Committee
Former Chairperson Southeast Section
Former Chairperson Capitol Division

[whtouche]

Originally Posted by worldchamp03

Contrast this with the carefully thought out good ideas of the “fencers for change” candidates, starting with on-line registration.

I'm sorry, but this statement is factually untrue, and leads me to believe that you have not been paying any attention to any of the discussions going on here at all.

Tracy Hurley's "plan" for online registration for NACs is the exact opposite of well thought out. Go read the thread on technological implementation if you don't believe me.

While you're at it, read the rest of the threads, and each slate's websites, and get yourself informed. That way you won't have to pretend, and use your made up knowledge to try to sway others.

Hopefully you haven't sent your ballot in yet, it's not too late to actually make an INFORMED decision.

[gorgie101]

Originally Posted by whtouche

While you're at it, read the rest of the threads, and each slate's websites, and get yourself informed. That way you won't have to pretend, and use your made up knowledge to try to sway others.

Hopefully you haven't sent your ballot in yet, it's not too late to actually make an INFORMED decision.

Here we go more FUD!


Seriously, whtouche, is correct go get more information before you make your choice. Specifically go check out the voting record of those NC canidates that have been on the FOC and BOD. Just because things didn't change while they were they doesn't mean they didn't try to change it.

Happy Voting.

[campb1pr]

Originally Posted by worldchamp03

Contrast this with the carefully thought out good ideas of the “fencers for change” candidates, starting with on-line registration.

Originally Posted by whtouche

I'm sorry, but this statement is factually untrue, and leads me to believe that you have not been paying any attention to any of the discussions going on here at all.

[Disclaimer]THE FOLLOWING POST IS NOT IN SUPPORT OR ENDORSEMENT OF EITHER SIDE OF THIS ELECTION - MERELY QUESTIONING A PREVIOUS POST. [/Disclaimer]

I hate to be that person, but my limit on illogic has already been reached today, and so this just made me boil over.

Can you please point out to me what portion of WC03's post is "factually untrue?" I believe the only FACT that he is asserting in this sentence is that there is an idea for online registration proposed by the USFFC candidates. The rest is clearly opinion, which I believe he has a right to express here. You also have the right to disagree with his opinion. In the interest of measured discourse, I have the right to express the opinion that you are being unnecessarily inflammatory with your post, and exaggerating beyond the boundaries of good taste. If you say you disagree with his opinion and want to point out that other people who have posted here also disagree, many violently, fine. No problem. But I can't stand people misusing phrases like "factually untrue," which is all I am calling into question here.

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by Peach

We used to be entitled to anonymous voting in Philadelphia. Heck, dead people could vote. Numerous times.

Of course in Boston we have:

"Vote often and early for James Michael Curley."

[Mr Epee]

Am I the only one who received multiple (3) ballots?

I've long suspected that I'm more important than the rest of you. This, finally, may be the confirmation for which I've been pining.

Excellent.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

All fun and games until you find out your July renewal bill is now 3X the normal cost...

[campb1pr]

One for each personality?

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Am I the only one who received multiple (3) ballots?

I've long suspected that I'm more important than the rest of you. This, finally, may be the confirmation for which I've been pining.

Excellent.

I got you beat. 4 ballots were mailed to my house.

-m

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by campb1pr

[Disclaimer]THE FOLLOWING POST IS NOT IN SUPPORT OR ENDORSEMENT OF EITHER SIDE OF THIS ELECTION - MERELY QUESTIONING A PREVIOUS POST. [/Disclaimer]

I hate to be that person, but my limit on illogic has already been reached today, and so this just made me boil over.

Can you please point out to me what portion of WC03's post is "factually untrue?" I believe the only FACT that he is asserting in this sentence is that there is an idea for online registration proposed by the USFFC candidates. The rest is clearly opinion, which I believe he has a right to express here. You also have the right to disagree with his opinion. In the interest of measured discourse, I have the right to express the opinion that you are being unnecessarily inflammatory with your post, and exaggerating beyond the boundaries of good taste. If you say you disagree with his opinion and want to point out that other people who have posted here also disagree, many violently, fine. No problem. But I can't stand people misusing phrases like "factually untrue," which is all I am calling into question here.

The adjective "well thought out" was attached to the USFFC's plan for online registration. In your epistimology, is it possible for that to be proven wrong, or is the very worst you'd say is "WorldChamp03 feels it's well thought out despite weak evidence"?

Because it's been pretty well documented in the Technology thread that the plan has an unreasonable deadline, no specifications or parameters to plan off of, and all the other essential elements of a plan. Every person I can think of with professional IT experience has brought up its flaws. It may not match your defintion of the phrase, but for the rest of us "well thought out" is not an accurate description of the plan.

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Am I the only one who received multiple (3) ballots?

I've long suspected that I'm more important than the rest of you. This, finally, may be the confirmation for which I've been pining.

Excellent.

You should have more experience than to trust anything that comes out of the National Office, especially regarding your importance.

Originally Posted by campb1pr

One for each personality?

Lemonaide is now the USFA Queenmaker?

[gorgie101]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Am I the only one who received multiple (3) ballots?

I've long suspected that I'm more important than the rest of you. This, finally, may be the confirmation for which I've been pining.

Excellent.

I would suspect that if you turned in all three only one would count and the others would be thrown out. Assuming that you don't have three seperate USFA memberships

[gorgie101]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

All fun and games until you find out your July renewal bill is now 3X the normal cost...

Yep. Membership dues go up every four years. I was told that you can use the 2007-2008 application until the end of this season. Come July 31st only the 2008-2009 form will be valid.

[tchwojko]

edit: My bad.

[lewis]

How are the votes counted. Are there observers from each side? Seems like it is way to easy to just lose votes of either kind.

[Soberin]

Originally Posted by TBean

You have to be kidding me, right? What do you think is going to happen, that one of the six people in the national office are going to tell everyone how you voted and you will be blacklisted from fencing for your vote?

Honest to goodness, I am certain they have better things to do with thier time.

Here is how things work the the "real" non-fencing world. When you have a mail-in election, there is a bar code on the ballot that has you ID number. The organization, professional society etc, that is having the election, has contracted with a third party that validates the ballot via the bar code, then tabulates the votes. This is done under the direct visual supervision of the third-party auditors. This costs money. Is the USFA using this type of system? I do not think so, but certainly I am willing to be corrected if it is. If you and everyone else is so confident that the USFA has run all its activities with efficiency and transparency, then I applaud you for your confidence in the election procedure.

[4qtrs]

Originally Posted by Soberin

I got my ballot today. It requires my name and USFA number on the envelope to be "validated." I will not vote under this system, and I bet many others will not either.

Soberin has a point, if the USFA knew to mail you the ballot why would they need a signature and member number for verification? Even if I signed Soberin's ballot, would they know it wasn't the real Soberin?

What's the point?

[oso97]

Originally Posted by Soberin

Here is how things work the the "real" non-fencing world. When you have a mail-in election, there is a bar code on the ballot that has you ID number. The organization, professional society etc, that is having the election, has contracted with a third party that validates the ballot via the bar code, then tabulates the votes. This is done under the direct visual supervision of the third-party auditors. This costs money. Is the USFA using this type of system? I do not think so, but certainly I am willing to be corrected if it is. If you and everyone else is so confident that the USFA has run all its activities with efficiency and transparency, then I applaud you for your confidence in the election procedure.

Actually, this is only one way that it can be done, of many. There are other methodologies.

[jfarmer]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

The adjective "well thought out" was attached to the USFFC's plan for online registration. In your epistimology, is it possible for that to be proven wrong, or is the very worst you'd say is "WorldChamp03 feels it's well thought out despite weak evidence"?

Because it's been pretty well documented in the Technology thread that the plan has an unreasonable deadline, no specifications or parameters to plan off of, and all the other essential elements of a plan. Every person I can think of with professional IT experience has brought up its flaws. It may not match your defintion of the phrase, but for the rest of us "well thought out" is not an accurate description of the plan.

No, what has been well documented is that some people with some IT professional experience believe that the FFC approach is wrong. Most of the ones taking that position have expressed their opposition to the FFC group before examining the FFC proposed approach.


Do not confuse "It has been well documented that the plan is flawed." with "It has been well documented that in the opinion of some professionals (some with definite conflicts of interest), that the plan is flawed."

[Soberin]

Of course there are a lot of ways to do this stuff. I guess my concern is how to evaluate the current system that is in place for this particular election, and decide if it meets my standards of confidentiality and validity. I may have missed it with all the election posts, but where is the technical description of the vote counting procedure, who are the individuals doing the counting, and what legal and security systems are in place? Can you advise please?