USFA Election 2008 Debate Question #9: Veteran Fencing

[piste off]

Thanks to all for the discussion... very good stuff all around.

I would like to echo Peach's concern about the time/money commitments induced by awarding points for international events. For that matter, the topic can be extended to Div 1 NACs.

My feeling is that we have to balance the need to reflect the rankings accurately (for team selection) against making this a battle of those with the most free-time and resources.

Unlike other age categories, this is less about gaining competitive experience - so all you are doing is ensuring that people like me will not be able to participate. I don't think I'm alone here.

Not sure if this has been discussed... but one thing I think that we should push for is a team event at Worlds. Everyone is there already for the individuals, and I can see that as a great addition to the event.

Rick

[Peach]

Originally Posted by piste off

Not sure if this has been discussed... but one thing I think that we should push for is a team event at Worlds. Everyone is there already for the individuals, and I can see that as a great addition to the event.
Rick

QFT--this of course is an FIE decision, but the veterans have been leading the way in offering informal team events. It would be great also to have veteran team events at some level in the U.S. In both cases, the cost and availability of referees is an issue--in another thread, I note that the money isn't there now to pay referees for the work they have already done.

[KD5MDK]

How much would money donated restricted to Vets replace money that would have been donated to the USFA anyway? If it took away more than 10% of what it would bring in, I'd be very worried about reducing the USFA's free cash when it already cannot pay its bills.

[Greg_D]

Originally Posted by Peach

It would be great also to have veteran team events at some level in the U.S. In both cases, the cost and availability of referees is an issue--in another thread, I note that the money isn't there now to pay referees for the work they have already done.

On the domestic side, adding an additional event to an already established NAC is a question of whether we would have to increase the number of strips (and therefore referees and other staff) needed to run the additional event(s). If we could have additional events without the need to add resources it would actually increase the revenue side of the ledger. If we did need to add resources the question becomes if the revenue fully offsets the costs. Our plan is to examine the expansion of team events at all levels (Junior, Senior, and Veteran) to determine the impact on scheduling and resources. If it turns out to be feasible, it's also something that we could add to the latter half of next year's schedule without major disruption.

That said, we'd also have to examine issues of team creation. I suspect Peach might want to fence on a Vet WS team, but it might be difficult to find another two (or three) Vet WS fencers from her club that want to attend the NAC. Therefore, we have to have a mechanism for matching these "orphans" with others to build groups.

As always, the trick is to manage the details...

GD

[teacup]

Since the addition and growth of SYC's, what about replacing the Y14 at the November NAC with a Veteran's event? (Which is coincidentally around the Veteran's holiday.)

I speculate this would also help curtail the number of entries in the Jr and Cadet events since many Y14 fencers fence all three events because they are "there".

[KD5MDK]

Some Veterans can also fence Div I - They get 2+ events at the December tournament. Others can fence Div 2/3. They get 2+ events at the March tournament. Adding a Vet event to November would make them attend a tournament they're incapable of fencing anything else at. Might work for the parents of cadets and juniors, but probably not as well for people like Peach.

[teacup]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Some Veterans can also fence Div I - They get 2+ events at the December tournament. Others can fence Div 2/3. They get 2+ events at the March tournament. Adding a Vet event to November would make them attend a tournament they're incapable of fencing anything else at. Might work for the parents of cadets and juniors, but probably not as well for people like Peach.

True but there are lots, maybe even the majority of tournaments, where many fencers are only able to fence one event due to age/rating restrictions, location or day of the week, time of year. Having two events, one on Friday morning and one on Sunday afternoon on the other side of the country doesn't necessarily mean you can attend both. (Neither of the two veteran's NAC's are scheduled around "holiday" weekends.)

There are so many variables as to why fencers attend which tournaments having more than one event is only one factor. As you say, there are lots of parents that may fence while there kids are fencing.

If the concern is that turnout would be small, then maybe adding a vets team event would be good. On the other hand, the November NAC is huge, it may be advantageous to have a smaller event.

My point is there are other opportunities now for Y14 fencers, giving another opportunity for veteran fencers may be a better use of a national event.

(You could also argue since last year there were even more SYC's, the number attending the Y14 November NAC may decrease.)

[oso97]

Originally Posted by teacup

Since the addition and growth of SYC's, what about replacing the Y14 at the November NAC with a Veteran's event? (Which is coincidentally around the Veteran's holiday.)

I speculate this would also help curtail the number of entries in the Jr and Cadet events since many Y14 fencers fence all three events because they are "there".

You know, THAT is actually a very interesting idea...

[piste off]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Some Veterans can also fence Div I - They get 2+ events at the December tournament. Others can fence Div 2/3. They get 2+ events at the March tournament. Adding a Vet event to November would make them attend a tournament they're incapable of fencing anything else at. Might work for the parents of cadets and juniors, but probably not as well for people like Peach.

Right.

I am missing the purpose of adding another Vet NAC.

The high-end Vets can always go to Div I, the low end can go to DIV 2/3 and those in the middle can find a number of great regional opportunities.

If 3 events (2 NACs plus Nationals) are not sufficient to select the team, then I can see adding more... net of that all you are doing is making it more costly and time consuming (see Peach's points).

Rick

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

My recollection from conversations with Paul Levy was that he had commitments of something over USD $10K. but the donors wanted to make them specifically for VETS. The USFA has some policy or the other that required that any donated funds be put into the general treasury pool after some short period and then be available for use elsewhere.

What?! The USOC puts strings on its funds and that's fine, but it can't be done for any other source of funds? Better not to get the funds at all?

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

How much would money donated restricted to Vets replace money that would have been donated to the USFA anyway? If it took away more than 10% of what it would bring in, I'd be very worried about reducing the USFA's free cash when it already cannot pay its bills.

My understanding is there was no this goes to USFA or VET Fencing. In other words it was lost to fencing entirely.

[fencerbill]

I would like to add my concerns, which I have expressed before, about not changing qualification to Vets World teams without thinking it through carefully.

About 6 or 7 years ago, Larry Pinkus had a bright idea about adding bonus team qualification points if you finished in the top 8 (or was it 16?) in the NAC qualifiers that were at the time a single event for everyone over 40. Now there are age group qualifiers. I think he meant it to apply for the 50-59 age group but they applied the same rules to the 60 Plus age group as well. The result was that it then meant you really had to go to all 3 qualifiers to make sure you qualified if you were 60 Plus.

Yes, we want to increase the opportunities for Veterans to have serious competition in National and, if possible, International events. One way would be to lobby to get the European Veterans Championships modified to be a NATO (or similar) Championships so that we from the US could participate, if we wanted to. They alternate Individual and Team Championships and there is no limitation on how many from each country could participate. Just don't let it provide extra credit towards US World Team qualification.

Another factor relevant to Veterans is we are as or more likely to have temporary physical situations which could cause us to miss one of the Qualifiers. The year I won World Gold I missed one of the NACs because of an operation. I was willing to have it be best 2 of 2 instead of best 2 of 3, but I am very glad I didn't have to put up 2 results against someone else's 3 results.

[Inquartata]

This is starting to sound like another fixing-what-ain't-broke thread...

[KD5MDK]

How many people of Veteran age do you know who don't think things would run better if everybody would just listen to them? For me it's a majority.

[ysbadadden]

Peach's objection to counting international results toward US Team qualification needs to be put in perspective. It used to be that we didn't have to qualify for the Veterans National Championships. Now we do. This entails some extra trouble and expense, especially for those of us who don't live particularly close to the qualifying event. But it makes the National Championship a more significant event.

Probably we'll get around to counting international results when there are so many of us that not counting them results in a real injustice in team selection. Right now, my guess is that not many of us compete internationally in vets' events. Personally, I'd like to see more local and regional vets' competitions first.

And as for not having enough vets in a weapon/age group to make a team, there is always the possibility of a Divisional team.

[sheck]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

My recollection from conversations with Paul Levy was that he had commitments of something over USD $10K. but the donors wanted to make them specifically for VETS. The USFA has some policy or the other that required that any donated funds be put into the general treasury pool after some short period and then be available for use elsewhere. The result was that the proposed donations were ?not accepted? or something else happened to them. Sorry that I don't remember the specifics, think we were all dismayed that the USFA couldn't find away to accept the funds and keep them for VET activities.
REMEMBER TO VOTE NEXT MONTH!
Paul Levy"

Sounds typical.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by T

With the growth in the US (and worldwide) of the over 40 demographic group, there is definitely potential for major sponsors or donations. Paul Levy was working on this angle which proposed that the donated money be ear-marked specifically to the Veterans group and it was thwarted by the Legal Counsel. The model was very well thought-out and had a great deal of promise. We need to re-examine the model and see how we can make it work.

Originally Posted by sheck

I would like to hear more about this. Why can't donations or sponsor money be specifically ear marked for Vet fencing? Maybe it is time to start a independent foundation for Vet fencing.

Originally Posted by jjefferies

My recollection from conversations with Paul Levy was that he had commitments of something over USD $10K. but the donors wanted to make them specifically for VETS. The USFA has some policy or the other that required that any donated funds be put into the general treasury pool after some short period and then be available for use elsewhere. The result was that the proposed donations were ?not accepted? or something else happened to them. Sorry that I don't remember the specifics, think we were all dismayed that the USFA couldn't find away to accept the funds and keep them for VET activities.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

What?! The USOC puts strings on its funds and that's fine, but it can't be done for any other source of funds? Better not to get the funds at all?

Originally Posted by jjefferies

My understanding is there was no this goes to USFA or VET Fencing. In other words it was lost to fencing entirely.

I just pulled the past few years budget reports. I have the last 4 years conveniently available.

Veteran's Donations is a specific line item. And has been throughout that time period.

04-05 Donations in the approved budget were all lumped into "General Donations" and budgeted for $9,200. By the end of that year the reporting was breaking it out into General Donations, Memorial Donations, Combined Federal Campaign, Olympic Team Donations, Elite Athlete Program Donations, and Veteran's Donations. Overall we came in at a yearend actual of $62,749, the largest chunk being $22,696 for Memorial Donations. Veteran's Donations were the third-largest at $12,600.

The following note was included in the 04-05 report:

Originally Posted by 04-05 USFA Year End Budget Report

There were a number of programs initiated after the budget was approved to raise funds for special interest groups. Also, the balance of an estate settlement from a prior year is included.

05-06 Donations continued to be split out into the six categories listed above. The approved budget included $1,000 in Veteran's Donations, the yearend projection that I have (unfortunately undated, so I'm not sure which report, but I assume July '06 based on other evidence) came in at $10,000.

06-07 Veteran's Donations were again budgeted at $1,000. The yearend projection in the July '07 budget report was $0.

07-08 Veteran's Donations have been budgeted at $0. As of the most recent information I have, actual year-to-date is $0.

-B

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

How many people of Veteran age do you know who don't think things would run better if everybody would just listen to them? For me it's a majority.

You know us too well.

[sheck]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

I just pulled the past few years budget reports. I have the last 4 years conveniently available.

Veteran's Donations is a specific line item. And has been throughout that time period.

04-05 Donations in the approved budget were all lumped into "General Donations" and budgeted for $9,200. By the end of that year the reporting was breaking it out into General Donations, Memorial Donations, Combined Federal Campaign, Olympic Team Donations, Elite Athlete Program Donations, and Veteran's Donations. Overall we came in at a yearend actual of $62,749, the largest chunk being $22,696 for Memorial Donations. Veteran's Donations were the third-largest at $12,600.

The following note was included in the 04-05 report:


05-06 Donations continued to be split out into the six categories listed above. The approved budget included $1,000 in Veteran's Donations, the yearend projection that I have (unfortunately undated, so I'm not sure which report, but I assume July '06 based on other evidence) came in at $10,000.

06-07 Veteran's Donations were again budgeted at $1,000. The yearend projection in the July '07 budget report was $0.

07-08 Veteran's Donations have been budgeted at $0. As of the most recent information I have, actual year-to-date is $0.

-B

Thanks for the info.

Is there any info on where the Vet donations were allocated?

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by sheck

Is there any info on where the Vet donations were allocated?

Not that I have.

The budget reports historically haven't been all that detailed. The splitting of the donations line in 04-05 is an example of part of the gradual process to improve that.*

My understanding is that we don't maintain separate accounts for different purposes, but rather "one big pot." When there are monies that are ring-fenced (most notably the USOC grants, which have all kinds of restrictions, most of which are never conveyed to the Board in other than a hand-waving sense), it's ensured that we spend at least that amount on that area, but they aren't segregated funds in any sense. I can't guarantee that understanding is correct, however.

-B

* A process which has been too gradual and is extraordinarily likely to accelerate quickly now with the Budget & Finance Committee and the Accounting Committee.