USFA Election 2008 Debate Question #9: Veteran Fencing

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

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.
: deleted some material
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

In 04-05 we had a $12,600 donation for/from vets and since then we've had $0.00 donated for/from vets.

Yes, I think I remember Paul saying he wasn't going to go out seeking more donations until the USFA let the money go to where the donors meant for it to be used. So that makes sense.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

In 04-05 we had a $12,600 donation for/from vets and since then we've had $0.00 donated for/from vets.

Yes, I think I remember Paul saying he wasn't going to go out seeking more donations until the USFA let the money go to where the donors meant for it to be used. So that makes sense.

Note that the "deleted some material" included $10,000 worth of veteran's donations.

-B

[Swordmaster]

Last season I offered to sponsor the Veterans World Championship Team.
1. I was willing to get a warm-up (from a nationally recognized manufacturer of this type of wear) for each fencer and member of the cadre of a design that would have been approved by the Veteran Fencers.
2. a fencing bag for each fencer, hard or soft case.
3. Socks with a special design just for Veteran WCT Fencers.
4. Give every member of the team a 30% discount of all equipment purchased to make the trip to Australia.(below my cost on some items)
I wanted very little in exchange (page magazine ad and appropriate branding on warm-ups and bags). I was directed to deal with a guy with the media group (he had only been there two weeks) that is HIRED to print the American Fencing magazine. First I was told that Leon Paul was sponsoring ALL Teams of the USFA, then they said they were only interested in someone willing to give money...not "just" goods... and no magazine ads were on the table for negotiations.
I ended up not doing anything because an agreement could not be reached that seemed equitable. I have however supplied each member of the Bath and Australia teams with a pair of socks as a gift from me in support of their achievements.
Once again, a HIRED person not a volunteer or committee of volunteers made these decisions for the USFA and the fencers are the ones who were stuck with a last minute deal for warm-ups and no official sponsor.

[teacup]

Originally Posted by piste off

Right.

I am missing the purpose of adding another Vet NAC.

The purpose is to create more quality fencing opportunities for veteran fencers while making best use of the NAC's by choosing appropriate events. Since more fencing opportunities have been created for Y14 fencers and some of the junior and cadet events have become huge, why not re-access the configuration of national events?

If you don't like the added individual event, what about a veteran team event? Others have mentioned this idea.

Adding veterans events to the NAC in November may attract veterans willing to fence so they can see their college aged kids fence in the junior event.

As for cost, just because there are three NAC's doesn't mean everyone is able and or willing to go to all three. If the three locations are spread around the country more fencers may be able to attend one of the three, especially since some may have the Veteran's Holiday off. Isn't team selection the best two out of three, what is wrong with best three out of four, or two out of four? Especially when some are proposing adding international events.

An additional veteran NAC event would be another event for A/B fencers to qualify for Summer Nationals rather than at section Div IA qualifiers which do not use the veteran format.

If you don't want to change the national tournaments, why not create a Regional Veteran Circuit?

There are some veterans fencers that would like additional strong tournaments. With the aging population, this number may increase.

As for team selection, isn't team selection criteria accessed yearly?

Maybe the system isn't "broken" but is it perfect? Shouldn't new suggestions be open to discussion?

[T]

Originally Posted by teacup

The purpose is to create more quality fencing opportunities for veteran fencers while making best use of the NAC's by choosing appropriate events.

<snip>
Maybe the system isn't "broken" but is it perfect? Shouldn't new suggestions be open to discussion?

A wonderful idea. New suggestions open to discussion? Don't wait until its broke to make improvements? Novel approach! thanks teacup!

[mdstasinos]

Originally Posted by T

A wonderful idea. New suggestions open to discussion? Don't wait until its broke to make improvements? Novel approach! thanks teacup!

Teacup, do you think Tracy is just aware of this concept? "Novel approach!" I would believe anyone with common sense would be aware of this and always keep this in the forefront of consideration.
MD Stasinos
http://www.usfanominees.com

[Inquartata]

Ah..."making improvements before it's broken" is the same thing as "fixing what isn't broken"...

Restating a questionable premise using better-sounding words doesn't really rehabilitate it.

[TBean]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

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

This is how the majority of non-profits run, putting all thier monies together. Especially on the scale of the USFA - you simply cannot afford to to it another way - you don't have enough cash. How you track the allocations should be done though your general ledger coding - each income code has a corresponding spending code or codes. That way your auditors at the end of the year can run all expenditures and track that you have spent any and all restricted income in accordance with the donors wishes.

[CadetVet]

As a vet 50 fencer (I know, cadervet is a misnomer), I've been watching this debate with some interest and growing concern. Of particular note was the suggestion to replace a youth event with a vet event, something that I am wholeheartedly against.

One of the interesting things that I havent see mentioned in this thread (and is otherwise one of our sport's "dirty little secrets") is that a large percentage of our competitors (the biggest block) have no real representation on the board or as members. Why? Because they're too young.

From the numbers that I've seen, 37% of our competitive fencers are under 18 (and have no vote). 27% are over 35 (I don't have specific numbers for the 40+ cadre). Furthermore, while we could say that "if they cared, they'd speak up," it begs credibility to assert that an average 12 year old will lend a voice to this debate.

This is an issue that cannot easily be resolved by a single "youth representative." Like adults, youth fencers have their own preferences, concerns and biases - and no one person can successfully represent this diverse community. Not that I have a solution to this issue, mind you, but I do recognize that there is a significant disconnect in between our population and our governance structure.

At the end of the day, we all have to recognize that our sport, like most others, thrives on the new blood that comes in. With rare exceptions, it is these kids who make their mark at the highest level of our competitions. Before we seriously entertain notions of replacing their events with our events, we have to look in the mirror and ask - "is this right for fencing, or is this just right for me?"

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by CadetVet

As a vet 50 fencer (I know, cadervet is a misnomer), I've been watching this debate with some interest and growing concern. Of particular note was the suggestion to replace a youth event with a vet event, something that I am wholeheartedly against.

One of the interesting things that I havent see mentioned in this thread (and is otherwise one of our sport's "dirty little secrets") is that a large percentage of our competitors (the biggest block) have no real representation on the board or as members. Why? Because they're too young.

From the numbers that I've seen, 37% of our competitive fencers are under 18 (and have no vote). 27% are over 35 (I don't have specific numbers for the 40+ cadre). Furthermore, while we could say that "if they cared, they'd speak up," it begs credibility to assert that an average 12 year old will lend a voice to this debate."

Maybe give their parents a fraction of a vote?

[CadetVet]

Originally Posted by tchwojko

Maybe give their parents a fraction of a vote?

Tchwojko:

I'm not sure that would work. Most parents aren't fencers - and their perspective is different (usually colored heavily by junior's coach). I'd be more in favor of looking to build up a meaningful voice for the fencers, themselves, within the organization if that could be done.

CV

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by CadetVet

Tchwojko:

I'm not sure that would work. Most parents aren't fencers - and their perspective is different (usually colored heavily by junior's coach). I'd be more in favor of looking to build up a meaningful voice for the fencers, themselves, within the organization if that could be done.

CV

That's why I suggested a fraction of a vote rather than a whole vote. It was an off the cuff suggestion, not thought through, so I'm not sure it would work either.

[piste off]

Originally Posted by CadetVet

One of the interesting things that I havent see mentioned in this thread (and is otherwise one of our sport's "dirty little secrets") is that a large percentage of our competitors (the biggest block) have no real representation on the board or as members. Why? Because they're too young.

Why is this any different than the rationales for why people in the U.S. have to be 18 to vote?

Rick

[piste off]

Originally Posted by CadetVet

Of particular note was the suggestion to replace a youth event with a vet event, something that I am wholeheartedly against.

Not all Vets are for adding another event, escpecially at the expense of another group. But for different reasons than yours...

It was submitted that the reason for adding another Vet NAC was to "create more quality fencing opportunities for veteran fencers", which is a good thing if that is all there is to it.

BUT, doing so and altering the team selection criteria is another matter - and given that tradeoff you might find a lot of Vets not supportive of the idea.

Rick

[CadetVet]

Originally Posted by piste off

Why is this any different than the rationales for why people in the U.S. have to be 18 to vote?

Rick

In some ways it is and in some ways it isn't. Note that I'm not arguing for the "right to vote," but instead for a "right to be heard." Unlike regular life, fencers don't have a meaningful, knowledgeable proxy (like parents - I know, I'm being somewhat generous) available to represent their interests.

CV

[piste off]

Originally Posted by CadetVet

In some ways it is and in some ways it isn't. Note that I'm not arguing for the "right to vote," but instead for a "right to be heard." Unlike regular life, fencers don't have a meaningful, knowledgeable proxy (like parents - I know, I'm being somewhat generous) available to represent their interests.

CV

Gotcha.

Separate topic...

One of the questions posed originally by Peach (OP) was "What can the veterans do for the USFA?"

I scratched my head over this one, but immediately thought of some type of mentoring idea. One way of doing this would be, instead of adding a pure Vet NAC and taking away another would be to have one that is a combined team event (i.e. one cadet, one junior, one vet).

This would provide vets with more opportunity (even more fun than just adding another NAC) and would also provide the opportunity for them to mentor more directly the young up and coming.

I question whether adding a pure Vet team format would draw the numbers, but could see where a combined team would.

Just a thought.

And for the record, I think the number one priority for Vets should be adding a team event at Worlds (cost issue noted).

Rick

[wbowman]

Originally Posted by teacup

An additional veteran NAC event would be another event for A/B fencers to qualify for Summer Nationals rather than at section Div IA qualifiers which do not use the veteran format.

Note that you don't need another Veterans' NAC to have more events for qualifying for Summer Nationals. If I'm reading the Athletes' Handbook correctly, it says ANY NAC.

Presumably A/B Vet fencers who are seriously interested in national competition will be going to SOME kind of a NAC during the course of the year -- or Sectionals at least.
For C's and below, all it takes is to show up at your Divisional Div II/III qualifier.

I'm perfectly okay with adding another Vets' NAC (though the present lineup is about all my budget will take). But I don't think it's absolutely essential -- especially in terms of expanding the qualifying path.
I WOULD like to see some more Regional Veterans' events though. The number of Vets' competitions at the local level is starting to grow, but a few more which have stronger competition than a local event, but less cost and travel distance than a NAC would be welcome.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by wbowman

The number of Vets' competitions at the local level is starting to grow, but a few more which have stronger competition than a local event, but less cost and travel distance than a NAC would be welcome.

Or AS strong, even. Apart from the one with the clambake I can't think of a Vet tournament with more than 5 or 6 entrants in sabre. Lower cost and greater proximity would not attract me to these...

My area is quite strong in Vet sabre, but I doubt that we could manage more than 6 or 7 for a mixed Vet event. ( It's growth, to be sure, but from so low a base as to be scarcely noticeable. )