Nominating Committee Kids: Blue Flyer

[mdstasinos]

Originally Posted by foiled once again

I was not asking who got the e-mail or from where but simply what the e-mail stated. I think it's funny because non of the current canidates are responsible for the past administration.

All USFA Members should be Concerned about in 2008!
As of August 2007, the USFA had nearly a $500,000 deficit; the current deficit (including 2007-08) is ongoing but it has been estimated to be nearly $1.25 million (out of a total of $4 million budget). Five of the 6 candidates from the 'Nominating Committee' slate were either on the Executive Committee or the Board of Directors (BoD) while the significant financial deficit went unchecked.

Tracy in her comments fail to mention that three members of the Nominee Slate were the individuals that brought this to a forefront with the BOD and EC. Because of their actions this came to be addressed and began fixing the checks and balance problems which created the majority of the problem. Tracy is great at making it look like the problem was created by the BOD and EC, but if elected, she would have to work with these individuals who she claims to have been " the problem." Many of you know Greg Dilworth, Jerry Bensen and Brad Baker and as a result of their actions, as members of the Board of Directors this was uncovered by them and brought to the forefront of business.

At the February 2008 BoD meeting, the Executive Director submitted his resignation yet he is being allowed to remain on staff (and collect his paycheck) until after the Olympics. In most organizations an Executive Director, with this level of poor performance, would be fired for neglecting his fiduciary responsibility.

At the BOD meeting in February Michael Massik submitted his resignation "as of conclusion of the Olympic Games." This is what was stated there. He attached a timeline to this which at the time the BOD and EC accepted. This issue will continue to be examined and if other actions need to be addressed the EC and BOD will do so.

USFA members have no access to financial information. In addition, the information that is provided entails highly filtered comments from someone within the organization. We are told that the financial problems are due to "a death of a thousand cuts" yet this explanation comes from the same organization that is unwilling to provide financial information to members who ask for it (yet they are required to do so by Colorado law). Who are they protecting? USFA members or themselves? Where is the accountability and transparency? We encourage you to ask the USFA for copies of financial budget information that all USFA members are supposed to be provided upon request.

This is an item that has been a problem not with this administration but has existed for many administrations. This is why the USFA Nominees and especially the three members that I had pointed out above have brought this issue to the forefront and have already began to address the issues and accountability.

Now is the perfect time to elect 'outsiders' as new officers to run the USFA and NOT to rely on the same officers that were on the Executive Committee and the Board of Directors when the organization nearly went bankrupt?

I thought we were all members of the Association, so where do outsiders come from? If it refers to individuals who have worked only within their local clubs divisions and have not tried to offer their time and talent in national service, I guess that would be what...not an outsider but non involved.
MD Stasinos
http://usfanominees.com

[Peach]

Originally Posted by (quoted by) foiled once again

At the February 2008 BoD meeting, the Executive Director submitted his resignation yet he is being allowed to remain on staff (and collect his paycheck) until after the Olympics. In most organizations an Executive Director, with this level of poor performance, would be fired for neglecting his fiduciary responsibility.

Having been through a number of searches for executive officers:

Firing an ED leaves a Big Hole. Bill Goering was willing to step in the last time the office was vacant, but the organization is bigger and in a bigger mess than the last time. If Michael were peremptorily fired, we'd have to find someone competent in Colorado Springs who is familiar with the organization and willing to serve in a thankless job for a short amount of time.

Also, the outgoing Executive Director did more to put the USFA on a sound financial basis than anyone could hope, at least in the first part of his service. It's fashionable to put the blame for an organization's performance on its manager, which is why it's so expensive to pay them nowadays, but many of our fiscal problems can't be laid at Michael's door. He is quite competent, just tired of being ED. He wasn't going to stay that long when he was hired, and because he did a great job we loved him, and he allowed himself to be persuaded to stay past his tolerance level. IOW, it's partly our fault he's turned into an opinionated crankypants, and if we don't do something about the dysfunctionality of the organization we'll just get another opinionated crankypants (or an incompetent).

I think we need, as an organization, to revisit the role of ED and decide what we want it to be, instead of looking for a Superperson. That way lies the Expensive Revolving-Door model of administration.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally Posted by foiled once again

At least since August 2007, the USFA BoD knew that the organization was in a desperate financial situation yet the motion to create the Budget & Finance Committee and the Audit Committee was not moved to 'Urgent Status' so that it could be approved and initiated at the September 2007 Board of Director's meeting; instead, the BoD waited for a second hearing to approve the motion in February 2008.

Curious you chose not to address this part of the otherwise fairly over-blown e-mail rhetoric from Tracy, Mark.

It's a valid point. Why wasn't this treated with more urgency--and addressed earlier--by the people now taking credit for the laudable budget and audit concept?

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

Curious you chose not to address this part of the otherwise fairly over-blown e-mail rhetoric from Tracy, Mark.

It's a valid point. Why wasn't this treated with more urgency--and addressed earlier--by the people now taking credit for the laudable budget and audit concept?

First, it's not a fair question. It's of the "When did you stop beating your dog?" variety.

If it was a systemic issue (which it seems to be, with no single points of failure), then what would such urgency gain?

[foiled once again]

Originally Posted by mdstasinos

http://usfanominees.com

I am leaning more and more toward this web-site and the ones running on this slate. Looks like a good group of people that can work with the current people to make things better.

Hey, I posted the 'evil' e-mail and didn't even get rep points for it.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally Posted by tchwojko

First, it's not a fair question. It's of the "When did you stop beating your dog?" variety.

If it was a systemic issue (which it seems to be, with no single points of failure), then what would such urgency gain?

Hmmm...not entirely. As I sort of understand it, there's a "first" reading, a "second" reading...and then action, if not dumped or tabled.

The NomCom folks are making a lot of noise, much of it justified, about their development of the audit programs.

While laudable, I have to temper my enthusiasm by wondering why these kinds of protocols weren't put into place much earlier while some of the NomCom folks were in a position of influence...and especially why, when the gravity of the situation was revealed last summer, the "urgent consideration" button wasn't pushed.

I think this was exactly the kind of situation it was designed for,

[arc]

Originally Posted by tchwojko

First, it's not a fair question. It's of the "When did you stop beating your dog?" variety.

If it was a systemic issue (which it seems to be, with no single points of failure), then what would such urgency gain?

Additionally, I feel obliged to point out that the individuals involved (Jerry, Greg, and Brad) are but three members of a twenty-five-plus member Board of Directors; it's kind of hard for them to push it to urgent status on their own, particularly since the full extent of the Association's financial difficulties had not been divulged to the Board at that time. While matters revealed in Miami certainly provoked concern (and I remember Mr. Dilworth asking a goodly number of what appeared to be uncomfortable questions), I personally don't recall there being quite the same magnitude of concern at that time as existed after the revelations in Charlotte ...

[arc]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

Hmmm...not entirely. As I sort of understand it, there's a "first" reading, a "second" reading...and then action, if not dumped or tabled.

There's a first reading, and then a vote has to be taken at second reading, if not withdrawn (by the original movant) or tabled on independent motion.

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

The NomCom folks are making a lot of noise, much of it justified, about their development of the audit programs.

While laudable, I have to temper my enthusiasm by wondering why these kinds of protocols weren't put into place much earlier while some of the NomCom folks were in a position of influence...and especially why, when the gravity of the situation was revealed last summer, the "urgent consideration" button wasn't pushed.

I think this was exactly the kind of situation it was designed for,

I think Miami was the first Board meeting at which a deficit had been reported to the Board, although there are much better sources than I for that information. The motions for the budget and audit committees appeared for their first hearing at the September board meeting, which was the first meeting after the initial deficit was reported. They were enacted at the February Board meeting, at which time the much more serious condition (i.e., a deficit almost treble the initial report) was reported to the Board for the first time.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

Curious you chose not to address this part of the otherwise fairly over-blown e-mail rhetoric from Tracy, Mark.

It's a valid point. Why wasn't this treated with more urgency--and addressed earlier--by the people now taking credit for the laudable budget and audit concept?

The extent of the problem was NOT known in September. The budget report provided to the Board at that point included the information for prior year YTD, but not prior year complete. This meant that almost no information for 06-07 was available at that meeting. The 07-08 information that was available included just August 07 and a projection to the end of September 07. We had nothing beyond that provided in July 2007, which, while it indicated some issues, did not approach the levels of problems disclosed over the next half year.

The following statement was included in the Executive Director's report at that meeting:

Originally Posted by September 2007 Executive Director's Report to the Board of Directors

Despite persistent rumors to the contrary, our cash flow has recovered from the previous difficulties and all bills can be paid within thirty days of receipt and processing.

The Board knew that there were issues. And some members of the Board (most notably Greg and Jerry) were consistently and strenuously pushing fairly hard to try to get enough information to be able to determine the extent of the issues. They (and the rest of us pushing for information) had not yet been successful as of September.

I think it would be a fair question IF the predicate were true. It's not. The logic breaks at that point.

"At least since August 2007, the USFA BoD knew that the organization was in a desperate financial situation" is a false statement.

MANY of the "points" made in the email were incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading. Mark didn't address all of the issues with the email (or the FFC website, which includes the same text).

-B

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Thanks for the clarification! I stand corrected.

While it's very exculpatory for the Board, in hindsight, it doesn't say much for Massik's Nostradamus Power Rating (tm) standings, does it?