Somewhat surprised that this hasn't received ANY comments in the slightly-more-than-a-week that it's been up. Given that there have been a couple of posts the last few days stating that the agenda hasn't been sent out, I figured it might be worthwhile bringing this back to the front page.
I have not yet received a follow-up agenda with reports. As of last weekend, when I talked to her, Linda Merritt hadn't received reports to send out to the Board.
-B
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
No disrespect, but who cares? The USOC involvement seems to put lots of things in doubt and makes much of this aggenda....whatever.
Let's see Mr. Masin wants some money for something, do we have to rehash the money problems in US Fencing right now? Ah....no.
You are still wanting to inch along and milktoast askfred more into the national fold when this should be brought in on a large scale not in small pieces. We know it works, why are you people dragging on this? Because some former olympian and a webguy wanna be doesn't get a check? Get over it and make this happen the whole way. There are no legitmate reasons why this should not have been done already.
The vets want their national event tournament structure changed, should be a no brainer but once again, you people are not wanting it to happen for what ever reason.
The wheelchair fencers want the chance to earn ratings. Again, no good reason this shouldn't happen but once again you people on the BOD are blocking this for whatever reason.
USFF stuff, very few people know this exists and even fewer understand how it works so likely no one cares. Should they? Maybe, but....
It seems some division officer somewhere is upset how the RYC event sanctioning works and it twisted over the fact they don't get to have control so instead of someone telling them to get over it and embrace the process they have made a time wasting motion that actually got recognized.
How am I doing so far? Again, with the USOC situation about to hit, this one topic seems to make all the others moot. Unless some other motion gets on the docket that actually means something or has a chance to improve things, we care why?
B,
No disrespect, but who cares? The USOC involvement seesm to put lots of thing in doubt and makes much of this aggenda....whatever.
Ah, come on dekko. I know what you mean about waiting for the other shoe to drop. But life goes on and it makes sense to continue as best we can and deal with the other when we have to.
Originally Posted by dekko
You are still wanting to inch along and milktoast askfred more into the national fold when this should be brought in on a large scale not in small pieces. We know it works, why are you people dragging on this? because some former olympian and a webguy wanna be doesn't a check? Get over it and make this happen the whole way. There are no legitmate reasons why this should not have been done already.
Well I just posted a thread asking about the announcement on the USFA website that seems to bear on this. I'm curious about it as well. Devil and details as we all know.
Originally Posted by dekko
The vets want their national event tournament structure changed, should be a no brainer but once again, you people are not wanting it to happen for what ever reason.
Just got this from Paul Levy who apparently thinks it worth following up on:
Dear All--
I'm going to miss seeing all of you because I broke my left shoulder a few days ago and cannot make the trip. I want to alert you to 2 motions to be made to the Board--one to eliminate the 80% cutoff rule at Summer Nationals if there are 8 or fewer competitors in any event. The other is to have a separate Event for 70+ fencers at the NACs and the Summer Nationals--all the 70+ fencers in an event would be placed in a pool (with other 60+ fencers if there were less than 6 or 7 entrants) and the winners of that pool would get medals as 70+ winners--any qualifying for the 60+ DEs would go on and complete the competition with the 60+ fencers.
This is how they do it in GB and like them, we do not seem to have many 70+ fencers except men's epee. The idea is to grow the interest in Veterans fencing for 70+ people, much like we did by making the NACs separate age group events.
Please let your reps on the Board know you support these motions. I have asked Dave Micahnik to make the motions in my absence, and to put them on an URGENT basis so they can be finally p[assed in September and made effective for the entire 2008-09 season.
If you want to speak with me about this, please call at (508) xxx-xxxx.
Good luck to all at San Jose--I'll miss being with you then and at the World Championships in October.
Paul
.
: deleted material
Originally Posted by dekko
How am I doing so far? Again, with the USOC situation about to hit, this one topic seems to make all the others moot. Unless some other motion gets on the docket that actually means something or has a chance to improve things, we care why?
Well, my guess is that these things will continue to be issues no matter what the USOC does. And it's still a question as to what the USOC will attempt to do.
No disrespect, but who cares? The USOC involvement seesm to put lots of thing in doubt and makes much of this aggenda....whatever.
Actually, this just shows that you haven't bothered to pay any attention to what it says.
The most interesting parts will be the results of the June 3 directive that Derek Cotton and Greg Dilworth generate a financial report.
Let's see Mr. Masin wants some money for something, do we have to rehash the money problems in US Fencing right now? Ah....no.
Actually, he wants to establish different donation opportunities that aren't currently present. There should be no cost to the USFA.
You are still wanting to inch along and milktoast askfred more into the national fold when this should be brought in on a large scale not in small pieces. We know it works, why are you people dragging on this? because some former olympian and a webguy wanna be doesn't a check? Get over it and make this happen the whole way. There are no legitmate reasons why this should not have been done already.
I believe the aggressive action you're looking for is planned for the next administration, because it isn't considered possible under the current one.
The vets want their national event tournament structure changed, should be a no brainer but once again, you people are not wanting it to happen for what ever reason.
It's a first hearing item. No one has even spoken against it yet. Shouldn't we wait for that before declaring it being opposed?
The wheelchair fencers want the chance to earn ratings. Again, no good reason this shouldn't happen but once again you people on the BOD are blocking this for whatever reason.
Actually, a very good reason not to just do it: If we admit chair fencers into regular opens, what grounds would we have from excluding them from any tournament? If they are eligable to compete in any tournament, they can have a very substantial impact on outcomes. Fencing a chair fencer is extremely difficult if you're not accustomed to it, and a reasonably accomplished chair fencer could probably coast to a pretty high placing in Team selection tournaments, with their opponents going out much earlier than they would have otherwise.
Please let your reps on the Board know you support these motions. I have asked Dave Micahnik to make the motions in my absence, and to put them on an URGENT basis so they can be finally p[assed in September and made effective for the entire 2008-09 season.
Neither motion needs to be made urgent to be voted upon in September -- that's the default course that is taken.
The 70+ motion specifies starting in 2009-2010, so isn't going to be in effect for 2008-2009 regardless (pending amendment(s), of course).
Last season Dave M. submitted a first-hearing motion, which he later withdrew prior to the second hearing, that effectively removed the 80% cut for events with fewer than 16 entrants (specifically it required promoting 16 for events with 17-20 entrants and 100% for events smaller than 16). It was not veteran-specific, although that's the most likely place for it to apply.
I would favor such an approach considerably more than Paul L.'s first motion. There's no need for this to be a special-case situation. The same concepts apply whether this is a tiny veteran event or a tiny Division III event (if we had such a beast).
-B
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
As for askfred, and related issues. There is not a good reason why this website specifically should be used for national events. There is no doubt that some details and logistics should be worked out but there is so many events, big and small, on there that it has proven itself to be a solid way of handling event registrations and the money for the registrations. In the beginning of askfred, sure, it was relatively untested and needed to some time to mature. It has matured and shown that it can handle large events and is used by every section for their sectionals now as well as most, if not all, of the very large regional events that happen every year. It's time to make this happen.
Wheelchair, I agree it is different than the fencing with the feet and there is an adjustment to be made. I disagree that there would be that huge an impact on the local tournament scene that someone who would otherwise win an event would be bounced in the forst round because of this match-up. I weas in an event with some wheelchair fencers a few years ago and it was very neat and none of them made a huge difference in where someone finished and we all had a good time with it. There are no open national events so they would not be impacted and there are very few areas that actually have wheelchair fencers right now so there would be some adjustement to be made with them in events but it's not that significant. This could happen now but for no good reason, it hasn't.
Anything financial will likely be on hold until the USOC has their say on what has happened and what will happen. I agree fencing moves on but until they have come and gone, nothing useful can happen on this front.
As for askfred, and related issues. There is not good reason why this website specifically should be used for national events. There is no doubt that some details and logistics should be worked out but there is so many events, big and small, on there that it has proven itself to be a solid way of handling event registrations and the money for the registrations. In the beginning of askfred, sure, it was relatively untested and needed to some time to mature. It has matured and shown that it can handle large events and is used by every section for their sectionals now as well as most, if not all, of the very large regional events that happen every year. It's time to make this happen..
Hello Dekko, Did you mean "There is no good reason"? I'm having problems parsing your post. I'm thinking you meant to say "there isn't any reason why this website should not be used for national events"
George Masin is the chair of the IS Committee. I used to be the chair of it back when I ran the USFA website.
However when Nancy Anderson created the Marketing Commission, which in turn usurped responsibility for the USFA website, I recommended that the IS Committee be disbanded... in light of the fact that the committee no longer had any responsibilities.
Rather than disband the committee, she named Masin to be the chair. In the 3 years since then, the committee has done nothing. I don't even think that they've ever submitted a single report to the Board, but I certainly could be mistaken there.
George Masin is the chair of the IS Committee. I used to be the chair of it back when I ran the USFA website.
However when Nancy Anderson created the Marketing Commission, which in turn usurped responsibility for the USFA website, I recommended that the IS Committee be disbanded... in light of the fact that the committee no longer had any responsibilities.
Rather than disband the committee, she named Masin to be the chair. In the 3 years since then, the committee has done nothing. I don't even think that they've ever submitted a single report to the Board, but I certainly could be mistaken there.
thats unfortunate. in my opinion, there should be a committee, and it should own the website. the marketing section should have control over the upkeep and design of the site.
Last season Dave M. submitted a first-hearing motion, which he later withdrew prior to the second hearing, that effectively removed the 80% cut for events with fewer than 16 entrants (specifically it required promoting 16 for events with 17-20 entrants and 100% for events smaller than 16). It was not veteran-specific, although that's the most likely place for it to apply.
I would favor such an approach considerably more than Paul L.'s first motion. There's no need for this to be a special-case situation. The same concepts apply whether this is a tiny veteran event or a tiny Division III event (if we had such a beast).
-B
I TOTALLY agree. Eight seems like much too small a number still, whether for veterans or open. There have been Veteran 60 women events with 9 sometimes...Does that mean one lone person would still get cut? To fly, for example, to San Jose to fence a few pool bouts seems crazy -- and detrimental to the sport. Having vet-60 events in my not-too-distant future, I hope the minimum number for no cutoff gets increased.
Hm. Stacey Johnson reports: Since the last official meeting of the HPC, the events occurring during the week of June 23-27 have included the High Performance area now being managed by the USOC. I have been told that Jim Page has been appointed in this temporary role. No formal notification was provided to me of these changes, only media reports and reports from members of the Olympic Team have provided me any information of these activities.
Bill Oliver says, after commenting that it's harder to get referees because of the pay problem: The Life Membership offer from the Executive Committee has been well received by many of our top referees. As of this writing, it appears that over 30 referees have taken advantage of the offer, thereby alleviating the USFA of $30,000 in outstanding debt, and espousing their commitment to our organization.
"Arm yourself, Watson, there is an evil hand afoot ahead." -- Dennis Pierce, 2010 Bulwer-Lytton contest, detective fiction category runner-up.
Because it has come up on other threads prior to solid information being available, here's the excerpt from the HPC report regarding credentials in Beijing:
Originally Posted by HPC Report to the Board, July 2008
After much further deliberation the HPC originally recommended nine slots but through email and letter correspondence the following was ultimately forward to the USOC for credentials requests:
PRIMARY CREDENTIALS (5)
Primary (5) – Ao Credential
Team Captain—Jeffrey Bukantz, Team Captain, 2004 Olympic Fencing Team
Team Leader – Robert Largman, Team Leader, 2000, 2004 Olympic Fencing Team
Women’s Saber Coach – Edward Korfanty, National Women’s Sabre Coach
Men’s Saber Coach – Yury Gelman, National Men’s Sabre Coach
Women’s Foil Coach—Michael Pederson, National Women’s Foil Coach
Secondary(3) – Ax Credential (formerly Fx credential)
Armorer – Ron Herman, National Team Armorer, 2004 Olympic Fencing Team
Women’s Saber Individual Coach – Arkady Burdan, Coach of 2004 Bronze Medalist Fencer
Men’s Foil Individual Coach – Gregory Massialas
WHAT USOC FINALLY AGREED TO PROVIDE:
Primary (5) – Ao Credential
Team Leader – Robert Largman, Team Leader, 2000, 2004 Olympic Fencing Team
Women’s Saber Coach – Edward Korfanty, National Women’s Sabre Coach
Men’s Saber Coach – Yury Gelman, National Men’s Sabre Coach
Women’s Foil Coach—Michael Pederson, National Women’s Foil Coach
Armorer – Ron Herman, National Team Armorer, 2004 Olympic Fencing Team
Secondary(3) – Ax Credential (formerly Fx credential)
Team Captain—Jeffrey Bukantz, Team Captain, 2004 Olympic Fencing Team
Women’s Saber Individual Coach – Arkady Burdan, Coach of 2004 Bronze Medalist Fencer
Men’s Foil Individual Coach – Gregory Massialas
-B
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
The audit committee report, if you can call it that, was a joke; devoid of any substance. Thanks to Ed Wright & Co, we now know exactly what happened to the USFA's money (at least what he wants us to know).
Derek Cotton's treasurer report was equally informative. Yes, I know that the space where his report should be is blank. In Cottonland, that is what constitutes a report. But then again, maybe he'll shock us, by distributing something that contains actual words and numbers (a truly novel concept) seconds before the meeting begins. Or maybe his heir apparent Mr. Dillworth, will write another letter proclaiming "trust us, everything's under control and all is well." Boy, the Anderson administration has really answered it's critics.
Oh, by the way, guess who is going to Chair the final meeting of Nancy's ruinous tenure? Not Nancy. She went to Las Vegas for the WC, but for unknown reasons, won't show up here and face the music.
No matter; after the election, stay tuned for Nancy Anderson: the Next Generation. Only this time, the USOC might just cancel the show.
Last edited by Craig; 07-07-2008 at 10:31 AM.
Reason: removed ad hominem to keep content
Originally Posted by dekko 
