USOC and USFencing - Discussion

[Peach]

I do love the ignore function, but people keep insisting on using the quote function, which thwarts it

[tchwojko]

I wouldn't want to lower the level of discourse now, would I?

I still don't understand what you DO want.

In other news, thanks to Tracy Hurley for putting financial info on her site. I hope the new administration will get the information on usfencing.org sooner rather than later.

[noodle]

wow; I have only 225 in five years; I'm practically a mute.

With the guardians of etiquette trying to chase me out of the neighborhood, who knows how much longer I can last? I wouldn't want to lower the level of discourse now, would I?

or, 100 posts in 2 months. i wouldn't consider that mute.

i'm not trying to chase you out, i'm just pointing out the fact that people want to hear some of the stuff you have to say, but you keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole. when anyone questions you or anything you say, its not a "well here are the facts to back it up" its, "im so much better or more important than you, why are you questioning me?". your superiority complex is interfering with your message.

[whtouche]

We unfortunately appear to be confronted with a maturity problem. A member of the board who, by his own admission, is QUITE important within the fencing community and someone who's opinions and thoughts on factual matters people actually want to hear. And yet this person makes petty personal attacks, and when confronted with the inherent uncoolness of these acts, refuses to acknowledge other people's outrage.

Really tho, for however important you are, first of all it is difficult to convince people that you are important simply by saying "I'm important", and secondly even if we are convinced of your importance, the extent to which we care what you have to say is inversely proportional to the extent to which you are willing to be an absolute d-bag.

[telkanuru]

I have several thoughts here.







And finally,

[Guymelef]

We have a thread winner!

[KD5MDK]

wow; I have only 225 in five years; I'm practically a mute.

With the guardians of etiquette trying to chase me out of the neighborhood, who knows how much longer I can last? I wouldn't want to lower the level of discourse now, would I?

I see your join date listed as June, 2005. I will subtract June 2005 from August, 2008 and get a difference of 5 years. I will then balance the USFA budget like I was Henry VIII and do something from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy that destroyed God.

[heretic]

I see your join date listed as June, 2005. I will subtract June 2005 from August, 2008 and get a difference of 5 years.

Ooops! Bad math! Luckily I wasn't USFA treasurer instead of Derek Cotton for the last four years. Who knows what the deficit might have been.

However "important" or "unimportant" (or recalcitrant) you perceive me to be, I certainly seem to merit a considerable amount of this collective invaluable attention.

FYI, vis a vis the USFA, I am of no importance. Many fencers and coaches whose names you might know did (and do) find me important.

Can I be rehabilitated? Doubtful. What you see is what you get.

[oso97]

Can I be rehabilitated? Doubtful.

So, does that mean you will or won't be joining us in Chicago for constructive discussions to move the Association forward at the BOD meeting in a couple of weeks?

[heretic]

Shouldn't go to the party if you don't have an invitation.

[tchwojko]

Shouldn't go to the party if you don't have an invitation.

Open and unpublicized are two different things.

[fencerbill]

Ooops! Bad math! Luckily I wasn't USFA treasurer instead of Derek Cotton for the last four years. Who knows what the deficit might have been.

However "important" or "unimportant" (or recalcitrant) you perceive me to be, I certainly seem to merit a considerable amount of this collective invaluable attention.

FYI, vis a vis the USFA, I am of no importance. Many fencers and coaches whose names you might know did (and do) find me important.

Can I be rehabilitated? Doubtful. What you see is what you get.

Let me say that, despite picking on you in this thread, I will repeat my appreciation for all of your efforts through all of these years on behalf of fencing.

[Insipiens]

Back on topic for a moment

I have just seen the following which states that it outlines

the changes the USOC expects to take place.

This actually seems to be precisely the kind of thing people were trying to discuss on this thread before it got a little side-tracked. I hope it is useful.

To me much of it seems reasonable. I think the main aims seems to be to create a board that is representative without being unwieldy and to ensure clear division of responsibilities between board and management. I would doubt these would be debatable. Of course these are guidelines and the hard part would be fitting them into the reality of the existing structure off the USFA.

(My apologies if this has been posted elsewhere)

Aug 25, 2008. USFENCERSFORCHANGE received a communication to the USFA Board of Directors & Executive Committee that outlined the changes the USOC expects to take place. We have listed this information below:

USOC Preliminary NGB Governance Guidelines

Process

The review of NGB governance and compliance will be a cross-functional staff managed review process, using the resources of the following USOC divisions: Audit, Sports Resources, Legal, and others on a case-by-case basis. Management’s cross-functional working group will fully review each NGB at least once during a quadrennium and will address any more urgent issues as they arise. Receipt of USOC resources will require satisfaction of appropriate standards of fiscal and managerial competence, as determined by management and the Board. Most NGBs will be audited once every two years by the USOC’s internal auditors to determine the appropriate and effective use of USOC funds, and financial and managerial competence.

Basic Standards and Governance Guidelines

The USOC Board has approved the following:

NGBs should be governed by a board which shall have sole responsibility for governance;
NGB boards should generally be between 7 and 12 in membership;
NGB boards should have at least 20% independent directors as well as at least 20% athlete directors;
NGB boards should have staggered term limits;
NGBs must have at least the following: 3 standing committees: Audit (which shall also have responsibility for ethics matters unless ethics issues are addressed by another committee), Compensation, and Nominating & Governance;
NGB committees should be of the minimum number and size possible to permit both conduct of the sport and appropriate board governance;
The role of management and the role of governance should be defined clearly, with each NGB being staff managed and board governed;
NGBs must be financially and operationally transparent and accountable to its members and the USOC;
NGBs must adopt best practices for not for profit organizations; and
NGBs must comply with all of the requirements for membership as defined in the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, USOC Bylaws, and any USOC Board policies.
http://usfencersforchange.com/usfa-governance/

I have to point out that I have no affiliation with the website, I know none of the people involved as I am not a US fencer.
I cannot vouch for the accuracy or otherwise of the content of the website. I also have no informed views on the outgoing or incoming management or board of directors of the USFA.

[Wingate85]

So, does that mean you will or won't be joining us in Chicago for constructive discussions to move the Association forward at the BOD meeting in a couple of weeks?

This is the first constructive post I have seen here in a long time. If you are a BOD member it would make sense for you to follow up with an off line formal invitation. I think Eric could be very useful to the USFA. Certainly better then having him waste his time trying to sway opinions on this board.

[heretic]

Open and unpublicized are two different things.

It's an open forum that anyone can attend? Is there any agenda? Who is moderating or leading the proceedings? Generally, unstructured or unfocussed meetings where anyone – regardless of their level of expertise - can suck up the oxygen tend to be unproductive (kind of like these chat rooms).

[KD5MDK]

I expect the USFA Secretary will post the agenda here or on the website in the first week of September.

[fencerbill]

Regarding the USOC Preliminary NGB Governance Guidelines.

This will amount to an upheaval of the national office.

I can remember when the national office was created. Carla Richards moved to Colorado Springs. Soon, clerks were hired to assist her in shuffling paperwork. Michael Massik was later hired to assume some of her duties. But the majority of the staff were still clerks and perhaps bookkeepers.

Michael was not hired, insofar as I remember, primarily to do national fundraising or forensic accounting. Two things for which he has recently been pilloried.

So a major reorganization will be necessary. If we have to support "managers" as the USOC wants us to do, the staff will become more expensive.

And we will be in ever greater need of efficient, computer/internet based processes to replace the clerks and bookkeepers we can no longer afford.

[oso97]

It's an open forum that anyone can attend?

All BOD meetings, unless the business at hand is of a sensitive nature (disciplinary proceedings and such) are open to the public. As a long time member of the USFA, you should be aware of this.

Is there any agenda?

Brad Baker indicated he will be releasing the Agenda on or about September 1st.

Who is moderating or leading the proceedings?

BOD meetings are moderated by the President of the USFA, or in his absence, one of the Vice-Presidents. Again, as a long time member of the USFA, you should be aware of this.

Generally, unstructured or unfocused meetings where anyone – regardless of their level of expertise - can suck up the oxygen tend to be unproductive (kind of like these chat rooms).

I've attended BOD meetings as an observer with a number of different "feels" - it depends upon the makeup of the Board, and the person moderating. Obviously, this will be the first time Kalle is leading the BOD meeting, so its hard to predict. Nonetheless, based upon how she conducts her business in other regards, I expect it to be well managed.

And of course there are all the side discussions that occur, where a lot of the work actually gets done.

[heretic]

I did not know this was a BOD meeting. I was a member for many years. Not interested; nothing is ever accomplished. Real power is the EC.

[tchwojko]

It's an open forum that anyone can attend? Is there any agenda? Who is moderating or leading the proceedings?

I agree about those kinds of meetings. I was replying only on the "lack of invitation". I was looking for a calendar of organizational events on the USFA website, and didn't see anything. The new administration just took office, but I hope that future meetings will be publicized.

Generally, unstructured or unfocussed meetings where anyone – regardless of their level of expertise - can suck up the oxygen tend to be unproductive (kind of like these chat rooms).

However "important" or "unimportant" (or recalcitrant) you perceive me to be, I certainly seem to merit a considerable amount of this collective invaluable attention.

Now it all makes sense. The mudslinging and insults are a simple cry for attention and recognition of your importance to the fencing world. I'm sorry you feel insufficiently appreciated.