USOC and USFencing - Discussion

[oso97]

If you are a BOD member it would make sense for you to follow up with an off line formal invitation..

Why? Its open to anyone to attend. All BOD meetings are. And if any member wants to approach anyone on the BOD with a rational commentary or two on a specific subject, go right ahead.

I got quite an earful from several Women's Epee folks in my Section recently about a number of topic, and I intend to make sure that I find out the answers to their questions and report back to them.

You know, that little thing called "Representative Democracy?"

[Guymelef]

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.

There's .3 million set aside for the running of the general administration office and a further seventy-five grand for membership tech development. I don't think these numbers presage the USOC development. I'll be the pessimist and say expect lean times.

[oso97]

Actually, well, that document that was quoted? Its nothing new. Its the same document that is talked about in this thread: What kind of vote should occur in 2008?

[heretic]

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.

Bill is correct. Massik's job definition became increasingly ambiguous over the years. During his tenure, he wrote an article in American Fencing delineating his responsibilities. Incredibly, he omitted fundraising as a primary or secondary task. The ED of any successful not-for-profit corp. has fundraising at the top of the list. Peter Westbrook (who is the ED of the foundation that bears his name) probably spends 80% of his time fundraising; and his endowment is now greater than that of the US Fencing Foundation.

The USFA most certainly does need a major restructuring. But as I have repeatedly stated, that requires a thorough understanding (and admission) of the causes and structural problems which have placed the organization in its current precarious fiscal condition. I have still not seen such an analysis from Dillworth et al.

I am grateful that Mrs. Hurley posted the most up to date USFA financials on her website. I found Ed Wright’s letter (though woefully inadequate), interesting in that he actually stipulates that “we are spinning our wheels trying to make minor adjustments to a financial system that requires a major overhaul to correct its structural problems….. we have no ability to match up accounts receivable with account payable….little cash….Accounts receivable includes amounts from past fiscal years with no assumptions about reasonable collectibility….lack internal controls to support the discipline needed for effective funds control….”

His solution? “We have requested the national office to draft a comprehensive and systematic response to the material weaknesses addressed in the 2006-2007 audit.” Michael Massik is, until further notice, still in charge of the National Office.

To recap: the administrator who ran over budget by seven figures is going to report on what went wrong to the VP who was among those responsible for fiscal oversight.

And you wonder why I get so pissed off?

[oso97]

The USFA most certainly does need a major restructuring. But as I have repeatedly stated, that requires a thorough understanding (and admission) of the causes and structural problems which have placed the organization in its current precarious fiscal condition. I have still not seen such an analysis from Dillworth et al.

Alrighty, then. Lets just say, for the sake of argument, we conduct the kind of forensic accounting analysis that you're asking for. Probably cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 - $150 grand. I'll even assume that we have the cash on hand to pay for it, or that we find someone willing to underwrite the endeavor.

And, furthermore, then lets say we find out that the problem was we overspent our budget because the person in charge of the national office (the ED) wasn't keeping tabs on the situation, and the people who were supposed to be conducting oversight of him let him get away with it.

Now, just what exactly should we do then? What would satisfy you? Tarring and feathering? The stocks? The rack? Line them up at the next NAC and let everyone take a poke with an epee?

I've not seen a single shred of evidence - and unlike you, I've been a regular attendee at the BOD meetings since this problem came to light - that there is any malfeasance, any deception, any wrongdoing other than people who just didn't have a clue what they are doing and people below them who took advantage of the situation for personal profit. To me, the fix is pretty simple. Put people who have a clue in charge and tell everyone that the days of limitless hog feeding are at an end. But apparently, you want more. So, what kind of punishment would you suggest for the people at fault?

[TBean]

Bill is correct. Massik's job definition became increasingly ambiguous over the years. During his tenure, he wrote an article in American Fencing delineating his responsibilities. Incredibly, he omitted fundraising as a primary or secondary task. The ED of any successful not-for-profit corp. has fundraising at the top of the list. Peter Westbrook (who is the ED of the foundation that bears his name) probably spends 80% of his time fundraising; and his endowment is now greater than that of the US Fencing Foundation.

The USFA most certainly does need a major restructuring. But as I have repeatedly stated, that requires a thorough understanding (and admission) of the causes and structural problems which have placed the organization in its current precarious fiscal condition. I have still not seen such an analysis from Dillworth et al.

I am grateful that Mrs. Hurley posted the most up to date USFA financials on her website. I found Ed Wright’s letter (though woefully inadequate), interesting in that he actually stipulates that “we are spinning our wheels trying to make minor adjustments to a financial system that requires a major overhaul to correct its structural problems….. we have no ability to match up accounts receivable with account payable….little cash….Accounts receivable includes amounts from past fiscal years with no assumptions about reasonable collectibility….lack internal controls to support the discipline needed for effective funds control….”

His solution? “We have requested the national office to draft a comprehensive and systematic response to the material weaknesses addressed in the 2006-2007 audit.” Michael Massik is, until further notice, still in charge of the National Office.

To recap: the administrator who ran over budget by seven figures is going to report on what went wrong to the VP who was among those responsible for fiscal oversight.

And you wonder why I get so pissed off?

I don't need a forensic accounting to tell me what went wrong. The problems are apparent. A forensic accounting might pinpoint the exact failure points - so what, the money is still gone. For what purpose has money been spent that we do not have - to find out the what we already know, the USFA spent more money than it made, and had no good way of tracking it. The bottom line then becomes - fix the oversight process, fix the general ledger, fix the accounting and bookeeping - so people are then accountable because they know what it happening with the finances. The ED can manage the process and the Board can govern. The creation of a Financial Handbook, making everyone accountable is probably a wise idea, I have at least one I could offer as a template.

[telkanuru]

So, what kind of punishment would you suggest for the people at fault

Something lingering... with boiling oil, or perhaps melted lead.

[KD5MDK]

Humerous, I presume.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

"Materialansvarig – Teknik" is the best I've seen, without being able to read Swedish.

-B

Yes, that means armorer. My primary role is as beginners coach, though.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Allen Evans]

Alrighty, then. Lets just say, for the sake of argument, we conduct the kind of forensic accounting analysis that you're asking for. Probably cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 - $150 grand.

That's on the high side, unless you wanted to go back more than three years (probably uncessary). I think you could get the audit done, and controls recommended to the USFA for $50,000 to $75,000. :-)

Allen Evans

(sorry, I just couldnt' resist....it's still a LOT of money!)

[Wingate85]

Something lingering... with boiling oil, or perhaps melted lead.

Another PdF sage. If you read his post there is NO mention of punishment.

[noodle]

Another PdF sage. If you read his post there is NO mention of punishment.

oso mentioned punishment. telk quoted oso mentioning punishment. so, yes, there was mention of punishment.

[tchwojko]

Another PdF sage. If you read his post there is NO mention of punishment.

Nor is there mention of a solution. There is lots of acrimony and disgust (and with reason). I think pretty much everyone agrees that the past administration screwed things up. They're out. Berating them more won't make them any more out of office.

The question stands: what next?

[Wingate85]

oso mentioned punishment. telk quoted oso mentioning punishment. so, yes, there was mention of punishment.

Not by heretic, and by following up on oso's comment he was esentially concuring with his take on Eric's post which he apparently did not bother to read. While I can appreciate your need to protect your primary clients on this board, you as a moderator should be more balanced in your remarks.

[noodle]

Not by heretic, and by following up on oso's comment he was esentially concuring with his take on Eric's post which he apparently did not bother to read. While I can appreciate your need to protect your primary clients on this board, you as a moderator should be more balanced in your remarks.

i'm attempting to protect the sanity and logic of this thread. if you think that i've been doing anything but trying to preserve the balance in this thread, you're clearly extremely biased towards one side. if anything, i've protected and been overly apologetic towards heretic, trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and giving cues and chances to give us some clear facts and information, which have not been taken. i've been trying to get this ridiculous thread back on track and away from the straw men and side streets that mark every other post. and i've gotten nothing but support for doing so, both in PMs and rep messages until you, just now.

the reason i said this about telk is because you're deriding him for talking about a topic that someone else brought up. i have no stock in any particular users. this thread doesn't need any meta-arguments or more personal attacks and i'm trying to steer that away by pointing out the obvious -- you jumped on a user for no real reason other than to insult them.

[whtouche]

Another PdF sage. If you read his post there is NO mention of punishment.

[notalent]

i'm protecting the sanity and logic of this thread.

Too Late...

[notalent]

Something lingering... with boiling oil, or perhaps melted lead.

Lead melts a a low enough temp that it only burns for a second or two. Stay with higher melt metals, silver or gold would be more effective

[Guymelef]

A very Bond-villain solution.

[tchwojko]

Lead melts a a low enough temp that it only burns for a second or two. Stay with higher melt metals, silver or gold would be more effective

So that's where the deficit came from...