USOC and USFencing - Discussion

[FencingKitten]

So, my main issue with this article is that it is VERY focused in its spin, and COMPLETELY ignores the fact that the USFA is voluntarily changing itself.

The quad is coming to a close, and I don't think anyone believes that the athletes, coaches, or other travelers are going to be properly funded.

In the future, though, whether we are under the leadership of Kalle or Tracey, there are going to be BIG, voluntary changes. A number of the Board reps have changed, officers have changed, Massik is resigning... these are things that the article doesn't even mention. My current intention is to write to SI.com to illustrate the completely biased spin on this article.

Next, I have a question. Has anyone else read the charter? Does it specifically entitle the USOC to reform independent organizations that happen to be NGBs, or does it only allow them to designate the NGB of the various sports? I'm having trouble even finding the text of the charter. Thoughts?

ETA: http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisati...charter_uk.asp <--IOC Charter.

[nahouw]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Nancy has a majority vote on the Executive Committee? That would be the first sign of effectiveness people have reported in a long time.

That was probably not the case, however, indication of who she appointed. More people with poor judgement in which the Executive committee of the USFA can overturn the rules of the FIE, the rules of which our sport is based on.

[nahouw]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I The intention at the time this was announced was to give time for the new administration, whoever that is, to select a new executive director and arrange an orderly transfer of authority.

Obviously, the situation has now changed with the USOC intervention. And this decision needs to be revisited.

[arc]

Originally Posted by nahouw

That was probably not the case, however, indication of who she appointed. More people with poor judgement in which the Executive committee of the USFA can overturn the rules of the FIE, the rules of which our sport is based on.

Five members of the ExComm are elected officers independent of the appointment of the President. Additionally, 20% of the ExComm is appointed by the Athlete Advisory Group, entirely independently of the President. I think the President has appointed a grand total of two members of the ExComm (Jane Carter and Carla-Mae Richards). Hardly a majority.

This isn't intended to defend Mrs. Anderson or her governance, but to indicate that blame for some decisions should be spread a little more broadly than with her alone.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Did you read the section:: "Many were strikingly concerned about speaking up directly, for fear that their standing within the fencing community would be jeopardized. For years the complicity of silence allowed leadership that was increasingly overburdened with responsibilities that went over their heads to remain idle....My point about the election was that the same complicity of silence was directed at those trying to seek change through the election. Again take a look at the threads regarding the election.

OK. I see what you're saying, I think. I guess you're trying to cast the SI article's words up to the folks who didn't think that an election was necessary?

Of course, a bunch of random people on fencing.net were saying that they thought that an election would just waste money. Some of them were even quite hostile to individual candidates. That's about what I'd expect on any open forum when people start discussing candidates. Listen to democrats scream at each other over Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

In the USFA's case, we have the unusual default of not holding an election. I can see why a small organization would have that process to save money. Personally, I don't think it's healthy for the USFA. I would be happier if the organization had an election by default (unless there were only a single candidate for each office).

Of course, I was really complaining about this part of your post:

Originally Posted by jjefferies

or that change might come from outside the ranks of those who currently run the USFA

From what I've seen of the candidate backgrounds, I don't think that I'd say that any of them from either group qualify as people "who currently run the USFA." They're all involved with the USFA in various capacities as coaches, fencers, referees, etc. I don't think any of them are involved with the current USFA finances.

Then again, I'm not big on conspiracy theories either.

It looks like the executive director failed to do his job. Given the extent of the problem, it looks like the Board of Directors also failed in its duties to the organization.

People who saw evidence of the problem early on (through delayed reimbursement, etc.) did not trust the organization's controls enough to raise issues. If you depend on the executive director to get your reimbursement, going over his head when he gives you the run around one time opens the possibility that he'll put all future issues with you at the bottom of his list.

I don't see how you can equate that to any sentiment you see among various groups of fencers you meet on fencing.net.

Unless, of course, one of those fencers later becomes the executive director and carries along the same hostile attitude toward everyone who raises issues or challenges their decisions and policies.

[wlc]

Originally Posted by fencerX

Massik's most pressing duty right now should be cleaning out his desk.

I agree. If this were a business, the executive summary of the current situation might be:

• Anderson's term as president has not been a big plus for the USFA,
• Massik has not been engaged in his role for some time now,
• We are in for a rough ride now that the organization that oversees us as an NGB has suddenly turned their attention to our operations.

Oh, wait. This is a business as far as the USOC is concerned. I expect further news along this vein:

• This needed attention yesterday. What can we do to fix it today?
• I need somebody who can do this now. Who is that person?
• Give me a date when will this be done.

It's in the realm of possibility that things will happen quickly, maybe even this fall.

[nahouw]

Originally Posted by FencingKitten

Next, I have a question. Has anyone else read the charter? Does it specifically entitle the USOC to reform independent organizations that happen to be NGBs, or does it only allow them to designate the NGB of the various sports? I'm having trouble even finding the text of the charter. Thoughts?

ETA: http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisati...charter_uk.asp <--IOC Charter.

Yes, the USOC has the authority over NGBs (not other organizations) and Yes, the USOC has the obligation to do so. The USOC was created under an act of congress, in 1978, I believe. The USOC has taken over and reformed both handball and modern pentathalon, and maybe some others - I am not conversant as to all NGBs in this problem, but only the most high profile ones.

The USOC funnels money to the NGBs, and as such, want to have accountabilty that the NGBs give the money that the USOC provides them so that that money gets to the athletes. The USFA's situation that our top level and high potential medal winning athletes are not receiving their funds from the USOC is what has precipitated this extraordinary action by the USOC. and thankfully so -- our athletes need support and they do not need obstruction by their own NGB in their pursuits.

[nahouw]

Originally Posted by wlc

Oh, wait. This is a business as far as the USOC is concerned. I expect further news along this vein:

• This needed attention yesterday. What can we do to fix it today?
• I need somebody who can do this now. Who is that person?
• Give me a date when will this be done.

It's in the realm of possibility that things will happen quickly, maybe even this fall.

As someone earlier has posted, Jim Page has come out of retirement to serve as liasion.

[fencerX]

Originally Posted by FencingKitten

Next, I have a question. Has anyone else read the charter? Does it specifically entitle the USOC to reform independent organizations that happen to be NGBs, or does it only allow them to designate the NGB of the various sports? I'm having trouble even finding the text of the charter.

36 U.S.C. Sec. 220501

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Some were quite hostile even vitriolic.

I thought the discussions were fairly issue oriented. Can you point to the examples of vitriol, please? I don't recall anything beyond the norms of civil debate. There were certainly strong opinions, but I wouldn't say vitriol.

[fencerX]

Originally Posted by FencingKitten

So, my main issue with this article is that it is VERY focused in its spin, and COMPLETELY ignores the fact that the USFA is voluntarily changing itself.

It really doesn't matter -- the USOC has obviously seen enough and is stepping in.

Originally Posted by FencingKitten

Next, I have a question. Has anyone else read the charter? Does it specifically entitle the USOC to reform independent organizations that happen to be NGBs, or does it only allow them to designate the NGB of the various sports?

d) REVIEW OF RECOGNITION.—The corporation may review all matters related to the continued recognition of an organization as a national governing body and may take action it considers appropriate, including placing conditions on the continued recognition.

[wolfercdat]

I just found the article on the sports illustrated web site stating that USOC would be taking over USFA due to the money mismanagement issues and was curious to know what the general opinion is. It sounds like a good thing but I haven't a lick of experience knowing the fallout from something of this magnitude. Can anyone else with more knowledge fill the rest of us in?

[noodle]

there's already a thread on it here: USOC and USFencing - Discussion

[erooMynohtnA]

http://www.fencing.net/olympics/beij...e-program.html

[Bryn Ralph]

Perhaps this whole situation can be summed up as a result of the ubiquitous law of unintended consequences. Nontheless, the political aroma of the USFA is stifling and ill-benefits the competitive fencers, coaches, and interested Americans. This kind of behaviour on the part of the responsible USFA official(s) is without peer in the annals of organised fencing and should receive the attention of the due process of law -- if only to preserve what little integrity remains.

Our European friends faced similar problems in the past and made the obvious corrections. May we have the intelligence to do the same.

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

Except if the USOC is stepping in to take over financial disbursement of the funds though the Olympics, and freezing Massik out of the loop...then there's probably no compelling reason for him to still be in the office.

Jim Page has been brought back out of retirement for a second time to be the official liason between the USOC and the USFA between now and Beijing...so in essence, he could be seen as taking over the most pressing of Michael's duties: getting the Olympic business taken care of and finishing out the last bit of the 2004-2008 quadrennial.

So you are just going to throw out Summer Nationals? Fine to have someone to help out with the Olympics. But, as numerous threads relative to the election attest, there is more to the USFA than just the Olympics. Things got done before 2004. Michael seemed to get the job done for years before Nancy Anderson. She is the figurehead for the difference in the last 4 years, not Michael. It just seems to me that he couldn't make up the difference.

I agree it is probably for the best for him to move on at the end of the season. But let's not make another mistake and kick Michael out the door when we have the busiest time of the year, and the quadrennium, so soon.

[fencerbill]

Is the USOC taking over the USFA or US fencing at the Olympics?

[nahouw]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

Is the USOC taking over the USFA or US fencing at the Olympics?

I think it is that they are taking over the immediate control of the USFA Olympic athletes and their funding while they are doing an audit of the USFA, and upon the results of that audit they will then make the decision if they will take over the USFA. Quite frankly, I believe they will take control after the Olympics in order to not cause further distraction to our athletes.

[heretic]

As an active supporter of the recall, the SI article and USOC press release vindicates our efforts and understanding of the lack of BOD oversight and fiduciary responsibility on the part of the ED.

Will things change? Well let's see: Greg Dilworth, who was the chair of the nominating committee that selected Nancy Anderson and Derek Cotton in the first place will probably be the next treasurer; Dilworth and Donald Alperstein (USFA lawyer-in-chief) promised to deliver the 2007 independent audit which is a legal requirement of all 501(C) 3 corporations ASAP after the 900M+ deficit was revealed at the JOs; eleven months after the '07 fiscal year has ended, this report is still not public - if it exists at all. FYI, this could lead to a loss of the USFA's tax exempt status. How about the fact that Dilworth and our current "Treasurer" Derek Cotton who chaired the newly formed audit committee posted a palliative on the USFA website stating that the financial problems were not all that serious and would be cleared up in no time. I guess Dilworth’s in depth investigation was a perfectly acceptable alternative to hiring a forensic accountant, which is standard procedure in cases such as these. Let's not forget, Cotton was supposed to be overseeing the budget for the last four years, so naturally he was the perfect choice to find out where the money went.

I challenge Dilworth and his cabal to make the financials available now or step aside and let independent professionals do the job. Stop covering up, the membership deserves to know the truth if we are ever going to fix this mess.

To "momster:” I find it odd that Andrea Lagan provided funding for one of the WS fencers on such a timely basis when so many other top fencers had to beg for scraps for years. Is there a correlation between the fact that said fencer used to attend her club? Maybe we should ask Jed Dupree, whose entry to a critical Pan Am foil qualification event was not sent in by Andrea; is there a correlation between the fact that one of his rival contenders for the foil team was a member of her club? She sure didn't forget to send in that fencers entry.

Jim Page sat in the USFA office for over one year as “Director of High Performance” and had the opportunity to see Massik in action. How is it possible he had no knowledge of the mismanagement and reimbursement problems with the coaches and athletes (other than Andrea's buddies)?

It's way past time to clean house. Since the USOC is the primary revenue source for the USFA, (Massik or Nancy never fundraised a dime over their tenures) when they say jump, the only answer is how high. They will restructure the organization as they see fit, like it or not. Who knows, if they do a good job, maybe Anderson, Cotton, Sobalvarro and everyone else who sat back and let this happen can take the credit and earn a well deserved spot in the USFA hall of fame.

But I'm just one of those guys on the lunatic fringe who supported the recall 2 1/2 years ago. Thank goodness we failed; otherwise, none of this ever would have happened and the USFA would have missed out on this marvelous free publicity from SI.

[seak]

And people wonder why the recall effort failed? and folks questioned the motivations of the people behind the recall effort