USOC and USFencing - Discussion

[telkanuru]

I really can't be bothered to do a point-rebuttal of the idiocy here, so I'll let Dr. Cox do all the talking.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY[/YOUTUBE]

[Padawan]

I know I have those diaries and journals from 1998 somewhere around here......

[Phrogger]

Curious then how they don't cover the cost of international programs, let along the equal expenditure for domestic fencing. I think you underestimate membership dues and entry fees.

Here's some research I did from another thread:

It's worth noting that the USFA earned 1,562,231 from tournaments, or 41% of its entire income. 24% came from membership dues, 3% from club insurance fees, and only 1% from the magazine (advertising). Less than 1% came from securities dividends, and I'm not sure about the other 31%, possibly from contributions or the USOC.

The thread also contains a rough budget breakdown based on 2006 tax returns for anyone interested.

[Craig]

Merging this thread with the other thread.

Craig

[Craig]

The main question here is what will the USFA be going forward and what can we hope to expect from the organization.

Some people I have talked to have mixed thoughts: "Yay, we get our money and reimbursements so we can stop begging everyone we know for a few dollars" and at the same time "I hope this doesn't screw up the oraganization further or hurt prospects for our fencers in the next quad"

The next few months after the Olympics will be very interesting. Perhaps having the USOC do the interviewing and hiring for a new executive director will be a good thing. (I know nothing about either candidates ability to screen and make good hires.)

Craig

[seak]

heretic, my motivations, are merely that I'd like the see the USFA function as an organization that functions, with the best interests of all their fencers, and personnel, both at the very top and very lowest levels. I have never found that unsubstantiated personal attacks on individuals who are donating their time, energy, and expertise to be a productive way to accomplish things.

JJeffries, I have no clue as to the motivations of the those behind the recall, but from what I remember of their posts of the time, they were strongly into bashing a few individuals and alleging things beyond which they have proof of. Also they were seeking to put into power people who many perceived as also part of the problem. I did not get te feeling that they really cared about fencers below the national team level. heretics post, which his bashing of individuals through innuendo, was extremely distasteful to me, and reminded me of what I didn't like about those who read the recall effort.

[epeemike81]

This hasn't stopped. Even in the current election I've heard arguments (FUD really) that allowing an election would lead to the USOC decertifying the USFA.

Please link to those posts. I'm unable to find them.

-m

[epeemike81]

Andrea;

Take responsibility. You sat in that office; you know what was going on.

If I'm wrong, prove it.

Civil discourse can only occur if the folks on the hill are willing to talk openly and honestly. They have not.

You have not.

That's the only acceptable standard of professional conduct - even for you.

You're the one making accusations here... the burden of proof is very much on you, not Andrea.

-m

[Capt. Slo-mo]

What I find amazing about Heretic's post is that he can type "civil discourse" and "acceptable standard of professional conduct" without his keyboard bursting into flames in disbelief.

But sure, I'll second epeemike. I think Andrea has been much more of the solution to a bad situation than part of the problem.

You've made the accusations. Back them up or resume sniffing crack flowers (or whatever it is you do for fun in NYC in the springtime)

[jkdjeff]

Speaking as a rank and file fencer with no hopes of ever making an Olympic team, I hope that all of this doesn't end up with the USFA focusing too heavily on the athletes in the very top tier and not giving much attention to developing the sport at the recreational/local competition level.

Don't get me wrong, I think our Olympians are awesome and deserving of a lot more support than it sounds like they've been getting up until now; but I don't want the USFA to become just about that very small subset of the fencing community.

[dekko]

Speaking as a rank and file fencer with no hopes of ever making an Olympic team, I hope that all of this doesn't end up with the USFA focusing too heavily on the athletes in the very top tier and not giving much attention to developing the sport at the recreational/local competition level.

Don't get me wrong, I think our Olympians are awesome and deserving of a lot more support than it sounds like they've been getting up until now; but I don't want the USFA to become just about that very small subset of the fencing community.

This is likely the exact mindset that has caused the USOC to do what they did, or will do. I agree the high level fencers should get some sort of support but so far, it seems, it has been done at the cost of the rest of us.

[tchwojko]

Why go there? He said she said. If you are really curious look.

Ugh, you're the one that brought it up! I read most of the posts in most of the election threads, and don't recall things getting personal.

Uh, could you clue me? Never did follow innuendo (indirect intimation about a person or thing) very well.

You certainly seem capable of using it.

Speaking as a rank and file fencer with no hopes of ever making an Olympic team, I hope that all of this doesn't end up with the USFA focusing too heavily on the athletes in the very top tier and not giving much attention to developing the sport at the recreational/local competition level.

I hope that all the money goes to where it was intended. USOC money goes to the Olympians, USFA member's money goes to helping the members.

To some extent, that may include contributing to the high performance group, but it should be reasonable, and only if the membership as a whole is being served otherwise appropriately.

[tchwojko]

This is likely the exact mindset that has caused the USOC to do what they did, or will do. I agree the high level fencers should get some sort of support but so far, it seems, it has been done at the cost of the rest of us.

It sounds like no one was getting either the service or dollars they were due.

[fluidfencer]

Ultimate responsibility for the USFA belongs to the Board. I'm not the only one who has consistently said that the structure of the USFA was it's biggest problem. Everything else, EVERYTHING, is a symptom of that problem.

Among other things, the Board is responsible for hiring the operational leadership, reviewing financial results (directing annual audits and approving budgets), and providing oversight for the strategic direction of the organization. That responsibility is a legal fiduciary one, and it is/was incumbent upon anyone who has joined that Board in the past to ask the questions necessary to understand the nature of that legal responsibility.

[erooMynohtnA]

You're the one making accusations here... the burden of proof is very much on you, not Andrea.

-m

Unfortunately, in the realm of politics the burden of proof is often on the accused. It shouldn't be, but people in the spotlight need to defend themselves against baseless accusations all the time. I certainly don't know enough to make a judgment as to the validity of heretic's claims one way or the other, and I imagine 95-99% of the people reading this thread don't either. And how many of that number are conspiracy minded individuals happy to jump onboard?

In other news, I got my issue of American Fencing last night, and I thought the Mystery Writer's column in the back was pretty funny given recent events. Here's my favorite quote from the Farewell and Thanks to Michael Massik:

"If you do not know, some non-revenue sports have had their governance responsibilities usurped by the USOC. They have mandated board size and dictated the path the NGB is to follow. Michael's successful management and good relations with the USOC have helped maintain our independence, self-governance, and self-determination."

[jkdjeff]

I hope that all the money goes to where it was intended. USOC money goes to the Olympians, USFA member's money goes to helping the members.

To some extent, that may include contributing to the high performance group, but it should be reasonable, and only if the membership as a whole is being served otherwise appropriately.

Well, again speaking as a rank and file fencer, I don't need a ton of support from the USFA; there are a very few basic things I expect from them.

1) Support for clubs that enables them to help grow the sport;

2) Either running events directly (in the case of larger events) or providing support for smaller events to happen at the local levels;

3) Managing the high-performance section of the membership in such a way that it serves its best purpose within the context of the overall organization, which is to get people excited about the sport and give an example for ALL fencers.

Speaking more specifically to #3, I don't have a problem with a large portion of my USFA membership going to support people competing at the highest levels, including Olympians, as long as such efforts aren't viewed as an end in and of themselves.

The only value that Olympians bring to the USFA as a whole in my opinion (and it is a very substantial one, don't get me wrong) is to create excitement among those of us who'll never get to that level, and try to inspire us to put out the best effort WE can by using them as an example.

Actually winning medals? That's awesome, but if that goal is looked at in a vacuum, it should be the responsibility of the USOC, not the USFA, since the USOC's primary goal is to win medals, and there's no reason for the USOC to care about fencers like me unless they have the potential to develop into Olympians.

Which anyone who's watched me fence can tell you, I don't.

[tchwojko]

Well, again speaking as a rank and file fencer, I don't need a ton of support from the USFA; there are a very few basic things I expect from them.

1) Support for clubs that enables them to help grow the sport;

2) Either running events directly (in the case of larger events) or providing support for smaller events to happen at the local levels;

That's basic, but quite a bit of work. I'd expect that to be a significant chunk of membership dollars.

3) Managing the high-performance section of the membership in such a way that it serves its best purpose within the context of the overall organization, which is to get people excited about the sport and give an example for ALL fencers.

Speaking more specifically to #3, I don't have a problem with a large portion of my USFA membership going to support people competing at the highest levels, including Olympians, as long as such efforts aren't viewed as an end in and of themselves.

The only value that Olympians bring to the USFA as a whole in my opinion (and it is a very substantial one, don't get me wrong) is to create excitement among those of us who'll never get to that level, and try to inspire us to put out the best effort WE can by using them as an example.

I disagree. Membership dollars towards high-performance (in my opinion) should be towards funneling high quality members into and through the high performance group. The high performance competitors, coaches, refs and armorers have to come from somewhere, and if it's our money, they ought to come from us. So I don't mind money going to something that might not personally or directly benefit me, but it ought to benefit the membership, and it should be available to any of the membership who succeeds (as opposed to having the political clout).

Actually winning medals? That's awesome, but if that goal is looked at in a vacuum, it should be the responsibility of the USOC, not the USFA, since the USOC's primary goal is to win medals, and there's no reason for the USOC to care about fencers like me unless they have the potential to develop into Olympians.

I wouldn't put it like that, but the USOC's job is more directly in line with those already in the high performance group, not necessarily to getting people there. I think that's pretty much the line the money ought to follow.

Which anyone who's watched me fence can tell you, I don't.

I never underestimate anyone with a pointy thing directed at me.

[wwalkerjr]

It is not necessary to be forced into undesirable choices such as support for development programs, support for elite programs, training of referees, sponsorship of tournaments or management of the rank and file amateur fencers.
It just requires good and motivated people to approach their organization thoughfully and professionally. It requires proper oversight by a committed Board of Directors.
I am also a member of US Rowing. It may be an excellent model. It was created years ago to improve the state of US competitive rowing in world competitions such as the Olympics. At the time of its formation, US crews had fallen to levels that could only be described as mediocre and the participation in the sport was declining. It has succeeded admirably in sending representative and very competitive crews to the Olympics and other international championships. (Gold Medal in Men's 8 at Athens in World Record time. Silver Medal at Athens for the Women's 8.) It also has a very active youth development program in high schools and a growing and very successful Masters (Veterans) program. The sport is growing and the US Rowing's management is succeeding on all levels. It has roughly the same budget as US Fencing, but it is in good financial condition; financial data is posted on its website (USrowing.org) for any visitor to evaluate.

[Guymelef]

While the question of how we got to this situation is important: we need to know so as to not repeat these mistakes. The question that should be asked is where do we go from here? While the USOC may take controlling interests in the USFA, there will still be a need for officers. The slate is set this time, but who will step up the next quadrennial? Who is willing to take that responsiblity? It is in fact a small field. We are all pursuing education, careers, or family obligations. Besides that, we want to fence too. Who is ready to sacrifice to make his or her bones in the Divisions, on the bout committees, and in the ref corps? Who is ready to swallow the bitter pill of politicking and enter that unsavory, backward world while not wavering in zealotry? Who is ready to go from nailing theses to the door to leading the reformation?

It is not enough, Mr. Beale, to merely say "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore."

[rac]

It is not necessary to be forced into undesirable choices such as support for development programs, support for elite programs, training of referees, sponsorship of tournaments or management of the rank and file amateur fencers.
It just requires good and motivated people to approach their organization thoughfully and professionally. It requires proper oversight by a committed Board of Directors.
I am also a member of US Rowing. It may be an excellent model. It was created years ago to improve the state of US competitive rowing in world competitions such as the Olympics. At the time of its formation, US crews had fallen to levels that could only be described as mediocre and the participation in the sport was declining. It has succeeded admirably in sending representative and very competitive crews to the Olympics and other international championships. (Gold Medal in Men's 8 at Athens in World Record time. Silver Medal at Athens for the Women's 8.) It also has a very active youth development program in high schools and a growing and very successful Masters (Veterans) program. The sport is growing and the US Rowing's management is succeeding on all levels. It has roughly the same budget as US Fencing, but it is in good financial condition; financial data is posted on its website (USrowing.org) for any visitor to evaluate.

On the other hand see: USTU taken over and made into USATaekwondo by the USOC...