USOC and USFencing - Discussion

[emerritt]

Here are two references that provide context for assessing the performance of the board of the USFA. The first is Principles for Good Governance and Ethical Practice—A Guide for Charities and Foundations, a report issued by the Panel on the Nonprofit Sector in 2007. It addresses, among other things, the responsibility of the board for oversight of the CEO and the organization’s finances, and for transparency and accountability regarding the resources they care for in the public trust. It is available as a download from:
http://www.nonprofitpanel.org/

Richard Ingram’s “10 Basic Responsibilities of a Nonprofit Board” is the seminal (and short) overview of the boards legal obligations. I recommend the book with his excellent commentary, but the basic list is widely available on the web, for example at:
http://www.volunteerhawaii.org/serve01.php

[MdA]

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.

I think the Italian Federation went out of business a few times and had to be reformed. They seem to have survived pretty well...I am sure we will be OK.

[bigdawg2121]

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.

Actually, this is quite interesting that it has not yet been made public, since I just heard last weekend from a foreign source (highly placed person in another country's NGB) that the actual number is more in the range of 3 times that ammount.***

Whoa...timeout. When I see an "M" I think "million"; I also assume we're talking dollars. If that's the case Eric is saying we have a $900 million deficit and you're saying you believe it closer to something in the $2.7 billion range? Or am I just reading incorrectly?

***Bolding emphasis mine.

[Philistine]

Whoa...timeout. When I see an "M" I think "million"; I also assume we're talking dollars. If that's the case Eric is saying we have a $900 million deficit and you're saying you believe it closer to something in the $2.7 billion range? Or am I just reading incorrectly?

***Bolding emphasis mine.

"M" being used for thousand was not uncommon, though it's for the most part been overtaken by whippersnappers using "K" these days.

I believe the derivation is because "M" is the roman numberal for 1,000.

It is confusing though, because of the confusion with million.

--Philistine

[MdA]

The only thing that occurs to me about this whole mess is that we in the USFA are really missing the late Irwin F. Bernstein. He was our long-time and extremely experienced budget director. He passed away in 2004 and it looks like the USFA budget went with him. He kept us under budget with regular reports to the Board.

He was a volunteer but only after he is gone do we see the value of his efforts over many years. He made sure there was money in the budget for all fencers...from the elite to the beginners.

I am confident we will survive through this reorg. There will be belt-tightening and cuts. We are very fortunate that we have some legitimate medal contenders in Beijing. If we were like team handball and did not qualify a team since 96, we would be out on our ears!

...and the entire USFA budget is around $4 million....not $900 million

[wwalkerjr]

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

My goal was to identify a positive example, not to catalogue other failures.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Give us the Cliff Notes version:

How is US Rowing structurally different from US Fencing?

[fluidfencer]

I think there are very capable people willing to serve. I am guessing that NOBODY would serve under the current Board structure. We need direction from the USOC, which has provided that to the USFA before. New By-Laws would need to be written, and one of the first tasks would be the search for a new executive director.

So, to answer the question below, I would question the sanity of anyone willing to step into the current structure. In fact, people knowledgeable about how things should be done (the people you want on the Board) would specifically NOT volunteer.

There is no need for "officers" since that has been part of the problem. You can hold an election, I guess, but that system is completely broken.

There isn't room for politics, just people who know what they are doing and who are willing to focus on the USFA.

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."

[HDG]

There isn't room for politics, just people who know what they are doing and who are willing to focus on the USFA.

Technocrats?

[Redblade]

Give us the Cliff Notes version:

How is US Rowing structurally different from US Fencing?

Rowing requires liquidity?

[fluidfencer]

There are plenty of people who know the sport, but who also know how a modern non-profit organization is run. There were some comments in the elections topics that explained this very well. I would expect that a new Board would include very few of the people who have been involved (officers/Board/candidates) solely because they have decades of experience in fencing. Those are the people who will be key to solving problems in committees.

It's OK to toss out words like "technocrats", but it needs to be followed by a thoughtful discussion on exactly what you see as the right solution. I think that's already been done, however, in other threads.

I REALLY appreciate the references that emerritt made to Board development resources. This discussion should be made purposefully.

Technocrats?

[wwalkerjr]

Give us the Cliff Notes version:

How is US Rowing structurally different from US Fencing?

I am new to US Fencing (although I was a member of AFLA 20+ years ago), but this is what I gather from a quick read of the Bylaws of each organization.

US Rowing is less complex and more wieldy, more transparent and has built in safeguards to protect against executive abuse or malfeasance.

US Rowing
Managed by the Board of Directors, all of whom come from a rowing background, all are elected by the membership, have a 3 term limit and 3 year terms. The starting year for the BoDs are staggered so that every year approximately 1/3 of the Board is up for election.
The VPs (1 male, 1 female, elected) are part of the Board of Directors and are the highest elected office by the membership.
The President, Secretary and Treasurer are selected by the Board from among the Board members.
Total of 14 BoD members (2 VP, male and female, 6 members (one from each geographical section), 4 athlete representatives (2 male, 2 female) and 2 at-large members)
The Board selects, oversees and dismisses the Executive Director, who runs the day to day activities (think General Manager)
Notice that the Executive positions (President, Secretary, Treasurer) are selected from the Board, which is reconstituted on a regular basis. The Executive Director is not a part of the Board, so that he has an ultimate boss without the ability to directly manipulate the BoD.

US Fencing on the other hand has an exectutive staff, a Congress, a Board of Directors and an Executive Commitee of the BoD. There are as many as 30 Directors on its Board which includes the President, 3 VPs, Secretary, Treasurer and 4 Directors appointed by the President (total of 10 connected to the executive staff). 1 from each Section (total 10), 6 athlete representatives and 4 elected from the Congress. The executive staff serve for an Olympic quadrennial (4 years), the athlete representatives each get 2 years, the Section and Congress Directors get 1 year. Just about the time that the athlete reps and section reps figure out what is going on, they're gone. The Executive Commitee of the Board has the officers and enough athlete representatives such that they comprise 20% of the Executive Committee (maybe 1 or two).

This may not be a good Cliff's notes but frankly, anyone can read the Constitution and Bylaws of each organization and see the differences. For that matter, check out the Websites and see the differences.
Rowing is running well, fencing is not. Maybe it's the organization, maybe it's just the people. We owe it to ourselves to look at this and make it right.

[rac]

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

My goal was to identify a positive example, not to catalogue other failures.

And my goal was only to mention the fact that having the USOC come to the 'aid' and restructure the organization does not guarantee a -- shall we say superior organization from that which it was originally.

[heretic]

So we know where the Way-Wards stand. Naturally, they will blindly kiss the hand that feeds them while everyone else starved. It's all about entitlement, self-interest and exceptionalism in that little corner USFA universe.

So here's what I have to prove:
1. I have to prove that the USFA posted a $980,000 (that's thousand, not million) deficit on the CO state website.

2. I have to prove that they haven't produced and made public the legally required 2007 fiscal years independent audited financial report.

3. I have to prove that Nancy didn't even tell committee chairs of their appointments.

4. I have to prove that coaches were not getting any budget numbers from the USFA national office or Nancy or anybody.

5. I have to prove that Andrea did not send Jed's entry to the Pan Am qualifier in question; no one else's; just Jed's.

6. I have to prove that Ed Korfanty had to sue the USFA for money he was contractually owed, and won a default judgment when no legal representative for the USFA even bothered to respond. (Alperstein must have been working on his golf game that day).

7. I have to prove that I listened to endless complaints from local coaches and Olympic fencers out here in cement covered New York that the USFA owed them substantial sums of money for months - sometimes years - on end.

8. I have to prove that the shocking lack of oversight that led to the USFA to this financial state was not the primary motivation for the recall.

Since every single item on the laundry list is either a matter of public record or well documented in published sources, I guess I can go back to sniffing the flowers that grow between the cracks in the concrete. At least it's healthier than the crack that the "Mobster and Captain Blo-mo" have been sniffing.



Goodnight Andrea -- where ever you are.

[Jason]

For that matter, check out the Websites and see the differences.

No doubt. That site is ridiculously awesome. Ours is just ridiculous.

[Wingate85]

Mr. flatulence says Eric is THE man Too bad he is not available to run the show. The FC was hands down the best club in America when he was in charge. No matter what everyone thinks his posts are by far the most entertaining.

[tchwojko]

So we know where the Way-Wards stand. Naturally, they will blindly kiss the hand that feeds them while everyone else starved. It's all about entitlement, self-interest and exceptionalism in that little corner USFA universe.

<snipped for space>

Since every single item on the laundry list is either a matter of public record or well documented in published sources, I guess I can go back to sniffing the flowers that grow between the cracks in the concrete. At least it's healthier than the crack that the "Mobster and Captain Blo-mo" have been sniffing.

I don't get it. Do you want to get things to change, or do you want to call people names? The latter gets in the way of the former.

[Jason]

I don't get it. Do you want to get things to change, or do you want to call people names? The latter gets in the way of the former.

Don't be silly. Things are changing, no matter what Eric calls the Wards. He's not hurting or helping anything.

[HDG]

Don't be silly. Things are changing, no matter what Eric calls the Wards. He's not hurting or helping anything.

A lot of people seem to know who Heretic is, calling him by his first name; can someone clue me in?

[Peach]

Don't be silly. Things are changing, no matter what Eric calls the Wards. He's not hurting or helping anything.

To someone on the outside, it looks like insider squabbling, like someone taking advantage of disorder to settle some old scores.