As a newcomer, it looks like needlessly inflammatory language that gets in the way of any actual discourse about solutions.
I can understand old grudges may exist, and some may be justified; but at some point you have to put the past behind you if you want to move towards the future.
I'm not trying to settle old scores. I don't even know who 95% of the posters on this site are, while everyone seems to know and not necessarily love me. I believe that before meaningful change can occur, we need transparency and accountability. So far, the USFA cognoscenti have provided neither. The summer nationals are days away; has anyone seen an agenda for the congress meeting, let alone an addendum with the Budget/finance and Audit committee reports? I ran a very successful non-profit board, and agendas and reports were sent out well in advance so board members had time to analyze and digest the information.
The USOC is going to take control of elite fencing; Jim Page is their current godfather, and unfortunately Andrea Lagan is his consigliere. After the Olympics, will they still be in charge, or will the USOC do a job search for other potential candidates? Absent other voices, the USOC folks will be spoon fed by Page/Lagan, and that is not good. Hopefully others will speak out and paint a more accurate picture. But the USFA is much more than High Performance alone. Who will be responsible for everything else?
First things first.
We need to understand what went wrong, which means hiring a forensic accountant. We need to put in place stringent financial controls to get our balance sheet in order.
We need to establish clear operational goals for each segment of the organization, and then develop four-year plans for achieving them. This should be done in an open forum, soliciting input from the vast administrative and professional talent in the fencing community that can be tapped; lawyers, financial analysts, CFOs, MBAs, fundraising professionals, coaches. There are some really smart people out there.
Then, after carefully vetting candidates, we need to appoint and enfranchise capable, motivated, individuals to take control of those areas. No more Nancy Andersons and Derek Cottons. This shouldn't be a popularity contest; competency is key.
Every year, the BOD should evaluate whether or not the benchmarks in each of these organizational segments have been met, and if not, why? If a chair is underperforming, replace them.
Lastly we need an ED who lives up to the traditional job description for a non-profit. One the top of the list: fundraising; followed by more fundraising; and then even more fundraising. Given sufficient financial resources, we already have the athletic and coaching talent to win Olympic medals and see USFA membership reach the 100,000 mark.
I have watched the same faces run the show for well over twenty-five years. Some, like the late Irwin Bernstein, were very good at their jobs. Others, too numerous to mention, were awful, but remained entrenched. Finally things have gotten bad enough that I believed the rank and file members would demand change.
In the words of TS Elliot "this is the way the world ends, not with a bang, but with a whimper." Wait a minute - was that Elliot or Ezra Pound? It's late.
Excellent analysis by Mr. Rosenberg. Those of us who have been around for a while know all this to be true. In short the organization has to hire professionals, and hold them accountable. If this cannot be done at the very least let's tap into individuals with track records like Eric who are in this for the love of the sport. As he said, there are plenty of them out there, but for the past 30 years it's been the same old crowd with little fencing experience much less organizational and management accum running the show.
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.
Since every single item on the laundry list is either a matter of public record or well documented in published sources...
I'd appreciate a citation for this one (should be easy, since you say it's "Well documented in public sources.") Given your implication of sinister motives, I'd also appreciate any evidence you have that this was a sinister act, since that accusation runs so contrary to all other knowledge I have of Andrea.
To me, what is most important - and what needs to be done TODAY - is a statement by the USOC about what will happen, generally, over the next year. In addition to Nationals and the Olympics, we have divisions, sections and youth committees that need to begin the process of planning for next season - and while the election caused some people to pause, the USOC takeover will probably stop these efforts dead in their tracks.
In addition, the USOC should make a statement to the referees, bout committee members and other volunteers who are going to Nationals that basically reassures us that things are in good hands and that we won't get screwed in this process.
Finally, the USOC should make a statement to the broader fencing community that sets forth some high level goals (fiscal responsibility, transparency, communications, etc.) that it will shoot for over the next year.
Our community needs reassurance. There's been a lot of chaos over the past few years - much of which has come to a head during this last few months. Right now, all we have to go on are: (a) a Sports Illustrated article that some say is unfair and inaccurate; (b) a statement from the USOC that really only amounts to pablum; and (c) the comments on this thread. I think that we need more - and we need it quickly - before we all get on planes and run to San Jose.
To me, what is most important - and what needs to be done TODAY - is a statement by the USOC about what will happen, generally, over the next year. In addition to Nationals and the Olympics, we have divisions, sections and youth committees that need to begin the process of planning for next season - and while the election caused some people to pause, the USOC takeover will probably stop these efforts dead in their tracks.
In addition, the USOC should make a statement to the referees, bout committee members and other volunteers who are going to Nationals that basically reassures us that things are in good hands and that we won't get screwed in this process.
Finally, the USOC should make a statement to the broader fencing community that sets forth some high level goals (fiscal responsibility, transparency, communications, etc.) that it will shoot for over the next year.
Our community needs reassurance. There's been a lot of chaos over the past few years - much of which has come to a head during this last few months. Right now, all we have to go on are: (a) a Sports Illustrated article that some say is unfair and inaccurate; (b) a statement from the USOC that really only amounts to pablum; and (c) the comments on this thread. I think that we need more - and we need it quickly - before we all get on planes and run to San Jose.
It looks like the USFA has posted a copy of the USOC press release on the USFA website. (The text is identical to what Craig posted in post #14.) It also includes a page discussing the effects this will have on the USFA in general. Here's what it says (pasted from http://www.usfencing.org/usfa/compon...einfo/id,1781/):
Quote:
Originally Posted by USFA Announcement to the Membership
June 26, 2008
Implications of the New Structure of High Performance Program between the U.S. Fencing Association and the U.S. Olympic Committee
The U.S. Fencing Association would like to take this opportunity to share with its members Wednesday's (June 25) announcement by the U.S. Olympic Committee of the new structure of the high performance program for the 2008 U.S. Olympic Team for Fencing and to explain how that program will affect the U.S. Fencing Association.
• The key point is that the U.S. Fencing Association has worked in consultation with U.S. Olympic Committee in developing the plan for oversight of U.S. Fencing's High Performance Program as it relates to the 2008 U.S. Olympic Team. U.S. Fencing views this as a positive step to ensure that there will be no barriers that will disrupt the focus of the fencers and coaches who will represent the United States of America at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, China.
• While it is true that the U.S. Fencing Association has experienced financial difficulties, it is important to note that U.S. Fencing has paid the great majority of amounts due to athletes and coaches. While there is still some outstanding money owed to these individuals, the U.S. Fencing Association has made tremendous strides to correct this problem and has worked in consultation with the U.S. Olympic Committee to ensure that the remaining money is paid to the athletes and coaches in a timely manner. The goal of both organizations is to avoid distractions as our representatives make the final push to the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, China.
• As is customary, the U.S. Fencing Association underwent an extensive detailed audit by an independent CPA from October 2007 through April 2008. The completed audit showed no evidence of misappropriation of any funds. Then, during the week of June 16, 2008 the U.S. Fencing Association requested an audit by the United States Olympic Committee, which has also been completed and showed no evidence of mishandling of any USOC grant money.
• The largest portion of money owed to athletes is performance incentive bonuses instituted by the U.S. Fencing Association to greater support athletes who are achieving high levels of performance on the competition strip. Direct athlete support has not been affected.
• The current financial position of the U.S. Fencing Association is significantly improved from the fall of 2007. Most expenses of the Association are current or within the 30-90 day range. A complete budget report will be presented at the upcoming Board of Directors meeting.
• The U.S. Fencing Association has created an Audit Committee and a Budget Committee that actively review the financial operations of the organization on an ongoing basis to assure effective financial control and the maximization of resources.
• The intent of the coordinated effort with the U.S. Olympic Committee is to clear all hurdles that may stand in the way of optimal performance at the upcoming Olympic Games in Beijing, China. Our shared goal is to capitalize on medal opportunities at the Games by ensuring existing plans and resources are implemented and supported for success. Contrary to rumors and some publicized misinformation, the USOC has not “taken over” the United States Fencing Association, and has indicated no desire or intent to do so.
• The membership of the U.S. Fencing Association has grown every year without fail and the potential for success has never been higher for a U.S. Fencing Olympic Team. For the sport to continue to grow it is important to show sponsors and others that we can achieve success and a continued upward growth rate in membership.
• There are many questions regarding how the USOC will exercise its role in the coming months. We will keep you informed when we have those answers from the USOC.
While this doesn't answer all of the questions, it does provide some insight into the situation. It's interesting to note that the USOC announcement makes no mention of them "taking over" the operations of USFA as claimed by the SI article.
There are certainly a lot of questions to be answered, but I think it is too soon to start crying "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" We just don't know enough to make that determination yet. I suspect more details will be given at the membership and congress meetings next week.
To me, what is most important - and what needs to be done TODAY - is a statement by the USOC about what will happen, generally, over the next year. In addition to Nationals and the Olympics, we have divisions, sections and youth committees that need to begin the process of planning for next season - and while the election caused some people to pause, the USOC takeover will probably stop these efforts dead in their tracks.
In addition, the USOC should make a statement to the referees, bout committee members and other volunteers who are going to Nationals that basically reassures us that things are in good hands and that we won't get screwed in this process.
Finally, the USOC should make a statement to the broader fencing community that sets forth some high level goals (fiscal responsibility, transparency, communications, etc.) that it will shoot for over the next year.
Our community needs reassurance. There's been a lot of chaos over the past few years - much of which has come to a head during this last few months. Right now, all we have to go on are: (a) a Sports Illustrated article that some say is unfair and inaccurate; (b) a statement from the USOC that really only amounts to pablum; and (c) the comments on this thread. I think that we need more - and we need it quickly - before we all get on planes and run to San Jose.
The USOC doesn't care about what you or I think about the future of the USFA. No specific information will be released soon, and certainly not just before the SN. The USOC cares about the Olympics.
Time to learn from history, in this case the early 70s.
I have a dumb question... Where did the money go?
The coaches are owed, the refs are owed, the olympians are owed, from all accounts the NACs are at least self sufficient, even if they lose money it can't be to this magnitude.
Time to follow the money and really figure out who is responsible, or irresponsible, in this case.
To me, what is most important - and what needs to be done TODAY - is a statement by the USOC about what will happen, generally, over the next year. In addition to Nationals and the Olympics, we have divisions, sections and youth committees that need to begin the process of planning for next season - and while the election caused some people to pause, the USOC takeover will probably stop these efforts dead in their tracks.
{snip}
From the USOC press release: "The USOC and USA Fencing will develop and implement the long-term solution for the NGB after the Games in Beijing."
Like Soberin, I think it's likely that's the best we're going to get out of the USOC for quite a while--given that it's the U.S. Olympic Committee, their focus will be on... well... the Olympics.
I suspect, in the short run, the only thing going on is that they are administering the funds for Olympic athletes and expenses, and otherwise letting the USFA operate normally.
In the medium to longer term, I expect the USOC to cram down a significant form of organizational restructuring on the USFA, which is long overdue--it would have been nice to have been able to have a little more of a say it in ourselves, though....
My guess, if all goes more or less well, there will be little change that the average rank and file USFA member sees.
Time to learn from history, in this case the early 70s.
I have a dumb question... Where did the money go?
The coaches are owed, the refs are owed, the olympians are owed, from all accounts the NACs are at least self sufficient, even if they lose money it can't be to this magnitude.
Time to follow the money and really figure out who is responsible, or irresponsible, in this case.
Well, two things that I recall having come up before:
1) National team spending went way over budget. I haven't seen numbers on where or who spent more than they had allocated, but I'll bet we see some of that in San Jose.
2) The Performance Grants provide award money for international results. IE, win a World Cup, get X thousand dollars. However, I was told this plan was put into place without actually predicting how many awards would be granted. For example, if we gave $10,000 per World Cup and budgeted $30,000, Becca Ward alone would put us at near double the budget, let alone the awards for all our other athletes. (I don't know the numbers involved here exactly.)
The USOC release was more about setting the groundwork and also letting the athletes know that something was being done (as they've been chasing money owed to them for quite some time.)
The USFA will, of course, send out an "everything is okay, nothing to see here, move along" statement. Every company takeover or merger that I've seen has similar emails sent out from the CEO to the employees. They don't want a panic.
My speculation: The USOC is going to care first about the Olympics and then keep an eye on those who are elected. If those people are people who can work with the USOC and support the USOC vision for managing and growing the sport, then those people will be supported by the USOC and mentored as to the way some more successful organizations run. If the USOC has no confidence in those who will be in charge, they may just decide to decertify and start over. (We'll call it "no fencer left behind" to mirror the US educational policy on failing schools.)
The recall effort and statements from prior USFA presidents pretty much put the USFA on notice and on the USOC's radar. The recent publicity about financial mismanagement and public lawsuits does not sit well with an org like the USOC and showed them that "we" are not able to clean house without help.
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.
I think you are overstating the differences here.
For example, the USFA Executive Director is not a member of the board either. His only ability to manipulate the Board is in the reports he gives them. I presume the USRowing Executive Director also gives reports to their Board (and probably answers questions) and is just as capable of being misleading or inaccurate in those.
Quote:
US Fencing on the other hand has an exectutive staff, a Congress, a Board of Directors and an Executive Commitee of the BoD.
US Rowing presumably has a professional staff as well. I think you're confusing Executive Committee and Executive Staff, going by your definitions you actually mean the same people.
The Congress does not do much except elect the 4 Board Members. It is a bit more cumbersome, but on the other hand Congress Reps are usually among the more involved members of their Divisions and so much better able to evaluate candidates than members who are uninvolved in USFA affairs. I don't think the presence of a Congress hinders USFA operations.
[quote]
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).[quote]That's up to 4 appointments. Most Presidents have not appointed more than 1 or 2, I believe.
Quote:
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.
In practice, the Section and Congress Directors are reelected and usually have some of the longest terms of service. I can't speak to the Athlete Reps directly because I don't know how frequently they are reappointed but have the impression it is pretty often.
How many members does each Section Director represent in USRowing? Are the 6 sections approximately equal or are there substantial differences in size or membership?
The USOC release was more about setting the groundwork and also letting the athletes know that something was being done (as they've been chasing money owed to them for quite some time.)
The USFA will, of course, send out an "everything is okay, nothing to see here, move along" statement. Every company takeover or merger that I've seen has similar emails sent out from the CEO to the employees. They don't want a panic.
My speculation: The USOC is going to care first about the Olympics and then keep an eye on those who are elected. If those people are people who can work with the USOC and support the USOC vision for managing and growing the sport, then those people will be supported by the USOC and mentored as to the way some more successful organizations run. If the USOC has no confidence in those who will be in charge, they may just decide to decertify and start over. (We'll call it "no fencer left behind" to mirror the US educational policy on failing schools.)
The recall effort and statements from prior USFA presidents pretty much put the USFA on notice and on the USOC's radar. The recent publicity about financial mismanagement and public lawsuits does not sit well with an org like the USOC and showed them that "we" are not able to clean house without help.
Craig
Craig, et al:
I agree - press releases are purely spin. That is why I think its important for the USOC to say something to reassure the membership that the USFA will be there - changes may occur, but the organization will be there. Why is this important?
1) Immediately, the USFA has asked that we accept a life membership instead of payment for referee/bout committee/etc. work. I, for one, want to know that the membership will have value during my daughter's lifetime (I plan to transfer it to her).
2) We need to make commitments for venues for large sectional events. We need to know that the money owed to the sections will be paid so that we can make the appropriate arrangements. If we wait until after Beijing, our ability to locate good venue space on the few available dates will be severely compromised.
3) Olympic years are always sea changes in the sport. Clubs change, coaches change, fencers (beyond the Olympians) move on. Reassurance and professionalism may help in our retention efforts.
I don't think that this is too much to ask - particularly given the recent scandals, the election battles, and the USFA's lack of meaningful communication about these issues.
The USOC release was more about setting the groundwork and also letting the athletes know that something was being done (as they've been chasing money owed to them for quite some time.)
The USFA will, of course, send out an "everything is okay, nothing to see here, move along" statement. Every company takeover or merger that I've seen has similar emails sent out from the CEO to the employees. They don't want a panic.
My speculation: The USOC is going to care first about the Olympics and then keep an eye on those who are elected. If those people are people who can work with the USOC and support the USOC vision for managing and growing the sport, then those people will be supported by the USOC and mentored as to the way some more successful organizations run. If the USOC has no confidence in those who will be in charge, they may just decide to decertify and start over. (We'll call it "no fencer left behind" to mirror the US educational policy on failing schools.)
The recall effort and statements from prior USFA presidents pretty much put the USFA on notice and on the USOC's radar. The recent publicity about financial mismanagement and public lawsuits does not sit well with an org like the USOC and showed them that "we" are not able to clean house without help.
Craig
I hope the USOC is willing to work with whom ever is elected. The flip side is if they feel that the incoming officers can't get the job done they may tell them thanks but no thanks. Let's face it, if certain people are elected they may see some of the same names of those involved before when we had these problems and think they can't pull us out of this....
I disagree with the headline on the article, the USOC seems to be taking over more than the high performance situation.
To be more drastic, this would seem to be a good time for someone/group who has the financial ability to step up and start a new fenceing organization and convince the USOC they could do a better job. Yes, it's a bit of a stretch but if the USOC thinks the new officers and hired personel can't get the job done and someone/group comes in who convicnes they can get the job done and run it properly, they might be convinced. Let's face it, the USOC has better things to do than run a NGB of 'an obscure sport' with less than 25,000 members.
I agree - press releases are purely spin. That is why I think its important for the USOC to say something to reassure the membership that the USFA will be there - changes may occur, but the organization will be there.
{snip}
I'm not sure they can say that the USFA will continue to be there.
AIUI, the USOC essentially has two ultimate "sticks" to use to make changes--funding and certification.
It can certainly condition funding on whatever it wants to--or dole it out directly. It can also condition continued certification as a NGB on whatever changes it wants to personnel or structure.
But, AIUI, it cannot directly make any structural changes over the objections of the USFA, nor can it directly affect the USFA's non-Olympic functioning or finances.
I fully expect that the Board (and it is the Board, not the officers who are the ones empowered to actually take action) will work with the USOC and, in the end, will likely do anything the USOC requires to maintain the USFA's status as an NGB.
But I can't see the USOC making any assurance that the USFA will remain as the NGB--because ultimately, it might not. In the end, the only thing the USOC can do if the USFA is intransigent, is to decertify them. (Not that I think it is at all likely).
I really suspect that whatever the USOC does will have little to no effect on us "rank and file" fencers. Let's b e blunt, they really don't care about us, they care about Olympic level athletes. So go ahead and get your memberships and plan on going to whatever events you were going to.
the only thing I'd really like to see come out of all this mess is getting an ED who is a professional. He doesn't need to be or to have ever been a fencer. He needs to be someone who has experience running a large NPO. He (or she) needs to be fund raiser.
Let's try looking outside our own little gene pool for a change.
__________________
If you give a man a fire, he is warm for the night.
If you set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.
Linear Mode
