BOD elections

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally Posted by Redblade

Half the crap you find on these so-called "bulletin board systems" is posted by rabid crackpot troublemakers

That's MR. Rabid Crackpot Troublemaker, if you please. Thanks for noticing.

[JEC]

Originally Posted by mdstasinos

Mr. Jefferies, I stand corrected. Sorry for the mix up on who first had and posted the information.
As far as the numbers I do not have the exact numbers, I did not write them down and possibly Brad will post the exact numbers later. The results off the top of my head were, these are only rounded numbers not exact for I did not write them down:
Kalle: 800 plus
Tracy: 600 plus
Jerry: 890
Mark: 860
Ro: 780
Greg: 800
S.P.: 600
Bruno: 550
Sorin: 600
Auggie: 540

There were a total of just over 1400 ballots.

MD Stasinos

It is important to point out that there was considerable support for all the candidates running in this election. Congratulations to everybody who participated. Nevertheless, the numbers suggest that many USFA members were not satisfied with the winning slate. I voted for individuals, not slates. However, I hope that the elected officials are successful at righting the ship. Good luck!

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

One ?impression? I received from Mr. Alperstein's talk/comments is that f.net and its posters aren't really appreciated. Or rather they are appreciated in a rather negative manner. There were several references to posts to a "website" and when one of the audience, obviously confused as to whether it was the USFA's website, the NomCom slate website or the USFFC website asked which they were referred to fencing.net. I did find that interesting.

If they'd tell us what's going on once in awhile they wouldn't have that problem.

Plus, I'd rather sift through the garbage here to get information than sift through garbage on the USFA site to get, more often than not, nothing.

The list of surprises which the USFA hadn't, and in some cases still hasn't, informed anyone about is fairly large. Take these lawsuits for example, or the financial trouble.

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

If they'd tell us what's going on once in awhile they wouldn't have that problem.

Plus, I'd rather sift through the garbage here to get information than sift through garbage on the USFA site to get, more often than not, nothing.

The list of surprises which the USFA hadn't, and in some cases still hasn't, informed anyone about is fairly large. Take these lawsuits for example, or the financial trouble.

If you pay attention to who is saying things and talk to people involved in getting things done it isn't that hard to somewhat keep up. I feel like I generally know what is going on, except for in the National Office, because no one outside there seems to know what's actually happening in there. But that will change in the near future.

Just reading the Board Agendas and Minutes that oiuyt posts here, let alone the copies on the USFA site, should cover a fair amount. It does take a little effort, but any political involvement does.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

except for in the National Office, because no one outside there seems to know what's actually happening in there.

That's the problem, though, or at least the main one, I think. As biggs said, if you don't want wild speculation and paranoid imagination, the way to keep it in check is by providing the correct, official information. As it is we often get what we do get piecemeal and third hand, filtered through several layers of personal slant or opinion, or at least imperfect memory...Brad's stuff being the main exception, coming as it does from official sources.

[mdstasinos]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

That's the problem, though, or at least the main one, I think. As biggs said, if you don't want wild speculation and paranoid imagination, the way to keep it in check is by providing the correct, official information. As it is we often get what we do get piecemeal and third hand, filtered through several layers of personal slant or opinion, or at least imperfect memory...Brad's stuff being the main exception, coming as it does from official sources.

With the next administration, we will make it easier for information to pass to the membership. With Brad that it a plus, you all know him, he is detailed and accurate with the information that is posted and he is the new secretary for the Association. I believe communication is necessary for our healthy future and I am, as well as the other officers, committed to communicate, listen, discuss, gather information and be proactive with our membership. Our work starts now but officially we do not take office until August 24th, the conclusion of the Olympic Games.
Mark D. Stasinos

[arc]

Originally Posted by Craig

So, what were the real numbers, or do I need to submit a formal request to the new Secretary for that?

Craig
"the guy" from "that website"

From my hurriedly scrawled notes:

President
Kalle, 893 votes
Tracy, 600 votes

Vice Presidents
Jerry, 858 votes
Mark, 806 votes
Ro, 784 votes
Bruno, 644 votes
Soren, 632 votes
August, 536 votes

Treasurer
Greg, 885 votes
Sherol, 552 votes

10 ballots rejected as postmarked late
1 empty ballot envelope received
38 ballots having no signature/names/double votes (i.e., multiple ballots in the same envelope), or other reasons

As a side note, there was anecdotal evidence I received from multiple individuals over the weekend indicating that a substantial portion of the membership did not vote because they simply assumed that the NC slate would win. While the tally is statistically fairly separated (about 60-40 in the presidential race), the low number of votes indicates that in some senses this was a fairly close election. Without taking one side or the other, I'm sure everyone can use their imaginations to take this as a general lesson in why apathy is a bad thing ... less than 20% of our membership bothered to vote (~1500 votes received, ~8900 voting members).

[counterattack]

Originally Posted by arc

From my hurriedly scrawled notes:

President
Kalle, 893 votes
Tracy, 600 votes

Vice Presidents
Jerry, 858 votes
Mark, 806 votes
Ro, 784 votes
Bruno, 644 votes
Soren, 632 votes
August, 536 votes

Treasurer
Greg, 885 votes
Sherol, 552 votes

Thank you for that. I don't care if the officials involved want to keep the numbers secret. The idea that actual numerical results should be kept from the voters is literally outrageous. And I disagree, KD5MDK, that it is easy or even mostly possible for the rank and file to keep on top of things in the USFA political scene. If your coaches and clubmates aren't in the know, then getting even rudimentary answers about the history of what has gone on in the USFA political scene and who the people are beyond their names is quite difficult. I have the advantage of a lot of knowledgeable contacts, reading the F.Net website, and reading the magazine and I still find it a little difficult. And you shouldn't have to read an unofficial website to keep things straight, though I admit that refusing to is a sign that you don't care.

I certainly hope the new officers do better. I suspect they will, but I also suspect that if it weren't for all the pushing and the prodding from those who lost the election that they wouldn't have such a fire under them. So thank you to the challengers for trying, I think you did everyone a good turn.

-philip

p.s. I did NOT vote. I didn't feel I had a good enough sense of the people involved, even with all the reading on F.Net.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally Posted by counterattack

The idea that actual numerical results should be kept from the voters is literally outrageous.

Kalle seems like a genuinely nice person, but this disappointing first step needs some explanation. Perhaps her first e-mail blast to the constituency should be: "Why I Truly Believed Withholding the Election Tallies Was in the Best Interest of the Members of the USFA."

It might make for interesting reading. Unless, of course, it was so chock full of incendiary revelations that the average reader might disintegrate into dripping flibbertygibbets when they tried to absorb it.

You can't be too careful disseminating THAT kind of information...

[seak]

Oh now really can you say mountains out of molehill?

Tracey agreed to it to, it seems as it was suggested by Geri, and lots of small types of organizations don't release vote tally's so as not to embarrass people etc. My Shul for instance and most of the clubs/orginizations I've been a part of that hold elections. Some do, I don't think it's a crime either way.

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by seak

Oh now really can you say mountains out of molehill?

The USOC is intervening into the USFA affairs because the budget was not transparent to enough people, and got out of control.

If the budget is out of hand, I'd like to know what's going on with the rest of the organization to make sure there aren't any other surprises down the road.

The problem is that mountains can be made from lots of molehills, and the USFA has a lot of them.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Seak:

As I mentioned, it's not the biggest issue on the planet...but it speaks volumes about the people in charge.

If you campaign on a new direction of openess and transparency, and your first official act is to help quash the release of vote totals...then your campaign promises and your actions have a disturbing disconnect.

If you can't inspire trust on such a minor issue, how do you inspire trust for above-board dealings on major issues?

Looking at the vote totals...who would have been embarrassed? It was a pretty valiant try by the opposition. Are you suggesting the NomCom Slate would have felt embarrassed either by revealing the relative closeness of the race, or by illustrating the fencing population's paltry turnout? Neither of those are even remotely reasonable rationales for keeping the totals secret.

The USFA is not a small organization. The issues facing it are not small. The responsibilities of those who chose to lead the Association for the next 4 years are not small.

[HDG]

Originally Posted by counterattack

The idea that actual numerical results should be kept from the voters is literally outrageous.

How might something be figuratively outrageous?

[keith]

Originally Posted by HDG

How might something be figuratively outrageous?

A leaf two sizes to small?

[seak]

Well I find it embarrassing how few people voted. As I said this isn't non-standard practice, or standard practice. Both presidential nominees agreed (a fact which most of you seem to be conveniently ignoring), and the nom-comt slate isn't in charge yet.

If they keep the budget hidden, don't produce committee reports, or agendas in a timely manner, don't answer emails etc. Then go ahead cry wolf, I'll be right their with you. This just doesn't seem like an issue, worth nearly this much fuss.

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by seak

Well I find it embarrassing how few people voted.

Don't we all. Especially after all the commotion right here. But I still feel the election served a purpose of forcing a public disclosure of agendas and putting something of an electorate's stamp of approval on the process. Heck it might have even helped the winning slate come together and work through issues - for all we know.

BTW, in between events in San Jose I made a point to go up and congratulate Mrs Weeks on her election. Not that she knew or cares or needs to care who I am. But I think it desirable that she knows we know and appreciate her. I should think it's going to be a bit different being president of the organization rather than being one of the (semi-nameless) officials on the desk who make it work. Just a thought: that we should all greet her and the rest of the new board if there's a suitable momemnt.

Originally Posted by seak

As I said this isn't non-standard practice, or standard practice. Both sides agreed (a fact which most of you seem to be conveniently ignoring), and the nom-comt slate isn't in charge yet.

I must demur with you on this Seak. There were/are three sides, the two slates and the membership. And as one poster has already pointed out that "Robert's Rules of Order" specifically call out that important votes should be disclosed. I might be willing to allow that the vote for the Hall of Fame MIGHT fall outside of the need for public disclosure. But I could see where even that should be handled in an absolutely open manner.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally Posted by seak

Well I find it embarrassing how few people voted. As I said this isn't non-standard practice, or standard practice. Both presidential nominees agreed (a fact which most of you seem to be conveniently ignoring), and the nom-comt slate isn't in charge yet.

Ok, a couple more pokes at the mole, and then we'll leave his oversize domicile alone...

It is a shame so few USFA members voted, yet, it's good to know. Why?

1. None of the new officers can make sweeping mandate claims, such as: "A full 90% of the USFA members voted arm-in-arm to support us in our plan to make Inquartata the Minister of Uniform Uniformity."

2. Candidates for the next quad can look at the dismal numbers for this election, and make sure their plans include a great deal more grassroots-friendly efforts to get out the vote.

That both the candidates allegedly agreed initially to vote count suppression is not exculpatory, it's doubly troubling.

[KD5MDK]

I suspect the idea was to keep the election from being a future issue. No number of "Redefeat Bush" bumper stickers or believers will change the outcome of the election. There's a lot to be said for "Ok, she's our new president. What do we do now".

Doesn't mean it was a good idea.

[Inquartata]

Quote: