BOD elections

[Inquartata]

Hae you seen that TV commercial with the medieval peasants? Where the one asks his "boss" for "the corner office"? And then the other bashes him over the head and says "I wonder if I might have the corner office?"

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

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

I agree that this has disturbed me as well. In any board that I have served on the process would have gone like this:

1. The election committee would report the results.
2. A motion would be entertained to accept the report and certify the election of the officers based on that report.
3. The motion would be passed.
4. The minutes would reflect both the results and the motion.

I am certainly not an expert on CO law and perhaps less formality is required there. However, one wonders what the authority the election committee would be operating under in negotiating or suppressing publication of results--whether or not the candidates agreed. Where I am licensed, the proper maintenance of corporate records--particularly around elections--is important and one of the things that the AG will be looking at if there is trouble.

If the USOC action is going beyond asserting control of financials for the elite program and really is going into questions about questions of reorganization or decertification, I would think that the last thing I would want to be doing is highlighting lax corporate formalities and that committees are acting independently from BoD authority.

Opinions may vary.

[oso97]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

I agree that this has disturbed me as well. In any board that I have served on the process would have gone like this:

1. The election committee would report the results.
2. A motion would be entertained to accept the report and certify the election of the officers based on that report.
3. The motion would be passed.
4. The minutes would reflect both the results and the motion.

I am certainly not an expert on CO law and perhaps less formality is required there. However, one wonders what the authority the election committee would be operating under in negotiating or suppressing publication of results--whether or not the candidates agreed. Where I am licensed, the proper maintenance of corporate records--particularly around elections--is important and one of the things that the AG will be looking at if there is trouble.

If the USOC action is going beyond asserting control of financials for the elite program and really is going into questions about questions of reorganization or decertification, I would think that the last thing I would want to be doing is highlighting lax corporate formalities and that committees are acting independently from BoD authority.

Opinions may vary.

Short version...

The standard operations of the BOD will change dramatically come the end of August.

[aisha]

Hi all,

Now that we are back in central IL-it takes us about 13 hours to get home (and we were flying)-I'll put my two cents in: There was a scheduled meeting w/the USFA officers that I attended. I walked in @ 3:30 expecting to see a crowd but only Kalle (USFA pres.) and 2 others were present. Later, 2 more people showed up. Hmm...I know many were busy w/ref'ing, fencing, coaching, etc., but it behooves clubs to at least send a rep to these meetings.

Additionally, and I do not use this to excuse any administerial problems or mismanagement, these officers are volunteering in addition to full time jobs, and families. As a board member of our local non-profit fencing club (w/a family, full time job, etc.), I know how difficult it is to get things done, and how much complaining goes on by people who do not offer to help, or even come to us with their questions or complaints. General body meeting? No one shows-but this is also fairly typical of many non-profits. I did realize from this meeting that it is pretty easy for someone with the inclination, talent, and time-to work on just about any aspect of the USFA they would like to improve. I know that we have so many fencers talented in their own professional lives who might help. The biggest problem appears to be systemic-that is-fencing is growing rapidly, but the system in place cannot handle the increasingly complex tasks of this growth. Certain improvements are added (or tacked) on (like the software), but these do not take care of the organization interaction itself-which for the most part, is based on volunteerism. With improvement, I am sure we would see higher rates of fencer retention, a major problem for both clubs and the USFA

[CadetVet]

Originally Posted by aisha

Hi all,

Now that we are back in central IL-it takes us about 13 hours to get home (and we were flying)-I'll put my two cents in: There was a scheduled meeting w/the USFA officers that I attended. I walked in @ 3:30 expecting to see a crowd but only Kalle (USFA pres.) and 2 others were present. Later, 2 more people showed up. Hmm...I know many were busy w/ref'ing, fencing, coaching, etc., but it behooves clubs to at least send a rep to these meetings.

Additionally, and I do not use this to excuse any administerial problems or mismanagement, these officers are volunteering in addition to full time jobs, and families. As a board member of our local non-profit fencing club (w/a family, full time job, etc.), I know how difficult it is to get things done, and how much complaining goes on by people who do not offer to help, or even come to us with their questions or complaints. General body meeting? No one shows-but this is also fairly typical of many non-profits. I did realize from this meeting that it is pretty easy for someone with the inclination, talent, and time-to work on just about any aspect of the USFA they would like to improve. I know that we have so many fencers talented in their own professional lives who might help. The biggest problem appears to be systemic-that is-fencing is growing rapidly, but the system in place cannot handle the increasingly complex tasks of this growth. Certain improvements are added (or tacked) on (like the software), but these do not take care of the organization interaction itself-which for the most part, is based on volunteerism. With improvement, I am sure we would see higher rates of fencer retention, a major problem for both clubs and the USFA

Aisha has a point. I, for one, forgot about the open meetings (maybe it would have been good to have a PA announcement or something). True, I was reffing or watching my kids, but had I remembered, I would have tried to drag my tired butt over there to have the chat.

[GypsyScot]

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.

The old guard really, really hated f.net, one day if you're good I'll tell you why.
Uhlmann does too, now that I think of it, thought that one is obvious.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

I've been very very good.

Tell me now!