BOD elections

[oso97]

And the results of BOD elections from Congress:

David Blake
Aaron Clements
David Mecanik
Evan Raines

Lets hope there is still a BOD in place for them to serve on next season...

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by oso97

David Blake

link to image (not worksafe)

[whtouche]

hahahah
Where do you get all those?

[telkanuru]

The internets!

[KD5MDK]

I remember the original picture of that. I forget what those toys were called, though.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I remember the original picture of that. I forget what those toys were called, though.

Yeah, we were discussing that... I don't remember either, but I had the T-Rex when I was a kid. Foillion had the Triceratops.

-m

edit: found it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dino-Riders

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by oso97

And the results of BOD elections from Congress:

David Blake
Aaron Clements
David Mecanik
Evan Raines

Lets hope there is still a BOD in place for them to serve on next season...

There was a fifth nominee, Sam Cheris, who wasn't elected which provoked a staffer into commenting to their companion, "The world is changing". And NO, I have no idea what was meant exactly.

If you hadn't been following all of the election the Congress would have been as enlightening as "The Dream of the Rood" in old english. And for urging Ms. Marci Dillon to accept to be a representative and attend I'm going to be apologizing for for a while yet. But in many senses the meeting was interesting. Tracy Hurley was in attendance and we heard Kalle Weeks' gracious thanks to those who had done their duty counting ballots and of her desire to make the USFA more open to communication. She pointed to the NomCom Slate's 100 day plan as being their primary agenda. Also that fund raising is going to be - emphasized more? Sorry my notes were made on the back of the yellow ballot sheet that was supposed to be used to vote in the 4 board members from the congress and are hardly legible. Ms. Weeks spoke of holding a series of town meetings during (and I'm not sure I got this correct) the summer nationals, possibly the NAC's? And there was mention of a survey - perhaps on the NomCom slate's website?? Again my notes are not complete.

Perhaps it was Mr. Alperstein who, other than the gentleman giving an oration on Sherry Posthumous' life, who spoke the longest. He had two topics, 1.) the recent posting of a legal brief from the Tait family's lawyers on "that website" and 2.) the USOC's recent actions.

On the first subject he was adamant that he had looked into it and the USFA had neither legal or ethical responsibility in the matter and that the e-mail letter or whatever it is was an attempt to force the USFA to take a hand in something which was not its responsibility. And despite being the person who posted said e-mail, I agree with him. But as I believe I noted when I posted the e-mail the interesting part was the summary/outline of the differences between the USFA governance and what Federal (not sure if it is law or mandates) and USOC By-Laws require. He seemed dismissive of that portion as well and went into a very interesting but short exposition on the USFA and its relationship with the USOC. Again my note taking was less than I might wish. Basically he reiterated what we know that the USOC will only give money to those organizations that are in compliance with the USOC's ?By-laws?. And that ?Ed? Korfanty's suit had gone into default before the USFA was aware? and they were dealing with the matter now and further discussion was not appropriate. I wish I knew more about some of the references he made to personages at the USOC and the ins and outs of voluntarism in both organizations. I gathered inferentially that he felt that it was the pot calling the kettle black where the USOC was attempting to reduce the use of volunteers in the various NGB's.

There was a short presentation from Greg Dilworth about the upcoming budget. This was the power point slide presentation reduced to paper and handed out covering the broad scope of the upcoming budget. Bottom line was that Greg believes that with proper management the USFA could have a surplus of some $300./year for the next three years and remove the current shortfall. Yeah Greg! Now to find out whose ox is going to be sacrificed.

The Board meeting this Sunday morning was even more focused. So much so that the one item that I was interested in, establishing a Vet70 division, was postponed from consideration until September before I could figure out which item they were discussing. But then as I wasn't a board member it really didn't matter.

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.

[wlc]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

...[many interesting things deleted] Perhaps it was Mr. Alperstein who, other than the gentleman giving an oration on Sherry Posthumous' life, who spoke the longest. He had two topics, 1.) the recent posting of a legal brief from the Tait family's lawyers on "that website" and 2.) the USOC's recent actions.
...[snip]... But as I believe I noted when I posted the e-mail the interesting part was the summary/outline of the differences between the USFA governance and what Federal (not sure if it is law or mandates) and USOC By-Laws require. He seemed dismissive of that portion as well and went into a very interesting but short exposition on the USFA and its relationship with the USOC. Again my note taking was less than I might wish. Basically he reiterated what we know that the USOC will only give money to those organizations that are in compliance with the USOC's .

Wow. This sounds very strange, yet quite believeable. Thanks for the report, as difficult as it was to make sense of these meetings. I've been wondering when somebody would someone would post their impression of the Congress and BOD meetings. Now I think I understand. It was so surreal no one can get their head around it, maybe not even Brad can think of what to say.

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by wlc

Wow. This sounds very strange, yet quite believeable. Thanks for the report, as difficult as it was to make sense of these meetings. I've been wondering when somebody would someone would post their impression of the Congress and BOD meetings. Now I think I understand. It was so surreal no one can get their head around it, maybe not even Brad can think of what to say.

I had a number of impressions. One was of the wagons being circled even as Kalle Weeks was calling for greater communications. May have mentioned this was my first attendance and conversations with others indicated that this was typical conduct of a congress. The meetings seem to be held at the beginning of the week and the Veterans' events are held at the end which necessitates dedication of a full week of hotels or multiple trips just attend. What with it being in San Jose I've found myself there every day but the first. So it's been interesting.

Question though, is it the amount of space or is this SN less attended than previous ones? There is a really good sized space for workouts and warmups and the 60 strips are pretty widely spaced leaving one coach to comment on the abnormal spaciousness. San Jose has been warm, 90's today. But the venue is fairly well temperature regulated so that a warmup jacket is desirable. Interestingly I've attended numerous electronic and computer conventions in the fencing area. But it was in the warmup area that I first heard Linus Torvald of Linux fame speak.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

The Board meeting this Sunday morning was even more focused. So much so that the one item that I was interested in, establishing a Vet70 division, was postponed from consideration until September before I could figure out which item they were discussing. But then as I wasn't a board member it really didn't matter.

It was NOT postponed until September. The standard process used by the USFA is a first-hearing, second-hearing system where motions are presented at one meeting and voted upon at the next, unless there is a pressing need to advance them to urgent status. The motion in question refers to the 2009-2010 season, which doesn't start for another 13 months. It hardly required such a step.

It was expected that that motion would be presented today and then come up again in September for the actual vote.

Originally Posted by wlc

It was so surreal no one can get their head around it, maybe not even Brad can think of what to say.

I've had fairly little time available since this morning's meetings. I had a bit of time immediately following the meetings prior to starting to referee for the day. Worked through nearly the final bout (I think there was A foil bout left by the time I finished with WST), then attended an advanced refereeing seminar led by Ariana Klinkov and George Kolombatovich. I've briefly come on here, while waiting to hear back from some fellow Nationals attendees about dinner plans.

I'll write up my notes/impressions from the meetings shortly, but probably not until tomorrow evening (Pacific Coast time).

-B

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

There was a fifth nominee, Sam Cheris, who wasn't elected which provoked a staffer into commenting to their companion, "The world is changing". And NO, I have no idea what was meant exactly.

Sam Chris is a past president of the USFA, the currrent Vice-President, and probably about as "establishment" as you get. If the USFA Congress voted for four other people in preference to him for seats on the Board, it indicates a real change in the political climate here.

If you hadn't been following all of the election the Congress would have been as enlightening as "The Dream of the Rood" in old english.

If you haven't been following the election you have no business being involved in USFA governance, which is what the Congress is about. We usually want the people involved in running things to pay attention to what's going on.

Tracy Hurley was in attendance and we heard Kalle Weeks' gracious thanks to those who had done their duty counting ballots and of her desire to make the USFA more open to communication. She pointed to the NomCom Slate's 100 day plan as being their primary agenda. Also that fund raising is going to be - emphasized more? Sorry my notes were made on the back of the yellow ballot sheet that was supposed to be used to vote in the 4 board members from the congress and are hardly legible. Ms. Weeks spoke of holding a series of town meetings during (and I'm not sure I got this correct) the summer nationals, possibly the NAC's? And there was mention of a survey - perhaps on the NomCom slate's website?? Again my notes are not complete.

This all matches my memory.

Perhaps it was Mr. Alperstein who, other than the gentleman giving an oration on Sherry Posthumous' life, who spoke the longest.

That was Steve Sobel, by the way.

There was a short presentation from Greg Dilworth about the upcoming budget. This was the power point slide presentation reduced to paper and handed out covering the broad scope of the upcoming budget. Bottom line was that Greg believes that with proper management the USFA could have a surplus of some $300./year for the next three years and remove the current shortfall. Yeah Greg! Now to find out whose ox is going to be sacrificed.

At the Board meeting there was also a balance sheet distributed at the desk outside where you checked in and Greg distributed a proposed budget as well.

The Board meeting this Sunday morning was even more focused. So much so that the one item that I was interested in, establishing a Vet70 division, was postponed from consideration until September before I could figure out which item they were discussing. But then as I wasn't a board member it really didn't matter.

oiuyt already covered that this was standard procedure for motions. First hearing items are rarely in my experience discussed much at the actual meeting.

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 impression I get is that many Board members see the discussion on here as a lot of people who don't know what's going on making up things. That's fairly frequently true.

The only time I heard this site mentioned by name was when the Election Committee reported that the candidates had agreed to keep the election numbers confidential. However, since numbers had already been posted on here in violation of that, it seemed important to set the record straight. The numbers were announced but I didn't copy them down.

[ysbadadden]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

1) If you haven't been following the election you have no business being involved in USFA governance, which is what the Congress is about. We usually want the people involved in running things to pay attention to what's going on.


2) The impression I get is that many Board members see the discussion on here as a lot of people who don't know what's going on making up things. That's fairly frequently true.

Not exactly the voice of one crying in the wilderness for more transparency, I, but if you haven't been following the election on fence.net, which is "a lot of people who don't kow what's going on," you have no chance of meeting KD5MDK's standards. It sounds like "we insiders control the information, so only we know what's going on, so only we can make informed decisions."

On the contrary. It's true that people with little knowledge ask questions and participate, but they draw comments and answers from well-informed people with real information, leading to more knowledge and more transparency.l I hope that this goes on in the new administration.

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

The only time I heard this site mentioned by name was when the Election Committee reported that the candidates had agreed to keep the election numbers confidential. However, since numbers had already been posted on here in violation of that, it seemed important to set the record straight. The numbers were announced but I didn't copy them down.

I've been trying to follow this and as far as I know the actual numbers have been kept confidential. Or at least I've not seen or heard them. Round numbers have been referred to. That was sufficient to know that the results weren't close which is important.

[mfp]

[moved post to a better thread]

[mdstasinos]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

I've been trying to follow this and as far as I know the actual numbers have been kept confidential. Or at least I've not seen or heard them. Round numbers have been referred to. That was sufficient to know that the results weren't close which is important.

This is incorrect Mr. Jefferies. In the Board Meeting this morning Geri Baumgart, Chair of the election committee made a statement dealing with the election. She stated that the individuals and the candidates agreed not to release the numbers to the public after the count of the ballots, but within a hour of that agreement Mr. Jefferies, who was not in the room posted rounded numbers, very close to the actuals. As a result, Mrs. Baumgart read to the Board and all the attendees the actual count. Mr. Jefferies came into the Board Meeting late after this had taken place.
MD Stasinos

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by mdstasinos

This is incorrect Mr. Jefferies. In the Board Meeting this morning Geri Baumgart, Chair of the election committee made a statement dealing with the election. She stated that the individuals and the candidates agreed not to release the numbers to the public after the count of the ballots, but within a hour of that agreement Mr. Jefferies, who was not in the room posted rounded numbers, very close to the actuals. As a result, Mrs. Baumgart read to the Board and all the attendees the actual count. Mr. Jefferies came into the Board Meeting late after this had taken place.
MD Stasinos

I'm not sure what is incorrect other than I could not have posted within an hour as it was a good number of hours later before I was near a computer. Actually I believe the results had been posted well before the BOD meeting by KD5MK (after the actual election) and discussed. I do believe I indicated that I had heard that the number were in the order of 800 something to 600 something. Information that I had heard on the floor from several sources. That information being of interest simply to indicate the response of the membership and that there were no questions about outcome. But mdstasinos is correct that I was late into the meeting, did not hear Mrs. Baugart's statement and have heard the actual numbers.:

Just an editorial thought: There are reasons for announcing results of elections. It prevents misconceptions and rumors. Early on one of the numbers I heard on the floor suggested that the results were contestable. Tracy Hurley said they were not. I've never been clear why the numbers weren't just announced.

An additional edit - My oops. It was BrTech who reported the results not KD5MK. My apologies for the error.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by mdstasinos

This is incorrect Mr. Jefferies. In the Board Meeting this morning Geri Baumgart, Chair of the election committee made a statement dealing with the election. She stated that the individuals and the candidates agreed not to release the numbers to the public after the count of the ballots, but within a hour of that agreement Mr. Jefferies, who was not in the room posted rounded numbers, very close to the actuals. As a result, Mrs. Baumgart read to the Board and all the attendees the actual count. Mr. Jefferies came into the Board Meeting late after this had taken place.
MD Stasinos

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"

[mdstasinos]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

I'm not sure what is incorrect other than I could not have posted within an hour as it was a good number of hours later