New England Division will no longer sanction Charitable Events

[mtarascio]

The New England Division Executive Committee voted to no longer sanction Charitable Events.

My club, the New England Fencing Alliance is hosting the 2nd Annual Fence Against Breast Cancer tournaments for women age 30 and older.

Last year it was foil only. This year we have added epee.

No entry fee, but donations to the American Cancer Society are accepted.

Everyone is a volunteer.

What could possibly be the reason to not sanction Charitable events?

[KD5MDK]

That sounds like a topic to discuss with your Division Executive Committee.

[mtarascio]

The Executive Committee voted to no longer sanction Charitable events. I attended the last Executive Committee meeting requesting they reopen this issue. It was voted down 5 - 2.

[qatet]

What could possibly be the reason to not sanction Charitable events?

Well, if everybody did it it would mean that the Division would lose all its income. What if you were to charge an entry fee, give the Division its cut, then turn the rest over to charity. You could still do good fundraisers at the tournament to raise money above the entry fee.

[KD5MDK]

The Executive Committee voted to no longer sanction Charitable events. I attended the last Executive Committee meeting requesting they reopen this issue. It was voted down 5 - 2.

Usually when people vote they have reasons for what they voted that way. Usually when motions are presented there is debate over them. What did the 5 people who voted against the motion to reconsider (actually probably a new motion since it sounds like this was a later meeting) say when you asked them?

[mtarascio]

Usually when people vote they have reasons for what they voted that way. Usually when motions are presented there is debate over them. What did the 5 people who voted against the motion to reconsider (actually probably a new motion since it sounds like this was a later meeting) say when you asked them?

To answer this question, these are from the minutes of the Executive Meeting.


Charitable Event Sponsoring: J. Hoftun distributed July 26, 2008 letter from M. Tarascio requesting the Board to reopen discussion concerning the Division’s vote not to sanction charitable events and, specifically, to sanction the NEFA sponsored 2nd Annual Fence Against Breast Cancer Events on October 4 and November 15, 2008.
M.Tarascio explained that the Division would not incur any liability or cost, would benefit from the publicity and good will generated by the events which do not conflict with scheduled events and do not have an entry fee (free) and requested the Board to justify its decision not to sanction charitable events
A.Merritt advised that the precedent of sanctioning charitable events might result in too many requests for charitable events and could overload the already full tournament schedule.
D.Blake stated that last year the FABC events conflicted with another sanctioned event. He explained the Division benefits fencers by setting a standard fee for competitions and that clubs are compensated by the Division at a per participant rate for holding sanctioned events. He stated that it would not be fair to the clubs that host competitions because Division sanctioned charitable events would result in decreased participation at other club sponsored events.
M. Tarascio moved the discussion to the reasonableness of Division rates, which was included in the April 27, 2008 minutes as a justification for the vote not to sanction charitable events, using the Senior Challenge as an example ($65 for one event).
M.Eskin stated that the FABC events did not conflict with scheduled events as the 11/15/08 JO qualifier is a different age classification, but stated that he did not believe that participants at the FABC events were interested in earning classifications at such events and that attendance would be the same even if it was not sanctioned.
He expressed dismay at raising the rates for successful competitions but agreed that the $5 increase in sanctioned events was reasonable. General discussion regarding Division fund raisers followed.

A.Merritt stated that he had reversed his position now believes that there are too many events on the Division calendar; his experience is that scheduling competitions every weekend has reduced attendance as people are discriminating about which competitions to attend. Travel expenses and other costs and the wear on Division equipment is a negative factor. He opined that the Division should not sanction every event and that clubs are free to hold events that are not sanctioned.
M.Eskin stated that fewer competitions might result in bigger competitions. He also pointed out that the inclusion of events on askFRED is not dependent on sanctioning.
K.Gallagher asked what the Board meant when it stated that it would support the FABC events if they are not sanctioned and information is not included on the website.
J.Hoftun stated that the Division website could have a section, separate from the official list of events, that could include links to events such as the FABC events. A.Merritt and M.Eskin agreed that links should be included on the Division website.
J.Hoftun terminated discussion and invited a motion.
Motion: K.Gallagher moved to reopen discussion regarding the Division’s vote “not to sanction future charitable events." M.Tasker seconded. Motion defeated 5-2.
K.Gallagher opined that the vote not to sanction future charitable events was made subsequent to the vote to sanction a charitable event at the Higgins Armory and that Board action is required to cure the inconsistency. General discussion clarified that the Worcester/Higgins event was not accurately listed on the Division schedule as a E and under and the consensus was that the previous decision to sanction the Higgins event took precedence over the June 8, 2008 vote.
R. Patterson stated that he would revise the schedule to reflect the Board’s approval of the Higgin’s event as an “E and under.”

[noodle]

that is an unfortunate decision. could the FABC be reworked to be a normal event with proceeds going to charity, and donations above and beyond also going to charity?

that way, the division gets its cut (which seems to be the only substantial reason why they're not sanctioning it) and the event still runs?

[fdad]

From reading these minutes the voters had the following concerns:

A.Merritt advised that the precedent of sanctioning charitable events might result in too many requests for charitable events and could overload the already full tournament schedule.

and

D.Blake stated that last year the FABC events conflicted with another sanctioned event. He explained the Division benefits fencers by setting a standard fee for competitions and that clubs are compensated by the Division at a per participant rate for holding sanctioned events. He stated that it would not be fair to the clubs that host competitions because Division sanctioned charitable events would result in decreased participation at other club sponsored events.

It seems like the issues are that the FABC event is a) not charging a fee, b) might conflict with other sanctioned events, and c) might crowd the schedule - reducing attendance at other sanctioned events. Of these concerns only the not charging a fee issue seems unique to a charity tournament (one could express the other two concerns over ANY tournament). Wouldn't requiring a minimum fee at any sanctioned tournament, including charity events, have solved this problem?

[KD5MDK]

What could possibly be the reason to not sanction Charitable events?

I see a list of reasons given above, and I'm sure the minutes of the previous meeting include debate as well. The validity of the reasons seems a much bigger topic than "What possibly could be the reason".

I see previous discussion about this event last year at
new england division fence against breast cancer?
Fence Against Breast Cancer

[mtarascio]

The competitions are being conducted by USFA rules.

Everyone involved is volunteering their time. No paid referees, etc.

No entry fee: One can make a donation to the American Cancer Society by writing a check payable to them. This is optional.

We are taking care of all tournament expenses including awards, free food, water, gatorade, etc.

We actually raise more money for the American Cancer Society from non competitors. During the last month we have raised over $1600.

By having this as a charitable event we are able to generate more publicity and we get more media coverage. This is good for fencing in general.

[fdad]

The fact is that your division and USFA incur some expense when they sanction an event. processing your request, coordinating the schedule, processing any rating changes, etc. I believe if you pay the same fees as another tournament, you should get the same treatment.

No one disputes that your cause is worthy. I am sure you can raise almost as much money if you charge a minimal fee.

[epeemike81]

Well, I'm not going to get into the lengthy discussion here that we had at the executive committee meetings (the first of which, btw, has not been posted here), but I will just say this:
Nobody is suggesting that Mr. Tarascio not hold his event.

Nobody is scheduling tournaments against his event.

We're simply not sanctioning it. The only real purpose of a division sanction is to give ratings. The event in question is a 30+ WF event to benefit the fight against breast cancer. This is a commendable event to be sure, but not one that really needs to give ratings.

It is my opinion that the lack of a sanction will in no way effect this event.

-m

[Philistine]

Another reason for the Division to have a policy against sanctioning "charity" tournaments is that it avoids having to get into issues of making decisions which could be viewed as favoring some charaties over others, and also perhaps concerns that the process is open to abuse in the future by unscrupulous promoters who may decide to keep a portion of the charitable benefits for themselves--and it's not something they want to have to police.

That being said--I wonder what the reaction would be to a "normal" tournament deciding to promote itself as a charitable benefit and solicit donations from fencers and spectators after it has already been sanctioned. None of the concerns articulated at the meeting to reconsider the decision would seem to apply.

--Philistine

[epeemike81]

Another reason for the Division to have a policy against sanctioning "charity" tournaments is that it avoids having to get into issues of making decisions which could be viewed as favoring some charaties over others, and also perhaps concerns that the process is open to abuse in the future by unscrupulous promoters who may decide to keep a portion of the charitable benefits for themselves--and it's not something they want to have to police.

This, in fact, was a key argument against sanctioning charitable events in the first discussion. It would also, btw, create a situation where certain clubs get preferential treatment. For example, Boston Fencing Club is a 501c non-profit. RIFAC is not. What's to stop BFC from declaring all sanctioned events they host "charity" events and not having to pay the division sanctioning? RIFAC, not being a "charity" doesn't have that option.

That being said--I wonder what the reaction would be to a "normal" tournament deciding to promote itself as a charitable benefit and solicit donations from fencers and spectators after it has already been sanctioned. None of the concerns articulated at the meeting to reconsider the decision would seem to apply.

--Philistine

Speaking only for myself, not the rest of the EC, I would have absolutely no problem sanctioning this event as a standard division event with the standard fee structure associated with it.

Fundraising in the same location and in conjunction would bother me not a bit.

I would, frankly, still have issues with a made up category like "30+ women's foil" granting ratings, but that's above my pay grade (and I'm told the USFA signed off on it).

-m

[mtarascio]

Speaking only for myself, not the rest of the EC, I would have absolutely no problem sanctioning this event as a standard division event with the standard fee structure associated with it.

Fundraising in the same location and in conjunction would bother me not a bit.

I would, frankly, still have issues with a made up category like "30+ women's foil" granting ratings, but that's above my pay grade (and I'm told the USFA signed off on it).

-m

What is the standard fee structure in the New England Division? An explanation on how the fee structure works also would be helpful. How much does hosting club get per entry? Does the club receive anything else like rent from conducting tournaments? Who pays for awards and tournament supplies? How much do referees get paid for New England events?

We do not have an entry fee. Everyone is volunteering their services. We are not asking for Division equipment or anything else.

Also, our event is for Women's Foil and Epee for those born in 1978 or before. Why should these competitors be denied the opportunity for a classification increase? Classification increases were given at the Veteran's Challenge.

Also, I'd like to add that there is a Charitable event on the New England schedule that has been sanctioned. This was approved at a previous Executive Committee meeting.

[KD5MDK]

What is the standard fee structure in the New England Division? An explanation on how the fee structure works also would be helpful. How much does hosting club get per entry? Does the club receive anything else like rent from conducting tournaments? Who pays for awards and tournament supplies? How much do referees get paid for New England events?

Why are you asking a message board rather than your Division officers?

[mtarascio]

Why are you asking a message board rather than your Division officers?

I was asking Epeemike81 as he is on the Executive Committee.

[fencerbill]

What is to prevent mtarascio from asking the section or the national office to sanction his tournament?

Other divisions may appreciate the problems the New England Division has in filling out our schedule with multiple qualifying events as well as a reasonable schedule of opens and events such as D and unders. There are essentially no weekends without events.

There is always a problem finding venues to hold qualifiers as they get larger. We have examples where we have Men's qualifiers on one weekend and Women's qualifiers on a different weekend. It is not uncommon to start events on Saturday in midafternoon and then running all day Sunday.

Mike said that his events will not use any Division resources. However, they will make it even harder to get qualified referees for the Division events.

I am a New England Division member although no longer an officer or on the Executive Committee. I have been present at discussions on this matter but have not attended any related Division meetings.

[KD5MDK]

What is to prevent mtarascio from asking the section or the national office to sanction his tournament?

Probably because Sections don't sanction tournaments except for Sectionals and the national office doesn't except for SYCs, RYCs and NACs.

[mtarascio]

What is to prevent mtarascio from asking the section or the national office to sanction his tournament?

Other divisions may appreciate the problems the New England Division has in filling out our schedule with multiple qualifying events as well as a reasonable schedule of opens and events such as D and unders. There are essentially no weekends without events.

There is always a problem finding venues to hold qualifiers as they get larger. We have examples where we have Men's qualifiers on one weekend and Women's qualifiers on a different weekend. It is not uncommon to start events on Saturday in midafternoon and then running all day Sunday.

Mike said that his events will not use any Division resources. However, they will make it even harder to get qualified referees for the Division events.

I am a New England Division member although no longer an officer or on the Executive Committee. I have been present at discussions on this matter but have not attended any related Division meetings.

First, events are sanctioned by the Division not the Section or National USFA.

The New England Fencing Alliance is conducting two events for a specific group. Some clubs in the New England Division conduct a lot of tournaments during the course of the year.

Please explain how our events will make it even harder to get qualified referees for Division events.