2009-2010 SYC Schedule Announced

[Mr Epee]

I have a very simple suggestion.

Publish all submitted bids on the website.

Transparency? Check.
Accountability? Check.

In addition to easing the organization's collective conscience, I also predict this practice would, eventually, increase both the number of bids submitted, and the quality of bids submitted.

This is such an obvious solution... that even the IOC does it.

It's an easy and effective way to kill many birds with one stone.

[peet]

I have a very simple suggestion.

Publish all submitted bids on the website.

Transparency? Check.
Accountability? Check.

In addition to easing the organization's collective conscience, I also predict this practice would, eventually, increase both the number of bids submitted, and the quality of bids submitted.

This is such an obvious solution... that even the IOC does it.

It's an easy and effective way to kill many birds with one stone.

Funny, I was thinking they should do exactly the same thing with the tech systems vendor proposals. I s'pose there might be some intellectual property concerns there, but still....

-p

[500gms]

that what I voted for and thats what I was promised I (the USFA) would get.
I agree Mr. Epee, lets see all the bids on the website. Everything out in the open, then people /clubs wanting to submit a bid next year will have a standard to shoot for....also, since I remember from the previous thread about SYC's that the USFA wants to move the locations around every year, meaning I assume, that Rochester and Pris D' Fer will not be winning bids next year, other clubs or divisions on the East Coast need to know what standards are expected if they want to bid on future SYC's.

[MdA]

For those interested in the topic of the Youth Development Committee...or lack thereof...I started a new thread
What do you get from Youth Development?

[epeemike81]

also, since I remember from the previous thread about SYC's that the USFA wants to move the locations around every year...

I remember uninvolved people speculating about that, but I don't remember anybody from the USFA suggesting that this was the case.

In fact, I'd speculate that a good portion of the reason that Cobra was chosen over your bid was that they have run this event in the past (by all accounts quite successfully).

-m

[MdA]

I have a very simple suggestion.

Publish all submitted bids on the website. .....

.

Great idea ....eric take this to the YDC when (and if) you are appointed

[fdad]

I remember uninvolved people speculating about that, but I don't remember anybody from the USFA suggesting that this was the case.

In fact, I'd speculate that a good portion of the reason that Cobra was chosen over your bid was that they have run this event in the past (by all accounts quite successfully).

-m

If I remember correctly, based on Jorelemon's posted notes from her call with Courtney, THE reason that Cobra did not get an SYC last year was the ongoing NJ Division legal quagmire. So I expect that this year it's NJFA's turn to suffer.

I do think that, if that is one of the criteria used by the gang of three in rejecting the NJFA bid, they should have published that criteria in the bid packet and should have returned the NJFA application fee.

[joralemon]

I remember uninvolved people speculating about that, but I don't remember anybody from the USFA suggesting that this was the case.


-m

I posted this a few days ago: Courtney said that the plan was to have 5-7 SYCs spread the out across the country in an even way, so we will no longer see a cluster of NE SYCs, even though there is a high of concentration of fencers in the NE. The goal was that most people would be able to get to a SYC by car or by a short plane ride.


I still don't get what happened w Houston. If USFA's goal is indeed to spread out the SYCs, when they saw no bid from Houston and saw how disproportionate the final list was looking in terms of reaching a lot of regions, how much trouble would it have been to find out why they didn't bid for next year?

[epeemike81]

I posted this a few days ago: Courtney said that the plan was to have 5-7 SYCs spread the out across the country in an even way, so we will no longer see a cluster of NE SYCs, even though there is a high of concentration of fencers in the NE. The goal was that most people would be able to get to a SYC by car or by a short plane ride.

right, but that has nothing to do with wanting to avoid awarding to the same organizers multiple years...

-m

[heretic]

Great idea ....eric take this to the YDC when (and if) you are appointed

Big "if." You'd have more immediate impact asking Brad or Mark to do so.

[whtouche]

500grams, please. It's not an important detail to the discussion or anything, but the fact that you keep getting it wrong makes it seem like it's on purpose. Prise de Fer(PdF), not Pris D' Fer. It's even in the website if it's tough to remember, prisedefer.com

[joralemon]

right, but that has nothing to do with wanting to avoid awarding to the same organizers multiple years...

-m

sorry. I misunderstood what you were referring to

[swordwench]

500grams, please. It's not an important detail to the discussion or anything, but the fact that you keep getting it wrong makes it seem like it's on purpose. Prise de Fer(PdF), not Pris D' Fer. It's even in the website if it's tough to remember, prisedefer.com

... and it's, like, you know, an actual fencing term, and like, in the RULE BOOK.

[500gms]

I remember uninvolved people speculating about that, but I don't remember anybody from the USFA suggesting that this was the case.

I gather you are in favor of awarding and rewarding the same club year in and year out. Care to tell us how much Prise de fer (PDF) made from the event last year?

In fact, I'd speculate that a good portion of the reason that Cobra was chosen over your bid was that they have run this event in the past (by all accounts quite successfully).

-m

I believe Mission not Cobra was chosen over us. Have they run any large youth events the past few years? Also, just to remind you, members of our club actually helped Cobra run their 1st SYC 3 yrs ago.

[epeemike81]

I gather you are in favor of awarding and rewarding the same club year in and year out.

If they do a good job with it, yes. If not, no.

Care to tell us how much Prise de fer (PDF) made from the event last year?

sorry, but I'm not privy to that information. That said, I take your point: I never claimed to be unbiased.

I believe Mission not Cobra was chosen over us. Have they run any large youth events the past few years? Also, just to remind you, members of our club actually helped Cobra run their 1st SYC 3 yrs ago.

So you think it was a plausible possibility for them to award two SYCs in one division?

Sorry, but I don't think so.

-m

[500gms]

If they do a good job with it, yes. If not, no.-m

So under your senario you got the 1st SYC without really having to bid for it,(3-4 yrs ago) I'm sure you agree that its a substantial financial winfall for your club and you would continue receiving that winfall forever as long as you did a "good" job.

Wow! The USFA subsidizes your club, but doesn't subsidize ours. Do you pay more in dues? Do you have more members? or are you and PDF club management just more important than we are? What gives? why should my dues support your club? Especially with the position of Ms. Winninger that the details of the bids can't be released because of "confidentiality." (she told me that the information contained in the bids was confidential in an e-mail she sent me this morning)

So, we the members don't know if one bid was better than another. We have no idea why the schedule looks like it does and if the USFA continues to operate with the same clubs running these things every year as long as they do a "good" job, no other club need apply.

[epeemike81]

So under your senario you got the 1st SYC without really having to bid for it,(3-4 yrs ago) I'm sure you agree that its a substantial financial winfall for your club and you would continue receiving that winfall forever as long as you did a "good" job.

where do you get the idea that we didn't bid on the first one? We have gone through the bid process every year. That year the decision was made by the YDC chaired by Maureen Griffin (and with wide and varied representation).

Wow! The USFA subsidizes your club, but doesn't subsidize ours. Do you pay more in dues? Do you have more members? or are you and PDF club management just more important than we are? What gives? why should my dues support your club? Especially with the position of Ms. Winninger that the details of the bids can't be released because of "confidentiality." (she told me that the information contained in the bids was confidential in an e-mail she sent me this morning)

it's not a subsidy, it's payment for services rendered. We run tournaments and do a good job of it if I do say so myself.

I will say that I don't agree that these bids should be confidential.

So, we the members don't know if one bid was better than another. We have no idea why the schedule looks like it does and if the USFA continues to operate with the same clubs running these things every year as long as they do a "good" job, no other club need apply.

Personally, I think the membership is entitled to a superior product, which we provide. If you feel that I'm incorrectly assessing our tournaments, feel free to ask those you know who have attended our events whether they feel that we provide a good tournament experience and should continue to do so or if they think we should be denied that opportunity.

-m

[Mr Epee]

Especially with the position of Ms. Winninger that the details of the bids can't be released because of "confidentiality." (she told me that the information contained in the bids was confidential in an e-mail she sent me this morning)

I'm interested in learning the rational behind this position. Since you seem to have opened a line of communication, could you request additional explanation?

I completely understand the purpose of maintaining bid confidentiality during the phase in which bids are being submitted. Once the bid window is closed, the situation is significantly different.

Maintaining confidentiality after the bid window closes is practically begging for allegations of corruption, and misconduct. I don't know why any organization, particularly a non-profit member service organization, would intentionally invite discussion of potential impropriety.

Effective organizations don't start needless fires that they will have to spend time extinguishing later.

Public relations are important.

[500gms]

[QUOTE=epeemike81;784356]where do you get the idea that we didn't bid on the first one? We have gone through the bid process every year. That year the decision was made by the YDC chaired by Maureen Griffin (and with wide and varied representation).[QUOTE]
I remember that the 1st year the information was not readily available and the original tournaments were awarded to anyone "in the loop."
[QUOTE}it's not a subsidy, it's payment for services rendered. We run tournaments and do a good job of it if I do say so myself.[QUOTE]

Does any other club that you know do a "good Job?" Don't they deserve a chance to be paid for "services rendered"

I will say that I don't agree that these bids should be confidential.
Personally, I think the membership is entitled to a superior product, which we provide. If you feel that I'm incorrectly assessing our tournaments, feel free to ask those you know who have attended our events whether they feel that we provide a good tournament experience and should continue to do so or if they think we should be denied that opportunity.

-m

I have asked and the concensus is your tournament is well run. I know a number of parents who are unhappy however because you split the event and that means they must travel 2 weekends to your event while they only have to travel 1 weekend to other SYC's. Again, Most participants i've talked to say your event is well run not that it's perfect. Do you think no one else could do as good a job?

[epeemike81]

Does any other club that you know do a "good Job?" Don't they deserve a chance to be paid for "services rendered"

comparatively? few, if any.

-m