Agenda - Board of Directors Meeting, July 5th 2009

[prototoast]

The good news is that if THS actually saves fencers money then they will all use it anyway.

The bad news is that if THS actually saves people money, there would be no need to make it mandatory.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by teacup

FYI, I did ask THS and the USFA about suites and THS will not and does not offer them.

Every discussion that I've been a part of involving the S&P program, including some preliminary presentation materials, has indicated that as a part of US Fencing going to S&P that THS would start offering additional options that they don't currently have for US Fencing.

Explicitly listed have been:
* 4-Star hotels
* Suites
* Suites w/breakfast included
* Traditional
* Traditional w/breakfast included
* Economy

Along with that, of course, the plans to further expand offerings at members' request.

I'm not sure when and in what context THS said they won't offer suites. That doesn't fit what I've seen on S&P. Perhaps either as part of a discussion of current offerings or something that was interpreted in that context?

Originally Posted by pillow

Since he may not read f.net as was posted above, I'm sure either of you could let him know about this thread before more people get upset for possibly invalid reasons.

I'm fairly certain that he does not read FNet, although some staff members do, at least on occasion. I know he's received email as a result of this discussion thread. As previously mentioned, I believe he's out of the office for the remainder of this week and may not actually see those messages until Monday. That likely means any response that he could make will have to wait until at least then. I don't expect this discussion to go on hiatus for the next five days. :)

-B

[occasionalfencer]

Originally Posted by misha

Wrong. If we wait for the official announcement it will read something like that:

"USFA have signed 5 year contract with THS and there is no way
to revert it without $10 mil penalty"
so membership you can suck it up again or go fence somewhere else

.

This is so true, and it is truly representative of exactly the reason that this is a problem. We do not get information from the national office in a timely manner. When we seem to get information, it is often wrong (how many times were we told, officially but incorrectly, that online registration would be ready by a certain competition?).

I frankly do not trust THS at all to act in the best interests of the fencers. I do not trust the national office to get the best possible deal from THS. If the USFA signs this contract, then the THS has us over the proverbial barrel. There is no incentive for improvement. If THS had been doing a better job for the past few years, we would all want to use it. There would be no need to coerce us. The fact that this seems to be needed is the proof that it is not in our best interests.

Fencers are an independent lot. As has been pointed out several times, volleyball players do travel as a team. Fencers travel in all sorts of combinations, of alone, with friends, families, parts of families, etc.

[hello?]

Originally Posted by dberke

I
So, perhaps we should give the USFA some time to figure how how the program will work and actually announce it before we start drawing conclusions and talking about lawyers and lawsuits...n

True (and I am responding as I read -- so I apologize if this has been already responded to) but Brad's earlier post alludes to a 'saving' of $19 on NAC A of this year. So, the USFA is not giving the membership much time to react to how this program will work. (My first reaction is that this will be a windfall for the USFA -- cheaper venues -- but a HUGE loss of freedom for fencers. Sorry, cannot agree and I am outraged that this seems to be almost a done deal -- for NAC A -- without fencer input.)

[hello?]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Note for those planning to email Kurt... I believe he's out of the office for the next couple of days and likely won't see anything you send until Monday.

-B

Ok, so what can we do? If "our leader' is on vacation, who do we contact? You mentioned NAC A...so I am assuming this might be happening soon. If Kurt is out of reach (at the time of an important decision?!) who do we contact? As a division officer, I would like to get my Division informed ASAP. And as our next Division meeting happens to be this weekend, I would love some more information!

[dekko]

B,

Very likely you are right, I may have glazed over parts of your OP on this and I admit I am not the smartest guy around, hasty conclusion jumping aside, you mention it's manditory. Fine...or what? What is the punishment for spurning THS to stay where you want? Please spell it out for me. Since I don't get it. Please, I'm 'listening'.....

Or,


Let's try this, if I stay where I want for NAC X and not stay where THS wants we to stay, will I be allowed to fence in said NAC?

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by dekko

B,
Let's try this, if I stay where I want for NAC X and not stay where THS wants we to stay, will I be allowed to fence in said NAC?

More importantly, how easy would it be for you to get a waiver saying you are staying with relatives in town, when in actuality you are staying at the host hotel with a cheaper rate you booked yourself?

[CvilleFencer]

NAC's count for national points. National points count for eligibility to events that award FIE points. FIE points are used to calculate, after a fashion, Olympic eligibility. I am fairly sure that if the USFA made buying X product a requirement to be eligible for an Olympic slot, or made it enough of an inconvenience that it effectively became a requirement, the OOC could be brought in. I seem to recall hearing somewhere that the OOC frowns on excluding/prohibiting members in good standing from being allowed to compete. I am pretty sure the USFA does not want that can of worms coming up (assuming they have thought about it in this light and I am not missing something) and would avoid that situation arising by mandating that X product or service be used. In other words I would hope the USFA has enough sense not to make it a "Use X company or service because they give us a kickback or you can't fence in NAC's" type of rule.

As Dan and others have said, give them some time to work things out before we gather the torches and pitchforks. But as someone else also very correctly pointed out, let the powers that be know how you feel about this. It is our USFA so let them know how you want it to be ran. The contact info and email address' are listed for a reason after all. Don't assume they are reading anonymous rants on f.net. Let them know who you are and how you feel about issues.

One random question about all this for me though. THS is not a popular service. In fact they suck horribly bad and many fencers hate them with the same passion a fire and brimstone minister reserves for sin. Is there truly no other service with a less skeezy reputation that they USFA could work with? Maybe one that actually does a service well enough that people would want to use them and does not have the same baggage as THS in the collective consciousness of fencers? Okay, that is more than one question but it seems like a few questions that should be asked...

[ivlobane]

Just follow the money and you won't have any such questions.

[pillow]

My earlier post may have been missed. As the NAC A deadline is Aug 10th--has anyone seen the 2009-2010 NAC application forms on the USFA website--it is not on the National Competition schedule page as it would normally be located.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by dekko

What is the punishment for spurning THS to stay where you want? Please spell it out for me.

I think I've already answered this twice.

Under Stay & Play, all participating athletes would be required to either book through THS at a listed hotel or receive a waiver from that requirement. Similar to the way all participating athletes are required to be members of US Fencing (or another FIE member NGB), etc. It would be a requirement for participation.

Originally Posted by prototoast

More importantly, how easy would it be for you to get a waiver saying you are staying with relatives in town, when in actuality you are staying at the host hotel with a cheaper rate you booked yourself?

It is not clear (to me) how lenient the waiver process would be. The last information I have on that area, which is a couple of weeks old, was very much tentative and it seemed still to be fairly open on what should be allowed as a justification for a waiver. I haven't seen/heard any discussion of checks on the information presented by fencers.

Pointing out intentions of abuse of trust and the lack of checks built into the system is not a particularly good way to ensure that loopholes remain, however.

Originally Posted by CvilleFencer

NAC's count for national points. National points count for eligibility to events that award FIE points. FIE points are used to calculate, after a fashion, Olympic eligibility. I am fairly sure that if the USFA made buying X product a requirement to be eligible for an Olympic slot, or made it enough of an inconvenience that it effectively became a requirement, the OOC could be brought in. I seem to recall hearing somewhere that the OOC frowns on excluding/prohibiting members in good standing from being allowed to compete. I am pretty sure the USFA does not want that can of worms coming up (assuming they have thought about it in this light and I am not missing something) and would avoid that situation arising by mandating that X product or service be used. In other words I would hope the USFA has enough sense not to make it a "Use X company or service because they give us a kickback or you can't fence in NAC's" type of rule.

"Right to Compete" issues related to Stay & Play have already been vetted past the USOC. Not only has the issue been thought of, the USOC has already been brought into the conversation.

Originally Posted by CvilleFencer

Is there truly no other service with a less skeezy reputation that they USFA could work with? Maybe one that actually does a service well enough that people would want to use them and does not have the same baggage as THS in the collective consciousness of fencers?

There is a large competitor to THS (sorry, I forget the name of the company) that could also provide this service. Kurt's investigations indicate that they have generally lower satisfaction rates than THS. Granted they would be a "new" company for fencers and US Fencing, which would remove the negative history aspect, the best guess is that they would not do as well as THS. Examining potential other provider options has also been done.

-B

[occasionalfencer]

This whole thing stinks. From the coercion, to the secrecy, to the link between competing in an individual sport with enriching a particular private company, it stinks. I repeat, if THS did a good job they would not need to coerce us. If we are put in a situation where they have a monopoly, they have no incentive to improve.

This is a really bad idea.

And the fact that the National Office is going ahead with the plans without notifying the membership and soliciting input stinks. I do not consider the fact that an unofficial person happened to leak this information on fnet the same as informing the membership in an official way. The fact that we are told (unofficially on fnet) that we can email a person who is out of the office and will not get our emails is not encouraging.

[oiuyt]

I don't believe that it's intended to be done secretly. That said, enough information has not yet been released, likely in large part because it isn't readily available and finalized yet.

I would not characterize the available information as a leak.

There was a presentation at the Board meeting, which is open to all members. It was also referenced in Kurt's recent report to the Board, which is available on the US Fencing website.

• Established plans to capitalize on opportunities used by other NGB’s to increase return on tournament housing while reducing the cost to our members.

Obviously a single bullet point for a significant new program that will directly impact a significant percentage of the membership is not sufficient information. I expect that a more complete presentation and formal announcement will be made available to the membership in the near future.

I think I've been fairly receptive to answering any questions posed here to which I have answers. Dan has been receptive to providing information from the presentation at the Board meeting.

-B

[dekko]

Oiuyt, Good to know. It seems what I laid out in my OP about this is accurate and I have a hunch we have only begun to see a response to this issue. IF the BOD/officer/EC/whomever is dumb enough to implement this as you have laid it out then I have one piece of advice for the afore mentioned group, Brace for Impact.

Big Dawg, looks like I didn’t jump to any hasty conclusions and I will accept your apology in the form of an adult beverage or two on Franklin Street at the time of my choosing.

Dan, while it may be true that currently I am the only one at the gate with a pitchfork and torch I have a hunch there are those current dipping their torches in fire water and sharpening their pitchforks and about to join me. Now that oiuyt has confirmed everything I put in my post that made at least one jaw drop, seems as though there is some serious explaining to do and with our fearless leader out touch for the time being it seems as though we get to wait and see.

If we really need to dive into why this is a bad idea we can but I am hoping all those involved will realize the error of this ‘logic’ and back away from this idea and move to more useful items. Personally I was hoping the current group of officer/BOD/EC/etc was bright enough to come up with good ways to pull US Fencing out of its substantial financial hole but after this , true potential, new policy regarding NAC hotel stays I am beginning to rethink my opinion. Come on, you guys and girls are smarter than this, time to show us all that you indeed are. This might have been a good idea when you thought of it but it’s time to see the error of your ways and leave this one behind and move on to a useful way to overcome the financial issues, because this ain’t it.

[pillow]

My division and section officers were not consulted nor given a heads up on this plan. Probably not the best way for the USFA to build trust with the membership and the volunteers who make the whole show run.

[dekko]

Originally Posted by occasionalfencer

This whole thing stinks. From the coercion, to the secrecy, to the link between competing in an individual sport with enriching a particular private company, it stinks. I repeat, if THS did a good job they would not need to coerce us. If we are put in a situation where they have a monopoly, they have no incentive to improve.

This is a really bad idea.

And the fact that the National Office is going ahead with the plans without notifying the membership and soliciting input stinks. I do not consider the fact that an unofficial person happened to leak this information on fnet the same as informing the membership in an official way. The fact that we are told (unofficially on fnet) that we can email a person who is out of the office and will not get our emails is not encouraging.

True I am unofficial and I did preface my post on this with if I have missed something please inform me but it appears....

Also, don't compare this to a 'leak of secret info' because it's not. While I do disagree with this idea it is true Brad and Dan have been very open about this and I 'guess' I was the first here to figure this out AND ask the question, hasty conclusion jumping aside. When I saw this it got me thinking and my OP on this is that result. You agree it's a bad idea then fine but don't blast Brad and Dan for trying to keep something secret from 'us' and I 'leaked' it because that just isn't true. For years Brad has been very open and willing to deal with us less enlightened folks here, this situation is no different.

[CvilleFencer]

Originally Posted by pillow

My division and section officers were not consulted nor given a heads up on this plan. Probably not the best way for the USFA to build trust with the membership and the volunteers who make the whole show run.

You are new to this dealing with the USFA thing aren't you?

[Allen Evans]

I don't instinctually see this as a bad concept for the USFA to pursue.

I DO feel that the USFA, if they wish to pursue this, should contractually obligate THS to step up to the plate on their performance. This would mean contractual guarantees on room rates, room availablity, and penalties for non-performance or poor customer satisfaction. Do we, as an organization, have the will to drive such a contract?

My fear is that the USFA will not negotiate this strongly with THS, and that we will end up with a deal that will, again, have me in a strange city at 11 o'clock at night with no hotel room and no recourse because THS inadvertantly cancelled my reservation, and can't do anything about it or assit me in any way.

Oiuyt: no offense, but the bullet point in Kurts report is so vague as to be useless. It certianly doesn't begin to hint at the depth and extent of the bare bones of "Stay and Play".

[seak]

A couple of thoughts:

- While many members of this board scour websites, use priceline packages and book alternate hotels, my guess is this is not true for the vast majority of fencers and families traveling to NAC's, especially NAC's that aren't summer nationals, where they will only be there for a couple of nights, or for juniors/cadets etc who can't rent cars.

- There clearly needs to be a spelled out waiver process with an enumeration of reasons that waivers will be granted, and how easy they will be to obtain before a final judgment can be made on the proposal. I'm seriously hoping to poor to afford a hotel room and crashing on friends floors will be reasons for a waiver.

- I think that whether this policy is a good idea or not also depends on the percentage of fencers that will be required to use it for it to count (I think the current number being bandied around is 90%?) lower would be better.

- I think that given that this policy is still clearly under discussion, putting away the pitchforks would be a good idea, and instead ask good questions, and provide useful, constructive and well reasoned criticism, comments and objections. Bringing out the pitchforks to early tends to make people defensive and leads to a more hostile process then would otherwise be necessary.

- While I like the fact that the USFA is looking for ways to save money (and they clearly need to), I hope that they take the time to seriously think about this, as many individuals on this board have raised fairly serious and reasonable objections to the policy.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

{snip}
I'm fairly certain that he does not read FNet, although some staff members do, at least on occasion.

Kind of tangential to the issues, but is there any particular reason he doesn't regularly read FNet that you're aware of?

While it's certainly not official, nor is it likely particularly representative of USFA members, it's still the largest online forum where USFA members congregate.

I could understand the feeling that there are a number of technical/rules etc. issues that wouldn't be particularly relevant (or, given his non-fencing background, particularly interesting to him ), surely reading threads on larger, USFA issues and governance would at least justify his use of time in reading.

A number of officers/Board members/etc. at least lurk here, some (including you ) post regularly.

If he understandably doesn't want to wade through the whole forum, why not task someone who does with emailing links to relevant threads (maybe even to all officers/board members/relevant staff). Heck, maybe someone already does.

I can understand a decision not to post (and thanks again for the time and effort you spend)--but it's a little disconcerting to hear that the Executive Director seems to be purposefully ignoring the most vocal outlet of the membership. It seems to exacerbate the (likely untrue) perception that the general membership's point of view has little value to those making decisions.

My $.02

--Philistine