Agenda - Board of Directors Meeting, July 5th 2009

[oiuyt]

I've attached the agenda for the upcoming BoD meeting. Additionally I've attached the 2008-2009 budget report and proposed 2009-2010 budget, as well as the draft minutes from the February meeting.

One error of which I'm aware in the agenda is the 2nd second hearing item. This was moved to urgent and voted upon at the February meeting and therefore shouldn't appear here.

-B

[fdad]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

I've attached the agenda for the upcoming BoD meeting. Additionally I've attached the 2008-2009 budget report and proposed 2009-2010 budget, as well as the draft minutes from the February meeting.

One error of which I'm aware in the agenda is the 2nd second hearing item. This was moved to urgent and voted upon at the February meeting and therefore shouldn't appear here.

-B

I notice that, like at the February BoD meeting, there is no committee report from the YDC on the agenda. I guess we can draw our own conclusions (since nothing over the past year has hinted at any conclusion other than that the YDC is completely non-funcitonal)...

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

I've attached the agenda for the upcoming BoD meeting. Additionally I've attached the 2008-2009 budget report and proposed 2009-2010 budget, as well as the draft minutes from the February meeting.
-B

In the agenda is a piece from - I believe - the new ED
"For example, we have found a way to provide an opportunity for members of the USFA to receive group health insurance in most states. In a time when job security is a bit questionable, and employers cut back on providing benefits, this may be a way that we can support our members."

Has this been commented on previously? And do we know anything about it? Depending on the terms I know of several coaches who might benefit.

[gladius]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

I've attached the agenda for the upcoming BoD meeting. Additionally I've attached the 2008-2009 budget report and proposed 2009-2010 budget, as well as the draft minutes from the February meeting.

-B

I have been and remain very critical of what I consider egregious shortcomings of the past and present USFA administration. However, I also recognize when I see positive signs that we may have turned the corner and start doing things in an open and professional way. This is in my opinion a first big visible sign that things are changing. I want to congratulate the USFA leadership in general and Kurt and Brad in particular for their work.

I also notice that not everybody in the leadership team seems to be equally aware of or enthused about this change. Without getting out my scoring pad and grade the various reports I hope that those falling behind will learn at least by osmosis what others seem to have understood. No names this time, let's see what the next term will produce.

But in the meantime, a heartfelt bravo to everybody!

And thank you!

[JEC]

Originally Posted by gladius

I have been and remain very critical of what I consider egregious shortcomings of the past and present USFA administration. However, I also recognize when I see positive signs that we may have turned the corner and start doing things in an open and professional way. This is in my opinion a first big visible sign that things are changing. I want to congratulate the USFA leadership in general and Kurt and Brad in particular for their work.

I also notice that not everybody in the leadership team seems to be equally aware of or enthused about this change. Without getting out my scoring pad and grade the various reports I hope that those falling behind will learn at least by osmosis what others seem to have understood. No names this time, let's see what the next term will produce.

But in the meantime, a heartfelt bravo to everybody!

And thank you!

Second! I echo gladius' comments.

[hello?]

I sincerely hope that they approve the motion to do away with the 80% promotion limit at the Veteran tournaments!

[erik_blank]

So, they have actually put the change in Foil target into writing and are looking at passing the rule change this meeting?

4. Motion (Mr. Baker): To adopt rules changes to reflect a change in the target area in foil to include a portion of the lower bib, matching the current rules in effect for FIE competition. The effective date of these rules changes will be August 1, 2009 for all national tournaments and qualifiers to national tournaments. The effective date of these rules changes will be August 1, 2010 for all other competitions at all levels governed by the rules of US Fencing.
Rationale:
Now that the new target area has actually gone into use internationally it appears significantly less likely that there will be additional near-term modifications to these rules. It is important that US Fencing stay in sync with the rules used in fencing in the rest of the world. 7 US Fencing Board of Directors 2008-2009 – July 5, 2009 Agenda v3
While it is noted that there are significant costs to retrofitting existing equipment, this is a cost which is unavoidable if we wish to remain in conformity with the most recent developments in the sport.

looks like I'll be trying to dip into my kids college funds again to get a new mask.... *sigh*
Any news from the vendors on a retrofit for older masks yet?

[Inquartata]

Dear Mr. Aichele,

Are we in the woods, or in a tunnel?

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by erik_blank

So, they have actually put the change in Foil target into writing and are looking at passing the rule change this meeting?

looks like I'll be trying to dip into my kids college funds again to get a new mask.... *sigh*
Any news from the vendors on a retrofit for older masks yet?

Ben Zivkovic displayed, at the Pomme de Terre, a do-it-yourself kit for converting PBT masks. This kit depends on double sided tape. I don't have any reason to doubt Ben's statement that this has been FIE approved.

Similar conversions can be tailored for any mask, including visor masks. For me to do such conversions without taking the bib off the mesh would require investment in a much more expensive sewing machine than I now own. But the resultant conversion would be sewn on, not dependent on double sided tape. I consider a sewn on conversion preferable to double sided tape.

I have little doubt that YeOldeArmorer, and others, could do as good a conversion as I could.

In principle, such bib conversions could be made on a standard sewing machine, and then hand sewn on the bib. Worth considering if you have already invested in a visor Foil mask

[erik_blank]

I like the proposed change to the D1 events as proposed below:

First Hearing
A. First Hearing
1. Motion (Mr. Berke):
The USFA Classification Reference Chart will be amended to make the requirements for a Group D1 tournament stricter:
New:
(snip - D@%^ editor won't accept the chart from my PDF copy...)
Rationale:
Under the current system, it is possible to hold a sanctioned event consisting of 15 or more unrated novice fencers (typically with less than one year of competitive experience.) The top four finishers will earn classifications, regardless of their skill level. This has the effect of ―devaluing the D and E classifications, since there is no requirement that more skilled fencers compete and are encountered in the later rounds.
All of the other classification groups require the presence of a minimum number of rated fencers. This change applies the same reasoning to Group D1 events.

So, we are adding the requirement for four E's to give out a single D in a 15 person competition. This seems to me that we should then also be adding a D2 event to the chart, since there is also a C2 event.

Thouhts?

[Stormbringer]

Originally Posted by erik_blank

So, we are adding the requirement for four E's to give out a single D in a 15 person competition. This seems to me that we should then also be adding a D2 event to the chart, since there is also a C2 event.

Thouhts?

I, for one, think the idea is a good one.

Personally, I might have expanded it a bit further, to more closely mirror the B-x and C-x classifications:

D1
Minimum fencers: 15
Rated required fencers required: 2 D's & 2 E's (or higher)
Rated fencers must finish: 2 D's (or higher) in top 8
Classifications awarded: 1 -> D; 2-4 -> E

D2
Minimum fencers: 25
Rated required fencers required: 4 E's (or higher)
Rated fencers must finish: 4 E's (or higher) in top 8
Classifications awarded: 1 -> D; 2-4 -> E

D3
Minimum fencers: 64
Rated required fencers required: none
Rated fencers must finish: N/A
Classifications awarded: 1-4 -> D; 5-8 -> E

Thoughts?

Edit: Along similar lines, would it be worthwhile to extend the same rationale and concept to the E-x classifications? Take as an example:

E1
Minimum fencers: 7
Rated required fencers required: 1 E (or higher)
Rated fencers must finish: 1 E (or higher) in top 4
Classifications awarded: 1 -> E

E2
Minimum fencers: 15
Rated required fencers required: 4 E's (or higher)
Rated fencers must finish: 4 E's (or higher) in top 8
Classifications awarded: 1-4 -> E

E3
Minimum fencers: 25
Rated required fencers required: none
Rated fencers must finish: N/A
Classifications awarded: 1-4 -> E

Thoughts?

[Stormbringer]

Originally Posted by erik_blank

So, they have actually put the change in Foil target into writing and are looking at passing the rule change this meeting?

looks like I'll be trying to dip into my kids college funds again to get a new mask.... *sigh*
Any news from the vendors on a retrofit for older masks yet?

Actually, I saw this on the LP site the other day (as I was perusing their forum)...

FIE approved retro fit lame pouch for Foil
PRE ORDER Ref: F280RB
- PRE ORDER shipping from the 3rd of July.

- FIE approved retrofit lame pouch for foil.

- Features a non conductive inner layer with the FIE logo and a light weight lame outer layer.

- Suitable for all FIE competitions between now and the London Olympics in 2012.

- Uses fabric glue rather than double sided tape for a longer lasting bond. In testing we found even the best double sided tape fails within a few months leaving a sticky residue that is hard to remove or re stick to.

[fencerbill]

LP has very complete, illustrated, instructions for attaching. I expect that their conversions would be an excellent match to their bibs. May or may not work well for other bibs.

If there are concerns about the fabric glue holding, or if the Lame edge starts to stick up, you can always hand sew it down along the edge. Another good place for using dental floss.

[gatun.czone]

Thanks for posting the agenda, budget and minutes. Are these available on the USFA site? I would like to share them with others in my division and point them to the documents online instead of sending as an attachment. Thanks again.
Nannette

[gatun.czone]

Sorry. Had a blond moment. Found where they are on the USFA site. Again sorry.
Nannette

[trafl926]

Any word on the results of this meeting?

[MdA]

Originally Posted by erik_blank

So, they have actually put the change in Foil target into writing and are looking at passing the rule change this meeting?

looks like I'll be trying to dip into my kids college funds again to get a new mask.... *sigh*
Any news from the vendors on a retrofit for older masks yet?

4. Motion (Mr. Baker): To adopt rules changes to reflect a change in the target area in foil to include a portion of the lower bib, matching the current rules in effect for FIE competition. The effective date of these rules changes will be August 1, 2009 for all national tournaments and qualifiers to national tournaments. The effective date of these rules changes will be August 1, 2010 for all other competitions at all levels governed by the rules of US Fencing.
Rationale:
Now that the new target area has actually gone into use internationally it appears significantly less likely that there will be additional near-term modifications to these rules. It is important that US Fencing stay in sync with the rules used in fencing in the rest of the world. 7 US Fencing Board of Directors 2008-2009 – July 5, 2009 Agenda v3
While it is noted that there are significant costs to retrofitting existing equipment, this is a cost which is unavoidable if we wish to remain in conformity with the most recent developments in the sport.


Did this motion pass?

[dberke]

Quick summary of the motions:

2nd hearing:
1. (Membership types) An amended motion was submitted for this, which had a number of significant changes. The amendment had some issues, so the motion was tabled until September while those issues were ironed out.
2. (Scheduling) This motion wasn't supposed to be there, it was adopted at the Feb meeting.
3. (Age 13 rule) Motion withdrawn.
4. (Foil bib) Tabled until September pending more review by the FOC

1st hearing:
1. (Changes to D1 events): Moved to urgent and passed effective Aug 1, 2009
2. (ROC qualifiers): Amended to not remove the point list, moved to urgent, passed.
3. (Vet qualifiers at ROCs): Seconded, will be voted on in September.
4. (Number or ROC events): Slightly amended, moved to urgent, passed.
5. (Fiscal year): Motion withdrawn.
6. (Promote 100% in vet events): Seconded, will be voted on in September

Meeting adjourned at 1:30am!

Dan

[trafl926]

The Age 13 rule and Fiscal year motions were withdrawn..why?

[MdA]

Originally Posted by dberke

Quick summary of the motions:

4. (Foil bib) Tabled until September pending more review by the FOC

Great! This will save us some money for awhile...but I bet the equipment vendors are mad$$$$$$$