USFA considering forcing members to use THS

[keith]

This APATHY gives officers/staff/whoever clout to make decisions on behalf of the membership, and sometimes this is terribly misguided. My guess is it's the same with USFA.

Never underestimate inertia.

As you say, for a great many fencers the habit of going to NACs will outweigh any incremental inconvenience.

Personally, since this is my first Vet year, I will be using NACs simply as the first option before suggesting a long weekend in a more salubrious part of the country .

[FreedomAtRisk]

Never underestimate inertia.

As you say, for a great many fencers the habit of going to NACs will outweigh any incremental inconvenience.

Personally, since this is my first Vet year, I will be using NACs simply as the first option before suggesting a long weekend in a more salubrious part of the country .

Collective action is always difficult to make happen. Note that I'm not suggesting that anyone not go to the NAC. Just don't use THS for your reservations. May work, may not, but you'll save money if you don't use them

[Inquartata]

In dealing with the budget issue, maybe the USFA is trying something similar, and this is step one. The choices could be:

1. The THS idea.
2. Something equally bad, like selling a swimsuit calendar showing only photos of Inquartata.
3. An increase in NAC fees.

This is just what I have been thinking ( apart from #2, which would actually be a wonderful idea ).

Almost all mentions in this thread of increasing entry fees have expressed a grudging acceptance, in that it would be "better than S & P". Had there instead been a proposal to raise entry fees, everyone would have been up in arms. Resistance to that seems to have been nicely short-circuited by outrage at S & P...

The same cynics who wondered whether S & P is a backdoor method of reducing the size of NACs are bound to wonder whether S & P is just a stalking horse for a price increase.

[GuyW]

I'm definitely opposed.

.

[flechewounds]

Folks -

It may be instructive to look at the US Volleyball version of Stay & Pay, found here: http://usavolleyball.org/content/index/6005

Also, there is more info here: http://assets.teamusa.org/assets/doc...ay_Release.pdf

You'll note some interesting "features."

First, the average room rate after S&P is around $100. That may represent a savings to some, but it is a LOT MORE than a $35/night Motel 6 or other budget accommodation that many of us choose to save money.

Second, there is no mention of any "waiver" or any new hotel provision.

Third, it isn't clear if the "selling to the public" rate that is quoted is the "rack rate" - e.g., the highest walk-in price. It probably is. AAA discounts, a little wheeling-and-dealing, priceline or hotwire likely offer better rates. I will bet dollars-to-donuts that those discounted rates are excluded from any "best price" guarantee. Hotel are loathe to give "most favored nations" clauses, so they usually load them up with exceptions to make them, in essence, useless.

Finally, since there are a range of room prices, and because they can't know who will wind up in which hotel (look at the last pp of the USV page), a team doesn't really know how much it will pay. When applied to our sport - what happens if we post for the low cost room, which fills up quickly, and are forced into a higher cost room? Who pays? This is a major fault in the process listed for USV, and one that will likely affect us.

[flechewounds]

From the US Volleyball Stay and Pay Program:

"THS is and will continue to guarantee the lowest group rates available through continual rate integrity checks (exclusions include single/king bedded rooms, employee rates, government rates, AAA and AARP rates). Rates range widely, starting as low as $79. THS offers programs for travel agents and will work with any club or team that may have a special situation (please see Special Situations below). If you still are unsure, or think you have found a better rate, please feel free to call THS."

OK - so if your a VET 50 fencer (AARP member) or 50+ parent, tough noogies. If you're active duty military, tough noogies. If you're a government employee, tough noogies. If you're a friggin' AAA member, tough noogies.

Sometimes the exceptions eat the rule.

Hmmmmm....

[flechewounds]

Here is more re: Stay & Pay....

Brad, et al:

In the last several posts, I've provided facts obtained from the USV web site and other areas. No one is saying anything good about USV's program - there is no positive feedback. There are a couple of instances of negative feedback, however.

Here is the THS US Volleyball Stay and Play hotel agreement form: http://assets.teamusa.org/assets/doc...CHotelForm.pdf

Several interesting features...

1) this is for an event three years out (2012). While I know advance planning is reasonable, the fact that this is three years out back up my claim that this program, if instituted, will NEVER go away.

2) THS Fee is 10%. USV gets $12/room. USV has no "price protection" in the event of increase. Also note that the hotel is supposed to include a $15 rebate in the room charge, but USV only gets $12. $3/room is going somewhere.

3) for a $100 room, $25 (10% + 15 rebate hold) is going to THS/USV. That is 1/4 of the fee. For the $79 room, you're looking at $23 - over 1/4 going to THS/USV. This is where the money is going.

4) the lowest room rate that they're quoting is $79. We've all done better than that (I got the Hilton in PDX for $45/night). Therein lies the ultimate problem with this program - it doesn't take into account that the open market offers generally better deals, particularly if one has geographic flexibility because of mass transit or car rental.

Between the above post, and the USV policies and procedures (found here), we are no longer fully in the dark about this program.

None of the questions asked by anyone (waivers, pricing, etc.) are answered. Just a lot of pablum saying how wonderful the program is at lowering the price of your $50 room to $79.

[occasionalfencer]

Here is more re: Stay & Pay....

Brad, et al:

In the last several posts, I've provided facts obtained from the USV web site and other areas. No one is saying anything good about USV's program - there is no positive feedback. There are a couple of instances of negative feedback, however.

Here is the THS US Volleyball Stay and Play hotel agreement form: http://assets.teamusa.org/assets/doc...CHotelForm.pdf

Several interesting features...

1) this is for an event three years out (2012). While I know advance planning is reasonable, the fact that this is three years out back up my claim that this program, if instituted, will NEVER go away.

2) THS Fee is 10%. USV gets $12/room. USV has no "price protection" in the event of increase. Also note that the hotel is supposed to include a $15 rebate in the room charge, but USV only gets $12. $3/room is going somewhere.

3) for a $100 room, $25 (10% + 15 rebate hold) is going to THS/USV. That is 1/4 of the fee. For the $79 room, you're looking at $23 - over 1/4 going to THS/USV. This is where the money is going.

4) the lowest room rate that they're quoting is $79. We've all done better than that (I got the Hilton in PDX for $45/night). Therein lies the ultimate problem with this program - it doesn't take into account that the open market offers generally better deals, particularly if one has geographic flexibility because of mass transit or car rental.

Between the above post, and the USV policies and procedures (found here), we are no longer fully in the dark about this program.

None of the questions asked by anyone (waivers, pricing, etc.) are answered. Just a lot of pablum saying how wonderful the program is at lowering the price of your $50 room to $79.

Thank you so much for doing the work of the board and staff. If I thought a recall election would work, I would nominate you for our new president, to replace the one who has been totally absent in this discussion, not only from fencing.net but also from providing any information officially. I have not emailed her because I can't find her email address, which I thought was somewhere on the USFA website, but I can't find it. Am I wrong in thinking that there should be some way for the membership to reach the president, in case of emergency?

[Guided by Wire]

Am I wrong in thinking that there should be some way for the membership to reach the president, in case of emergency?

To put it bluntly, yes you are. I am all for scrapping this poorly-conceived THS idea before it starts. But if your suggestion was put into place, every parent, fencer, coach and ref would call the president for every complaint they had or minor issue that came up. USFA would grind to a standstill.

However, I will grant you that USFA definitely needs a better way to solicit and process feedback from the membership on issues that directly affect the membership.

[pillow]

To put it bluntly, yes you are. I am all for scrapping this poorly-conceived THS idea before it starts. But if your suggestion was put into place, every parent, fencer, coach and ref would call the president for every complaint they had or minor issue that came up. USFA would grind to a standstill.

However, I will grant you that USFA definitely needs a better way to solicit and process feedback from the membership on issues that directly affect the membership.

May I remind you that the current President won a fairly close election as a result of directly soliciting votes from the membership in order to beat T. Hurley. She also promised a more "open administration."
The USFA will hardly "grind to a halt" if the new, or any President for that matter made herself available to feedback from the membership. In fact, I have great respect for Kalle, and I believe she would be quite receptive to any comments we have regarding the THS issue or any other problem. Your job is to simply to contact her. As the saying goes, it's not exactly rocket science--just keep at it until your voice is heard.

[Guided by Wire]

May I remind you that the current President won a fairly close election as a result of directly soliciting votes from the membership in order to beat T. Hurley. She also promised a more "open administration."
The USFA will hardly "grind to a halt" if the new, or any President for that matter made herself available to feedback from the membership. In fact, I have great respect for Kalle, and I believe she would be quite receptive to any comments we have regarding the THS issue or any other problem. Your job is to simply to contact her. As the saying goes, it's not exactly rocket science--just keep at it until your voice is heard.

I plan to send emails about the THS issue (even though the fencer in my family doesn't compete at the NAC/Summer Nationals level, I still recognize that it is a rotten idea).

I was specifically talking about the idea of having in place a way to reach the top banana in case of an "emergency". I think that would just be abused. I'm reminded of the woman who called 911 because McDonald's drive-thru got her order wrong. In fact, looking at the USFA org chart, they already have a person designated to deal with member issues and inquiries. "Petra Rangel, Member Services Representative" (unless I am misinterpreting their job title).

As for grinding to a halt, I was mixing up the ED and Board President. If I was the ED of a national organization and I had to deal with frivolous complaints all day, I would imagine it would be very difficult to do my job.

[Peach]

Getting directly in touch with the director/president/CEO of an organization is a highly overrated strategy. It just annoys and overstresses someone whose power to affect the situation is (oddly enough) MUCH more restricted than people like to think. We buy into the mythology of the Fearless Leader, for good and for bad.

People where I work are always wanting to make an appointment with the CEO to complain about things, and I keep telling them not to, but they keep doing it and then getting annoyed about the results (which never go the way they want them to). And the CEO starts thinking of all the people who work for him as relentless whiners because that's the only people who talk with him.

[pillow]

Getting directly in touch with the director/president/CEO of an organization is a highly overrated strategy. It just annoys and overstresses someone whose power to affect the situation is (oddly enough) MUCH more restricted than people like to think. We buy into the mythology of the Fearless Leader, for good and for bad.

People where I work are always wanting to make an appointment with the CEO to complain about things, and I keep telling them not to, but they keep doing it and then getting annoyed about the results (which never go the way they want them to). And the CEO starts thinking of all the people who work for him as relentless whiners because that's the only people who talk with him.

You make a fundamental mistake in your analysis. This is not a "corporation." This is an NGB for the sport of fencing that is very reliant on the goodwill and volunteer work of all of us. We are also quite small, and most of us know each other, and who is in charge. We also have a new ED and President who have pledged to have a more open and transparent way of working. Let's see if they are true to their word. There should be no problem in contacting those in charge, as we are basically a "mom and pop" organization, despite our wishes to be more important and influential. Are you saying you would be afraid to be considered a "whiner" if you emailed Kalle or Kurt?

[fencerwallet]

Am I wrong in thinking that there should be some way for the membership to reach the president, in case of emergency?

Apparently, none of us matter unless someone else wants something from us. Then you are, for that brief moment, important. Once what was wanted is obtained, we go back to being unimportant.

[Peach]

You make a fundamental mistake in your analysis. This is not a "corporation." This is an NGB for the sport of fencing that is very reliant on the goodwill and volunteer work of all of us. We are also quite small, and most of us know each other, and who is in charge. We also have a new ED and President who have pledged to have a more open and transparent way of working. Let's see if they are true to their word. There should be no problem in contacting those in charge, as we are basically a "mom and pop" organization, despite our wishes to be more important and influential. Are you saying you would be afraid to be considered a "whiner" if you emailed Kalle or Kurt?

Me? No. I have spoken with Kurt in passing and with Kalle a number of times, never in the capacity of "whining." If you think I am worried about what the chief officers of the USFA think about me personally, you're missing the point of my post, and I hope you didn't miss the point. I'm not talking about corporations. As you say, we are a small group and many of us know one another. But calling it a "mom and pop" organization is incorrect--we passed that size decades ago.

Effectively changing an organization's policy is rarely carried out solely by calling the chief officer directly (or by posting extensively in a discussion forum. I've belonged to a number of such fora over the course of the last couple of decades, and we're rarely as influential or as widely read as we'd like to think.)

Managing people and policies is often done best by making it easy for them to do what you want--perhaps by researching the situation, providing alternative methods, suggesting alternative viewpoints, looking for someone who has done a similar task in a way you prefer, enlisting the support of a large number of people within the organization (not just the president or executive director, and not just in an angry way), and offering to help. Quite a number of the suggestions on this and other threads have been useful and helpful, and we do have access to some influential people such as Brad and Mark, but so far much of the responses to their attempts to clarify have focused on opposition, rather than attempting to influence their viewpoint. They're pretty reasonable people, in my experience, and are pretty open to suggestion. Anybody want to start?

[flechewounds]

A lot of the Volleyball blather proffered by THS and USV focus on the fact that the "group" rates are competitive (or better) than a team would get as a "group" rate.

This make sense (for volleyball). It is a team sport, and I would expect that a team would require a block of rooms (probably about one room per player (if their parents are attending), plus a room for a coach or two. I'd estimate 10-12 rooms per team (a small group).

Fencing is different. We don't usually reserve by "team blocks," but instead reserve as individuals? After all, even if we're from the same club, our events are segregated by weapon, gender, age and skill. An average club's use of a hotel during a NAC would likely be 2-3 rooms per night, but it would be spread across potentially 9-12 people checking in and out. This is an entirely different model.

Furthermore, USV (like most team sports) holds the great majority of their large events over holiday weekends/weeks (I used to be a hockey dad - what a freaking nightmare). They are much larger events and having a few days around Thanksgiving/Christmas/Easter-Spring Break facilitate their events. Fencing, on the other hand, only consumes three holidays - Memorial Day, Veterans Day and the Fourth of July, and of those, only the Fourth of July is a major travel weekend. Furthermore, we have a knack for going to Dallas in July, Pittsburgh in December, etc., off-seasons for most cities.

What this means is that there is a far greater availability of rooming options for most fencing events than there would be for many USV events. Furthermore, given that the schedule is far less "set" - WE may be on a Friday, MF on a Sunday, and Junior Sabre on a Monday, we often don't individually utilize hotels for long periods.

Given that we're inherently more fractionalized within a "club," we are more likely to make our own arrangements - and shop around for them. Many of us are comfortable with the idea of staying 15 miles away and driving in - it saves a lot of money - and if you're fencing on a Sat or Sun, traffic is generally not a concern. The THS program in-place with USV doesn't address any of these issues directly, nor does it indicate that they may be addressable.

[flechewounds]

Me? No. I have spoken with Kurt in passing and with Kalle a number of times, never in the capacity of "whining." If you think I am worried about what the chief officers of the USFA think about me personally, you're missing the point of my post, and I hope you didn't miss the point. I'm not talking about corporations. As you say, we are a small group and many of us know one another. But calling it a "mom and pop" organization is incorrect--we passed that size decades ago.

Effectively changing an organization's policy is rarely carried out solely by calling the chief officer directly (or by posting extensively in a discussion forum. I've belonged to a number of such fora over the course of the last couple of decades, and we're rarely as influential or as widely read as we'd like to think.)

Managing people and policies is often done best by making it easy for them to do what you want--perhaps by researching the situation, providing alternative methods, suggesting alternative viewpoints, looking for someone who has done a similar task in a way you prefer, enlisting the support of a large number of people within the organization (not just the president or executive director, and not just in an angry way), and offering to help. Quite a number of the suggestions on this and other threads have been useful and helpful, and we do have access to some influential people such as Brad and Mark, but so far much of the responses to their attempts to clarify have focused on opposition, rather than attempting to influence their viewpoint. They're pretty reasonable people, in my experience, and are pretty open to suggestion. Anybody want to start?

Sure... since the kick-back from the THS deal is $12/night, but since the USFA will incur additional administrative costs in managing it (and potential lawsuits from excluded competitors based upon illegal tying, etc.), I suggest that instead of the THS deal, the USFA impose a one year NAC surcharge of $15 per registration to address the budget deficit. It would be a separate line-item called "2009-10 USFA Recapitalization" and would not be automatically renewed for the 2010-11 season.

No extra administration required (and no administrative expenses), no ill-will among the fencing community, no lawsuits, no long-term price increase, no "behind the scenes" wheeling and dealing. Just an honest effort to make the sport solvent again.

That is my suggestion.

[fdad]

Sure... since the kick-back from the THS deal is $12/night, but since the USFA will incur additional administrative costs in managing it (and potential lawsuits from excluded competitors based upon illegal tying, etc.), I suggest that instead of the THS deal, the USFA impose a one year NAC surcharge of $15 per registration to address the budget deficit. It would be a separate line-item called "2009-10 USFA Recapitalization" and would not be automatically renewed for the 2010-11 season.

No extra administration required (and no administrative expenses), no ill-will among the fencing community, no lawsuits, no long-term price increase, no "behind the scenes" wheeling and dealing. Just an honest effort to make the sport solvent again.

That is my suggestion.

Since the deficit accumulated by the USFA impacts all of its members, not only the relatively small subset that fence in NACs, should the surcharge be more fairly applied to membership renewal instead of NAC registration?

[Morale Officer]

Since the deficit accumulated by the USFA impacts all of its members, not only the relatively small subset that fence in NACs, should the surcharge be more fairly applied to membership renewal instead of NAC registration?

So you spread that out in different areas. Say...raise the membership fee by $5 or $10 per person and raise the NAC fees by $10 or $20. That would cover the bases.

[flechewounds]

Since the deficit accumulated by the USFA impacts all of its members, not only the relatively small subset that fence in NACs, should the surcharge be more fairly applied to membership renewal instead of NAC registration?

So you spread that out in different areas. Say...raise the membership fee by $5 or $10 per person and raise the NAC fees by $10 or $20. That would cover the bases.

Good suggestion - I amend my proposal.