USFA "Last Call" Policy for Referees

[occasionalfencer]

No, this is not a done deal for the fact no contract has been signed. It is still being negotiated. The problems with THS are being discussed and are not being ignored. Again, as I had stated in earlier threads with "Stay and Play," it is a soft rollout if it proceeds. No matter how I state the facts of the program, I am told, in these threads, that is not how it will be therefore I must not know and it makes it difficult to list the information. I have requested for Kurt our E.D. to post all the official information on the US Fencing Website dealing with the "Stay and Play." Tomorrow it shall be up and then you can see what is there instead of speculating what is there. Who is responsible...this has been presented to the EC and the BOD by our National Office and the E.D. as a program to consider.

Mark Stasinos
Vice-President
US Fencing Association

Thank you. To the best of my knowledge this is the first time you have said clearly "no it is not a done deal". You have said other things which seemed to be hedging. You and Brad have said more than once that it is a "soft roll", which is NOT HELPFUL since you have not yet said what a soft roll is. I only know what a soft roll is at dinner and I don't like them.

You seem to blame us for not knowing information which has been withheld from us. Of course we are "speculating". Putting up the information on the website finally is better late than never. Good.

[Emfuser]

I see that satire is lost on some...

[vivoescrimare]

In defense of Mdstasinos and Oiuyt, I really do appreciate them giving us what information they can. I think we all need to try and remember that these are the "good guys" in that they DO come to us on F.Net, in person, etc and tell us _what they can_ about what is going on. I can't blame them when they get upset and frustrated by people firing wild accusations and misinformation from all angles when they're trying to keep panic-inducing theories to a minimum.

Please keep in mind that refusal to answer a question may result from them not having this information, not being allowed to divulge the information, or simply from there being so many possible variables that trying to list all of the 100 possibilities could be completely pointless.

I am not, by any means, suggesting we stop asking questions or stop being concerned about transparency and honesty - I'm merely suggesting that we not shoot the messengers who ARE actually taking the time to talk to this relatively small percentage of the fencing population.

(That being said, I thought the Last Call policy post was hilarious, though perhaps the watercooler would've been a better place for it I totally bought it until shortly before the introduction of the RFID chips:P)

[SEM Fencer]

Except the first paragraph was so well written that I died a little inside.

[ivlobane]

TYou and Brad have said more than once that it is a "soft roll", which is NOT HELPFUL since you have not yet said what a soft roll is. I only know what a soft roll is at dinner and I don't like them.

You seem to blame us for not knowing information which has been withheld from us. Of course we are "speculating". Putting up the information on the website finally is better late than never. Good.

Brilliant! This whole thread is ingenious... Information hoarding anyone?

[fdad]

Except the first paragraph was so well written that I died a little inside.

As policy it seems more well thought through than S&P.

[Craig]

Moving this to the WC.

Before this thread blew up I was going to comment on the integration of the RFID chips with Google Earth and a live web API, but since the joke has been effectively killed...

[ivlobane]

How's this going by the way? I have a strange feeling that site might go down mysteriously so I copied it for the USFA's convenience... PM me if you need it...

[SEM Fencer]

As policy it seems more well thought through than S&P.

sssshhhhhh...don't type that too loud...someone might take a second look at it...

[oiuyt]

How's this going by the way? I have a strange feeling that site might go down mysteriously so I copied it for the USFA's convenience... PM me if you need it...

It's not being maintained and eventually the domain registration will expire, but I appreciate the confidence that you're expressing about how we might just "disappear" it some dark night....

Going briefly through the proposals:

* Office reorganization and changes to budgetary responsibilities.
We have a new ED, who has restructured the organizational chart of the National Office, shifting job responsibilities around and hiring new staff where necessary. The current structure appears considerably better at accomplishing the work and the goals necessary for National Office functioning than our previous systems.
Much of the budgetary responsibility has been given to the National Office staff. Their work this season has already shown how effective and useful this choice has been, as they were able to use that flexibility within an overall scheme to adjust throughout the year to account for a financial environment significantly different than that envisioned last June when the 08-09 budget was crafted. Their work and the changes in budgetary responsibilities that allowed them the flexibility are significant contributory factors to this past season going as well as it did financially. With the addition of Teri Holt late in the season I expect there to be continued improvements moving forward.

* Veteran Fencing. This document was more a Q&A status analysis than a specific set of proposals. Looking at the issues addressed and what has or has not changed might be useful. National competitions have added a 70+ category as a trial for SN09 and 09-10. Since then Vet Worlds has also added that category for Moscow in the men's weapons. It is not yet clear whether this will be a permanent change internationally or is a 1-year trial.
Support for our Worlds team has been increased. The LP sponsorship deal now includes uniforms for our Vet team. We will have a significant cadre attending the Championships in Moscow, including coaching, armoring, and National Team personnel. While it is still well below the level of Cadet/Junior/Senior World Teams, and is reliant on volunteer efforts, it has to be taken as a significant sign of progress.
Most of the rest of the document is either talking about current strengths, which still are, or about expanding numbers and opportunities for veterans competitions. The ROC Advisory Group has put forward a plan, now approved by the Board, for veterans events to start being included alongside ROC events starting in the 10-11 season. Just as the ROC system should provide a number of high-quality sub-NAC-level tournaments for senior fencers, this program should also provide a number of high-quality sub-NAC-level tournaments for our veterans. This can help expand the options on the calendar, reduce travel distances, while still ensuring quality veteran-only tournaments, and help encourage more veteran fencers to participate at levels beyond club/local fencing.

* Technology. The process outlined in this document has been started. The National Office, in collaboration with the Technology Planning Task Force, solicited a number of bids, analyzed the various offerings and selected a vendor. The vendor, Hang-a-Star, has begun building the first stages of a multi-year project to help move us forward in this area. While the initial delivery date of July 1 has slipped, the most recent indication I have is that we should be live this month. That first portion should include membership options, with tournament registration to follow shortly in a second phase.

* Volunteer Development. While we've successfully expanded to include some new blood in the volunteer ranks, this is an area where we have no made significant progress. We (the officers) need to revisit this proposal and determine action plans to implement the suggestions included, which are still necessary and relevant.

* Scholastic and Collegiate. Another area where we have no made the envisioned progress. As the officer with oversight for this area I take responsibility. We'll be revisiting this over the summer and will likely come up with a more specific and measureable plan of 09-10.

* Parents. A newly-constituted parents committee was formed. Further efforts are clearly needed in this area as well.

* Referee Development. Some of this plan was put into place this season. There were a series of clinics for high national-level foil referees put on in the mornings at NAC C, D, and F by Bill Oliver and Derek Cotton. The lessons learned from those seminars will hopefully be used to expand the program to all three weapons next season. The overall program is really the domain of the FOC, and I assume that they will be evaluating what was done this season and make plans for next season at their annual meeting next month. I fully expect continued growth in this area as they have a number of motivated people working hard on the program.

* Youth Development. The National Office staff now includes someone specifically tasked with overseeing the youth programs, funded out of a program support fee from the RYC and SYC tournaments. The SYC bid process continues incremental improvements and the calendar for 09-10 has been available for months now. This is significantly improved from just a couple of years ago when the calendar was not published until January.

* High Performance. US Fencing now has a full-time Director of High Performance. The policy groups, as outlined in the proposal, have been created and put into place. Having had a number of discussions with Mike Pederson since his appointment, I'm very confident that he's the right person and will significantly contribute to our further and continued success in the high performance arena. Our athletes and teams will be getting the support required to help them achieve their optimal performance, while still managing the various requirements of the Association.

* National Circuit Events. The NOC system had its inaugural year. As a result of the lessons learned it has been recrafted slightly into the ROC system. It has been expanded from the initial 4 tournaments in 08-09 to 8 in 09-10 and 12 in 10-11. It is also being expanded to include Div II events and veterans events.

* Club Growth. Another area which we need to revisit and formulate specific, actionable and measurable plans for this coming season.

So there are a few areas where there was minimal, if any, progress. Several others which mapped nearly exactly to the proposals. And yet more where we have made considerable progress and as a result of lessons learned in the process modified our plans from what was written last spring.

I think that a check-up such as this is appropriate at least annually. I expect that the officers will have a discussion evaluating what has happened this season, areas we need to improve, areas where we've accomplished goals, and areas where we've had success but should follow up to expand on that success in the future. We'll also come up with new ideas that were not listed last year. I welcome any suggestions of areas we should be examining as a part of that process.

-B

[flechewounds]

Brad -

The WC seems like the wrong place for this response. People may think your intent is to be sarcastic

Gary.

[dcrocket]

Brad -

The WC seems like the wrong place for this response. People may think your intent is to be sarcastic

Gary.

While not likely mistaken for sarcasm, very few people would look for this type of summary in this location...it should be copy/pasted into a new thread...

[occasionalfencer]

Everything lately seems to be posted in the wrong place to begin with. Well, not everything. Just what I read. I hereby declare that everyone may post only in the right place from now on.

[Durando]

Okaaay. Nothing's changed around here I see.

[jimbro]

No Gary, it was not clever. It is annoying that this is what you think you need to do to push another point with your other two threads. If you want to talk about issues but to start a thread as a joke dealing with the actions of the BOD, then I can tell you I don't see it as funny. You are better than that, and I thought better of you.

Mark Stasinos
Vice-President
US Fencing Association

On a completely unrelated note:
Pakistan president Asif Zardari bans jokes ridiculing him:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...uling-him.html

Some quotes from the article:
The country's interior minister, Rehman Malik, announced the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) had been asked to trace electronically transmitted jokes that "slander the political leadership of the country" under the new Cyber Crimes Act.
Mr Malik, said the move would punish the authors of "ill motivated and concocted stories through emails and text messages against the civilian leadership".

[flechewounds]

On a completely unrelated note:
Pakistan president Asif Zardari bans jokes ridiculing him:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...uling-him.html

Some quotes from the article:
The country's interior minister, Rehman Malik, announced the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) had been asked to trace electronically transmitted jokes that "slander the political leadership of the country" under the new Cyber Crimes Act.
Mr Malik, said the move would punish the authors of "ill motivated and concocted stories through emails and text messages against the civilian leadership".

How come you never see Mark and Asif in the same room???? Inquiring minds want to know...

[Grasshopper]

Can we appoint a Bar Tsar for this program?

[Inquartata]

The ROC Advisory Group has put forward a plan, now approved by the Board, for veterans events to start being included alongside ROC events starting in the 10-11 season. Just as the ROC system should provide a number of high-quality sub-NAC-level tournaments for senior fencers, this program should also provide a number of high-quality sub-NAC-level tournaments for our veterans. This can help expand the options on the calendar, reduce travel distances, while still ensuring quality veteran-only tournaments, and help encourage more veteran fencers to participate at levels beyond club/local fencing.

Excellent! Although I see a number of drawbacks to making them part of the qualifying path for the Vet Teams...

[oiuyt]

Excellent! Although I see a number of drawbacks to making them part of the qualifying path for the Vet Teams...

It's an additional path to vet nationals. None of the existing paths were removed.

ROCs should be (at least) Sectional-level events. It's reasonable to use them as a qualifier for veterans the same way Sectional Championships are used.

If you mean as points events for veterans, I don't think that's actually been proposed. I was also at the vet meeting in Grapevine where it (or something similar) was mentioned (by Rinaldo?). I think that it's WAY too early to start thinking about the vet events at ROCs, which won't start until 2010-11, as part of team selection. Among other prerequisites, I'd want to see a multi-year history of attendance and a method of strength-weighting (which might very well require said history). And that's even discounting the entire discussion of whether or not it's desirable to expand beyond the 2 out of 3 points system currently in place, which I think is a non-trivial conversation.

-B

[I_luv_saber]

And, Mark - the dead giveaway should have been the second sentence - "... the sobering trend of alcohol consumption among referees." Do I really need to add a "Ha Ha?"

Yes, because of the fact that the REAL plan is nearly as "funny"....