USFA vs USFCA membership for American Fencing Coaches

[MdA]

Combining the membership application is not a difficult decision from my perspective.

Forget about merging the USFA with the USFCA.

Forget about increasing memberships for either organization.

Forget about the technical details and politics.

Think about making it easier and less expensive for coaches to join both organizations….and providing improved services to member coaches. This could be a good first step.

Each organization does some things a little better…

The USFA has a permanent office in Colorado Springs with an administrative staff.

The USFA processes 20K+ memberships each year.

What is the impact of 500 or even 750 more….given that many are duplicates?

The USFCA has no permanent office…the office is the volunteer Secretary’s home and the address/email/phone changes almost every year…with elections and resignations.

Every year the USFCA stumbles over the processing of memberships online and by mail.

Both organizations have struggled to conduct enough training clinics (in more locations and at the correct level) over the last few years.

The USFCA could concentrate more resources on improving all the services mentioned above and spend fewer resources on processing membership applications.

I think both organizations would get more accurate data on coaches…and the data would be shared.

….and the Coaches get both memberships at a reduced price (the resources saved by both organizations will probably offset the reduced membership fee)…especially if the USFA application goes online.

USFA – Win
USFCA – Win
Coach - Win

[Jason]

and providing improved services to member coaches.

I think this needs to be the starting point. How would services be improved and increased by marrying the two organizations?

Additionally, while I think it's clear that the USFCA could benefit from such a move, what benefit would the USFA really get out of it? I am suspicious of the claim that the "USFCA could concentrate more resources on improving all the services mentioned above and spend fewer resources on processing membership applications" if only because the USFCA does not have a particularly impressive record of providing services. Is this really because managing a membership roster of 500 is that taxing? If so, I would question the organizational capabilities of the people involved--which, of course, would not give me any reason to want to join forces.

Were I someone in the USFA who was making a decision about this kind of thing, I would want to see that the USFCA had created some kind of model (in terms of educating coaches, bringing in members, or something similar) that the USFA could benefit from adopting. Lacking that, I would not see any reason to believe that joining forces officially would alleviate any of the USFA's problems.

[MdA]

..... Is this really because managing a membership roster of 500 is that taxing? If so, I would question the organizational capabilities of the people involved--which, of course, would not give me any reason to want to join forces.
.......

Why don't you try it for a year....in addition to running your club?

[Jason]

Why don't you try it for a year....in addition to running your club?

Why? I am not a coaching organization. If the USFCA really is just one guy managing everything while simultaneously running his own club, then that is an even greater reason that the USFA and USFCA should not become attached in any official way.

(As an aside, I'll clarify that I am not saying that the USFA and USFCA couldn't, say, once in a while cosponsor a clinic or something similarly "small scale", but rather that there does not seem to be any benefit to officially joining forces for their day-to-day operations.)

[MdA]

..... If the USFCA really is just one guy managing everything while simultaneously running his own club, then that is an even greater reason that the USFA and USFCA should not become attached in any official way.
.....

There are nine elected officers. But the Secretary and the Treasurer do the bulk of the membership work...handle the phone calls and the emails.

...and this is an election year. Shall I nominate you for Secretary so you can show us all how it's done....downtown?

[Jason]

There are nine elected officers. But the Secretary and the Treasurer do the bulk of the membership work...handle the phone calls and the emails.

...and this is an election year. Shall I nominate you for Secretary so you can show us all how it's done....downtown?

Wendell, you are making my point for me. The USFCA is not yet in a position to really be of organizational value to the USFA.

[MdA]

.... you are making my point for me....

...and you have made mine.

[Jason]

...and you have made mine.

Which is what? That the USFCA would only be able to demonstrate its value after it was already tied to the USFA?

From the point of view of the USFA, that will surely sound like the worst offer ever. "Sure I don't have the skills or experience for this job, but that's only because you haven't hired me yet!"

That might work at Walmart, but I'd hope the USFA would have higher standards.

[VorpalCat]

Every time I start thinking I might renew my USFCA membership after all, you do something like this, MdA, that makes me think I'd do better for myself as a coach to spend that bit of funds elsewhere. Jason's not blaming anyone at the USFCA for the unpolished member services, he's simply pointing out that they exist and that they're a bit of an issue to some. (Just as Coaches College scheduling is an issue to some with the USFA, for example.) Yes, it's tough running something like this from spare rooms in limited spare time. No one's saying otherwise. But your response smacks of 'I know you are but what am I?' rather than anything useful, helpful, or positive. Purely imho of course but then, it's mho that influences how and where I spend my own limited resources.

I finally joined the USFCA after a lunchtime chat with Paul Sise and a couple of other people the last time I was at Coaches College a few years ago. He didn't make a big presentation about it, didn't make a big deal about it, just gave his thought-out opinion without jumping up and down about it. That did far more to sell the idea of the USFCA to me than anything I've seen here.

My decision to rejoin or not boils down to: Do I feel I got my money's worth out of my first year's membership? In other words, do the actual (not potential) benefits outweigh the cost? And yes, I apply that same logic to renewing my USFA membership and anything else that involves those aforementioned limited resources. That I'm having to talk myself into at least considering rejoining tells me something right there...

[MdA]

Which is what? ......
.....That might work at Walmart, but I'd hope the USFA would have higher standards.

Walmart doesn't teach fencing coaches.....at least not yet. The USFA/USFCA both need good fencing coaches to teach other coaches....and by the numbers in this thread....we need more of them.

Unfortunately, from my experience, these few good coaches don't like to answer the mail...or are too busy running their clubs, coaching a national squad, recruiting college fencers, refereeing, dealing with irate parents, posting on f.net, etc.

Someone needs to help with the administration.

This is a good discussion Jason...thanks

[MdA]

Every time I start thinking I might renew my USFCA membership after all, you do something like this, MdA, ......
I finally joined the USFCA after a lunchtime chat with Paul Sise and a couple of other people the last time I was at Coaches College a few years ago. ........ That I'm having to talk myself into at least considering rejoining tells me something right there...

Paul is a great guy. I wish he would post here more than me.

[Allen Evans]

Successful mergers occur for a number of reasons:

1. A stronger organization wishes to remove a competitor to their key business.

2. An organization adds expertise to their business by buying another organization with that expertise, rather than developing it themselves.

3. Two organizations merge to produce economies of scale, or to integrate mutually compatiable core businesses.

This isn't a complete list, of course, but these three reasons are usually the ones most given (there are other reasons, such as an attempt to build a new brand, such as the merger of a low end company with a high end company, or simply ego on the part of one organization wanting to own another).

Jason's points are very accurate. The USFCA would be coming to the table with the hope of providing an expertise to the USFA (coaching development) that it really doesn't have. I am encouraged that the USFCA has now decided to start building that expertise, and in ten years or so, might develp enough value in this area to have something to offer the the USFA.

Right now, I think it would be a bad idea for the two groups to combine, if such a merger could even be undertaken.

[michaelheggen]

As a member of both organizations, I'm not in favor of a USFA-USFCA merger, either. The goals of each are complementary, but different, and I think a merger would be detrimental to both.

It is very difficult to run a national organization (even a small one) while also running a salle. The USFCA's officers and other volunteers do the best they can, but that does not produce a professional organization. It's just too much work and—let's face it—our expertise is in teaching fencing, not nonprofit management.

I think the USFCA might be well served by taking a chunk of its cash reserves and a good chunk of its annual budget and hiring a half-time executive director (who is NOT a fencing coach).

This person would handle the routine administrative tasks and provide support to the volunteer officers to help them focus their energies on tasks that require expertise in fencing pedgogy. More importantly, this person would actively work to grow the USFCA from a small exclusively volunteer-run organization into a somewhat larger semi-professionally run organization.

The resulting growth in membership (due to improved member services and membership recruiting) would subsidize a significant portion of the ED's salary, but the first-year salary costs would need to be met with savings and from the budget. (In a world with a fiscally healthy USFA, I would suggest that the USFA consider partially underwriting the ED's first-year salary, but that's not gonna happen any time soon. )

Thanks to the wonders of the information age, the ED could be just about anywhere and could probably work from home. Or, perhaps the USFA would provide low- or no-cost office space in Colorado Springs—a healthy and vibrant USFCA is good for fencing and thus good for the USFA.

The USFCA is never going to be a large organization, and its fortunes will always be tied (to a certain extent) to the USFA—there are only so many fencing coaches, after all. But there is certainly room for significant growth—enough to justify at least a part-time ED.

As another poster said, the USFCA's goal should be to become an organization in which most fencing coaches consider membership to be a no-brainer. But that is not going to happen without an executive director.

-Mike

[MdA]

As a member of both organizations, I'm not in favor of a USFA-USFCA merger...
...It is very difficult to run a national organization (even a small one) while also running a salle.....

...I think the USFCA might be well served by taking a chunk of its cash reserves and a good chunk of its annual budget and hiring a half-time executive director (who is NOT a fencing coach).....

.... Or, perhaps the USFA would provide low- or no-cost office space in Colorado Springs—a healthy and vibrant USFCA is good for fencing and thus good for the USFA.....
-Mike

First of all, thanks Mike.

Do you think Mike's ideas are good? This is an election year and the USFCA Executive Committee needs two new VPs...because of term limits.

And this year...for the first time....there are no second class (Associate) members. See President Salem's announcement below.

From: Salem, Abdel H abdel.salem@usafa.edu
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 6:08 PM
To: Abdel Salem; Salem, Abdel H
Subject: Announcement


The United States Fencing Coaches Association will be changing their membership categories effective September 1, 2009. This change eliminates the “Associate” membership level, and moves every dues-paying member to a “Full” member status.

Previously, an Associate Member was distinguished from a Full Member, and did not have the same capacity to be elected to office or to vote on general business. Additionally, a member needed to earn a level of certification (Moniteur or above) to be considered a Full Member.

By eliminating the Associate membership level, all members will be considered Full members of the organization, regardless of certification level. Members 18 years and above will have full voting rights and be eligible for elected office. Members less than 18 years may serve on committees (with voting rights on the committees).

On September 1, all Associate members will be converted to Full members, and the Associate level of membership will be eliminated.

Thank you
Abdel Salem

[Jason]

Do you think Mike's ideas are good?

Ugh...

[Allen Evans]

An organization of the size of the USFCA doesn't need a part time paid staff member, especially when we're talking revenues of...what...25K a year? There must be a more cost-efficient way to handle keeping track of 500 names.

[MdA]

......There must be a more cost-efficient way to handle keeping track of 500 names.

Maybe the USFCA should pay the USFA to process those 500 members....many are duplicates as we have pointed out...and would already be in the USFA database. No merger...just paying for services.

[Allen Evans]

It would make more sense to pay FRED to run something similar to this. Online data base management is their core business....and adding something like this doesn't make any sense for the USFA.

[MdA]

.......
Identifying coaches currently teaching fencing in the US would seem to be a goal.

Identifying coaches who aren't members of either group (USFA or USFCA) would seem to be a goal.

Finding out why non-members don't feel the need to be members of either the USFA or USFCA would also seem to be important.

As a whole, it doesn't seem that the USFCA or the USFA keeps very good track of their coaches, besides what their current membership roster is. That might also be important, to find out why coaching members have left or are no longer active.

Perhaps with this information, a plan could start to be made to raise coaching memberships in the USFA and USFCA.

edit:

Let me change that last sentence: "Perhaps with this information, a plan could start to be made to offer services and benefits to coaches that would raise coaching memberships in the USA and USFCA".

Simply "raising membership numbers" to me, is not a good goal.

It would make more sense to pay FRED to run something similar to this. Online data base management is their core business....and adding something like this doesn't make any sense for the USFA.

So you're giving up on these goals that you suggested earlier in this thread? I thought we were talking about ways that the USFA and USFCA could cooperate? FRED won't help with these things.

[Allen Evans]

Tell me how paying the USFA to handle membership is going to identify coaches that aren't members of either organization?

Tell me how having the USFA handle USFCA membership is going to help (for sake of argument) the USFCA identify why coaches aren't a member of either organization, or of the USFCA (to take a specific focus)?

If the USFA was willing to handle USFCA membership duties, this at least take some of the burden off of the USFCA, agreed. But having the USFA handle membership for the USFCA would probably restrict what the USFCA can do with that information. Just off the top of my head, I have NO IDEA how the USFA handles it's historical members. I have noticed that when my USFA membership has lapsed, I recieved my normal reminder about joining in the fall, and never heard from the USFA again. That doesn't sound much like "tracking" to me, so having the USFA handle USFCA membership would seem to be of limited use.

I think the sort of program for membership the USFCA needs to follow involves something a little more advanced then paying someone to keep a list of the members from year to year. To be honest, I've also not been that impressed with the USFA's CRM approach in the past. Can't the USFCA aim a little higher?