USFA vs USFCA membership for American Fencing Coaches

[qatet]

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.

Considering the description of the amount fo overtime that the main office puts in (can't remember who or where this was - Corinne in the S&P discussion?) , I kinda doubt that they're looking for more work to take on. If you want somebody to help with everyday data organization, Fred seems like a good place to start. It might even free up enough time for USFCA officers that they could do their own legwork towards becoming an entity that the USFA would want to partner with, if that is your goal.

[Jason]

...if that is your goal.

Is that a goal? In fact, what exactly are the USFCA's goals? I suspect that no one has a clear answer to that.

[MdA]

Is that a goal? In fact, what exactly are the USFCA's goals? I suspect that no one has a clear answer to that.

I think I have covered this before in other threads but here it is again.

THE UNITED STATES FENCING COACHES' ASSOCIATION
CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS
CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE I
The name of this organization is The United States Fencing Coaches Association (USFCA). It is a
corporation which is chartered and exists under the not-for-profit Corporation Law of 1972, Act
Number 271, as amended, of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The fiscal year of the
corporation commences 1 September, and ends 31 August, following.
ARTICLE II
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
SECTION 1: To offer a national organization for fencing coaches, and others who are interested in
the teaching, coaching, and welfare of the sport of fencing in the United States of America.
SECTION 2: To initiate, stimulate, promote, develop and raise the standards of the sport of
fencing; to improve the techniques of teaching and coaching fencing; and to increase interest and
participation in the sport of fencing in the United States of America.
SECTION 3: To acquire and maintain affiliation and recognition of the Association and its
members with health, physical education, recreation, and athletic organizations.
SECTION 4: To cooperate with other athletic organizations in promoting, supporting and
conducting national and international fencing events.
SECTION 5: To protect the interest and welfare of its members.
SECTION 6: To sponsor and conduct demonstrations of the sport of fencing, to support and
promote amateur fencing programs, to present displays of historical and period swordplay, as well
as to organize, conduct and present public educational programs on fencing.

[Allen Evans]

Thanks, Wendell, but this strikes me as more of a Mission Statement than a set of goals. None of these statements really outline where the USFCA is, and where the USFCA wants to be. Without "drilling down" to this next level, it's very difficult to come up with a concrete plan and measure its effectiveness. Perhaps that has been part of the problem, all along.

[Jason]

I was looking for something more specific.
(As an aside, I am a bit amazed how nothing is mentioned about testing and accreditation when, at least until recently, that's really all the organization seemed to be involved in.)

Having general aims like "raise the standards of the sport of fencing" is fine, but those ideas need to be defined and metrics need to be established. What, specifically, is the organization currently trying to do?

If specific, measurable goals are in place, then the organization can create a plan to achieve them. Talk of things like merging with the USFA, hiring an ED (), or renting permanent office space don't make any sense if they are not part of a plan to achieve specific things (of course, all three of those examples would likely be part of a really bad plan).

Edit: It seems that Allen is a faster typist than I am.

[MdA]

....Without "drilling down" to this next level, it's very difficult to come up with a concrete plan and measure its effectiveness. Perhaps that has been part of the problem, all along.

That is a very good question for your current Regional VP.

[Jason]

That is a very good question for your current Regional VP.

Actually, it's probably a good question for the organization as a whole.

[MdA]

I have not seen a list of specific goals and objectives since the new administration took over last August. But, you can probably glean some goals from the President’s messages in recent Newsletters.

http://pointinline.blogspot.com/2009_03_01_archive.html

Increasing the number and quality of training clinics in all five regions appears to be the major goal.

Hosting the Annual Conference and AGM is important.

Improving online study materials for the exams.

Updating testing procedures for all exam levels.

Encouraging members to become active and engaged in improvements.

[michaelheggen]

First off, you're welcome, MdA.

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.

If the USFCA was nothing more than a quarterly newsletter (hold the snarky comments, please), I would agree with Allen whole-heartedly. An organization that sends out 2,000 newsletters a year doesn't need paid staff.

But the USFCA also hosts an annual conference, handles certifications that affect people's professional careers, and sets the standard for competency in the teaching of fencing in the U.S. Furthermore, the ideas being bandied about here call for growth in membership, more coaching clinics, and better service to USFCA members—and that's just for starters. (And I am in favor of all three of these things, by the way.)

But the USFCA is struggling to accomplish its existing tasks in a satisfactory manner using its current all-volunteer model (and that's not a slam on the leadership, at all—they are doing the best they can, I know). So, given that, how in the world is it going to be able to deliver what people are asking for using an all-volunteer model?

I just don't see it.

When a business has more work than it can handle, it has to:

1. get its staff to work harder;
2. turn the extra business away; or
3. hire more staff.

We've been trying option 1 for years. Many talented folks have done their best (with varying degrees of success), yet we still have more work than the USFCA can handle, so I think that's a dead end.

Option 2 is the effective result of maxing out option 1, and that's what the USFCA has been unintentionally doing. No one wants to turn people away or have them leave in frustration because they cannot get what they need from the organization, but that is what has been happening—especially based on the comments in here.

That leaves option 3.

Others mentioned databases.... A database can't be a face for the organization at a NAC, or encourage non-members to join. A database cannot organize and produce more coaching clinics. A database cannot mail out newsletters, membership materials, and certifications. That takes a person.

As an example, our salle made the decision to hire a full-time ED almost a year ago. We don't regret it in the least. We have about 140 active students, an annual budget of about $90,000, a 3,500 square-foot dedicated facility, and three part-time instructors. Thanks to our ED, stuff gets done, there is consistency, and the board is starting to be able to think a bit about long-term strategies instead of how to pay the rent because statements went out late (again)—and I am able to focus on teaching and coaching instead of burning the candle at both ends. A salle is not the same as an organization like the USFCA, I know, but...

If the majority of the USFCA's annual budget were to go toward the expense of having an ED and we grew, offered better member services, and had more coaching clinics, I certainly would be satisfied.

What else are we going to use the money for, anyway???

-Mike

[MdA]

First off, you're welcome, MdA.

If the USFCA was nothing more than a quarterly newsletter (hold the snarky comments, please), I would agree with Allen whole-heartedly. An organization that sends out 2,000 newsletters a year doesn't need paid staff.......

-Mike

Thanks again Mike. Your right...and thanks for sharing your experience with your club.

Allen: Look at the wimpy set of goals I pulled out of the newsletters...and that is all the volunteer model can handle right now..

[Allen Evans]

Michael, MdA:

This is backwards. You don't hire staff and look for things for them to do (even if it's obvious that there is a role for them). You have a plan, a set of goals, look at your resources, and then decide what staff needs to be hired. Perhaps the USFCA needs to "hire" a membership coordinator. But to hire staff without a clear objective and purpose smacks of "copy-cat staffing", in which positions are created and filled because other "successful" organizations have those positions.

[MdA]

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

….
This is backwards. …….Perhaps the USFCA needs to "hire" a membership coordinator……..

Allen,

You and Jason really need to run for USFCA office and get on the Executive Committee. You go around in circles, and Jason is negative about everything. You guys would fit right in.

[Jason]

Allen,

You and Jason really need to run for USFCA office and get on the Executive Committee. You go around in circles, and Jason is negative about everything. You guys would fit right in.

If that's what you are seeing, then you are completely misunderstanding what we are saying. If the USFCA Exec. Committee is similarly confused, it's no wonder that the organization has so much trouble.

Most successful organizations have certain commonalities. A very important one is that they set specific, measurable goals, followed by the creation of a plan to reach those goals. This is basic stuff.

Starting with "should we hire an ED?" or "should we merge with the USFA?" does not follow that model.

The problem with good advice is how often it makes people defensive.

[Allen Evans]

Allen,

You and Jason really need to run for USFCA office and get on the Executive Committee. You go around in circles, and Jason is negative about everything. You guys would fit right in.

If it seems that I'm going around in circles, or contridicting myself at times, I think it's because some of the counter-statements are all over the place, and I'm just trying to keep up. I can't speak for Jason (he seems to be, by nature, a little cynical in my opinion ) but I think he's just expressing an opinion about conversations that seem to go like this:

Poster: "USFCA membership services are bad."

Me: "I agree. How does improving membership services get us closer to a goal we have? How are services bad? In what ways can they be improved (where are the service failues), and how can we improve them to further a real goal of the organizaiton? What level of resources should we commit to solving this? What has been tried before?"

Poster: "We should hire staff to solve this problem."

Me: "We have no idea of the scope of the problem, how we want membership services to further our goals, or if hiring staff will solve this problem at all."

Poster: "I thought you agreed that membership services were a problem?!"

You see where I'm coming from? I think there is a dialogue at a very basic level that isn't happening, or is not happening across the entire organization. I see where there are improvements being made, but they would happen faster (and I think even Jason would agree with this) if there was a clear idea of what the USFCA really wanted from itself, and for it's members, something more concrete then "We want to be a better organization" or "we want to represent fencing coaches".

To be fair, the USFCA isn't the only organization having this problem, however. Look at the USFA, which seems to have many of the same conversations and often seems to be digging itself into a hole for the same reasons.

[michaelheggen]

I understand the point of view that says that there shouldn't be a blind decision to hire staff without clear goals for that staff member. I agree. One does not hire someone without creating a job description. However, one doesn't create a job description until there is at least some support for the idea of hiring staff.

Likewise, it is usually a good idea to have the problems at least generally defined before trying to solve them. So, here is the #1 problem (again):

The USFCA leadership has more on its plate than it can handle.

The organization has difficulty with the following:

• sending out certifications in a timely manner
• sending out membership cards in a timely manner
• maintaining its website/membership records
• retaining/growing its membership
• putting out a newsletter on a regular basis

I'm sure others can come with more problems. Again, these are not faults with the leadership—I know that I would certainly do worse. And these are not new tasks; they are fairly basic functions of the organization that are being executed only with difficulty.

But the problems on the above list are merely symptoms of the real problem, which is that there simply is too much work to do and not enough hands to do it. Plain and simple.

The solution is to get more hands—i.e. hire an executive director.

If folks want metrics for the above symptom list, fine—here are some possible metrics (but these don't change the problem):

• get certifications mailed out within ten days of exam
• send out new/renewing member materials within ten days of receipt of payment
• get Find-A-Coach to a useful state (i.e. meaningful contact info and current data); update the database at least once a month
• increase membership (net gain, not just new members) by at least 5% annually, with a goal of 1000 members (this will take about 14 years at 5% annual growth); send out renewal reminders to expiring members
• put out a quarterly print newsletter at the standard set by The Swordmaster when Jeremy Schmid was editor

These goals are essentially zero-growth goals. There's nothing especially new here (with possible exception of a 5% growth rate). And I think that they are pretty reasonable for an organization that charges $50 a year for dues.

But the evidence shows that these goals are not achievable by our volunteer-run organization; we just don't have time to do all this.

-Mike

[Jason]

Poster: "USFCA membership services are bad."

Me: "I agree. How does improving membership services get us closer to a goal we have? How are services bad? In what ways can they be improved (where are the service failues), and how can we improve them to further a real goal of the organizaiton? What level of resources should we commit to solving this? What has been tried before?"

Poster: "We should hire staff to solve this problem."

Me: "We have no idea of the scope of the problem, how we want membership services to further our goals, or if hiring staff will solve this problem at all."

Poster: "I thought you agreed that membership services were a problem?!"

This, it seems, needs repeating.

[michaelheggen]

Um, color me clueless, Jason, but upon which part of the message are we not connecting? Clearly you think something is Inherently Obvious To Even The Most Casual Observer.

And clearly I think the same thing.

Therein lies the path to the end of intelligent discourse on this thread. So instead of treating each other like idiots (as so often happens in forum discussions), how about if we politely try to help each other understand the other's point of view?

It might turn out that we are actually not very far apart in our viewpoints.

So, I'll start.

I think I defined how membership services are not quite up to snuff—namely, that membership materials often take weeks to get out, as do certifications and pretty much any other correspondence, that the "Find-A-Coach" portion of the website has had incomplete contact information for the past year, and that we have had exactly one issue of The Swordmaster in the last 13 months.

These aren't vague, nebulous things, nor does it take mission statements, goal-setting breakout groups, values statements, member surveys, or other buzzword-compliant management tools to figure out how these services further the goals of the USFCA. These are basic, fundamental services that ANY professional organization needs to be able to provide without difficulty. But we cannot consistently do so.

You were asking for specificity. Is this what you were after?

As to what has been tried before, I honestly don't know. But I do know that at least two different administrations (the previous and the current) have been trying to do a better job at these tasks, with little more than modest success. I have met a number of the people in positions of leadership. They are good folks doing the best that they can with the time that they have—and I think they all were the only ones who volunteered for their jobs.

From what people have said (in here and in person), none of these problems are new to the organization (except, for example, that Jeremy Schmid enjoyed unusual and hard-to-follow success during his recent tenure as editor of The Swordmaster). So the problems have been around for at least the last ten years (and far longer, I suspect).

The past pattern has been that the organization muddles along, with most volunteers doing the best they can, some doing a mediocre job, and a few doing outstanding work. The organization has been through cycles of great success in one area, followed by volunteer burnout, followed by a change in personnel, followed by the return of the problem, followed by an earnest volunteer who works very hard to clean things up. Lather. Rinse. Repeat in every area of the organization, but never with successful periods in more than one or two areas at the same time. (This is, unfortunately, a common theme in small volunteer-run nonprofits that are trying to grow.)

All of this says to me that there does not exist a sustainable solution to these problems using volunteer labor.

If all of this says something different to you, I'm all ears. Except for being a member interested in continuing professional growth in my career as a fencing teacher and coach, I don't have a horse in this race.

Similarly, I don't know you from Adam, and I have no bone to pick with you (unless you beat the snot out of me at épée ). Show me a better idea, and I'll happily support it. My postings have just been my opinions based on my own experience with small nonprofit organizations.

So, that said, what are you trying to say that I am not getting, and do you understand what I am saying?

-Mike

[MdA]

Mike,

You summed up the situation pretty well. I have nothing against good advice. In order to make any of these improvements we need to improve the USFCA Executive Committee....and there have been some improvements over the last few years...but as Mike points out....we slid back in a few areas.

You can send your nominations for officers to me and I will make sure they get to the Nominating Committee.

We need nominations for President, Executive VP, 5 Regional VPs, Secretary, and Treasurer. The term is from 2010-12.

We also need two nominations for the Certification Accreditation Board. The term is for 6 years and you need to be a Fencing Master.

[Jason]

Michael,
I'll see if I can make my argument clearer for you, but between what both Allen and I have written so far, I am a bit unnerved that there is any confusion.

Let's start with a few of your assumptions:

But the USFCA... handles certifications that affect people's professional careers, and sets the standard for competency in the teaching of fencing in the U.S.

This is incorrect to the point of being ridiculous. The USFCA does not affect anyone's career or set the standard for anything. Perhaps it will one day reach that level of importance, but it is currently far closer to irrelevance.

The USFCA seems to be at a point where it is trying to figure out what it exists to do. That is certainly an important stage in its development as an organization. If an actual decision can be reached and agreed upon, then growth and improvement of services becomes much easier.

But the problems on the above list are merely symptoms of the real problem, which is that there simply is too much work to do and not enough hands to do it. Plain and simple.

I certainly don't have any special knowledge about the organization's operation, but I'm fairly certain that the problems with the USFCA are far more involved than your description suggests.

When there are serious failures in an organization, a common suggestion is often, "Let's hire someone to make it go away!" But if the organization really wants to grow and be professional, then much deeper questions need to be asked and a real plan for improvement needs to be created.

What are the organization's goals? How do member services help to achieve those goals? What systems are currently being employed to provide member services? How can those services be updated and improved upon (I suspect that, like the USFA, the USFCA is technologically backward and could improve a lot with the right answer to this question)? How is the organization currently recruiting volunteers? How can that be improved upon?

If the organization were to hire someone, how would it further our goals? What specific duties would he fulfill? How much will it cost and how will those costs be justified?

To simply say, "We need more hands to do this," is to overlook what's actually going on in an organization. It's an "easy" answer that often fails to solve the actual problems.

An organization that isn't yet sure why it exists--and only brings in a few thousand dollars of revenue a year--can't just say, "This is hard, let's hire help." It needs to answer some very basic questions in order to move forward appropriately.

I think this is all fairly obvious, but if you don't understand it, I'm not sure that I can really help much more than I already have.

[VorpalCat]

Let's start with a few of your assumptions:

But the USFCA... handles certifications that affect people's professional careers, and sets the standard for competency in the teaching of fencing in the U.S.

This is incorrect to the point of being ridiculous. The USFCA does not affect anyone's career or set the standard for anything. Perhaps it will one day reach that level of importance, but it is currently far closer to irrelevance.

You know, it might be worth Someone (not going to opine as to whom) actually polling coaches and membership to see which organization they think sets that standard. I get the feeling there might be some surprises there on all sides.