In the thread about the September 2009 Board meeting there was a request to split out a thread on the topic of one of the proposed motions. The motion would change how local tournaments are sanctioned, allowing for clubs to sanction events directly, rather than always going through their division (or, in limited cases, the section, YDC, ROCAG, or TC).
The amendments to the Operations Manual are fairly extensive, so I've put them into a PDF document and attached it, rather than trying to put them into this post.
The motion quoted below received a first hearing at the Board meeting this past weekend. It will appear on the agenda for the next Board meeting, planned for February 14, 2010 at the site of JOs. It is hoped and expected that there will be considerable thought and discussion of the ideas contained between now and then. Assuming that some of that discussion highlights potential problem areas with the motion, it is reasonable to assume that there will be some amendments offered to the proposed amendments of the Operations Manual prior to a vote in February.
Originally Posted by Board Motion
Motion: The US Fencing Operations manual will be modified as listed in attachment, effective on 8/1/2010.
Rationale: I believe that most people would agree that recent years have seen an increased amount of divisiveness and difficulty in our US Fencing Divisions. These problems have occurred in every part of the country, from the largest to the smallest Divisions and have taken on a number of forms. This motion is intended to address what is, in my opinion, the structural reason for these problems.
The motion contains a number of changes to the US Fencing Operations Manual and is designed to do the following:
1. Move the primary sanctioning of non-qualifier events from the division level to the Club level.
2. Create an appeals process where, if any tournament is run contrary to the rules contained elsewhere in the Operations Manual the tournament may lose its sanctioned status and where, if the fault is considered to be particularly serious or repetitive, the entity that sanctioned the tournament may be barred from doing so in the future.
I believe that changing the operations manual in this way will lessen the problems our Divisions are having because I believe that the basic root causes of those problems are money and access to fencing opportunities. Fencing tournaments, if sufficiently large and well attended can make a significant amount of money. Therefore it behooves a club to hold as many large tournaments as possible. It is much easier to have a large tournament if there are no other tournaments in your area that compete with you and if you get to have more tournaments. Fencers also want to have a large number of appropriate (in terms of age/skill level/weapon/etc.) tournaments to attend. Fencers are always happier if the tournament well run and are usually happier if the tournament is relatively big.
Currently, the division’s executive committee (and sometimes a delegated tournament committee or sub-group of the division executive committee) is responsible for meeting these challenges. In some cases various groups have taken over the leadership of a division and then sanctioned tournaments to the benefit of certain clubs or groups of people to the detriment (or at least perceived detriment) to other clubs or groups of people. In other divisions, the contestants for influence, fearful or unwilling to share power, are deadlocked. In those places no one interest dominates the others, but nothing gets accomplished. Instead of developing the sport, the divisions are paralyzed and energy is diverted into unproductive, distracting and off-putting personal attacks and infighting. In either situation, instead of fostering our sport, we are driving people away.
I have no doubt that this will cause new problems and that there are a number of both intended and unintended consequences from this fundamental change to our structure. Thus, this motion is designed to take effect on August 1, 2010, over 10 months after it is initially proposed. This is imperative so that everyone will have time to provide input on whether or not the cure is more harmful than the disease, on how this motion may be improved and to prepare should this motion pass.
On a procedural note, the rationale text does not become acted upon if and when a motion is adopted. Only the actual motion text is being voted upon. Most motions are presented with some form of rationale text to help explain to the Board the intent of the movant. In this case "I" in the rationale refers to Greg Dilworth, the author and movant of the motion.
-B
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
To the extent that we don't have a regionalization plan in place to succeed division, I have concerns about the club-sanctioning proposal.
First, the same people who run divisions will sponsor club events - and will use different, but equally as effective methods to seek to divide and conquer. For example, clubs could run events against one another and coaches/club owners could use substantial influence to sway their students one way or the other. Without the coordination of some form of regional organization, this would lead to chaos. While some may argue that the market will take care of it, my guess is that, in the divisive areas, the approach may be more to cut one's nose to spite their face, creating problems for fencing.
Second, this would create additional confusion within the community - especially among parents and those new to the sport. Given the sway that coaches/owners have over this cadre, this could be bad for fencing.
Finally, the appeal process will be used by the very same people who misuse the divisional process now.
However, the underlying rationale behind the proposal does need to be addressed - it is a problem. Regionalization (and professionalization of regional management) will go a long way to dealing with this, but until then, something else needs to be done.
Let me suggest the following:
First, there needs to be a clear statement, from the USFA General Counsel, as to what the sanctioning power is (or isn't), what it is (and isn't) for, how it is (and isn't) to be used, and how and when the existing USFA organization can resolve legitimate disputes (perhaps an initial appeal to the Section, followed by an appeal to the USFA). Unfortunately, the USFA has, for too long, been silent as to what sanctioning really means (in my mind, it means avoiding scheduling conflicts and patently unfair/unsafe environments - that's it - it shouldn't be pixie dust).
Second, this appeal process must be clear, standards based, and quick. If an organizer does not receive divisional sanctioning, then that organizer should be able to appeal to the Section, who should have one week to resolve it, then it should be appealable to the USFA on a 7 day turnaround. Frankly, with this process, I doubt that much will ultimately get appealed.
The problem that we have now has arisen both because of the ill will of some, and more importantly, because of the silence of USFA management on many of these issues.
As a new member of the Wisconsin division EC, I find this a very interesting proposal. Some clubs have been threatened with non-sanction unless certain criteria are met. Certainly safety isues should be foremost; does the USFA have a standard for sanctioning an event? If they do, I haven't seen it.
what would this proposal do to the structure of disivions as it stands currently?
would this make being a member of a division necessary, and would the divisions still have the same powers that they currently do (i.e., some divisions run all tournaments inside their borders themselves and disallow clubs from running them on their own, some divisions charge taxes for tournaments, etc.)?
why don't we have/implement an electronic system by which we upload results files from various softwares, have it automatically parsed and checked against the USFA database for discrepancies, and process results accordingly? functionality not unlike what FRED has, but on a more official, back-office maintenance type of level.
Even though it doesn't say so anywhere, obviously this motion is targeted squarely at New Jersey. While I'm happy that the USFA is finally taking some action, I don't know if this is the right way to go about it.
Really my biggest concern is that we'd see some form of anti competitive behavior. For example, a club which has stable income from other sources, or a large cash reserve, running many tournaments below market price. They'd take a loss in the short run but wipe out competition in the long run, when they would have monopoly power. Or, a small group of clubs conspiring to fix prices of the tournaments they hold.
Even in the "best case" scenario, where clubs merely hold tournaments opposite each other, that would dilute the competition strength for everyone. I'm not sure the fencers are best served by a self sanctioning process, considering they have plenty of opportunities to fence as it is.
Even though it doesn't say so anywhere, obviously this motion is targeted squarely at New Jersey. While I'm happy that the USFA is finally taking some action, I don't know if this is the right way to go about it.
New Jersey Division is high profile. That said, I don't believe this motion was targeted specifically at any one division.
There have been issues related to sanctioning, division power, or allegations of abuse of the same in about 8-10 different divisions in the past six months or year.
There are also the vast majority of divisions which haven't had problems or haven't had problems recently.
Complicating the discussion is that among the sixty-six divisions there are nearly that many different ways of handling sanctioning of local events. Not including divisions that have instituted "special" rules targeted at one or more particular clubs and that don't apply to the rest of the division.
-B
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
Without knowing if there is a common thread in the problems with Division sanctioning, it is hard to see if this proposal solves all or any of them. It would seem to make more sense to follow Mr. Zeiss's line of reasoning (more clarification from the USFA to the powers of the Division) than to simply declare "anything not forbidden is allowed", so to speak.
Even in the "best case" scenario, where clubs merely hold tournaments opposite each other, that would dilute the competition strength for everyone. I'm not sure the fencers are best served by a self sanctioning process, considering they have plenty of opportunities to fence as it is.
would it really, though? maybe at first, but i have a feeling it would sort itself out better than you'd think.
Coming from a division that had real issues with the" trickle down effect" of tournaments that were not run properly and legally, I can only shudder at this proposal as it is now written.
Even in the "best case" scenario, where clubs merely hold tournaments opposite each other, that would dilute the competition strength for everyone. I'm not sure the fencers are best served by a self sanctioning process, considering they have plenty of opportunities to fence as it is.
Originally Posted by noodle
would it really, though? maybe at first, but i have a feeling it would sort itself out better than you'd think.
Note that there are currently divisions where the sanctioning process consists of:
* Get lists of tournaments from each club
* Put lists into one file
* Publish
There's no official attempt in such divisions to balance the calendar or protect events from landing on top of each other. In some places the clubs self-organize to avoid conflicts, in others there are few enough conflicts even without coordination that it isn't an issue, and in some places the conflicts are effectively handled with an "Enh. Who cares?" attitude.
Effectively the proposal (minus the proposed appeal process) is already in place in a number of divisions around the country.
-B
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
New Jersey Division is high profile. That said, I don't believe this motion was targeted specifically at any one division.
There have been issues related to sanctioning, division power, or allegations of abuse of the same in about 8-10 different divisions in the past six months or year.
There are also the vast majority of divisions which haven't had problems or haven't had problems recently.
Complicating the discussion is that among the sixty-six divisions there are nearly that many different ways of handling sanctioning of local events. Not including divisions that have instituted "special" rules targeted at one or more particular clubs and that don't apply to the rest of the division.
-B
B-
As a related issue, is the 2009-2010 Athlete Handbook now available?
The proposal seems to do nothing to decrease opportunities for abuse of authority or a decrease in conflict. The proposal makes official the currently unoffical "blacklist" for each division. A divisional EC that consistiently abuses its power to advance certain clubs and/or repress others simply now has a legal means to do so. I think Mr Zeiss' proposal was much better--what authority needs to appeal against those subordinate to itself? The appeals process needs to work from the roots up, ie. clubs need to appeal to sections when in conflict with the division. The division is the entity with authority over the clubs.
I do understand that the idea here is to reduce the power of the division and make divisions more supervisory and intercessive (is that a word?) in nature, as opposed to their current role as rubber-stampers, but I think this is a solution looking for a problem.
I am not sure if it is in the best interest of fencing to allow clubs to sanction tournaments or keep it in the hands of the Division. Overall, I think the New England Division, USFA does a good job with their tournament schedule.
I am hosting a charitable tournament on October 3rd that is not sanctioned. The New England Division, USFA will not sanction Charitable Events.
I did not agree with the Division's decision, so I submitted an appeal to the USFA Executive Committee and received the following response:
Executive Committee Action Item
August 4th, 2009
The EC considered a request to overturn a division's decision not to sanction a charitable event.
Sanctioning authority rests with divisions and sections, as the Operations Manual, in such provisions as Chapter 3 Section 1.C.1 and Chapter 3 Section 2.A. can be read to codify that policy, and the Division Operating Guide (see, e.g., Chapter 1, page 5, first full paragraph) accords.
In addition, there is no procedure or precedent for overriding the division's decision regarding a truly local event.
The Committee, therefore, declines to overturn the division's decision. We do, however, commend the local organizer for his decision to hold this event, as it provides an opportunity for the community at large to learn about our sport while contributing to a worthy cause.
If we continue with having Division sanctioning tournaments then we do need an avenue of appeal that is not in place right now.
- If the divisions basically rubber-stamp whatever comes across their plates, this doesn't change anything.
- If clubs sit down together and figure out schedules that work well to spread the wealth, this doesn't change anything.
- Now, if Division ECs sit down and say "Yay" or "Nay" to schedules, this will affect their ability. Some Divisions do a good job at spreading club representation in their EC, and making sure to spread the wealth. Some probably don't, and the temptation to stack the board and use it as a weapon will always be there.
- We've heard about safety concerns being first and foremost, but from my experience, complaints about "safety" have often been disingenuous attempts to discredit a club.
- This levels the playing field. People can run all the events they want; if they really want to make lucre, they have to work together, or expand their club's share of the competitive pie. After all, if tournaments are bigger/stronger at Club X, Club Y's fencers will want to attend. If Club Y's owners have a problem with that, they're welcome to build their programs/events to be more attractive. They can ban their fencers from going to Club X, but that's a shortsighted way to operate -- they'll turn off their clientele.
- Abuse can be handled by the national office, which means with a single set of rules. We won't have divisions that let anything slide vs. divisions that try to be aggressively punitive.
I haven't really brainstormed for unintended consequences, but right off the top of my head it seems like no change for some, and a win for others. You can't change the petty dictators -- they'll still be jerks, but they won't have a USFA-sanctioned cudgel to throw around.
I actually think that this is a good proposal, and that not just because I am a club owner.
Division and the officers have tremendous amount of power under the current system:
1. Sanction and Deny tournaments
2. Control the money of these tournaments
3. Buy and own equipment to hold events
Back in the day when most of division officers were fencers, I think that this system worked well, the fencers got the tournaments that they wanted. But my observation is that with the rise of youth fencing and for-profit fencing clubs, the division officers are not as much fencers as parents and club owners (or their surrogates). So you have more self-interested parties involved in the decision making, leading to more disputes. Add to the fact that division officers can be elected by proxy voting, you have a system that allows these self-interest parties to dominate division leading to well documented problems e.g. New Jersey and Nevada.
I think by empowering club (or perhaps fencers themselves) to follow a system to run organized local tournaments, you may return to a system where the tournaments are run for the benefit of the fencers again. Yes, club would act as self-interested parties, but to make money that have to run tournaments that get fencers to show up. Hence tournaments that are for fencers.
The division would be less powerful in the fact that they now:
1. Run Qualifiers and other agreed upon events
2. Have less power and money available
3. Less likely to own equipment to run tournaments
I think that this would take the self interested parties out of division officers and put more a volunteer base back in and take away the disputes that are hurting fencing.
Sure, as a for-profit club owner, I can now sanction my own tournaments and potential make more money. But remember, I could run club tournaments before any time I wanted and make money that way. Sure, it is a now a less regulated revenue stream, but not one that previously did not exist.
If somebody was smart, all of the newly non-division sanctioned tournaments would be taxed $1 per entry to USFA (to "provide the money for proper oversight and administration of the proposal") like RYC/SYC/ROC events and US Fencing would be in back in the black as well.
Look, we solved division fighting and US Fencing budget crisis in a single motion.
Sure. There will be tournament cheaters, but if you add the tax, you can provide for the cops and judges to watch over the system.
I haven't really brainstormed for unintended consequences, but right off the top of my head it seems like no change for some, and a win for others. You can't change the petty dictators -- they'll still be jerks, but they won't have a USFA-sanctioned cudgel to throw around.
Darius, good points, but you've left off one of the last scenarios: what about a Division that is mostly well run, but has one or two clubs with less than charitable instincts. As I posted in the BoD thread:
Originally Posted by BoD Thread
What's to prevent a larger club from simply sanctioning their events for the same weekend as a smaller club (that might have to rent or schedule space ahead of time)? This could have the effect of "shutting out" the smaller club from hosting tournaments (most fencers wanting to go to a large event rather than a small one, given a choice).
In a market in which one club dominates, they have the ability to control the "tournament" market and could effectively close down a revenue stream for a small club, especially one that is just beginning. In a large and diversified market, this isn't much of a threat, but think about a market like Portland or Seattle, in which there are a few small clubs and one (or two) very large clubs. The Division holding sanctioning (and thus scheduling) power might be the only thing preventing this.
The VA Division currently has a system in place in which every USFA club gets a chance to host tournaments without the threat of having to compete with bigger clubs. In our market in which there are two or three permenent fencing clubs and ten or so clubs that aren't permenent, this works out relatively well (though VA's current system still needs some tweaking).
I can't imagine a USFA appeals process that would address this.
The counter-argument is that this is how market forces work, but I'm not sure that fencing, in much of the country, has a strong "market" that will find an equilibrium properly.
I haven't had a week or two to ruminate over this proposal. So my comments are off the top of my head and the fact that I'm a division chair might be of consideration. But it seems to me that the proposal effectively is a sledge hammer to dissuade a mosquito.
Someone commented that there are 66 Divisions and there are 8-10 in which there are issues each year. Another way of looking at the numbers given is that in a worse case scenario for 83.33% of the Divisions there is reasonable power sharing accommodation going on at the local level. You're proposing to replace this with a national system which will adjudicate complaints at the local level in the name of promoting fencing? I represent some 351 USFA members and in past years I have had such poor response in getting questions answered by the National office that I generally don't bother. I still have an e-mail from the previous ED which baldly stated that "you don't want us " taking an interest in local affairs. And that was regarding a fairly innocuous query about what USFA policy was. But your system is going to be able handle queries, complaints etc from all the clubs better than it can from the 66 Divisons?
At present our Division secretary has established a fairly clear line of communications with the appropriate workers in the National Office to get classification changes sent up in the desired formats. Your proposal would toss that in favor of each club sending up changes in classification to the national office or some other appointed body? Hey, even with the best of good will that will result in confusion and interminable delays.
IMHO, all this proposal does is replace one structure with another without any guarantee of improvement in the overall environment. And with centralization of power you'll quickly run into the need to vastly expand the national office - which I don't see happening - or see all those appeals and complaints dragged out for years. So if this proposal is passed without making allowance for a number of new paid people to handle it at the national office it will be a giant step backwards.
Again, if these issues are genuinely a problem and not just the distant whine of an annoying mosquito, how about the USFA instead setting up an appropriate active conduit for communications between the national and the Divisions? Some official body/committee/office which could provide advice, guidance and oversight? And don't try to tell me that it already exists.
Complicating the discussion is that among the sixty-six divisions there are nearly that many different ways of handling sanctioning of local events. Not including divisions that have instituted "special" rules targeted at one or more particular clubs and that don't apply to the rest of the division.
-B
I think, then, that what we need is a better set of 'rules' from the USFA as to 'the' way the Divisions must handle the sanctioning of local events (it should not be very hard to do -- simply look at the way it's done by the Divisions that 'work'), rather than this proposal which, in my opinion, would be sanctioning chaos.
I move we stick with division sanctioning of events.
It keeps scheduling under control, it keeps costs under control, it keeps policies in place for all clubs to run events by so that attendees can rely on smooth and consistent operation of events, it prevents clubs scheduling against each other and stretching ref availability to the limits. It encourages division cooperation, lets the division smoothly schedule qualifiers (and there are tons of them), lets the division develop plans for events that must be held by a set date to allow time for national entries to be submitted on time. It provides for a means for a division to procure & maintain equipment for use at larger sites or for clubs to borrow to host a division event if they don't have enough of their own or need a backup for an event - reels, scoring machines, laptops and common for running events and posting results. It lets the division keep a single site for members to find info & results for events.
New England division has 23 non-high school/college clubs. There is no way that we could keep a smooth running schedule with well attended events with plenty of opportunity to fence & improve/maintain MEANINGFUL ratings if the 23 clubs all had to work alone, while scheduling around the national events and local college events, both of which suck up referees.
Clubs are always free to host events on their own, such as the Fence for Breast Cancer events with their subset of the "Senior" class of attendees (30+ is not a true open, and not a veteran event either, part of the division disinclination to sanction it), or other inhouse events.
Keep sanctioning at the division level.
Robert Patterson, NEUSFA Executive Committee member and (small) club owner.
Thanks for starting this thread. As a new division chair, I am very interested in this debate. At this point, I do not have a strong pull one way or the other. I agree making sure classification changes are turned in is a concern. Our division is small, probaby the smallest if not one of the smallest. I think in our division, clubs sanctioning would work. But again, I am a new chair so I do have a lot to learn. I'm going to just hang out, follow the thread and l take it all in. Thanks again.
Nannette
Originally Posted by Board Motion
