Board Meeting - February 14, 2010

[dcrocket]

Yes, Sir, you did. And many considered that their input was summarily ignored. I realize, of course, that some of the membership’s input was taken into account – and am indeed grateful for that. I am also aware that it would have been impossible to please everybody (although, again, I do not understand why we needed to replace the schedule that we had with one that seems to have created more problems than it solved – whatever all those problems were, of course). However, for you to dismiss any complaints now by saying “we asked for your input” when the people who are making the complaints gave that input before and their comments were ignored is, well, “simple.”

There is a huge difference between ignoring somone's input and giving it consideration but deciding against it...

This is one of the problems with asking for broad based input into any decision. Unless everyone with an opinion is included in the final discussion and decision, some people will feel like their input was disregarded. Even if everyone is included in the final decision, not everyone will be happy. In any case, soliciting input into the decision making process will produce a better decision than a unilateral, dictatorial process.

Some of the members of this forum have such a negative approach to everything that makes it easy for those making the decisions to become defensive.

[hello?]

There is a huge difference between ignoring somone's input and giving it consideration but deciding against it...

Exactly my point. But for Mr. Stasinos to say that people should simply take in the changes and be quiet because "we even asked for input" when that input was ignored is ridiculous.

This is one of the problems with asking for broad based input into any decision. Unless everyone with an opinion is included in the final discussion and decision, some people will feel like their input was disregarded. Even if everyone is included in the final decision, not everyone will be happy. In any case, soliciting input into the decision making process will produce a better decision than a unilateral, dictatorial process.

Totally agree. But, again, saying that you should simply be quiet because "we" asked -- even though we could not take your views into account -- is wrong. It would certainly do away with the political bumper sticker business

Some of the members of this forum have such a negative approach to everything that makes it easy for those making the decisions to become defensive.

If by "such a negative approach" you mean that some of the members of this forum disagree with some of the decisions made by the USFA in the past several months, you are indeed correct.

Some of the members of this forum (even some of the ones who are actually in agreement on this thread) agree with each other on some issues and disagree with each other on others. That's the nature of a forum such as this. And of people in general.

That something (ie. becoming defensive) is "easy" to do does not justify its being done, particularly by an elected official and in a sanctimonious manner that, aside from being defensive, exudes condescension.

[mdstasinos]

Try to understand what I write then criticize me for my opinions with cogent arguments if you wish. Also, don't make assumptions about what direct or indirect feedback I get from any of the national coaches or anyone else I am in contact.

You implied "If they had input," I simple stated indirectly if you wanted the answer you could go directly to the source, One of the National Coaches you deal with directly.

I recognize the efforts of all volunteers who try to help the association, and this includes you. However you must also accept that a difference of opinion is not to be taken as a personal attack.

True, but referring to those in the adminisrtation as incompetent, inferring we are not including other sources and people in the planning after we state that fact over and over gives the impression of not a difference of opinion but an attack, as you refer to it.

Regarding the new calendar as you know, I have two objections:

• that it was done now BEFORE knowing what the FIE "new" calendar will be;

We have never been given the FIE Calender in a timely fashion to be able to plan the next competitve season. We have to book venues for the competitions out at least one year out or we pay much more for the venue and needed resources for the event through the venue. Again, We have never had a competitive season where we have not guessed to the best of our ability what the FIE was planninhg to do and historically we recieve their calender between April and June before the beginning of the next season, not a lot of room for scheduling.

• the NAC in October having a Div I event and the NAC in November having cadet and junior events.

Again, this was weighed and this is what the best combination was for corss over and development. November with the Y14, cadet and junior made more sense than making the Y14 stand alone in October. And October for the Div. 1 is better than November, unless it doesn't matter who is there from the World team. In addition November has Limited weekends that can be used because of the World Championships, ACT's, NCAA conflicts with weekends in November. October is far more flexible.

As you remember I had suggested switching between the two. You justified the USFA choice as one requested by the National Coaches who apparently consider a NAC Div I event in October a necessary "fine tuning" for the senior world which this year will take place in November.
I also wrote many times here in this forum and to you in private that the task to come up with a new calendar is a very daunting one, one which cannot please everybody or every sub group, therefore the outcome has to be a compromise. This is quite different though from what you seem to imply that the result of your efforts produced the best possible solution and that we should believe you took everything in the proper account.

I did not construct the schedule by myself. It was a group effort that read every posting, every personal email, every piece of email or message that came to the National Office. I am grateful for the input that was given and the suggestions there. The calender went through three revisions as a result of this input and futher discussions with different committees over the matter. At best I answered most private emails personally and thanked the individuals for their participation. But in the for front the thing I had hoped the membership would realize was they should and could have input into this process, which in the history of our organization has never taken place. As an administration we commented to put the schedule to the membership for their comments and suggestions. We realized as well not everyone would be satisfied with the changes but we gave a voice to the membership and we used that input to arrive at where we are today.

Mark Stasinos
Vice-President
US Fencing Association

[mdstasinos]

Exactly my point. But for Mr. Stasinos to say that people should simply take in the changes and be quiet because "we even asked for input" when that input was ignored is ridiculous.

Did I say that? I do not think so. I stated we weighed in all the input from all sources in dealing with the schedule. "We even asked for input" is a true statement, we did and no input was ignored.

But, again, saying that you should simply be quiet because "we" asked -- even though we could not take your views into account -- is wrong. It would certainly do away with the political bumper sticker business

I never stated "be quite" because "we" asked. It is amazing how blunt it becomes. I stated we asked for input and that the item that was used as a point of interest had not changed from version one to version three in the schedule.

If by "such a negative approach" you mean that some of the members of this forum disagree with some of the decisions made by the USFA in the past several months, you are indeed correct.

Some of the members of this forum (even some of the ones who are actually in agreement on this thread) agree with each other on some issues and disagree with each other on others. That's the nature of a forum such as this. And of people in general.

That something (ie. becoming defensive) is "easy" to do does not justify its being done, particularly by an elected official and in a sanctimonious manner that, aside from being defensive, exudes condescension.

It is "easy" to critizise me for the work I do. I understand. Most of the information and posts I have made to give input has been viewed as negitive. I am an elected officer and as such I realize I will also be under the microscope constantly for what I say and what I do. If I offend some, I truely am sorry. What I do, I do for the betterment of our sport and the growth of our sport.

Mark Stasinos
Vice-President
US Fencing Association

[hello?]

I stated we asked for input and that the item that was used as a point of interest had not changed from version one to version three in the schedule.

Mark Stasinos
Vice-President
US Fencing Association

So, how are people who objected to it being there from the very beginning supposed to take this? Again, I understand that everybody can't be heard...But the fact that you "even" asked for input and even that you read every email that was sent is not going to make those who objected to items that remained unchanged feel any better, which certainly seemed to be the implication in your original post.

It is "easy" to critizise me for the work I do. I understand. Most of the information and posts I have made to give input has been viewed as negitive. I am an elected officer and as such I realize I will also be under the microscope constantly for what I say and what I do. If I offend some, I truely am sorry.

Mark Stasinos
Vice-President
US Fencing Association

A lot of the criticism is not for what you do or don't do -- it's for the tone of your comments.

What I do, I do for the betterment of our sport and the growth of our sport.

Mark Stasinos
Vice-President
US Fencing Association

That, Sir, is what all of us are attempting to do -- even those of us who dare disagree with USFA decisions and choose to do so in this forum. Nobody wants to make fencing worse or for the sport to get smaller.

[bigdawg2121]

So, how are people who objected to it being there from the very beginning supposed to take this? Again, I understand that everybody can't be heard...But the fact that you "even" asked for input and even that you read every email that was sent is not going to make those who objected to items that remained unchanged feel any better, which certainly seemed to be the implication in your original post.

I thin the answer you're looking for RE: the question posted in line one is, "in stride". You were asked for input. Your input was considered. It was decided that the input of other people mattered more or made more sense. That's the way life goes. It seems, however, that you are determined that the USFA is simple minded for not doing it your way and equally determined not to be happy they listened.

We all have different desiderata when it comes to scheduling. Some of the parents here seem to believe PSAT weekends are sacred; personally unless your kid is expecting to be a National Merit/Achievment/etc finalist, I say put them in a room with some other kids and have them fill in bubbles quietly. Same difference. Likewise I think if you want to maximize SAT weekends so they can take the test more than twice before application time I would say that you should hire a tutor and cut down your chances of needing to test more than twice. Obviously I don't make these decision and, in this case didn't even care enough to submit my input. If, however, I had submitted my input amd found that the USFA wasn't going with my idea of ignoring test dates as a general decision I wouldn't be upset because sometimes the group disagrees with you.

[hello?]

I thin the answer you're looking for RE: the question posted in line one is, "in stride". You were asked for input. Your input was considered. It was decided that the input of other people mattered more or made more sense. That's the way life goes. It seems, however, that you are determined that the USFA is simple minded for not doing it your way and equally determined not to be happy they listened.

We all have different desiderata when it comes to scheduling. Some of the parents here seem to believe PSAT weekends are sacred; personally unless your kid is expecting to be a National Merit/Achievment/etc finalist, I say put them in a room with some other kids and have them fill in bubbles quietly. Same difference. Likewise I think if you want to maximize SAT weekends so they can take the test more than twice before application time I would say that you should hire a tutor and cut down your chances of needing to test more than twice. Obviously I don't make these decision and, in this case didn't even care enough to submit my input. If, however, I had submitted my input amd found that the USFA wasn't going with my idea of ignoring test dates as a general decision I wouldn't be upset because sometimes the group disagrees with you.

Ah, again -- I am well aware that not everybody's desires can be taken into account. My objection was to the simplistic implication that we should all be happy-as-can-be (and not allowed to comment anymore) simply because the USFA was kind enough to allow us to voice our opinions...even if those opinions were disregarded.

Yes, we will all have to live with the new schedule (I do wish they had explained clearly why it was needed, but whatever). Of course! That is the nature of any organization.

However, I will continue to express my opinion regardless. If you chose to keep quiet and not voice your input, that's your decision.

(FYI: As to your comments about PSATs, etc....none of those issues apply to me anymore. However, I can look at the schedule and still see -- and comment -- on how, in my opinion, it creates more problems for most than it supposedly solves.)

[teacup]

Although the dates for FIE/ECC tournaments for next year have not been announced, just for research purposes, these were the dates of the designated junior and cadet events in October and December for this season, which apparently, besides the December NAC losing money, was the main rationale for moving the Div I event from December to October. In my previous calculations, I only counted the first two weeks of October. Mark mentioned that in order to give more options so as not to conflict with international events, all four weeks of October may be considered for future October NACs, so I added the additional events in late October.

October
3-4 Budapest CDT MF, Wien CDT WS
10-11 SAT, NAC A, Bratislava Jr WC ME*, Sosnowiec Jr WC MS/WS
17-18 PSAT, Bonn CDT ME, London Jr WC MF, Godollo CDT MS
24-25 Montreal Jr WC MS/WE*, Tauber CDT WF

December
5-6 SAT, NAC C
12-13 Burgsteinfurt Jr WC MF, Grenoble CDT WE, Bochum Jr WC WF

(*Bratislava and Montreal are six weapon world cups. Not all squads designate these events but squads have designated events at these world cups in prior years.)

[Inquartata]

Look, when one is working hard and for the good of the organization, endless criticisms---especially from "the cesspool"---must get really tiresome. It is no wonder to me that Mark gets his back up at it. I suspect that all of us would do the same in his shoes.

I am still not surprised that the wishes of a handful of people who are involved with our elite fencers have enormously more influence with the NO and committees than any number of us hoi polloi. It has always been this way: Wrongly, I believe, the USFA has always thought that elite fencing and international results is about 85% of their "job", and the vast majority of fencers are little more than a base and revenue source for supporting the elites ( and their coaches ) at best and an unavoidable nuisance at worst. This shows no signs of having changed, and given the nature of hierarchical organizations it may never do so. Let's face it, once you're part of the power structure most of your associations and conversations are with your peers; their attitudes exert a much greater influence on you henceforth than will those of the rank and file people with whom you exchange 20 or 30 words of pleasantries a few times a year...

It's disappointing, but not unexpected.

Your input was considered.

This is one of the problems Hello? identified: How do we KNOW that it was considered? I know that although I emailed the indicated people several times on the issue of the schedule, answer came there none. This makes it impossible to know whether the "input" was even received, much less "considered"...

( I am not specifically talking about Mark here, since he was not in this case identified as the person to contact. He has responded at length to personal communications from me in the past. Maybe I should have sent my input to him instead of a group email address this time, too. )

I agree with the rest of your post, if not with the view that "That's the way it should be". At this stage I wonder at the reasons that "the input of others mattered more"---to wit, was it simply because it agreed with what the decision-makers themselves believed and because it afforded "cover" for the course they wanted to pursue? Was it because it came from people with vastly more access to the decision-makers than most of us can possibly obtain? Was it because of the long-established bias toward anything and everything for the elite teams, and "the rest of us" as an afterthought? None of these questions have been answered. Maybe they can't BE answered. But it does tend to breed discontent, either way.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Look, when one is working hard and for the good of the organization, endless criticisms---especially from "the cesspool"---must get really tiresome. It is no wonder to me that Mark gets his back up at it. I suspect that all of us would do the same in his shoes.

True. It's not an easy position.

However; in some cases, VP Stasinos is his own worst enemy, PR-wise. Contrast the tenor of many of his replies to issues bubbling up in the cesspool with the demeanor of Brad's replies.

I applaud Mark's willingness to engage with the rank and file here. Like many of us, he might want to occasionally type some of his responses off line, let them age for a bit, and then re-visit in a moment of calmness before posting.

[alpine]

...

Yeah, what he said!

Well put and couldn't have expressed it better myself.

[gladius]

...referring to those in the adminisrtation as incompetent, inferring we are not including other sources and people in the planning after we state that fact over and over gives the impression of not a difference of opinion but an attack, as you refer to it.

Don't take it as a personal attack as I don't take your comments to me as an attack or an offence. It is or should be part of the discourse which is and remains spirited and civilized.

We have never been given the FIE Calender in a timely fashion to be able to plan the next competitve season....

Again, We have never had a competitive season where we have not guessed to the best of our ability what the FIE was planninhg to do and historically we recieve their calender between April and June before the beginning of the next season, not a lot of room for scheduling.

Obviously either you are misinformed or you miss the point entirely. THIS season, 2010-2011, the FIE has decided to rewrite the calendar by reducing the number and more evenly distributing the competitions throughout the seasons (junior and senior). This is a NEW and SIGNIFICANT factor--which we did not have in the past--for anyone attempting to make any plans for our season.

Couldn't there be a problem to make these changes now and risking to create a much bigger conflict? You have never answered this question nor provided a logical reason for why these changes had to be done in the first place and past so urgently NOW.

And to be perfectly clear I do not object to change or the need to change. All I ask is why do you want to change?

It is "easy" to critizise me for the work I do.

No, it is not easy nor pleasant and I and others are well aware of the complexity of the problem and appreciate your efforts and dedication. I much rather write things in praise of what you and your cohorts do and I do it gladly in this and other forums whenever I can. I don't question your (plural) "good intentions" but I remind you (plural) that the road to hell is paved with "good intentions."

Most of the information and posts I have made to give input has been viewed as negitive.

If this is how you feel maybe it is a sign that you are getting too tired and overwhelmed. Personally at least, I always welcome any information you and Brad post and consider it as the start of a discussion, not the reading of an edict/communique. Both you and Brad have been--unique among your peers--open to share information and this is a welcome improvement.

I am an elected officer and as such I realize I will also be under the microscope constantly for what I say and what I do. If I offend some, I truely am sorry. What I do, I do for the betterment of our sport and the growth of our sport.

You have not offended me so no reason to feel sorry or issue any apology. We are all in this together trying to do/propose what could improve the sport of fencing in US by keeping an open mind, listening and learning from many different sources and points of view.

Ah, again -- I am well aware that not everybody's desires can be taken into account. My objection was to the simplistic implication that we should all be happy-as-can-be (and not allowed to comment anymore) simply because the USFA was kind enough to allow us to voice our opinions...even if those opinions were disregarded.

I agree with this.

Yes, we will all have to live with the new schedule (I do wish they had explained clearly why it was needed, but whatever).

...I can look at the schedule and still see -- and comment -- on how, in my opinion, it creates more problems for most than it supposedly solves.)

(emphasis added)

This is my view as well, namely you/USFA never brought any logical justification or cogent reasoning of why this change had to be made now and this way.

Maybe if you had, or if you will, most will agree that your solution to a problem that was never presented in the first place makes a hell of a lot of sense. So far, and I hope you see why, it does not.

Just to be clear and to avoid reiterations of previous statements here is how I would frame the debate if you are inclined to have one.

1. What were the three most important reasons for the USFA to change the 2010-2011 competitive season?

2. Whatever the reasons are/were, why change now before what appears to be a major international shift in the competitive season? Why not wait to find out first?

Please do not use the line "the national coaches have decided..." since they don't know either what next season will look like and one can reasonably assume that this is a critical information for the national coaches.

[keith]

This is my view as well, namely you/USFA never brought any logical justification or cogent reasoning of why this change had to be made now and this way.

In fairness this was addressed;

For the changes necessary for the National Coaches to develop their pipelines and to run their programs, the schedule would have to change this coming season.

I think this comes down to the information flow issue. It is quite reasonable for the board to decide that the national coaches would have the say in any scheduling changes. If you are going to appoint national coaches those coaches should get to organise the schedule to the best compromise they can manage. Sounds like appropriate delegation to me.

The problem is when you don't actually tell anyone that you have delegated a given group the principle role in re-organising the schedule.

[Inquartata]

However; in some cases, VP Stasinos is his own worst enemy, PR-wise. Contrast the tenor of many of his replies to issues bubbling up in the cesspool with the demeanor of Brad's replies.

Well...yeah.

I applaud Mark's willingness to engage with the rank and file here. Like many of us, he might want to occasionally type some of his responses off line, let them age for a bit, and then re-visit in a moment of calmness before posting.

Well...yeah.

[Mr.MightyMouse]

You implied "If they had input," I simple stated indirectly if you wanted the answer you could go directly to the source, One of the National Coaches you deal with directly.

True, but referring to those in the adminisrtation as incompetent, inferring we are not including other sources and people in the planning after we state that fact over and over gives the impression of not a difference of opinion but an attack, as you refer to it.

We have never been given the FIE Calender in a timely fashion to be able to plan the next competitve season. We have to book venues for the competitions out at least one year out or we pay much more for the venue and needed resources for the event through the venue. Again, We have never had a competitive season where we have not guessed to the best of our ability what the FIE was planninhg to do and historically we recieve their calender between April and June before the beginning of the next season, not a lot of room for scheduling.

Again, this was weighed and this is what the best combination was for corss over and development. November with the Y14, cadet and junior made more sense than making the Y14 stand alone in October. And October for the Div. 1 is better than November, unless it doesn't matter who is there from the World team. In addition November has Limited weekends that can be used because of the World Championships, ACT's, NCAA conflicts with weekends in November. October is far more flexible.


I did not construct the schedule by myself. It was a group effort that read every posting, every personal email, every piece of email or message that came to the National Office. I am grateful for the input that was given and the suggestions there. The calender went through three revisions as a result of this input and futher discussions with different committees over the matter. At best I answered most private emails personally and thanked the individuals for their participation. But in the for front the thing I had hoped the membership would realize was they should and could have input into this process, which in the history of our organization has never taken place. As an administration we commented to put the schedule to the membership for their comments and suggestions. We realized as well not everyone would be satisfied with the changes but we gave a voice to the membership and we used that input to arrive at where we are today.

Mark Stasinos
Vice-President
US Fencing Association

First Officer

That's a brave fellow; but he's vengeance proud, and
loves not the common people.

Second Officer

Faith, there had been many great men that have
flattered the people, who ne'er loved them; and there
be many that they have loved, they know not
wherefore...

William Shakespeare
Coriolanus
Act II
Scene II
1608

I really wanted to stay out of this discussion, as it has very little effect on my personal schedule, but at certain point someone has to speak at least for the rapidly rotating bones of one Billy S.
Bold - basic English errors that stood out,
Underlined - just plain bullchitt.
If you're indeed correct and National Team Coaches have that much input, and every bit of data has been pored over - has anyone asked them for example - why a WSJWC was designated on the JO's weekend, or why most of them do not travel to Cadet or Junior WC's anyway (please exclude MS, the reason is beyond understandable), thus making their scheduling decisions that much less valid?
I agree with Mr. Inq - majority - 99% of athletes and coaches are ignored when it comes to decision making, and there is no need to hide behind "iconic figures", pretty speeches, and big words (especially when they are misspelled).
This is XXI century - populace or "cesspool" demands and usually gets accountability and transparency - which BTW the best posters - including O, Gladius, Ms.T and Co. always provide in perfect English, some times even in Italian.
C'mon, even our Prez "tweets" now - crap is much harder to sell than even 3-4 years (or months for that matter) ago.

[fdad]

In fairness this was addressed;

In fairness it was not. Of the many excuses (NAC C loses money (but not this year), sponsors hate sponsoring big events, etc.), given for why we needed a new calendar, all of them have failed to hold up to even the most basic scrutiny. The only one that still remains for this entire exercise is "because the national coaches must have it their way". Of course for some weapons (looking at you WS), these same national coaches don't even have their athletes participate in NACs, and other purposely designate WCs against NACs.

If the reasons for these changes were explained in a way that made sense, then we might be able to make sense of the changes.

[keith]

If the reasons for these changes were explained in a way that made sense, then we might be able to make sense of the changes.

I wasn't claiming it made sense.

Edit: What would be useful is the board actually stating its final rationale. While it is good that individuals from the board post here it is never exactly clear when they are posting official board or personal opinion as to what the rationale should be/was.

[hello?]

In fairness it was not. Of the many excuses (NAC C loses money (but not this year), sponsors hate sponsoring big events, etc.), given for why we needed a new calendar, all of them have failed to hold up to even the most basic scrutiny. The only one that still remains for this entire exercise is "because the national coaches must have it their way". Of course for some weapons (looking at you WS), these same national coaches don't even have their athletes participate in NACs, and other purposely designate WCs against NACs.

If the reasons for these changes were explained in a way that made sense, then we might be able to make sense of the changes.

Agreed.

A 'funny' exercise would be to go back and chronicle all the explanations du jour.

[oiuyt]

Edit: What would be useful is the board actually stating its final rationale. While it is good that individuals from the board post here it is never exactly clear when they are posting official board or personal opinion as to what the rationale should be/was.

The Board, as an entity, rarely (read: I cannot recall a single time) presents a rationale. Board members may individually have a number of different rationales behind their vote but there is no attempt to form a consensus opinion (or concurring and dissenting opinions) in, say, the way the US Supreme Court works.

The Board passes or defeats motions. The rationale text generally provided in the agenda and the arguments made at the meeting are not a part of the motion and have no formal standing.

To the final point, I would assume, absent explicit notation otherwise, that all opinions expressed here on FNet are those of individuals and they are NOT speaking for the Board or Association.

-B

[keith]

The Board, as an entity, rarely (read: I cannot recall a single time) presents a rationale. Board members may individually have a number of different rationales behind their vote but there is no attempt to form a consensus opinion (or concurring and dissenting opinions) in, say, the way the US Supreme Court works.

... and people wonder why the cesspool bubbles?

The point isn't that the Board spends days arguing and debating to reach unanimity, simply that the board states why. Statements such as 'after consultation with stakeholders' are meaningless. In fact they guarantee that people take offense.

The Board passes or defeats motions. The rationale text generally provided in the agenda and the arguments made at the meeting are not a part of the motion and have no formal standing.

Yes? I am not talking about procedures but good governance. Which, in this case, means people knowing what is actually going on. Knowing the rationale does not increase the likelihood of people liking the decision but at least they know why decisions are being made.

To the final point, I would assume, absent explicit notation otherwise, that all opinions expressed here on FNet are those of individuals and they are NOT speaking for the Board or Association.

.... but absent any other source it's all that people get.

Personal opinion; this is lousy governance.