Board Meeting - February 14, 2010

[oiuyt]

Agenda (updated to version 2)
Financial Reports (as of 1/31/2010)
Draft Bylaws

The meeting is scheduled to take place after the conclusion of fencing for the day on Sunday, February 14, 2010.

A number of additional reports are expected in the next day or two, notably including the ED's Report, budget information, and information about the Bylaws review process.

-B

edit: I've updated the link to point to version 2 of the agenda and added links to the financial reports and draft Bylaws.

[Allen Evans]

Has anyone looked at the possible conflicts that might exist if someone signs up for a "Professional Membership" but wishes to maintain their amateur status in the sport? Many fencers may want to carry coaching credentials to assit team mates and friends, but may be wary of being branded a "professional" .

Is this a concern?

[oiuyt]

Has anyone looked at the possible conflicts that might exist

Not to the best of my knowledge.

-B

[hello?]

Brad,

Is the requirement that at least one fencer for each Senior Team also be fencing Div 1 at Summer Nationals (ie. on the senior points list) just a proposal at this point? I hope so! And I hope it doesn't pass as a requirement.

While this might not be a problem for most clubs in the Metro area, perhaps, it would certainly be a problem for several clubs in my division, including mine. It would totally negate the benefit of allowing up to three teams per club to qualify...

[oiuyt]

Motions are all proposals.

First hearing motions (such as the one to which you refer) have not previously been presented to the Board. They have not yet been seconded, much less voted upon and approved.

Decisions are much more common in minutes than agenda.

I recommend reading the agenda and passing along one's opinion of any motion about which one feels strongly to members of the Board. This is especially true of motions which are receiving a second hearing or are likely to be moved to urgent status. I similarly recommend reading and passing along opinions of information contained in reports (officer or committee).

New with this agenda, a few first hearing motions have been flagged as having had a request for a move to urgent. Adding this information to the agenda was discussed at the last Board meeting in September. I would be unsurprised if one or more others were also moved to urgent (such as first hearing motion #5, parts of which would be nearly moot without the added expediency thus achieved). If the Board continues to desire that potentially-urgent motions be so flagged I suspect it will become more common for movants to request such a notation at the time of submission.

-B

[mfp]

In the report of EC actions, the "Tournament Format Task Force" duties look limited to examing event formats ...

Approved the formation of a Tournament Format Task Force.

Bradley Baker (chair) and Darius Wei were appointed, with two additional members to be determined. The TFTF is charged with the following duties:

Examine the acceptable formats and variations used for Divisional Tournaments, for the expressed interest of benefiting the fencers in the Division and earning of classifications. Explore the possibility of expanding the types of acceptable formats to be used and define or outline their structure for the benefit of the competition and competitors.

But then Masin's later motion mentions "replacing the current classification system", which could lead some to think more than just event formats are being evaluated for replacement (and link this notion with the TFTF mentioned earlier). However the motion also refers to a "committee" not "task force".

Motion (Mr. Masin):

Starting at the next meeting of the USFA Board of Directors, the committee in charge of evaluating proposals for replacing the current classification system be required to give a report on the status of their evaluation at each meeting of the Board. [...]

Huh?

So did the EC approve the Tournament Format Task Force to look at more than event formats, perhaps even "replacing the current classification system"? Or is the motion meant to refer to some other unnamed actual committee and not the task force?

Who has been approved and tasked with doing exactly what in this area?

[oiuyt]

The TFTF is looking at formats permissible for local events. Or at the systems by which formats get approved.

The Tournament Committee has a separate and long-running effort to examine alternatives to the current classification system. Other than having provided some information to a member of the TC quite a while ago, I have not been directly involved that process. It is this TC effort to which Mr. Masin refers in his motion.

-B

[gladius]

Wouldn't it be better to re-write the handbook to reflect the rolling points that have been used for this season?

Yes it would and it would make all the sense in the world to do so...

Will it happen?

May I humbly suggest that you think of tossing your hat into the ring for the next EC election? It would be a first step in the right direction...maybe not for you, but certainly for the rest of us.

[teacup]

Yes it would and it would make all the sense in the world to do so...

Wait Gladius, I read it wrong. The EC will decide to re-write the handbook to match what has been happening all season. (I think I read past season and thought it meant 08-09 season)

So the re-writing of the handbook will occur after the junior and cadet season.

I deleted the post, you can delete yours too if you want.

[dekko]

The TFTF is looking at formats permissible for local events. Or at the systems by which formats get approved.
-B

It may have been taken out but wasn't there something about the format had to promote at least 50% of the competitors from one round to the next and be published? Is this really something that requires you folks to deal with? Have there been events that have had weird formats that required you folks to come up with a list of acceptable formats for local events?

[darius]

The original impetus is that a tournament was denied classification due to having a format not in the Ops Manual. That justification was legitimate, but upon digging deeper, it was discovered that some event formats which have been sanctioned (such as round-robin) are not covered in the Ops Manual either.

The TFTF is just an effort to take a look at that specific part of the Ops Manual and improve it. (Brad, Wayne, Dan - feel free to correct or add anything.)

darius

[Inquartata]

So, it looks like the new tournament schedule is a done deal already, if they are "making arrangements and signing contracts" for next season...

October. @#!%^&*!!!

[dekko]

The original impetus is that a tournament was denied classification due to having a format not in the Ops Manual. That justification was legitimate, but upon digging deeper, it was discovered that some event formats which have been sanctioned (such as round-robin) are not covered in the Ops Manual either.

The TFTF is just an effort to take a look at that specific part of the Ops Manual and improve it. (Brad, Wayne, Dan - feel free to correct or add anything.)

darius

So are there formats that are not legal? If so what are they? The opsman leaves it pretty open, I am guessing this is the reason for the group, so how could someone break a rule that doesn't exist, or in this case, use a tournament format that was allowed when there is no list for what is or isn't allowed? It would seem the opsman was left open so people could use a format that best fit their situation and let the local organizers run the event they wanted their way, as long as it was published. I agree this part of the opsman could be clarified but what format was used that was desanctioned in the first place?

[mfp]

So are there formats that are not legal? If so what are they? The opsman leaves it pretty open, I am guessing this is the reason for the group, so how could someone break a rule that doesn't exist, or in this case, use a tournament format that was allowed when there is no list for what is or isn't allowed?

There is a "list" of acceptable formats in the Operations Manual. The Ops Manual mentions Brazilian and Canadian formats "in addition to the formats discussed below" where what's "discussed below" is the possible formats for division qualifiers along with formats used in National Competitions (table 4).

The Ops Manual also states:

Whatever format the Division or Region decides to use, it must be announced and posted before the start of the competition

The problem is some have read that to mean:

1) "Pick a format, any format and as long as you announce and post it, it's OK"

While others read that as:

2) "Pick a format mentioned in this section, and you must announce and post it for it to be OK"

The issue seems to be when organizers submit classification changes from competitions that use formats such as a single big round robin with no DE round, or one-touch epee events, etc.

[arc]

Has anyone looked at the possible conflicts that might exist if someone signs up for a "Professional Membership" but wishes to maintain their amateur status in the sport? Many fencers may want to carry coaching credentials to assit team mates and friends, but may be wary of being branded a "professional" .

Is this a concern?

I will point out that the residual motion as it currently exists is likely to be tabled or withdrawn. This was a graft onto an earlier motion I had made (contributory life memberships), and the original part was split off and passed independently. At the last Board meeting, this was referred to the Resource Development Committee, and I am unaware whether they've actually looked at the substance of the motion, hence my intent to put this off until the July meeting. Comments on this particular motion (and its lengthy amendments to the Ops Manual) should probably be properly directed to the RDC.

[dekko]

There is a "list" of acceptable formats in the Operations Manual. The Ops Manual mentions Brazilian and Canadian formats "in addition to the formats discussed below" where what's "discussed below" is the possible formats for division qualifiers along with formats used in National Competitions (table 4).

The Ops Manual also states:



The problem is some have read that to mean:

1) "Pick a format, any format and as long as you announce and post it, it's OK"

While others read that as:

2) "Pick a format mentioned in this section, and you must announce and post it for it to be OK"

The issue seems to be when organizers submit classification changes from competitions that use formats such as a single big round robin with no DE round, or one-touch epee events, etc.

Also from the opsman:

In local competitions there are a number of variations that can be used to benefit the level of fencers in that division, both in individual and team competitions. In addition to the formats that are discussed below, the following can be used at non qualifying competitions:

I have a hunch they are talking about the chart that lists events and their formats on 7-7 and the big, confusing word there is 'can'. It would seem to open this up to the option 1 you list. Is the related committee is to no longer allow the round robin or a pools up format or any other useful format someone may come up with that they don't like? Or, is it there to prevent someone from having a 50 person event and have them fence in pools of 6 and 7 instead of pools of 5?

[heretic]

Nice to see the timely submission of a treasurers report, audited financial statements and an easily understood budget, far enough in advance that interested members can carefully review them prior to the JO meeting. Great job, Greg.

[CvilleFencer]

Regarding professional memberships: Am I reading this wrong or is the USFA about to bestow the title of USFA Certified Professional Coach on anyone that can pony up their 60 bucks and pass a background check?

[telkanuru]

Nice to see the timely submission of a treasurers report, audited financial statements and an easily understood budget, far enough in advance that interested members can carefully review them prior to the JO meeting. Great job, Greg.

Amazing what you can do when you don't have a real job

[arc]

Regarding professional memberships: Am I reading this wrong or is the USFA about to bestow the title of USFA Certified Professional Coach on anyone that can pony up their 60 bucks and pass a background check?

You're reading it wrong. There's no certification included, just as anyone who currently joins as a "coach competitive" or "coach associate" member is not certified.