New National Schedule Called Into Question - Discussion

[KidLazy]

**I read Craig's article, and the following questions pop up in my head... they are not questioning the decision of changing the schedule or current ED, but rather the decision process that’s going on in USFA, so I thought I would post here and hopefully get some answers about our leadership.**

Story posted: http://www.fencing.net/3199/usa-fenc...nals-to-april/

"The change was made by USA Fencing’s Executive Director, Greg Dilworth, who made the change in consultation with National Event staff, the National Coaches and USA Fencing President Kalle Weeks. Based on public and private reactions to the announcement, it seems that not all member of USA Fencing’s Executive Committee were aware of the upcoming schedule changes."

Sooo... ED +National Staff +National Coaches +President =Power to decide national schedule at will while ignoring members of EC and BoD? If so, then why does Board even bother to have meetings to discuss and vote on the schedule?

Further... why stop here? Why not tackle other issues USFA is facing without input from BoD or members? Since this small group has the power to carry out major actions without the Board's review and approval, why even bother to have EC and BoD at all? Where is the check and balances of such power? Is this the shape of things to come? Or... it has already been done in this way for years, just, now the leaders decided putting on the façade of democracy is no longer needed?

Moving Div1 for Zonals.
Pro: Great, major victory for USFA... so on and so on
Con: How to run this thing... such and such

Anything worth doing is worth doing it right. More important an action is, more care needed in its execution. Sure, this is not the Über-important Olympic event and such, but it is still rather important and affects fencers domestically and internationally… is it?

A small group of mostly unelected officials (hired/appointed, only one is elected) overrides the BoD which are all “elected,” is this the proper procedure to follow? Has the proper procedure followed? The tiny and easily-missed note, is this enough notice and information to its members and some EC/BoD (members who were not aware this is happening)? Only a rather short amount of time passed from the time USFA received the award notice to the time decision was made, what’s the rush? Other EC/BoD members are not worthy enough to spend few min. to be notified? Or they are just not worthy in making this decision? If EC/BoD members are not worthy in the decision process, then what we, rank and file nobodies, can expect out of our voice?

Or maybe I just read these posts and the article wrong, missed something, and have my facts totally confused which caused all these questions… or maybe that Red Bull Vodka I just made is too strong for me. Could someone clarify my questions for me? Thanks




EDIT: Oh, just read this... so even EC/BoD people are asking questions...

New article posted: link

Members of committees that traditionally have oversight into scheduling are reporting that they were not consulted about the change.

[Craig]

I moved this post from the "crisis in leadership" thread to it's own thread. I think this is a great opening post for discussing the article and what's going on with the decision making process within the administration right now. (By administration I am lumping the elected/volunteer and professional/staff personnel together.)

Some people in the discussion think that the entirely wrong decision was made. Others agree with the scheduling decision. A third group also exists which say, essentially, the decision may be the right one, but we never got any time to look at it, provide feedback, and make sure that it is the right decision.

From what I've seen in the forum threads and offline over the past several years is that nobody will ever be 100% satisfied with the final schedule. There are going to be some unhappy people each year.

The crux of the anger and disappointment (from what I've seen thus far) is focused more at the process used to make the change rather than the actual change itself.

That should be a good jumping off point for the discussion:
- What rules are in place for this kind of decision?
- What do the bylaws, operations manual, and other official documents say?
- What has been the "accepted practice" over the years (your "unwritten" rules)?
- Who actually has what authority?
- What can the administration learn from this?

I've been told to expect a statement to be made public on USFencing.org. I'll look for that and then look for the meeting agenda and minutes for the Sept. board meeting.

Craig

[hello?]

From what I've seen in the forum threads and offline over the past several years is that nobody will ever be 100% satisfied with the final schedule. There are going to be some unhappy people each year.

True, but irrelevant, really. The schedule was discussed, revised based on those discussions, and VOTED on months ago.

The crux of the anger and disappointment (from what I've seen thus far) is focused more at the process used to make the change rather than the actual change itself.

Partly true. While, yes, most people are really angry at the process by which the decision was made, many are also angry at the actual change -- because they had worked hard to get the 'approved' schedule approved and felt that all their efforts were dismissed without a care.

Both are related, of course. However, saying the problem was "just the process" (ie.the different committees now asserting that they were not consulted) might suggest that consulting the committees now (in the "lively" discussion that we were told will take place during the September meeting) would fix the problem (since it's likely that, in September, the different committees will simply agree that, yes, it would be impossible to have Div 1 and Zonals at the same time, in the same city, and that therefore Div 1 Champs should be moved). In my opinion, slapping somebody's hand for not "consulting" the proper committes only "fixes" half the problem. Yes, the committees (etc., etc.) should have been consulted. However, the change should have never been contemplated to begin with since it went against the schedule that had been approved after MUCH discussion from the membership.

I would still like to know why we bid to host Zonals during the same week as Summer Nationals, since it is so obvious that this created a scheduling disaster. (I thought part of the benefit of hosting Zonals was that it allowed us to prevent such a conflict -- rather than creating it on our own.)

[fdad]

I've heard several people say that "transparency" has gotten better recently. I guess we actually see a published budget and have a vague schedule (can't really call it a plan) for paying off debts - and compared to previous administration, that is an improvement. But we also have appointed committees and proposal processes and other documented "ways things are supposed to work" that are ignored. The BoD approves bid processes and appoints committees and charters them with responsibilities and then ignores the fact that decisions are made in ways that don't conform to how the membership was told they were supposed to be made. The YDC is a well known and accepted joke. Until the USFA lets its membership know how decisions are really made, and who is really making them, and does not allow individuals to over-rule these processes, we have a long way to go with respect to transparency.

[heretic]

Greg and his crew violated the current bylaws by usurping the decision making process. IMO, that is the biggest offence and must be addressed immediately and decisively.

The USFA governance pendulum has swung from from Anderson's anarchy to Dillworth's despotism.

Viva la revolution.

[mdstasinos]

I would still like to know why we bid to host Zonals during the same week as Summer Nationals, since it is so obvious that this created a scheduling disaster. (I thought part of the benefit of hosting Zonals was that it allowed us to prevent such a conflict -- rather than creating it on our own.)

It was first cosidered to have one follow the other, in disuccions two years ago. Then without consultation it morfied into running them together side by side by the National Office. In additon, never was there a discussion to remove the Div.1 Championships from the Summer Nationals to April and eliminating the April Div.1 NAC. That happened after the Bid was accepted by the Pan American Federation. Reality is, if Zonals run with the Summer Nationals and the Zonals begin before day 5 or 6 of the Summer Nationals, regardless of the move of the Div.1 Nationals to April you will disadvantage our Juniors who will also be competing in both. In additon, Juniors and Cadets this year are considered the first NAC for the next season and there for no qualifying path. Also, the Board of Directors took away the qualifying paths for teams, which means any member club can register up to 3 teams in each weapon to compete at the Nationals. Last Nationals we had 45 Men's Epee teams, it is likely that number could be 60 or higher isf you look at the qualifiers and add half of those who attended that did not qualify this year.
Last, the Executive Director does not have the authority to change policy only impliment it. If the Board of Directors felt it important enough to review and vote to adopt the National schedule then I believe the ED cannot remove, alter or change the schedule without an EC action or Board approval.
Note: The Ec was never contacted, consulted or advised of this action, the Athlete's Council was never contacted, consulted or advised of this action and Tounament Committee was never contacted, consulted or advised of this action.

Mark Stasinos
Vice-President
US Fencing Association

[Mr.MightyMouse]

I'll hold my comments, as IMHO SN schedule started to go south with elimination of titles for Cadets + Jrs, 3 teams per club, etc, etc, etc..
I also see tremendous benefits for the Elite ,as well as, the rest of the athletes ,as well as, the USFA bottom line in having the Zonals held at the same time as the Nationals.
I just wanted to thank and commend Craig for investigative and muckraking work.
Well done.

[mtarascio]

Last, the Executive Director does not have the authority to change policy only impliment it. If the Board of Directors felt it important enough to review and vote to adopt the National schedule then I believe the ED cannot remove, alter or change the schedule without an EC action or Board approval.
Note: The Ec was never contacted, consulted or advised of this action, the Athlete's Council was never contacted, consulted or advised of this action and Tounament Committee was never contacted, consulted or advised of this action.

Mark Stasinos
Vice-President
US Fencing Association

I originally supported the appointment of Greg as Interim ED.. Unfortunately, by making the decision to change the National Schedule without the authorization from the EC or BOD has shown me he is not the right person to lead us through the Quad. I believe in the best interest of the USFA Greg should submit his resignation immediately.

[Inquartata]

I know that Greg got a LOT of questions about his sanity after he agreed to take the position. Maybe he's belatedly realized that they were right, that he doesn't need the headaches, and has taken action to get himself 'released'.

Otherwise it's all quite inexplicable to me without revising my opinion of his character. And I think you all know how I hate to revise my opinions...

[TBean]

I would still like to know why we bid to host Zonals during the same week as Summer Nationals, since it is so obvious that this created a scheduling disaster. (I thought part of the benefit of hosting Zonals was that it allowed us to prevent such a conflict -- rather than creating it on our own.)

I hazarded a guess in my post on the other thread that operationally it makes some degree of sense. Everything they would need for the tournament is right there already - fiscally it is most efficient to piggy-back the zonal on a large US tournament (NAC) already scheduled. Was SN the best one - probably not. Was SN the only option - I don't know enough about the bidding processes and what is available to the US to bid upon - maybe this was the only time-frame we qualify to bid upon, hence it happened this way.

As I also mentioned, the appalling thing is not the schedule change - that was inevitable when they won the bid - but the fact that people are surprised. I'm not in project management, I'm not an expert in bid processes - but I read that damn thread and the first thought in my head was didn't anyone think through the consequences of winning the bid, wasn't that discussed? That should have been a part of determining if the US was going to move forward with the bid process to begin, and appropriate leadership should have known and accepted the schedule change that was going to happen if the US got the bid. Then it is about operational housekeeping and communication strategies. A heads-up to membership would have led to unhappy people, but a lot less damage control.

[edew]

I find it funny/curious that those who were for Greg at the outset seem to want his head on a stick after this incident, whereas I was "meh" then and "meh" now. This one incident is not the end of the world. A situation came up that needed immediate resolution. I think it would have been great had he at least pre-announced his intentions to the EC (at the very least) before implementing them. Still, it seems to be more of an issue of placating some people by petting them properly versus getting something done. I'm always on the side of getting something done.

Of course, it really depends on whether this was the wisest solution (or near-wisest). Saving money and such, I think it is. Giving optimal competitive opportunities to fencers, maybe, maybe not. Going into the last year prior to 2012, those in the running number about 6 in each weapon, and their main competitive opportunities lie in the WCs, not NACs. What this may hurt would be those gunning for 2016 and beyond. In that case, the uncertainties far outweighs the lack of one NAC opportunity.

I wouldn't hold this incident up as the straw that broke the camel's back. It certainly isn't a bright star either.

[TBean]

It was first cosidered to have one follow the other, in disuccions two years ago. Then without consultation it morfied into running them together side by side by the National Office.

Has anyone followed up as to why the change in the office occured? Was the contract with Reno already negotiated when the zonal bid was originally discussed. Perhaps the ability to extend the contract to run the tourneys back to back was not an option. Did the Board not see the final bid, and question the "why" of the change. Things tend to happen for a reason - you just need to ask the right questions. Once the change was recognized, didn't anyone think through the consequences of that choice?

I get why they have to run close proximity to each other - I even understand that the change in schedule is necessary at this point - but where is the discussion, analysis and guidance on the part of the Board?

[MaddMatt05]

I hazarded a guess in my post on the other thread that operationally it makes some degree of sense. Everything they would need for the tournament is right there already - fiscally it is most efficient to piggy-back the zonal on a large US tournament (NAC) already scheduled. Was SN the best one - probably not. Was SN the only option - I don't know enough about the bidding processes and what is available to the US to bid upon - maybe this was the only time-frame we qualify to bid upon, hence it happened this way.

As I also mentioned, the appalling thing is not the schedule change - that was inevitable when they won the bid - but the fact that people are surprised. I'm not in project management, I'm not an expert in bid processes - but I read that damn thread and the first thought in my head was didn't anyone think through the consequences of winning the bid, wasn't that discussed? That should have been a part of determining if the US was going to move forward with the bid process to begin, and appropriate leadership should have known and accepted the schedule change that was going to happen if the US got the bid. Then it is about operational housekeeping and communication strategies. A heads-up to membership would have led to unhappy people, but a lot less damage control.

I agree, the first thing I thought was why two schedules weren't considered and voted on from the start. The bid process has to have started before this year's schedule was approved. It seems like the proper thing to do would have been to have the foresight to approve 2 possible schedules, one for winning the bid and one for losing it. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason the changes were made without consulting people is because there wasn't time for it.

[fdad]

I don't agree that the schedule change is needed. I don't think it helps all the much either. In some weapons, WF especially, our Senior team is composed of mostly Juniors and Cadets. They still have a conflict with a NAC. Are we cancelling the Cadet and Junior events too? We already have Int'l events on consecutive weekends. We should be able to have the PanAm events separated enough from the D1,U19,U16 points events to avoid conflict.

[teacup]

Was the Portland NAC contract negotiated with the intention or possibility of having a much smaller event, ie: Championships? If yes, then the idea of changing the open Div I to championships must have been considered a long time ago.

If it wasn't or the contract can't be renegotiated, then the money saved by combining Reno may be offset by the money lost in Portland.

Why is it a disadvantage for some juniors and cadets to stay at Summer Nationals to fence Div I Championships?

Why is it a disadvantage for some of the top fencers to fence Div I Championships on one weekend, then some of them fence in Zonals a week later? Especially if not all of them even go to the Div I Championships?

Many have pointed out scheduling is difficult and imperfect and some one is always at a disadvantage.

Is Reno easy for the rest of the "zone" to get to?

[Mr.MightyMouse]

Ladies and Yents - the economy of scale is more than obvious - so having been put in a corner without the dunce's hat, the former Treasurer made quite a rational fiduciary decision - actually serving the "stakeholders" interests.
The physical plant, host hotel, equipment, armourers, bout committee, referees, coaches, most of the athletes will be there already - that amounts in tens of thousands of $ in savings for an organization which has been criticized by the largess of the "Mr.Dilbert hunting posse" for the "bottom line irresponsibility".
Add to that a partisan crowd, and an educational opportunity for the attendees, and the choice to host PanAm's at the time of the Nationals at least to me makes sense.
Again IMHO, basic USFA audience is being done a tremendous favour by being catered the premiere two continent competition in their leisure time. Speaking of my own experience - I was not ready to fence internationally for the first time - just sheer skill of the competitors, and magnitude of outcome's importance was overwhelming. Now every kid and adult at the Nats besides seeing the best US can offer, will be able to see some of the World's best for the first, and may be the only time
In M Epee I'm looking forward to seeing Limardo, Fernandez, and Boisvert - Simard, obviously Schalm in WE, quick mindscan through FIE rankings shows terrific fencers in other weapons - Ovtchinnikova, Perez, Mayer and Beaudry come to mind.
I agree that a D1 NAC should not be lost; but to me the D1 team situation on Portland is just as odd, as is the presence of the numerous events at the Nationals which are not National Championships - hopefully they will be modified.

[mdstasinos]

Was the Portland NAC contract negotiated with the intention or possibility of having a much smaller event, ie: Championships? If yes, then the idea of changing the open Div I to championships must have been considered a long time ago.

If it wasn't or the contract can't be renegotiated, then the money saved by combining Reno may be offset by the money lost in Portland.

Why is it a disadvantage for some juniors and cadets to stay at Summer Nationals to fence Div I Championships?

Why is it a disadvantage for some of the top fencers to fence Div I Championships on one weekend, then some of them fence in Zonals a week later? Especially if not all of them even go to the Div I Championships?

Many have pointed out scheduling is difficult and imperfect and some one is always at a disadvantage.

Is Reno easy for the rest of the "zone" to get to?

When Portland was planned and contract written it was for the Div. 1 NAC and Youth. Whether the National Office has the ability to resize the NAC with Portland really still is not the issue at hand. It is the restructuring of the National Schedule by our Executive Director and the National Office Staff without EC action and/or the Board of Directors approval is the issue.
If we are to move the Div. 1 Championships to April and the Board of Directors were to agree with the proposal then what is the chance of adding the Div.1 NAC somewhere else in the schedule. In my opinion the only weekend in the calendar that could stand, without conflict would be the second weekend of December. There are no World Cup conflicts and if run only as a Div.1 NAC it would be a three day tournament, Thus three Div.1 NAC's and a Div.1 Championship.
Now the question at hand is how we got here? Well, I believe from the onset the process morfied, the Staff without having the expertise or data to support the implementation of the Zonals with the Nationals and without seeking the advice of those with the expertise in running the events just put the bid together and would deal with the details later. The main thought here is we have held plenty of World Cups, Junior World Championships and even a World Championships here is the United States but we never did it at the expense of our fencers and our National events. Now we our compromising our National events and the National Office and ED believe they have the authority to do whatever, whenever. If this goes through without the Board or EC approval them we have sold our membership rights off to the ED and National Staff and we have allowed them to do whatever, whenever. This cannot happen. The Board approved policy the ED and staff can only execute that policy and that cannot be changed without Board approval or an EC action.

Mark Stasinos

[fdad]

When Portland was planned and contract written it was for the Div. 1 NAC and Youth. Whether the National Office has the ability to resize the NAC with Portland really still is not the issue at hand. It is the restructuring of the National Schedule by our Executive Director and the National Office Staff without EC action and/or the Board of Directors approval is the issue.
If we are to move the Div. 1 Championships to April and the Board of Directors were to agree with the proposal then what is the chance of adding the Div.1 NAC somewhere else in the schedule. In my opinion the only weekend in the calendar that could stand, without conflict would be the second weekend of December. There are no World Cup conflicts and if run only as a Div.1 NAC it would be a three day tournament, Thus three Div.1 NAC's and a Div.1 Championship.
Now the question at hand is how we got here? Well, I believe from the onset the process morfied, the Staff without having the expertise or data to support the implementation of the Zonals with the Nationals and without seeking the advice of those with the expertise in running the events just put the bid together and would deal with the details later. The main thought here is we have held plenty of World Cups, Junior World Championships and even a World Championships here is the United States but we never did it at the expense of our fencers and our National events. Now we our compromising our National events and the National Office and ED believe they have the authority to do whatever, whenever. If this goes through without the Board or EC approval them we have sold our membership rights off to the ED and National Staff and we have allowed them to do whatever, whenever. This cannot happen. The Board approved policy the ED and staff can only execute that policy and that cannot be changed without Board approval or an EC action.

Mark Stasinos

I agree with everything you've said. What I don't understand is why you don't feel the same way about all the other times the BoD actions have been overridden? As a prime example, the YDC was appointed/approved by the BoD and tasked with certain responsibilities. Someone decided to have staff carry out those responsibilities instead. It seems like it is a similar pattern repeating itself here. Why the different response?

[gladius]

Ladies and Yents - the economy of scale is more than obvious - so having been put in a corner without the dunce's hat, the former Treasurer made quite a rational fiduciary decision - actually serving the "stakeholders" interests.
The physical plant, host hotel, equipment, armourers, bout committee, referees, coaches, most of the athletes will be there already - that amounts in tens of thousands of $ in savings for an organization which has been criticized by the largess of the "Mr.Dilbert hunting posse" for the "bottom line irresponsibility".

Are you sure about the economy of scale of this plan?

Let me walk with you through some preliminary considerations. I am checking with non USFA-experts about the actual costs involved in such a championship and will post them when I get them.

In the meantime consider these initial points:

• You need a dedicated room with 4 colored strips plus the final and suitable seats for the public just like any Grand Prix event.
• You need a sufficient number of strips for pools and DEs to the table of 32, in a different area from the main room above.
• You need a protocol area with podiums, flags, pots and plants and all that in a prominent position, not near the exit as we are used to.
• The program must follow precise schedule and times and conclude not too late in the afternoon (OK, there are not too many competitors so we can trust this will happen, but with USFA management you never know).
• You need FIE referees assigned by the FIE arbitrage commission for whom you must pay...
• You need a certain level of decorum in the venue the likes of which you have never seen at a NAC or SN.
• Tournament software, surprisingly, is not what is used by the USFA.
• You need video arbitrage and display on all 4 colored strips and the final strips. The display must be big enough for the public to see...
• You also need wire less for all weapons. Only this year a waver was granted on this requirement but not next year (2011). This means to have and pay for the folks of STM (Ukraine) to be there all the time and set up what is a delicate equipment (they own) for these championships.
• Results must be posted immediately.

I am sure there are many other items which cost money and have nothing to do or benefit from the fact that next door SN is in full swing, quite to the contrary, actually.

Two questions:

1. Why is it that NOBODY else would ever combine a zonal championship with a national event, let alone a three-ring circus like the SN we had in Atlanta?
2. Why is it that when I ask any other international federation why they don't do it in the name of economy of scale, they look at me as if I were totally nuts?

But of course, what do I know and what do the foreigners know? We are not part of the "thinking and deciding" inner group in which not even elected EC members are deemed to be up to par or worth consulting or listening to...



Just to be clear: I am all in favor of USA Fencing to host the PanAm Zonals. It is ridiculous that fencing powers like El Salvador or Costa Rica can do it (without a national event attached) and that we can't. By FIE rule all senior zonals must take place in July and August. I am against the idea of putting them in the same place and at the same time as SN mania with all related conflicts with the approved season.

[mdstasinos]

I agree with everything you've said. What I don't understand is why you don't feel the same way about all the other times the BoD actions have been overridden? As a prime example, the YDC was appointed/approved by the BoD and tasked with certain responsibilities. Someone decided to have staff carry out those responsibilities instead. It seems like it is a similar pattern repeating itself here. Why the different response?

Agreed. The difference here is I was asked to work with the membership and all related committees in developing the National Schedule for the Board of Directors to approve for our future. The problem here is the ED and National Staff feel they can do what they want without the approval of an EC action or Board approval.
Second, this is not similar for the fact the YDC made a choice to have the National Office to assume certain responsibilities. The TC, the Athlete Council, FOC, EC or Board has not given up any of their responsibilities for the office to do anything the the execution and exercising of our Boards policy. Greg took this on himself to delete a national event without having Board approval and without considering other options. That is not leadership that is impulsiveness. This is wrong and hurts our athletes.

Mark Stasinos