Is everyone aware that Greg Dilworth is adding dead weight to a sinking ship?

[oiuyt]

OK, then, it's one or the other. Which is it? Gentlemen, you may start your citations.

The vote was conducted via email, not an in-person or teleconference meeting. I was the one who sent out the letter announcing the proposed budget variance and calling for a vote. It explicitly mentioned that the budget and finance committee had unanimously voted to recommend approval of the request and included no mention of the FOC, their recommendation, or involvement in the pruchasing process.*

This really shouldn't be about playing gotcha games of specific citations that are slightly erroneous. The topic raised by Demetrios in the OP (a change in policy regarding the value of a contract that requires explicit Board approval) has been adequately covered. Going through and finding things in the thread to correct isn't going to advance the discussion at all. I'd strongly prefer to focus on the rest of my most recent post, which really isn't aimed at anything particular that took place in this thread, although it's tangentially related.

Let's move to the bigger picture and make the necessary cultural adjustments. Perhaps I should have started it in its own thread.

-B

* Correction: There was a general statement indicating that coaches and FOC members have been asking for video replay systems for domestic use for several years. It did not address the specific system selection process or purchase.

[mdstasinos]

Greg did not hire himself.

He did not tell the Board that the FOC was part of the decision-making process in selecting the replay systems.

He did not change the policy regarding levels of spending that require Board approval.

The basic premise that started this thread was both incorrect and compounded by further erroneous information, false assumptions, and flawed interpretation. Additional "facts" have been dropped into this thread for the past week. Many of them are either simply not true or are heavily slanted to paint a picture that isn't reflective of reality. Others are true but are not being presented in a productive manner.

To clarify, Greg announced that he had done this at the BC Table at NAC A. His own words. In addition, he told this direct to office staff that he had done this. This communicated to me independently by three members of the Staff. So, is he misleading the staff?
I did not say anything with the spending levels.

Your speech is touching but it still has nothing to do with accountability in the current model. The Board, to a great deal, is kept in the dark. At best the Board does not participate in the decisions, but must hear the excuses of why procedures and policies were not followed. I know this quite well and you know I know this. The problem is there is no mechanism for accountability or review. Second, the failure in the International Department is a result of the leadership in the National Office and current oversight in the office. The problems in the department were spelled out last June and Greg choose to ignore the documentation and facts and five months later the situation repeats itself and the head of the department was let go and the rest of the staff resigned. . I would require from the Board an accountability of why an entire department was fired or quit, not a generic answer but the reasons and the problems they face or that has been discovered as a result of this. Especially when Greg and Christine were the individuals responsible for oversight in that department. What happened to "the buck stops here." It does not explain the hole we are currently digging out in that department because of the lack of oversight there.
So, I agree with your speech, but until the Board decides to act, and ask the hard questions and require accountability, nothing will change. Yes, mistakes are made but the level to what is being done here and not reported till well after the fact, is wrong, especially when it deals with the Associations money and a failure to follow policy and procedure. You know this is true as well as I do.

[fdad]

I'd be willing to bet (not much though, times are tough) that he had some kind of hand in Mme's Ward and Cross reappearance on domestic scene.

I'll take that bet. Ms. Ward has competed in exactly one USFA event since the Olympics with no indication when or if she will go for two. The timing of Ms. Cross' return has to do with wanting to make one more run at Olympic glory before committing to graduate/medical school. I don't think either of those decisions had anything to do with who was USFA ED.

As far as the changes in the international dept., while I am sure the timing might have been difficult and the change should have come sooner, things have improved dramatically since the change.

[Demitrios]

This strikes me as hilarious.

Who doesn't appreciate being in the situation of collecting 2 paychecks. One for the recently acquired fencing club he owns, and has someone else running for him, and the second for the E.D. job that he isn't doing very well/efficiantly. Perhaps he's distracted? Perhaps he's just incapable.

Robby Carrillo

[Demitrios]

T

This really shouldn't be about playing gotcha games of specific citations that are slightly erroneous. The topic raised by Demetrios in the OP (a change in policy regarding the value of a contract that requires explicit Board approval) has been adequately covered. Going through and finding things in the thread to correct isn't going to advance the discussion at all.
-B

Actually, the fact is that I chose to intruduce only one example of bad judement on Gregs part. The one that was fresh in my mind having just returned from an NAC where the new replay system was a complete failure. I began to research who was responsible for the equipment, and how it was that someone was able to so easily spend money when the organization is still in debt. I would gladly point out that Greg's first mistake was taking the position in the first place. The organization should never have settled for in interim E.D. It does nothing to strengthen the organization, especially when they immediately stop all efforts to secure a permanent E.D.

Robby Carrillo

[Inquartata]

Holding grudges and finger-pointing are counter-productive.

Speaking of the various bureaucratic dysfunctions which have so long afflicted the USFA, though...in the past, it seemed that anything less than widespread and strenuous "finger-pointing" was simply ignored. If criticisms of actions were not full-throated enough, nothing whatsoever appeared to come of them. That has to change before this

There needs to be non-threatening exploration of errors so people can learn.

can happen, IMO.

The vote was conducted via email, not an in-person or teleconference meeting. I was the one who sent out the letter announcing the proposed budget variance and calling for a vote. It explicitly mentioned that the budget and finance committee had unanimously voted to recommend approval of the request...

OK, so...can you let us in on the case which was presented for making the purchase of what I think probably looks to most of the membership like a cool but nonessential luxury item even as we are struggling to pay the bills for basics like referees? It certainly must have been a convincing presentation to result in unanimous approval. Maybe it would also convince the rest of us...?

[telkanuru]

Who doesn't appreciate being in the situation of collecting 2 paychecks. One for the recently acquired fencing club he owns, and has someone else running for him, and the second for the E.D. job that he isn't doing very well/efficiantly. Perhaps he's distracted? Perhaps he's just incapable.

Robby Carrillo

Yawn. I've been around the internets long enough to know that you don't argue with people who are only looking for evidence to support their theory, and who forget that the process actually works the other way around.

Leland Grigoli

[telkanuru]

OK, so...can you let us in on the case which was presented for making the purchase of what I think probably looks to most of the membership like a cool but nonessential luxury item even as we are struggling to pay the bills for basics like referees? It certainly must have been a convincing presentation to result in unanimous approval. Maybe it would also convince the rest of us...?

If you don't think that an item that brings high level refereeing in line with the international standard is worthwhile to an organization attempting to match spectacular (and unexpected, and, frankly, unrepeatable) Olympic results of the previous quad, then I don't know what to say to you. Do you also think funding should be totally cut to the international program because it would help us repay debt faster?

Greg's policies have been consistently about balancing international results in the runup to the Olympics with the crushing debt load that the USFA is attempting to dig itself out from under. You can get your proverbial panties in a twist all you want about internal office politics and the like, but that's the goal, and I haven't yet seen a plan to do it better. You may disagree with the goal, certainly, but that's not this discussion.

To imply that Greg is doing anything out of greed or some megalomanical ambition is to be totally and willfully ignorant both of the realities of the situation and of the character of the person. It is nothing short of an unconscionable lie and petty rabble rousing.

I might know better, but damn, do I fall for it every time.

[Demitrios]

Yawn. I've been around the internets long enough to know that you don't argue with people who are only looking for evidence to support their theory, and who forget that the process actually works the other way around.

Leland Grigoli

The fact is that Greg Dilworth just bought a fencing club in Oklahoma (where he also just relocated to) from Jerry Benson. The fact is that he has Patrick Reardon running it for him. The Fact is that he is the E.D. of that fencing club. The fact is that he is also trying to pull off being the E.D. of USFA. Where's the "theory" in any of that?

Robby Carrillo

[telkanuru]

The fact is that Greg Dilworth just bought a fencing club in Oklahoma (where he also just relocated to) from Jerry Benson. The fact is that he has Patrick Reardon running it for him. The Fact is that he is the E.D. of that fencing club. The fact is that he is also trying to pull off being the E.D. of USFA. Where's the "theory" in any of that?

Robby Carrillo

I assume you've had some interactions with Greg simply because you are both fairly active in the referee corps, but if you've somehow missed like two ships in the night, then I should tell you that from all my interactions with Greg, he has a deep love of the sport, and if he thought that he could do good for the sport in the position, then he would have taken it regardless of salary. You would also know that the purchase of the fencing club was a following of a passion after a career in business. I don't actually have his financial records, but based off of the jobs I know he's had, he probably doesn't consider his ED salary particularly interesting or impressive.

[Jason]

If you don't think that an item that brings high level refereeing in line with the international standard is worthwhile to an organization attempting to match spectacular (and unexpected, and, frankly, unrepeatable) Olympic results of the previous quad, then I don't know what to say to you.

As truly awesome as I think having a video replay system is, I think there's probably an argument to made that if the goal is to improve US refereeing, the first step might be to pay the referees moneys owed before investing in new technologies. Though perhaps that argument only makes sense if the fact that referees are owed money is negatively affecting operations.

I can certainly imagine that the purchase of an expensive replay system could anger any referee who is still waiting to be paid for work done several months ago. I can also imagine how that anger might increase if the expensive replay system was then, for whatever reason, not functioning correctly.

[telkanuru]

As truly awesome as I think having a video replay system is, I think there's probably an argument to made that if the goal is to improve US refereeing, the first step might be to pay the referees moneys owed before investing in new technologies. Though perhaps that argument only makes sense if the fact that referees are owed money is negatively affecting operations.

Honestly, having watched several high-level refs quit for reasons very other, I don't see the pay issue as particularly detrimental. That a very good saber ref (KShan) can take vacation time show up to a national event (which won't earn him money) and be given four saber bouts in total despite being on the "push list", simply because his FOC rabbi wasn't around, is probably a much larger factor. If I can be said to be a critic of the TC, I am even less amused by the antics of the FOC. If we want to get outraged over the ways the behavior of the organization is directly affecting the largest segment of its membership, we can start there.

I can certainly imagine that the purchase of an expensive replay system could anger any referee who is still waiting to be paid for work done several months ago. I can also imagine how that anger might increase if the expensive replay system was then, for whatever reason, not functioning correctly.

I can certainly understand the base instinct to be angry at such a decision, but I am floored when that anger is maintained after a rational analysis of the situation.

[erooMynohtnA]

The fact is that Greg Dilworth just bought a fencing club in Oklahoma (where he also just relocated to) from Jerry Benson. The fact is that he has Patrick Reardon running it for him. The Fact is that he is the E.D. of that fencing club. The fact is that he is also trying to pull off being the E.D. of USFA. Where's the "theory" in any of that?

Robby Carrillo

I am interested in what this means. What is the problem? What is the point?

Are you saying that Greg is sacrificing his time as ED of the USFA to be ED of a club? I think that is unlikely, since you say someone else is running the club.

Are you saying that Greg is collecting unfair salaries and laughing to himself while he counts his money? Given the money pits that the USFA is and fencing clubs are, I think that's unlikely too.

If the question were posed to me, I would just say the above post was just a continuation of a string of accusations that are either false (replay machine without a vote) or meaningless (he has multiple incomes). Is this anything other than verbal diarrhea where you're hoping someone else will make your point for you?

[yeoldearmourer]

Alpha Mike Foxtrot to Greg.

[telkanuru]

Alpha Mike Foxtrot to Greg.

We thank you for your substantive contribution to the conversation, and are pleased that you treat interesting and relevant topics with such seriousness.

[yeoldearmourer]

I been in the USFA when it was ran out of a house been a life menber longer then most people been on this broad. The USFA has been miss mangar for a long time. We need a ED and board of Dir that is not afarid to make hard deceison like tell people NO there is no money because we screw up in the past. Buying a instant replay was dumb and then the armourers had to set it up. What a mess.

[erooMynohtnA]

Buying a instant replay was dumb and then the armourers had to set it up. What a mess.

While the armorers certainly share some of the blame, I think blaming the armorers is premature. We'll see if they screw it up again.

[Mr.MightyMouse]

I'll take that bet. Ms. Ward has competed in exactly one USFA event since the Olympics with no indication when or if she will go for two. The timing of Ms. Cross' return has to do with wanting to make one more run at Olympic glory before committing to graduate/medical school. I don't think either of those decisions had anything to do with who was USFA ED.

As far as the changes in the international dept., while I am sure the timing might have been difficult and the change should have come sooner, things have improved dramatically since the change.

As I said - times are tough - so there isn't much to bet;
yet if ED is not involved in bringing back Olympic medalists in the prime age of the career - he should be.

[mdstasinos]

As I said - times are tough - so there isn't much to bet;
yet if ED is not involved in bringing back Olympic medalists in the prime age of the career - he should be.

Actually, that would be the job of the High Performance Director. The Executive Director is to manage the National Office and Staff and implement the policies and procedures of the Board of Directors. The ED runs the day to day business of the Association, the HPD deals with the construction of the elite programs and plans, works with the USOC on behalf of our sport and deals with the progression of our elite athletes through the NC, whenever possible. He is the focal point for our international programs.

[Inquartata]

If you don't think that an item that brings high level refereeing in line with the international standard is worthwhile to an organization attempting to match spectacular (and unexpected, and, frankly, unrepeatable) Olympic results of the previous quad, then I don't know what to say to you. Do you also think funding should be totally cut to the international program because it would help us repay debt faster?

Wow...so you think that a video replay system is going to improve refereeing? What ARE you smoking?

Remember, the only thing that improves anything is the amount of 'deliberate practice'.

What else ought we do to 'bring US fencing in line with the international standard'? Maybe give our elite athletes apartments and cars like they do in other countries?

I have said this often, and will say it again: International results are not the end-all be-all of US Fencing. The elite teams already receive financing from the USOC and we do not need to be spending additional monies out of membership revenues on things which will primarily benefit the elite athletes.

Greg's policies have been consistently about balancing international results in the runup to the Olympics with the crushing debt load that the USFA is attempting to dig itself out from under.

Yeah...somehow you managed to omit all mention of what US Fencing is supposed to be about: US Fencing. 'International results' is not all there is to 'balance' against the debt. It's not even the most important thing, IMO.

You may disagree with the goal, certainly, but that's not this discussion.

It's the main discussion, actually. Did you think that the OP was really just incensed about the failure to support 'international results' or 'international refereeing standards'? Because it looks to me as though his dissatisfaction went a little deeper than that...

To imply that Greg is doing anything out of greed or some megalomanical ambition is to be totally and willfully ignorant both of the realities of the situation and of the character of the person. It is nothing short of an unconscionable lie and petty rabble rousing.

Fortunately, those are not my 'implications'. You may have mistaken me for someone else.

My actual point---as opposed to your straw one---is that spending a lot of money on a nonessential when there are basics still going unfunded is a bad practice. And it IS a nonessential. It may be cool, it may be novel, it may even be useful in some respects. But it is NOT essential. Buying it was, IMO, just bad business.

I can certainly understand the base instinct to be angry at such a decision, but I am floored when that anger is maintained after a rational analysis of the situation.

Heh. Pat yourself on the back a little harder, there, can't you?