Sections and USFA Governance

[jjefferies]

I received an e-mail this morning from USFA requesting that Divisions and Sections update information on their officers and financial status. I responded to the originators pointing out that the Sections are in limbo. My reason for broaching the subject here in a public forum is that some of the board may follow various threads about the USFA on f.net and be made more aware of the concerns.

It is apparent that the USFA has decided to do away with Sections. Fair enough, all arguments aside, that is within their mandate. The issue is with the piecemeal manner they are doing it. First the USFA has promoted the still evolving ROC's as the alternate qualifying path to national championships, then removed the sections from holding qualifiers thereby eliminating much of their reason for existence, and then removed any funding (see comments in the thread on the last board meeting). So far as I know the USFA has not come out and simply done away with the sections. Why not just do it completely, i.e. eliminate/remove/dissolve the sections?

Does it really matter whether they are clearly ended? I think yes. At the last Pacific Coast Section qualifier this past 5/8/2011 there were not enough Division representatives present to produce a quorum to elect new officers. In part that is because the USFA Congress has been eliminated (division representatives to congress were part of the Section board) and in part because there were not the usual Division officers present for the qualifiers (I was the only division chair). Thus last year's PCS officers were left to continue in their previous positions and unsure if they are actually needed. Further the section has equipment which it owns and has to warehouse, i.e. financial considerations. Should the equipment be sold or distributed to clubs? How to pay for the warehousing? And to further confuse the whole issue, I have been told the PCS is an incorporated entity. So I would think the section officers need a definitive action from the USFA to help resolve the issue of what they need to do going forward.

So by not clearly and cleanly doing what the USFA obviously intends, the USFA is wasting a lot of volunteers' time, potentially incurring unneeded costs and producing a good deal of confusion leaving a number of half-dead organizations around. On the other hand if there is any advantage in keeping the sections it would be good to announce that and give the volunteers who are involved a reason for continuing their efforts.

[fdad]

Perhaps one reason they are "requesting that Divisions and Sections update information on their officers and financial status" is that they would like to know who to direct to "eliminate/remove/dissolve the sections".

[jjefferies]

Perhaps one reason they are "requesting that Divisions and Sections update information on their officers and financial status" is that they would like to know who to direct to "eliminate/remove/dissolve the sections".

Why ask for both? No I think it's the classic bureaucratic left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Not the fault of the staffers who are just preparing for the coming year. My appeal is to the board to let's just get on with it and stop wasting time and money.

Sorry for the soap box but I get a particular heartburn about the waste. Old common experience from the computer business is that the more you charge for your time the less management will waste it. And as volunteers aren't paid for their time management discounts it.

[dberke]

Why ask for both? No I think it's the classic bureaucratic left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Not the fault of the staffers who are just preparing for the coming year. My appeal is to the board to let's just get on with it and stop wasting time and money.

Sorry for the soap box but I get a particular heartburn about the waste. Old common experience from the computer business is that the more you charge for your time the less management will waste it. And as volunteers aren't paid for their time management discounts it.

What are your section officers doing that they'd stop doing it the USFA stopped recognizing sections as administrative units? If they're running a circuit, for example, there's nothing stopping the same group of people from continuing to do that after the USFA stops recognizing sections (assuming there's a demand for it by the fencers, of course.)

Our section traditionally has done little beyond help organize sectionals. Now that that requirement is gone, they have essentially nothing to do. So, at least in our case, I don't think they're "wasting time and money" beyond the time it takes someone to fill out and send in the section officer report form. How is your section different?

Dan

[jjefferies]

Our section traditionally has done little beyond help organize sectionals. Now that that requirement is gone, they have essentially nothing to do. So, at least in our case, I don't think they're "wasting time and money" beyond the time it takes someone to fill out and send in the section officer report form. How is your section different?
Dan

I can't attest to all the differences, but the simplest is that the section owns equipment which has to be maintained and warehoused, i.e. continuing expenses and no revenue. Don't think it's in someone's garage. Last I heard they were trying to resolve what to do about the team championships and associated continuing trophies. I don't believe they've been a part of the qualifiers. That discussion may still be ongoing as they explore different scenarios of what to do. And the USFA doing whatever it is they intend to do will allow others to clear their responsibilities and wrap things up.

[fdad]

I can't attest to all the differences, but the simplest is that the section owns equipment which has to be maintained and warehoused, i.e. continuing expenses and no revenue. Don't think it's in someone's garage. Last I heard they were trying to resolve what to do about the team championships and associated continuing trophies. I don't believe they've been a part of the qualifiers. That discussion may still be ongoing as they explore different scenarios of what to do. And the USFA doing whatever it is they intend to do will allow others to clear their responsibilities and wrap things up.

What is stopping you from holding a Sectional Championship in order to raise money to pay these expenses?

[jjefferies]

What is stopping you from holding a Sectional Championship in order to raise money to pay these expenses?

I would think that's possible. But we quickly get back to the question of whether the sections are still empowered to sanction their events? Or do they have to apply to the Divisions? And the organizing and running such tournaments is up to the section officers who in all likelihood are still wanting to know if there are still sections.

[Inquartata]

Perhaps the National Office hates Sections so much that it prefers to watch them die as slowly and painfully as possible.

[bigdawg2121]

Until they are actually dissolved sections still exist. I see no reason for them to be as active or impotent as they choose.

[jeremyb215]

I would think that's possible. But we quickly get back to the question of whether the sections are still empowered to sanction their events? Or do they have to apply to the Divisions? And the organizing and running such tournaments is up to the section officers who in all likelihood are still wanting to know if there are still sections.

Pardon the newbie questions, but..... does sanctioning an event really matter at this point? If a Section needs income to pay for equipment storage and other expenses, I would think they'd have the right to hold an event from which the profits could be used to cover said expenses. Would'nt the fencers turn out just to have another oppertunity to fence?
Why would the Divisions care as long as the Section isn't holding a conflicting event?

[DHCJr]

Pardon the newbie questions, but..... does sanctioning an event really matter at this point? If a Section needs income to pay for equipment storage and other expenses, I would think they'd have the right to hold an event from which the profits could be used to cover said expenses. Would'nt the fencers turn out just to have another oppertunity to fence?
Why would the Divisions care as long as the Section isn't holding a conflicting event?

Would you go to an event where you couldn't get a rating? How many fencers do you think they could get to an unrated tournament? How many would travel from the far ends of the section for an unrated tournament?

Any tournament the section would run would be considered just like a club tournament!

[jeremyb215]

Would you go to an event where you couldn't get a rating? How many fencers do you think they could get to an unrated tournament? How many would travel from the far ends of the section for an unrated tournament?

Any tournament the section would run would be considered just like a club tournament!

Let me answer your questions one at a time:

1. Yes I would go to a tournament where I can't get a rating. I want to fence. And I'd be supporting fencing in my locale.

2. Run right, I'm sure the proposed "Sectional Events" could be profitable. As to how many fencers could make it, why not simply have these events in more locations?

I'm not sure if your last point matters all that much.

It appears the Sections are being re-defined. I think they should at least attempt to take part in the re-definition process.
I'm sure that there's tons of information I don't have though.

[DHCJr]

jeremyb215, you are different. I think most people on this forum if given a choice of fencing in a sanctioned tournament and a unsanctioned tournament would go to a sanctioned tournament. I don't know what it is like in your area, but if the PCS tried to hold a tournament in my area they would be most likely be competing with a sanctioned tournament. From September to May there is a sanctioned tournament every weekend. Sometimes more than one.

Since, the section would have to rent space and the numbers would be small, I would expect the section would loose money.

[jeremyb215]

jeremyb215, you are different. I think most people on this forum if given a choice of fencing in a sanctioned tournament and a unsanctioned tournament would go to a sanctioned tournament. I don't know what it is like in your area, but if the PCS tried to hold a tournament in my area they would be most likely be competing with a sanctioned tournament. From September to May there is a sanctioned tournament every weekend. Sometimes more than one.

Since, the section would have to rent space and the numbers would be small, I would expect the section would loose money.

For what it's worth, I don't know what it's like in Philly either. FRED lists no tournaments for the division at this point. The Philly Division webpage is laughably out of date. The best source of information about fencing in Philly I've been able to find is the club.

[Peach]

I would not be interested in going to an unsanctioned tournament, and I would actively discourage others in my division from attending one. There is no guarantee of consistency, fairness, safety, responsibility, or courtesy, let alone ratings, and no recourse if, say, the club decided to referee according to non-USFA rules or just in an arbitrary fashion, or if the club decided to follow classical-fencing rules or award points for style.

I don't mind when our club has "Training Days" and lists them on FRED - that's different. Participants arrive knowing it's not a tournament and that they will get a lot of practice, though they have to pay for the opportunity.

The Philadelphia Division is in an odd situation because we have ended up with one largish competitive club, with others, such as Circle d'Escrime, which seem to be more focused on recreational fencing, and a couple of others that do not communicate and seem to be operating independently. Given our past diligence in holding elections, I'm confident we do have officers and an agreement about tournaments, but it's vacation week and I can't ask the people who would know.

[jeremyb215]

I would not be interested in going to an unsanctioned tournament, and I would actively discourage others in my division from attending one. There is no guarantee of consistency, fairness, safety, responsibility, or courtesy, let alone ratings, and no recourse if, say, the club decided to referee according to non-USFA rules or just in an arbitrary fashion, or if the club decided to follow classical-fencing rules or award points for style.

I don't mind when our club has "Training Days" and lists them on FRED - that's different. Participants arrive knowing it's not a tournament and that they will get a lot of practice, though they have to pay for the opportunity.

The Philadelphia Division is in an odd situation because we have ended up with one largish competitive club, with others, such as Circle d'Escrime, which seem to be more focused on recreational fencing, and a couple of others that do not communicate and seem to be operating independently. Given our past diligence in holding elections, I'm confident we do have officers and an agreement about tournaments, but it's vacation week and I can't ask the people who would know.

Cool. Thank you Peach. This is all brand spanking new information for me. I hope I'm not offending anyone, or if I am it's attributed to my ignorance.

[Peach]

Cool. Thank you Peach. This is all brand spanking new information for me. I hope I'm not offending anyone, or if I am it's attributed to my ignorance.

You ain't "ignorant" by my definition, an epithet I reserve for people who don't bother to know any better. You just don't know everything yet I'm glad you mentioned the division situation, though, because I should try to find out what's going on with that when I come in next week.

[jeremyb215]

You ain't "ignorant" by my definition, an epithet I reserve for people who don't bother to know any better. You just don't know everything yet I'm glad you mentioned the division situation, though, because I should try to find out what's going on with that when I come in next week.

In that case, I'm glad I brought it up too. Wasted resources annoy me.

[jjefferies]

Perhaps the National Office hates Sections so much that it prefers to watch them die as slowly and painfully as possible.

Inq, you may be more right than wrong.
But I don' think it's the National Office.

[KD5MDK]

I can't attest to all the differences, but the simplest is that the section owns equipment which has to be maintained and warehoused, i.e. continuing expenses and no revenue. Don't think it's in someone's garage. Last I heard they were trying to resolve what to do about the team championships and associated continuing trophies. I don't believe they've been a part of the qualifiers. That discussion may still be ongoing as they explore different scenarios of what to do. And the USFA doing whatever it is they intend to do will allow others to clear their responsibilities and wrap things up.

Your Section's assets (and trophies, and traditions) are I think unique among Sections. In most cases, I think all the Sections have to do is figure out what to do with their money for now. In my Section, we've decided to spend at least some of it on referee clinics.

I think most people can agree that if Sections are to be dissolved, the winding up of them will take some notice and it will have to be effective some specific date in the future, not just "as of now". At that point, the most logical thing to do with the remaining assets is remit them to the National organization. I say this because there obviously has to be some sort of "catch-all" provision that can't take into account the specific intentions of each and every Division that wants Strip #2 and 3 but not #1 or 4. For Sections that want to use their assets for other purposes, they should make those plans now.

I expect that the Annual Board Meeting is the most likely place for this motion to occur, taking effect as of the 2012-2013 season.