Supporting Elite Fencers

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by sparkie

Exactly right! Use your voting priviledges. Better yet, Inq, if you really want to change things, you can run for USFA President. Entry deadlines for candidates is April 1st I believe (the nominating committee has proffered Nancy Anderson, and frankly, I'll take you over her) If you really don't like the system, then work for change. Otherwise you remain only a voice passing in the wind.

See my answer to Philistine, above. Unless one is an accepted member of the existing power structure running for office is a task of Augean proportions. There are too many ways for the present leadership to hobble competitive candidates ( which I would not be even were I to try to run ). They will get the peple they want, who share their views and priorities. The only real way to obtain even a chance to effect real change would be to run a "stealth" campaign of many years' duration, slowly rising through the Division, the Section, and the Congress while espousing the current policies and values even while secretly disagreeing with them...and once accepted as "one of us", THEN to run for high office. Even then, once in office you'd still be one among many, unless you could somehow get several others to do the same simultaneously and arrive in high office simultaneously. The odds are greater that during the process you would be co-opted by the mainstream thought of your fellow officers..."And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought;
And enterprises of great pith and moment,
With this regard, their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action."




Working for change, as you intend it, is fruitful only when there are opportunities for that change to take root. The USFA is set up to provide rather stony soil for that...

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Let's look at this a bit more closely, shall w? Specifically at HOW we can do this.

The Congress, which is where we, the rank and file fencers, can vote someone onto the BOD, gets to elect four Directors. That's four. Out of 30. Gives us a lot of influence, doesn't it?

Plus each section gets to vote for a section representative to the BOD. That's 10.

The President of the USFA alone gets to appoint four. Then the Athletes Advisory Group gets to elect an unspecified number...guess who qualifies as an "athlete" according to the Bylaws? Why, elite fencers, of course. Only the top 32 in the point standings in each weapon. Already you begin to see how heavily power is skewed toward the top leadership.

According to the USFA Site, their are currently 25 directors on the Board. 6 are the officers, 5 athletes, 10 section and 4 elected by the Congress.

Even when we get to vote, often it's in a tiered manner: that is, you and I get to vote for someone who gets to vote for someone else who gets to vote for a Director. Imagine having your vote restricted to electing your state legislators, who then get to choose who goes to the US Congress, which in turn gets to pick the President. Not terribly democratic, is it?

Or like voting for electors from each state, who actually vote for the president....

As I read the Bylaws, the general electorate votes for the officers (which gives them control over the 6 officer votes and the 4 optional BOD picks of the President). The general electorate (at least in each section) votes for the sectional representatives, which gives them 10 more. It does not control the Athletes (up to 20% of the BOD) and the Congress gets 4.

In addition, the general membership can approve amendments to the bylaws--which among other things could change the # of directors and how they are elected. Also, it is the Congress which nominates officers for election.

"{snip}
This is why I see the whole election business as smoke and mirrors. It confers the illusion that we have some ability to affect policy, if very indirectly. But anyone who understands how organizations work will realize how remote and tenuous that ability is, more apparent than real. Add the general lack of interest among voting members, the always small list of candidates for national office ( often only one per office, and always drawn from the same inbred power elite ), and the idea that you or I can change anything by voting is really quite naive...

It should be tenuous--and the ability of 1 fencer (or a small group) to make changes should be extremely limited.

The USFA is a large, national group. The Bylaws are (rightly IMHO) stacked in favor of whoever is currently running the show--this is the way most large groups are set up, to keep a continuity of management. On the other hand, while cumbersome, the mechanisms for change are there and are available if there are large-scale differeces in opinion of how the group should be run.

If there were a large mass of unhappy USFA members--then the Board would have to either address their concerns or be subject to a regime change.

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Philistine

In addition, the general membership can approve amendments to the bylaws--which among other things could change the # of directors and how they are elected.

Rather in the way we could amend the US Constitution. Possible, but only just. Not likely, in other words.

It should be tenuous--and the ability of 1 fencer (or a small group) to make changes should be extremely limited.

Whereas the ability of 1 Executive Committee member to do so is a positive thing?

If there were a large mass of unhappy USFA members--then the Board would have to either address their concerns or be subject to a regime change.

Which is where we gadflies come in...

[Army Fencer]

I know that I'm reviving a dead thread, but...

I found some "perks" elite fencers get when I was paging through the Athlete's Handbook this afternoon (see chapter 5). One interesting perk is that elite fencers get grants from the USFA if they do so well at World Cups. If you place 8th or better, they will give you more than $1000. Taking first will get you $2500xSSF (senior strength factor). They will also give you additional money if you do consistently well as part of a training grant program.

These sound reasonable to me, and the USFA isn't spending much money on it. Only a handfull of people actually meet all the requirements to get the money, and they deserve it if they get it.

Also, traveling on a national team will give you access to the national coach, manager, armorer, and physical trainer for the trip.

[a517dogg]

sounds facsist to me!

[Inquartata]

Just couldn't let sleeping dogs lie, could you?

Originally Posted by Army Fencer

they deserve it if they get it.

Ok. Why?

[Army Fencer]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Just couldn't let sleeping dogs lie, could you?

The point of the post was more to define what advantages elite fencers get (since it wasn't clarified very well in thread) than it was to incite another heated debate.

Ok. Why?

Sigh. Because taking top eight at a strong World Cup is a significant achievement, and it's something that's good for more than just the individual. I think they should be recognized for their accomplishment, and they should be assisted for the amount of work they put in.

But agian, that wasn't the point of the post, or the reason for starting the thread.

[Sabresque]

That money oftentimes just barely pays off their trip if they took top eight, allowing them to take another without loosing more money (it's definitly what many people need if they don't have much money to work with at home anyways and promotes them getting more results). I'll have to look back on the thread to find out the original point of this discussion, heh. Also, you only get those people traveling with you at World Championships and such, or probably things like the titan games. If you're just traveling with the US team to a world cup, you get no such support.

Also, the money that you recieve for placing well is put into a USFA account for you, and you have to send in receipts to get reimbursment for fencing-specific expenses. It's not jsut money to do what you like with (probably to keep from it being veiwed as "pro").

Don't know how pertinent or useful that was, but thought I'd just add some info.

[Craig]

we're starting to rehash the old debate again. Time to let this thread die.

Craig

[Mo]

Originally Posted by Craig

we're starting to rehash the old debate again. Time to let this thread die.
Craig

Craig,
I agree it is a good idea to let it die. HOWEVER, having a kid that fences at a high level is extremely expensive cubed.
If a fencer can make it, the small pittance the USFA pays for is well deserved.
At this point in time I don't think fencing is worth the cost or more precisely the cost of attaining a high level of fencing is worth it. The toll on the family for what you get out of it and the level of BS is mind boggling.
Fencing is an addictive sport. Someone needs to start a 12 step program.

[Inquartata]

OK, just a Parthian shot and I'm done: no, it is not "deserved". No one "deserves" any special treatment as a result of doing well at something they love and would be doing even without being given money. No one "deserves" anything that all don't. I am sorry, but this is just elitism. And the fact that it is an expensive proposition or that it's ones own kids getting a benefit or that one has tried harder or been more blessed by circumstance than another doesn't make it any more just for the few to have a disproportionate claim on the resources of the many.

Just another two cents of mine...

[J.Harris]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I am sorry, but this is just elitism.

Did I miss the point of Inq's post? Surely elitism is the entire point of being an elite fencer...

[Army Fencer]

Originally Posted by Sabresque

Also, the money that you recieve for placing well is put into a USFA account for you, and you have to send in receipts to get reimbursment for fencing-specific expenses. It's not jsut money to do what you like with (probably to keep from it being veiwed as "pro").

Thank you, I didn't know that.

Craig-- my apologies for get it started again.

[Mo]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

OK, just a Parthian shot and I'm done: no, it is not "deserved". No one "deserves" any special treatment as a result of doing well at something they love and would be doing even without being given money. No one "deserves" anything that all don't. I am sorry, but this is just elitism. And the fact that it is an expensive proposition or that it's ones own kids getting a benefit or that one has tried harder or been more blessed by circumstance than another doesn't make it any more just for the few to have a disproportionate claim on the resources of the many.

Just another two cents of mine...

OH BS Inquartata, life is full of rewards and punishments.
If you do an excellent job in college and work your a$$ off you deserve=earn more money and have a better chance at a job.
If you study very hard for a test you "deserve" a better grade.
If you put the effort into fencing to be a world class fencer and win world cups then you "deserve" the tiny amount of support the USFA gives the top fencers.
The USFA is set up to make world class fencers. It is in the statement of intent. Referees with higher ratings make more money refereeing, experienced bout committee people get paid more for their work.
You cannot get the benefits without putting in the time and effort so QUITURBICHEN suck it up and get better, if you can....

[Craig]

I said let it die. I could cut and paste from the first 6 or so posts of the thread and they would look exactly like these posts on page 7 of the thread. If the discussion isn't going to move forward any more, then the only reason to keep it up is for one of you to get the last word.

It's time to stop now.

Craig