|
Post by Scott Stevens on May 11, 2005 1:41:32 GMT -6
Hi EpeeDude,
I'm glad you asked that question!
I did not mention the position of Commissioner because I believe that position should be removed, and that the elected section officers should assume all the duties that have been delegated to the SSCC Commissioner.
I believe that by each officer taking responsibility for their area of each event we will provide a higher level of accountability for the decisions made about the SSCC - since each officer will have been directly, and personably, responsible for their piece of the event - as well as show the fencers in our section that their elected officers are sensitive to the political climate of the Section and that we want to work directly with the organizers of the Circuit events to provide the very best possible fencing experience for everyone involved.
This does not mean that I think the officers should be SOLELY responsible for all aspects of the Circuit events. I think that the SSCC has become too focused on the minutiae of managing tournaments and that the SSCC ops. manual should be updated to reflect what I consider to be the Section's proper role in the SSCC: (in a nutshell) administer and publicize the Circuit schedule, and to provide logistical and organizational assistance to clubs hosting Section sanctioned events.
I'd like to finish by saying that removing the post of SSCC Commissioner will not result an organizational vacuum that will be detrimental to the SSCC, but will add three additional, very motivated, very involved people to the organizational effort of each circuit event.
Yours, Scott Stevens gScooter@gmail
|
|
|
Post by EpeeDude on May 11, 2005 8:08:45 GMT -6
Those seem like laudable goals in asbstract, but isn't very workable in practicality. And in fact, sounds to me like what you're proposing would actually be MORE intrusive to the LOCs than current arrangement. The political climate you refer to is a brewhaha generated by a few disaffected folks who don't want to have any change, and keep fencing the way it was back in their "glory days." Well, hey, the rest of us have moved on. Catch up, and welcome to the 21st century.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't a member of your slate on the EC the LAST time the Section Circuit died due to neglect by the Section Officers? Until David came along and resurected it, in its currrent form.
And where have you and the other members of your slate been lately if you're so concerned about the state of affairs? Refereeing? Bout Committee work? Tournament organization? Marty Wysocki is the only one who's actually done anything lately of consequnce and shown an ability to think "outside the box" with what he's done with the Houston Cup and the Young Elites of Houston. What have the rest of you done lately other than wish you were in control?
And how can you say that your platform is a popular one, if it includes a member who threatend to sue the Section, the Section officers, every single Division chair (except for his own), and every single LOC in order to get his way?
And are you familiar with the concerns of the LOCs preparing to host next years events? Do you know what kind of resources they need to successfully pull of the events? Do you have contacts in the referee community that you can share with them? Technical Committee affairs? Equipment? General hand holding? What about the sponsors, will you negotiate different agreements with them? For that matter, when was the last time any of you other than Rob Janca actually attended an SSCC event outside your home division?
What about referee development? What are your plans in that arena?
The Sectional database of members and ratings? Is that something that you want to continue? What about mailers and fliers?
What about a diversity of skills? Seems to me that you guys are all pretty similar, and come from similar backgrounds, again with the exception of Marty. The other candidates have a pretty diverse backgrounds and come to the table with a variety of different skills.
Just my 2 cents, but I'm definitely supporting David and his group, because they've done a good job, have definite plans for the future which they're not afraid to lay on the table, don't have any hidden ajendas and and have actually been out there working for the betterment of things.
|
|
|
Post by Sword Master on May 11, 2005 10:10:36 GMT -6
I have to agree with EpeeDude, Why would we want a representative to the USFA from our section that has threatened to sue anyone in the section that doesn't mix events as SSCC tournaments?
Also, It sounds like the only thing SS is interested in is running the SSCC. There is a bunch more work which, EpeeDude has listed, that will need to be done. I think it would be a disservice to the section to have an apple bucket turnover of the entire EC. Why don't we let each person running for a position stand on their own merit? Although the slate which David has put together, with the exception of Rachel, have worked together in the past and have a good handle on what is going on in the section and know their particular jobs well - there won't be time waste trying to find it with both hands. The down fall of the SSCC previous to David's reserection of it, was before my time; but if it is true that the one of the people on Scooters slate was responsible (or irresponsible as the case may be) for this, then why in the world would we want that person in control of part of it again (as scooter has suggested speading the work among the EC members)?
My votes are going to be for the people who have the experience, who have proven that they can do the job, and that don't have any other adjenda than to perform their duties of taking care of section business as spelled out in the by-laws and operations manual of the section and the SSCC.
|
|
|
Post by Sword Master on May 11, 2005 10:13:03 GMT -6
I have to agree with EpeeDude, Why would we want a representative to the USFA from our section that has threatened to sue anyone in the section that doesn't mix events at SSCC tournaments?
Also, It sounds like the only thing SS is interested in is running the SSCC. There is a bunch more work which, EpeeDude has listed, that will need to be done. I think it would be a disservice to the section to have an apple bucket turnover of the entire EC. Why don't we let each person running for a position stand on their own merit? Although the slate which David has put together, with the exception of Rachel, have worked together in the past and have a good handle on what is going on in the section and know their particular jobs well - there won't be time waste trying to find it with both hands. The down fall of the SSCC previous to David's resurection of it, was before my time; but if it is true that the one of the people on Scooters slate was responsible (or irresponsible as the case may be) for this, then why in the world would we want that person in control of part of it again (as scooter has suggested spreading the work among the EC members)?
My votes are going to be for the people who have the experience, who have proven that they can do the job, and that don't have any other adjenda than to perform their duties of taking care of section business as spelled out in the by-laws and operations manual of the section and the SSCC.
|
|
|
Post by Terry Harkey on May 11, 2005 11:26:31 GMT -6
Hello Scott! (and team) Welcome to the political side of fencing! My condolences in advance! You have NO idea the size of rocks you'll get hit with! And remember: no good deed goes unpunished! Thanks for putting up some ideas of where you and your team are going. Communication is always helpful no matter who wins. I just wanted to comment on one little aspect of what you wrote. While your quote from David’s mixed/women’s statement is accurate, it really needs to be understood in the the context in which it was made. It was 2003, and the end of the 2nd season of the resurrected SSCC. The LOCs decided what format to use. The problem of figuring points with different formats was being discussed since some LOCs were using mens, some were mixed. Points were for prizes. From my notes on the meeting, the discussion at the time centered around a few suggestions, one of which was to remove the women’s events and go to just mixed. David and others were solidly against removing the women’s events he had fought so hard to get mandated whether it was mixed or men’s, and it is within that context the statement is made. He had surveyed the fencers at the SSCCs and most of them firmly supported having the women’s events along with whatever else. The emphasis in that statement was not on “mixed” but on “AND women’s”. And just a note with regard to my opponent for secretary. I have grown kids, and am lucky enough to be financially able to cavort all over the section/country, spending my time and money as I chose to assist those who request such from me. If Marty is indicating an inclination to devote the time it takes to do this job, I can’t think of anyone who would be better to replace me! So I win either way! If I’m re-elected, I get to serve a great section one last season. If I’m not re-elected, I’ll be replaced by someone who is capable, and I'll have a LOT more free time! See you all this weekend. Terry
|
|
|
Post by Oliver on May 11, 2005 15:32:33 GMT -6
Scott,
While you are an old friend and I was ready to support your slate, I too have to call your choice of officers into question. For me, it’s Marty.
For the longest time, Marty Wysocki seemed to me to be a kind and helpful man, genuinely geared towards helping grow saber in the division. I always regarded him as a good friend (for almost seven years now?).
As some of you may know there has been a bit of a smear war against our Salle Mauro from a rival club. Marty assured us that they had nothing to do with these slanderous and false posts.
You can imagine my surprise when last week I read the following post on a smut fencing message board:
(04/06/05 10:54 AM PST) Salle Mauro Sucks - Those two saber guys at Alliance got good on their own. Mauro gets NO credit. Now they have a coach. Salle Mauro saberists suck, Oliver can't compete as a fencer or coach. NOT AN ALLIANCE MEMBER [12.106.197.240]
A reverse IP lookup of this post (12.106.197.240) directs one to Samson Investment Co., which happens to be where Marty is employed.
This comment seems particularly out of character, since Marty often thanked me for helping Joe out as a youth (while at our club he was 2003 Section Champion and earned his B). It’s also false, since after only one year, several fencers who are nationally ranked and I’ve personally placed first or second in every tournament I’ve participated in – losing only to Joe and Tomas.
I sincerely hope an alternative explanation presents itself. Until that time, for purely personal reasons, I have difficulty voting for someone who seems to be so false-hearted.
I cast my vote for Sierra's slate - good choice with Rachel El-Saleh... she is a sweet, smart lady.
Oliver Diaz
|
|
|
Post by Marty Wysocki on May 11, 2005 18:55:50 GMT -6
Well, well, well tis a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive. Lies, lies and more lies Oliver. I don't know where to begin. First of all I work for Samson Lonestar, a seprate division of Samson Investments out of Oklahoma. We have over 1000 employees and some (6 or 7 in our Oklahoma offices alone) that are involved in fencing and post on several websites. Moreover I know a couple of folks here in Samson Lonestar office (employees and consultants) who have posted on fencing sucks. All of them have followed my kids fencing, some attending competitions to watch some actually fencing in competitions. But you in your kind way assumed it was me. Hey did you check ALL the posts and all the sights that had a samson internet address or one that had the word samson in the title? Apparently not because if you did, you would discover that the 2 times I posted on fencing sucks in the past, you would see that I was supportive of Salle Mauro. What is amazing is you call me a 'friend' yet did you call me to see if I was the one, no. Well here are some true facts: 1)I have publically and privately supported Salle Mauro over the past 6 months I have sought to get Salle Mauro involved in our Saber Night, a program I organized here in Houston. I spoke to Mauro about it several times, I wrote you and he a letter explaining the program. I wrote the letter by the way at the request of one of you students (Rus Stovall). Mauro thought it was a good idea but told me at JO's he was leaving it up to you. Dan Gorman (I think it was Dan at an sscc but I may be wrong) explained that perhaps the evening was bad and there was no strip space. So in another email we offered to change the night we held it on to make it easier for you, but no you refused to get involved. This was a chance for your guys to get FREE coaching from an Olympian (a sabre Olympian) and fence Joe (he's on the Junior and Senior national standings) and Tim (who took 7th at Div. 1A nationals last Summer) but no you decided against it. Your students were the loosers here. 2) When Aki Spencer-EL was asked by Mauro to have lunch and discuss Aki possibly working for him at the new Woodlands location I told Aki to go ahead and talk to Mauro. You see Oliver I hate you guys so much that I encouraged my son's coach to check out possible employment there 3)When I found out who posted the note that talked about your kids finishing so poorly at the NAC's I personaly and publically attacked that person, hurting a friendship(It was not Tim Guerinot), yes defending Salle Mauro. 4) I handed out flyers at several competitions of a saber camp that was held in Dallas. The camp featured Aki and Waldek as coaches (the only two saber fencers in Texas who fenced on their national teams). Did I exclude Salle Mauro folks? No, I gave them the info. The result, you called Tim Guerinot all pissed off that we were trying to 'steal your fencers' You also told Tim that you were going to 'let them go anyway'. Let them go? What arrogance, very sad Oliver. 4) I have consistently thanked you for working with Joe both publically and privately. You know this and even admitted it in your post. So does it make and sense to you why I would dis you on the net? 5) When Salle Mauro was having a tournaments results threatened to be declared unsanctionerd by our current division chair, I publically raised a stink and even called the USFA in support of Salle Mauro. I had no interest in the matter other than to have the 'right thing done' and expressed that although Salle Mauro's tournament could have been unsanctioned by strict interpretation of the letter of the law, that the spirit of the law would be broken and the kids earning letter grades there would be hurt. I could go on. Let me tell you Oliver it is the kind of attack you made against me here that is not only horrible in attacking my character but hurts the division. You have now lost any credibility with me. If you want to talk this out my number is 713 870 3346. I have worked hard to support fencing in Houston, not because anyone is sticking a gun to my head, but because I think it's great for kids (it has certainly done wonders for my son). Lots of folks helped us along the way, you coaching Joe early on, John Monohan (sp?) before that and a lot of others and I do feel the need to give something back. I've painstakingly organized saber night, funded (to the tune of over $30,000 of my personal money) our effort to start a program in the inner city(Young Elites of Houston) here (and no, that does not include coaching fees I've paid to Aki for coaching Joe), served on the Houston Cup bout committee (where I upheld a black card against a very good friend) all for the good of the sport, Salle Mauro included. Getting slandered is the kind of thing that is discouraging to say the least. So what have you done? Coached, that's nice, you are getting paid for it. Your personal lies and attack against me is the kind of stuff that has given our division a bad name and is hurting good folks. In closing let me say two things. First the lies you posted against me I consider slander and I've already put a call into Mark White an attouney at Vinson and Elkins. No I am not going to sue, but sure as hell will if you attack me like this again. Second, this is all you will hear from me on the issue. My late father taught me at an early age (and he was a very wise man) 'don't into a pissin' contest with a skunk'. Although he is gone the life lessons he taught me remain. I will not dignify your lies with any response you make to this post. Folks will have to decide at the election. I am running opposing Terry but have no personal problems with her. She was so gracious on her post regading me. That Oliver is class. Take a lesson from her, and be sure of the facts before you publically slander.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on May 11, 2005 20:11:08 GMT -6
I don't know how relevant to the discussion this is, but when I ran an IP locator for 12.106.197.240, it returns to Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Just FWIW.
|
|
|
Post by August Skopik on May 11, 2005 22:47:52 GMT -6
Dear Oliver,
I have personally seen Marty do many of the things he states in his reply. I have seen him support Salle Mauro, because having additional clubs in Houston is good for all of fencing. It is just logical, and that is why he called to support the ratings changes. He started the saber night, because fencing others will raise the level of all competitors that participate. He passed out flyers. He has worked with the foundation. He has talked to me and helped me. Not once has he talked badly about Salle Mauro or you. We can all disagree on whether a saber night helps all fencers, but to attribute a quote like that is not right.
He and I have talked, and we both want every fencer in this division to be successful. We each want our own friends and clubs to win in head to head, but not to have a rival club hurt for our success. It is competition in its healthy state. He wants his son to win, but not any differently than I want my sons to win. We are there to hug them no matter how they do and it is more important that they compete and what they learn from the experience than the trophy.
I hope that you call him to apologize. John has identified that it came from Tulsa, OK. I am not that ISP or IP sophisticated, but if Marty wanted to do that as a blanket and hide it then he could go to the library. I just post my own name on this stuff anyway.
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on May 11, 2005 23:01:08 GMT -6
For the record, I also have known Marty Wysocki to be a man of upright moral character from my limited interactions with him. Apparently, he and I have some differences in what the vision and direction of the Section officers should be (or else he wouldn't be running as part of Scott's slate) but I look forward to having the opportunity discuss those with him, and I'm sure we can come to some sort of mutual understanding.
|
|
|
Post by Oliver on May 13, 2005 21:18:13 GMT -6
I have simply presented a point of view and some evidence, asking for an explaination beyond the one I personally have come to.
Defensive posturing aside, what I'm hearing from you is this: you and your coworkers are posting on the site, they posting negative things about Mauro and I while you defend us.
Very well, I accept your explaination.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on May 13, 2005 23:24:11 GMT -6
So I met Oliver when I moved to Texas in '95. He's been a good friend the entire time I've known him and he's always been honest and forthright. The last year that he's been coaching saber at Salle Mauro, he's done phenomenal work. Oliver is as honest as anyone I know.
A few things I want to address in Marty's post that I feel should be cleared up.
1. Oliver stated that he had trouble believing Marty had made the post and wanted an alternate explanation, but needed one before he could vote in clear conscience. This isn't an attack, it's a call for discussion.
2. What lies? Marty accuses Oliver of lies several times, but doesn't reference any. He didn't accuse Marty of anything, he said this is the evidence he has, it disturbs him so he will vote in a different way, and please explain what happened. The personal attacks have been made against Oliver.
3. I believe Oliver is as good of a saber coach as anyone in the section. He has gotten excellent results in a very short time working with his kids. Whether or not he's ever been a member of a national team has no impact on his abilities to coach. Nor do past memberships on national teams. Coaches are judged by results of their students and Oliver's students are getting results.
Finally to August, I think Marty should really be the one apologizing to Oliver. Oliver raised concerns and instead of anyone dealing with it rationally, people have swarmed to Marty's defense when Marty turned this into something it wasn't. The clear inference is that Marty is upstanding and Oliver isn't. To my experience, both are honest, forthright individuals and this matter needs to be explained calmly and rationally as I'm sure it can be.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on May 13, 2005 23:30:26 GMT -6
I read Oliver's post and Marty's. Then I spoke to Marty by telephone (He called me.). I think we have two fairly nice guys who both felt hurt. The writing reflects this, I think.
I know from my talk with Marty that he bears Oliver no ill will. There was frustration and exasperation, but no malice.
Actually, of late, I have noticed that (on this board), no one has been going after Mauro. Mostly, the hordes are going after Matt and Louise, these days.
If there is a change after the elections, everyone will have a new target. (I hope I am wrong, but I've grown pretty cynical of late.)
These are just my takes. I could very easily be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Guerinot on May 13, 2005 23:42:48 GMT -6
I think it's a real shame that Oliver feels the need to try and insult Marty.
I understand that Oliver's employer has come under quite a bit of scrutiny the last year. Marty's character and integrity are in another class compared to Oliver Diaz and Mauro Hamza.
Good Luck Marty!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tim Guerinot
|
|