Post by Giorgio Bassa on Mar 20, 2005 20:58:54 GMT -6
We, the GC Division members, had another benefit from the NCAA Championship this week in Houston, the availability of Donald Alperstein, USFA General Counsel and advisor to the USFA Executive Committee, and Gerrie Baumgart, a member of the Divisions and Sections Committee of the USFA. Both of them were in Houston as referees at the Championships.
Donald had suggested that Louise Lepie organize a meeting with the memberships to discuss our "problems" and help us all start on the way to recovery towards a healthy growth in the interest of all fencers in the Division. Unfortunately, the meeting scheduled at 7:30 pm, Saturday, at the Houston Athletic Fencing Center (Louise's state of the art facility) was not given the right publicity to all the members as the USFA counsel was misrepresented as the USFA Parliamentarian, and was attended by few people.
One member of the division, father Sinclair Oubre of the Spindletop Cavaliers, was kind enough and dedicated enough to drive 1 hour and 45 minutes each way to attend and contribute. Thank you father for your divine inspiration! Members present were Maria Bassa & Giorgio Bassa (Alliance Fencing Academy), Matt Delevoryas (Clear Lake Fencing Club, and Secretary of the Division), Louise Lepie (Bayou City Fencing Academy, and Chairman of the Division), August Skopic & Tom Bone (Katy Blades), Bill Trapani (Knights of Trapani), and father Oubre (Spindletop Cavaliers).
What follows is my personal recollection of the salient points discussed. Other participants may add their comments or correct my statements if they feel appropriate. I do this in an attempt to let the entire membership which reads this forum to benefit from this very constructive meeting in the hope that all those who could not attend will have elements to help them in deciding what we should do and how we should run the affairs of our Division.
1. General preamble
Donald and Gerrie told from the start how the "problems" we are going through are rather typical of other divisions, how their own division handled a very similar situation, how specifically they solved their problems, and how they both helped other divisions to cope and resolve their respective conflicts.
2. Issues discussed
According to my personal recollection, the main topics of this discussion were the following:
(A) Division By-laws
Both Donald and Gerrie stated that our by-laws (including the amendments under consideration) and the entire process we have started are likely in conflict with the USFA By-laws, and would not pass any practical or logical test. The much welcomed suggestion (on my part) made by Donald was to stop it, and start anew, with a committee of few dedicated and competent people in charge of writing the By-laws of the division from scratch, by using the USFA By-laws as a logical starting point.
(B) Voting for the Executive Committee - proxies, ballots by mail, etc.
Statements were made by some that the existing process is flawed and prone to fraud and/or manipulation, by using and abusing the mechanism of the proxy votes. Donald and Gerrie suggested that we tackle this problem with secret mail ballots mailed to all the members eligible to vote, supervised and actually run by a USFA representative with the purpose to insure that these are fair elections. This will go around our archaic, inconsistent and probably illegal by-laws, by us adopting that the elections shall take place under USFA rules. Many of the participants expressed their enthusiasm for this way to cut the Gordian knot we have in front of us.
(C) Conflicts of scheduling between tournaments and events
(i) Conflicts between Qualifiers and NAC's
I am happy to report that both Donald and Gerrie were absolutely appalled by the conflict we had this past December between the JO's Division Qualifiers and the NAC-B in Richmond. Two words were used: "stupid" and "dumb." The question as to who did this was never answered as nobody present took the responsibility for it. The conclusion was never to do it again, even if it affects only ONE fencer in the division (in our case it affected 5).
(ii) Conflicts between tournaments of the same type within the Division
While the previous conflict was defined as "dumb" this one was "lamentable." I am personally glad to see that both USFA representatives thought that the 'free market' approach we have now going on was non conducive to growth and cooperation for the clubs, AND DOES NOT BENEFIT THE FENCERS IN THE DIVISION. The suggestion was that the EC puts in place a tournament scheduling committee with the purpose to MINIMIZE any and all conflicts between local events in a cooperative manner at the beginning of the fencing season.
(D) Who runs the tournaments, the club or the Division?
If we want to have tournaments run under the USFA rules and sanctioned to grant ratings, they must be run by the division. Clubs are free to run their own tournaments any way they wish, but they will not be sanctioned by the USFA in granting new ratings.
HOWEVER, for this to be fair and just, the Division must have in place a setup of COMPETENT and QUALIFIED people able to do the job independently, impartially, and correctly. When told that we have a Division Bout Committee and we HAD a chairman of this committee, the first question they asked was, "What are/were his qualifications?" Ditto for the other members of such committe and the referees.
This is not something that can be accomplished overnight. LOC must be trained -- just like referees, they must practice and learn from their mistakes -- just like referees, and not be on a power trip or use their position to favor or penalize different events in an arbitrary manner. The fact that we have had one LOC seminar during the SSCC at the Woodlands was acknowledged and praised as a good starting point.
The main point about who is doing what to whom was that tournaments with the purpose to award ratings, MUST be run by the Division in a professional way, by professional/competent people whose impartiality and competence is accepted by the majority, not by fiat.
(E) Referees Ratings
It was pointed out how the current list of referees in the official website of the FOC at the USFA has questionable rankings, names, and results. Gerrie agreed to look in this matter and revert.
It was acknowledged that we have had a considerable increase in the number of rated judges and that we must continue by attracting more people and improve the ratings of the current judges by participating in tournaments in and out of the division. Judging requires constant practice and is a continuous learning process.
The question was asked whether referees were paid for their services and if so the going rate. When we replied that the rate was $50 to $80, they told us that we are above the average of $20 to $40. As long as the judges were competent, this was a positive development.
The next question was about the integrity of the process involving how tournaments are run from judging to organizing. Most of us confirmed our confidence in the process and the LOC at all tournaments in the division. One person raised the issue of "collusion" and Augie explained in detail the referred to 'incident.' It was concluded that the incident, as reported did not raise any suspicion of collusion or other inappropriate behavior on the part of the fencers or the LOC. This elicited a praise for the division on the part of Donald and Gerrie.
(F) Coaches Qualifications and "truth" in advertising
This is another of our sore points, namely how to verify the competence and claims of fencing coaches. Donald distinguished between diplomas and certificates of the USFA Coaching Development Program and non-USFA claims of results obtained/claimed outside the USA.
The USFA does not require that the profession of fencing coach be licensed. It will stand however for the qualifications of individuals who have gone through and passed the exams of the USFA Coaching Development Programs. Claims of foreign glories and achievements are not and cannot be verified or endorsed by the USFA. Claims of results and or achievements in the USA and within the USFA can and should be verified with the USFA.
These are the main points I recall. I thank Donald and Gerrie for their time and willingness to listen and give us the benefit of their advice. I thank Louise Lepie for hosting us at her facility. I finally thank everyone who came and participated in this most helpful discussion.
Giorgio Bassa
Donald had suggested that Louise Lepie organize a meeting with the memberships to discuss our "problems" and help us all start on the way to recovery towards a healthy growth in the interest of all fencers in the Division. Unfortunately, the meeting scheduled at 7:30 pm, Saturday, at the Houston Athletic Fencing Center (Louise's state of the art facility) was not given the right publicity to all the members as the USFA counsel was misrepresented as the USFA Parliamentarian, and was attended by few people.
One member of the division, father Sinclair Oubre of the Spindletop Cavaliers, was kind enough and dedicated enough to drive 1 hour and 45 minutes each way to attend and contribute. Thank you father for your divine inspiration! Members present were Maria Bassa & Giorgio Bassa (Alliance Fencing Academy), Matt Delevoryas (Clear Lake Fencing Club, and Secretary of the Division), Louise Lepie (Bayou City Fencing Academy, and Chairman of the Division), August Skopic & Tom Bone (Katy Blades), Bill Trapani (Knights of Trapani), and father Oubre (Spindletop Cavaliers).
What follows is my personal recollection of the salient points discussed. Other participants may add their comments or correct my statements if they feel appropriate. I do this in an attempt to let the entire membership which reads this forum to benefit from this very constructive meeting in the hope that all those who could not attend will have elements to help them in deciding what we should do and how we should run the affairs of our Division.
1. General preamble
Donald and Gerrie told from the start how the "problems" we are going through are rather typical of other divisions, how their own division handled a very similar situation, how specifically they solved their problems, and how they both helped other divisions to cope and resolve their respective conflicts.
2. Issues discussed
According to my personal recollection, the main topics of this discussion were the following:
(A) Division By-laws
Both Donald and Gerrie stated that our by-laws (including the amendments under consideration) and the entire process we have started are likely in conflict with the USFA By-laws, and would not pass any practical or logical test. The much welcomed suggestion (on my part) made by Donald was to stop it, and start anew, with a committee of few dedicated and competent people in charge of writing the By-laws of the division from scratch, by using the USFA By-laws as a logical starting point.
(B) Voting for the Executive Committee - proxies, ballots by mail, etc.
Statements were made by some that the existing process is flawed and prone to fraud and/or manipulation, by using and abusing the mechanism of the proxy votes. Donald and Gerrie suggested that we tackle this problem with secret mail ballots mailed to all the members eligible to vote, supervised and actually run by a USFA representative with the purpose to insure that these are fair elections. This will go around our archaic, inconsistent and probably illegal by-laws, by us adopting that the elections shall take place under USFA rules. Many of the participants expressed their enthusiasm for this way to cut the Gordian knot we have in front of us.
(C) Conflicts of scheduling between tournaments and events
(i) Conflicts between Qualifiers and NAC's
I am happy to report that both Donald and Gerrie were absolutely appalled by the conflict we had this past December between the JO's Division Qualifiers and the NAC-B in Richmond. Two words were used: "stupid" and "dumb." The question as to who did this was never answered as nobody present took the responsibility for it. The conclusion was never to do it again, even if it affects only ONE fencer in the division (in our case it affected 5).
(ii) Conflicts between tournaments of the same type within the Division
While the previous conflict was defined as "dumb" this one was "lamentable." I am personally glad to see that both USFA representatives thought that the 'free market' approach we have now going on was non conducive to growth and cooperation for the clubs, AND DOES NOT BENEFIT THE FENCERS IN THE DIVISION. The suggestion was that the EC puts in place a tournament scheduling committee with the purpose to MINIMIZE any and all conflicts between local events in a cooperative manner at the beginning of the fencing season.
(D) Who runs the tournaments, the club or the Division?
If we want to have tournaments run under the USFA rules and sanctioned to grant ratings, they must be run by the division. Clubs are free to run their own tournaments any way they wish, but they will not be sanctioned by the USFA in granting new ratings.
HOWEVER, for this to be fair and just, the Division must have in place a setup of COMPETENT and QUALIFIED people able to do the job independently, impartially, and correctly. When told that we have a Division Bout Committee and we HAD a chairman of this committee, the first question they asked was, "What are/were his qualifications?" Ditto for the other members of such committe and the referees.
This is not something that can be accomplished overnight. LOC must be trained -- just like referees, they must practice and learn from their mistakes -- just like referees, and not be on a power trip or use their position to favor or penalize different events in an arbitrary manner. The fact that we have had one LOC seminar during the SSCC at the Woodlands was acknowledged and praised as a good starting point.
The main point about who is doing what to whom was that tournaments with the purpose to award ratings, MUST be run by the Division in a professional way, by professional/competent people whose impartiality and competence is accepted by the majority, not by fiat.
(E) Referees Ratings
It was pointed out how the current list of referees in the official website of the FOC at the USFA has questionable rankings, names, and results. Gerrie agreed to look in this matter and revert.
It was acknowledged that we have had a considerable increase in the number of rated judges and that we must continue by attracting more people and improve the ratings of the current judges by participating in tournaments in and out of the division. Judging requires constant practice and is a continuous learning process.
The question was asked whether referees were paid for their services and if so the going rate. When we replied that the rate was $50 to $80, they told us that we are above the average of $20 to $40. As long as the judges were competent, this was a positive development.
The next question was about the integrity of the process involving how tournaments are run from judging to organizing. Most of us confirmed our confidence in the process and the LOC at all tournaments in the division. One person raised the issue of "collusion" and Augie explained in detail the referred to 'incident.' It was concluded that the incident, as reported did not raise any suspicion of collusion or other inappropriate behavior on the part of the fencers or the LOC. This elicited a praise for the division on the part of Donald and Gerrie.
(F) Coaches Qualifications and "truth" in advertising
This is another of our sore points, namely how to verify the competence and claims of fencing coaches. Donald distinguished between diplomas and certificates of the USFA Coaching Development Program and non-USFA claims of results obtained/claimed outside the USA.
The USFA does not require that the profession of fencing coach be licensed. It will stand however for the qualifications of individuals who have gone through and passed the exams of the USFA Coaching Development Programs. Claims of foreign glories and achievements are not and cannot be verified or endorsed by the USFA. Claims of results and or achievements in the USA and within the USFA can and should be verified with the USFA.
These are the main points I recall. I thank Donald and Gerrie for their time and willingness to listen and give us the benefit of their advice. I thank Louise Lepie for hosting us at her facility. I finally thank everyone who came and participated in this most helpful discussion.
Giorgio Bassa