|
Post by phincer on Apr 5, 2005 7:31:44 GMT -6
So? Anyone running for office of the GC Division?
There has been no activity on the GC website, so what's the story?
|
|
|
Post by August Skopik on Apr 5, 2005 13:44:35 GMT -6
Louise has officially asked the USFA to intercede and manage our elections, and there is a conference call tonight about the GC Division with the USFA directors. Don Alperstein has determined that the Gulf Coast Division by-laws do not comply with USFA by-laws, and since the Gulf Coast Division exists only as a chapter of the USFA then the GC is not operating legitimately. A group of candidates were submitted to our secretary, Matt D., but he will not tell us who those are. I am very happy that we have qualified candidates that fit what the USFA representatives Don Alperstein and Geri Baumgart asked for in every position, and that I do not have to serve. It appears that our current administration is continuing to operate outside the legal parameters of the by-laws and without the best interests of fencers and fencing at heart. That is the bad news. The good news is that if the USFA takes over the election then they can run it exactly with USFA by-laws. The elections can take place any time before August 1, and the suggestion was mailed ballots to every USFA member to submit back to the USFA administrator which will be outside our division. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT OUR EXECUTIVE BOARD OF CLUBS REQUESTED IN DECEMBER!! Matt D. did not record this, and he argued with Don Alp. at the meeting that this was illegal. My bets were with Don, since he is an attorney and the attorney the USFA uses to review the by-laws. Every voting member, (over 18 and USFA member by Feb. 1), will receive a ballot with a list of candidates to mail back. You can write in candidates if requested, and a nominating committee will be assigned by the USFA to pick candidates. If you are interested in running for any position then make those wishes known and watch this website. I also suggest coming up with an agenda on how to make fencing better in the area. You have a reason you are involved in fencing; you fence, your children fence, you like the sport, you coach, etc. We need fresh ideas and motivated people to move this division forwards. I think all reasonable people will support a great idea. Keep looking at this site, and share this information with other USFA members and parents you know. I will post information on the candidates on my website, www.katyblades.2itb.com. Every revolution begins with one person, and I know that we have many very interested and great people in our division. It is time to take advantage of this talent. August Skopik Katy Blades Fencing Academy 281-703-5064 katyblades@sbcglobal.net
|
|
|
Post by phincer on Apr 5, 2005 15:39:48 GMT -6
Thanks. I'll be looking forward to receiving my ballot in the mail instead of having to attend a meeting in the middle of a fencing tournament.
|
|
|
Post by cowpaste on Apr 5, 2005 21:14:52 GMT -6
What's a bylaw?
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Apr 5, 2005 22:56:52 GMT -6
Your "Charter" is the way you form yourself as a club or corporation or other legal entity. Your "bylaws" are the rules on how you run your organization.
|
|
|
Post by William Trapani on Apr 6, 2005 19:55:15 GMT -6
AN OPEN LETTER TO MATT DELAVORYAS, IT HAS BEEN TEN DAYS SINCE THE PASSING OF OUR DEADLINE FOR NOMINATING CANDIDATES FOR OUR UPCOMING ELECTIONS. IT IS ALSO ONE DAY AFTER THE USFA MEETING IN COLORADO WHICH WAS ADDRESSING OUR ISSUES. WE ALL KNOW THAT OUR CHAIRPERSON HAS FORMALLY REQUESTED THE INTERVENTION OF THE PARENT ORGANIZATION. AT OUR LAST DIVISIONAL MEETING, IT WAS THE CONCLUSION BY THE BOARD AND THE BODY OF MEMBERS PRESENT THAT WE CAN NOT AND SHOULD NOT WAIT FOR THE USFA TO INTERVENE, BUT RATHER MOVE ON WITH THE PROCESS AS IF WE WOULD CONDUCT OUR OWN ELECTION. LOUISE, MAURO, DAN GORMAN, RUSSELL STOVALL, MARTY WYSOCKI, SUZANNE SIMPSON , YOURSELF, GIORGIO BASSA AND MICHAEL LAPARCO ALL VOICED THIS OPINION. THEREFORE, I AM ASKING YOU, BEFORE THE BODY OF THE MEMBERSHIP AND OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS, TO NOW POST THE NOMINEES FOR OFFICE OR GIVE US AN ACCOUNTING FOR WHY THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE AS OF YET AND IN A TIMELY FASHION. I DO NOT HAVE TO REMIND YOU THAT THE PROCESS IS ALREADY SURROUNDED BY CONTROVERSY AND THIS DELAYING AND SILENCE ON THE PART OF OUR EXECUTIVE BOARD ONLY FURTHERS THE INTRIGUE AND MISTRUST. PLEASE, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR FENCERS AND IN HOPES OF REDEEMING THE DIVISION'S REPUTATION, I AM NOW ASKING YOU TO ACT WITH INTEGRITY AND IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ALL OUR PEOPLE . I AM EMBARRASSED TO THINK THAT PEOPLE FROM THE OUTSIDE MAY VIEW US AS A CORRUPT, THIRD-WORLD BANANA REPUBLIC OR BETTER YET, THE TEAMSTERS' UNION. RESPECTFULLY, BILL TRAPANI
|
|
|
Post by Giorgio Bassa on Apr 6, 2005 22:03:42 GMT -6
Thank you Bill for bringing in the open what has been brewing for the past 11 days.
It is always hard and often wrong to make assumptions about the actions or non actions of others. Often after reconsideration with a clearer mind, what appeared to be a BIG CONSPIRACY, is just a minor hiccup in the process due to sloppiness or stupidity, rather than malice.
However, this silence from Matt and the EC of the Division is puzzling and hard to understand from the logical point of view and as a matter of proper manners amongst gentlemen.
Several inquiries have gone to Matt asking to tell all of us who's running and for what. It's even surprising that Matt and the EC did not see fit to advertise and publish on the official website of the division the aforementioned list. Why? What's the reason for keeping this secret? Even if there is a reason, then spell it out for all to see and agree or disagree about it.
This is not something that affects just few people. It affects everyone in the division, all the fencers, competitive and recreational, young and not so young. Why act -- rather not act -- this way and exacerbate the already strained relations between the members of this division? Why not give the courtesy of a reply to legitimate questions?
Assume for a moment that the USFA decides NOT to wade into our problems and tell us to try to act as adults with responsibility and dignity. Then we would have wasted already 11 days out of the 30 days before the elections as per the old rules, without any discussion or presentation of different programs and/or platforms of the various candidates.
The most disturbing aspect of all this is that at least one person, Matt Delavoryas, and possibly the current members of the EC, know who has submitted his/hers candidature, but nobody else does. Is this fair? Is this the way a democratic process is supposed to run? Or does this reflect the attitude of Matt and the EC that they know best and the rest does not yet need to know?
I really have a problem with anyone putting on the mantle of supreme wisdom and starting pontificating to the masses or worse tell everyone what to do and what not to do. I am very disturbed when I see that we have a person(s) deciding out of spite instead of knowledge, which tournaments are run according to the USFA rules and which are not, with consequent withdrawal or delaying of confirmation of new ratings earned by the young fencers. Is this how we are going to promote fencing amongst the young by not granting them what they legitimately earned on the strip, just because one person or two on the EC feel they were slighted by the tournament organizers?
And lastly, how is the competence of the appointed "controllers" assessed? Does anyone really believe that Matt knows more about fencing and running a tournament than Augie? Who would you like to have as a referee in any fencing bout any of the EC members or the organizers of the Houston Cup tournaments in our division?
To Matt and the EC please extend all of us the courtesy of answering our questions.
Thank you!
Giorgio Bassa
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Apr 7, 2005 9:15:34 GMT -6
Received in today's email:
This message is to inform members of the Gulf Coast division that the USFA will designate a delegate to conduct the Gulf Coast division in the current year's election and the adoption of by-laws to comply with USFA requirements. Please be advised that the Gulf Coast division is responsible for all costs associated with this process.
Further information will follow this message.
Thank you,
Linda Merritt
Secretary USFA
|
|
|
Post by phincer on Apr 7, 2005 9:20:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Giorgio Bassa on Apr 7, 2005 10:23:08 GMT -6
So that everyone is aware of what is going on, here is the e-mail from Donald Alperstein, general counsel of the USFA, regarding our elections:
Subj: Gulf Coast Division Election Date: 4/7/05 11:09:53 AM Central Daylight Time From: DAlp To: GiorgioBassa, MDelevorya CC: nandersonusfa@comcast.net, merritt8@comcast.net, cabrillosword@sbcglobal.net, GFBaumgart, wjt65@cebridge.net, katyblades@sbcglobal.net, MWYSOCKI@samson.com, Tbone@oceaneering.com, sinclair@pernet.net, aluf_geva@hotmail.com, TBone@oceaneering.com, mihai@3DGeo.com
Giorgio and Matt: I did not see that you were copied on a message sent this morning by the Secretary of the USFA to the Gulf Coast Division. Because you had contacted me directly, I am reiterating the USFA Executive Committee's action for your information, and to assist with dissemination of that decision I am including as copy recipients all addresses that were included in your e-mails to me. I am also copying this message to Buzz Hurst (Divisions and Sections Committee Chair), Gerrie Baumgart, the USFA Secretary and the USFA President. For now, my suggestion is that the Division take no further steps toward an election or bylaw amendments until the USFA representative is designated by the President and contacts the Division. Whether that person will be me is as yet undecided, though it is a possibility. In the meantime, you may contact me with specific issues that require immediate attention. Sincerely, Donald Alperstein Here is the USFA Secretary's message: This message is to inform members of the Gulf Coast division that the USFA will designate a delegate to conduct the Gulf Coast division in the current year's election and the adoption of by-laws to comply with USFA requirements. Please be advised that the Gulf Coast division is responsible for all costs associated with this process.
Further information will follow this message.
Thank you,
Linda Merritt
Secretary USFA
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Apr 12, 2005 22:38:22 GMT -6
I came across this in an unrelated search of old articles printed in American Fencing. Maybe it has relevance or perhaps too much time has passed since the article was written. Perhaps there is just too much water (or blood) under the bridge.
Summer 1994 - Volume 44, Number 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Zen and the Art of Bylaws, Part Deux BY EDWIN (BUZZ) HURST
USFA bylaws are deliberately, deafeningly, silent ahout Division and Section affairs. In my last column I illustrated a few of the horrors that could ensue if a Division, or a Section, or even a club doesn't have a good set of bylaws. I mentioned that a lot of folks think that bylaws are a mere formality and, therefore, not really necessary, but there are also a bunch of Division and Section people out there who believe that their organizations are somehow covered by the national bylaws. This is a big-time error, since those bylaws are designed for the governance of a large, nationwide organization and are not intended to be a back-up authority for Division or Section administration. In fact, the USFA's bylaws are deliberately, and deafeningly, silent about Division and Section affairs. They set down requirements for annual meetings and elections, and designate what positions ought to be elected, and that's about it. Oh, and they require that each Division and Section have its own set of bylaws. Other than in the areas I've just listed, there is virtually nothing that the national bylaws can do to get a Division or Section out of some jam it's gotten itself into. If you think that this is a careless omission on the part of past Boards of Directors, think again! Contrary to what many people assume, the U.S. Fencing Association is a federation, not a vertically organized company. It is merely the sum of its parts, and those parts are the Divisions. It is, in fact, governed by those Divisions in the form of its Board of Directors: a board made up almost entirely of the elected representatives of the Divisions themselves. While our national officers are granted the power to formulate policies and conduct the day-to-day business of the Association, they do so always under the aegis of the Board of Directors (which derives its authority from the general membership).
"Ah," but I hear you ask breathlessly, "so what?" Well, under this organizational philosophy, the Divisions, through the Board of Directors, may go in and straighten out the affairs of the national body, but the national body is not necessarily empowered to reach in and straighten out the affairs of a Division. Thusly, if you get into a "knock-down, drag-out" within your Division and can't get it resolved, don't think that the national officers can somehow ride in and clean up Tombstone. They can offer advice and sympathy, or they can designate somebody else like the Clubs, Divisions & Sections Committee to offer advice and sympathy, but that's usually about it.
So ... if you've got a major conflict within your Division and National Headquarters is prevented from imposing a solution, what possible authority can you turn to? (Now, let's not always see the same hands.) That's correct: your bylaws. If your bylaws don't help, then your last resort is to call a general meeting of the Division. But then, if your bylaws don't prescribe a procedure for convening such a meeting ... well, then, as we say in California, you're deep in the guacamole.
As a bit of a footnote, in October a proposal will go before the Board of Directors that would formalize a protocol by which our national officers could police Division and Section affairs to some degree. However, that procedure would only kick in for very egregious situations and, besides, if approved it wouldn't become effective for almost a year. In the meantime, checking out your old bylaws and bringing them up to speed might be a real good idea. Again, the Division Operating Guide and the Guidelines for Sectional Tournaments are there for ready reference, and the Clubs, Divisions and Sections Committee is always available to help.
On the other hand you could just wait for the next crisis to occur and then petition the U.S. Senate to send in troops.
|
|
|
Post by Giorgio Bassa on Apr 12, 2005 23:33:49 GMT -6
Interesting article you found reflecting Buzz's opinion in 1994. One could surmise that few things and maybe few thoughts have since changed. Or alternatively, that our infractions are so egregious and our process so screwed up, that there just had to be a "divine" intervention from above. As for the historical prospective, we were told that our predicament was not unique and the solution adopted in other recent cases was just what is now prescribed for us.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Apr 13, 2005 11:07:14 GMT -6
Indeed. I considered the same questions. It would be interesting to have some "case studies" of other situations in other divisions that the USFA has become involved in during the decade since the article was written.
|
|
|
Post by August Skopik on Apr 13, 2005 21:18:08 GMT -6
John,
You missed the meeting, which is unfortunate since it was advertised as the parliamentarian of the USFA and not an actual case study of this intervention. We had the USFA attorney that reviews by-laws, and he and Gerri that were involved in the Colorado Division that was exactly like ours in the mid nineties and the exact two people sitting in the room that had lived through this situation that had been resolved with USFA intervention. Buzz Hurst's name was mentioned directly, and since there were two of the people sitting in that room that were part of the case study with USFA intervention then it appears that the USFA changed the rules after 1994. The results of the case study of a successful intervention that they had participated in was discussed, although I remember other divisions being mentioned but I can't quote these.
This is what they recomended for the Gulf Coast Division, and read Giorgio Bassa's post on the subject elsewhere:
1. Elect a chairman that can and will walk into any club in the division. (*This is why I personally recommend Bill Trapani, because I could never see Louise at Salle Mauro, Katy Blades, Alliance, Westchester, Spindletop, etc.**). Elect other officers that support him or her, and that is why I support Alex Popovici for Vice Chairman, Marty Wysocki for Sect. and Tom Bone for treasurer. Elect one additional at-large candidate with a maximum of 5 officers, and we have several that are qualified.
2. Adopt a schedule that does not force fencers to choose between national events such as NACs, and National qualifiers such as JOs. This will require a different chairperson and sect., since these were both directly involved in the last schedule that had no consideration of these events. In the very least make certain that you get a written promise from these candidates that this will never happen again before you vote for them, and a written apology (I have to fence at Divisionals to qualify for nationals because I missed the NAC in Richmond. If I don't fence my best it is collusion, and if I knock out someone then they don't qualify. Sabre will be more interesting this year. Sorry.)
3. Adopt new by-laws. The current by-laws have been changed from their original form and are now not a good way to manage a division per Don and Gerri.
Also be patient. Gerri said it was several years before all the changes were accomplished. Look at Giorgio's post on the subject, which had Don and Gerri's approval as a good representation of the meeting. See that we have a case study with actions laid down before us in place. VOTE for the right candidates, and find out what these candidates stand for in fencing.
|
|
|
Post by Giorgio Bassa on Apr 13, 2005 23:22:58 GMT -6
The case history we talked about concerned at least two divisions I remember being mentioned, Colorado and Arizona. There were other divisions which had similar problems making our situation not at all unique. As an Italian proverb says, "a common disease becomes half a pleasure," just to throw in a bit of popular optimism
In the case of Colorado, Gerrie Baumgart was the solution to the problems they had which seemed to be very similar to the rivalry between established clubs when a popular coach moves from one club to another (as was the case of Andrey Geva moving from BCFA to SM) and against newly established clubs by dissenters (as when Andrey formed his own independent club). They -- in Colorado -- went through the same legal and not so legal threats against the "traitors" and all the unpleasantness we have had to endure on the part of our local characters in this never ending saga.
When things in Colorado became unmanageable, they had the courage to pass the baton to Gerrie Baumgart who had no direct affiliation with the feuding parties and was 'acceptable and accepted' by the large majority. She became chairman of the division and started the rebuilding process and after few years everything improved and everybody started to work together for the good of all fencers, rather than protecting the interest and greed of one or two clubs and club owners.
It was with this in mind that we have asked Bill Trapani to step in and dedicate his energies and enthusiasm for fencing and put his name forward as the next chairman of the division. We are all so grateful to Bill for accepting this most ungrateful task. Let's hope that he will be elected as the "healing" candidate and that we will change and progress as they did in Colorado.
Arizona was also mentioned, but no details were discussed other that I believe Donald and/or Gerrie helped them in the process.
The other issue that was discussed, which is closer to the interesting article you found, concerned the by-laws. I have been consistent in my opposition to and criticism of the process we embarked when revising the by-laws. I have lamented the laissez-faire attitude of the many which have tolerated an idiotic -- in the Greek sense of the word, i.e., extremely peculiar -- approach managed by Matt who is non compos mentis to handle this task. We have wasted time, turned off enthusiasm, annoyed every person with common sense, approved idiotic decisions, and alienated many people willing to help and cooperate with an open mind, just by not stating once and for all BASTA! For this, I and everyone else are responsible and we all should apologize, and I hereby apologize to everyone for having tolerated such an aberration of the democratic process.
What Donald said, and I agree with him, is that we all get the democracy AND THE LEADERS we deserve. If there is a problem -- and nobody can doubt that there is one -- then we have to take care of it, or else someone else, from the top will step in. This is what happened and I am glad that the USFA will step in this process, even though as a matter of principle, I agree with the philosophy expressed in the article quoted by Schlager7.
This is your case history.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on May 23, 2005 9:45:57 GMT -6
I am out of the loop these days. Just when are the elections and who is still running for what office. Is the division site correct?
|
|
|
Post by Giorgio Bassa on May 23, 2005 22:40:34 GMT -6
Following from Donald Alperstein:
Subj: Gulf Coast Division Elections Date: 5/23/05 10:59:58 PM Central Daylight Time From: DAlp To: DeyCohen, GiorgioBassa, Tom.Wooley@fluor.com, KatyBlades@sbcglobal.net, MDelevorya, suzanne_simpson@gensler.com, gctxboard@yahoogroups.com, wjt65@cebridge.net, MWYSOCKI@samson.com, sinclair@pernet.net, Tbone@oceaneering.com, sinclair_oubre@compuserve.com, aluf_geva@hotmail.com, mihai@3DGeo.com, nicole@trojanowski.com, john@trojanowski.com, rfc@rice.edu, jdunaway@pasadenaisd.org, mosss@springbrandchisd.com, Ewild113, koneill@brazosport.edu, uhfencing@yahoo.com, mauro@rice.edu, lizmachol@gmail.com, ustfencing@earthlink.net CC: nanandersonusfa@comcast.net, cabrillosword@sbcglobal.net, Michael.Massik@USFencing.org, GFBaumgart, dana.brown@USFencing.org
Dear Gulf Coast Division Members: As you may be aware, the elected leadership of the Gulf Coast Division, with the agreement and support of many active and interested members of the Division, as requested assistance from the United States Fencing Association in the conduct of the Division's annual election. Nancy Anderson, the president of the USFA, and herself a former chair of the Gulf Coast Division, with the advice and consent of the USFA Executive Committee, has asked me to work with the Gulf Coast membership to address the issues that have hobbled the electoral process and to assist the Division in the conduct of elections for the coming season. The purpose of this mailing is to advise you of my appointment and my assignment, to begin a process that will lead to the conduct of fair and reliable elections and to assist the Division in establishing procedures that will help its members govern local fencing activities and organizational affairs in the future. I see my role as encompassing three tasks: Answering questions and providing information that will help Division members understand and participate in the governance process; observing, assisting with and if necessary proctoring or conducting Division elections, and facilitating the adoption of bylaws that both serve the Division's needs and comply with USFA requirements and the mandates of law. There may be other may be other ways in which I can help the Gulf Coast Division surmount its current problems, and if so I urge you to let me know of them. Similarly, the Division and its members may have useful suggestions on how my assignment can best be accomplished. For now, I foresee a process that begins with a telephone conference and probably requires my presence at an electoral meeting of the Division membership. It is important of all Gulf Coast members to understand that the USFA will charge the Division for the costs of my involvement, so we must be judicious in planning and utilizing my services and in choosing the methods by which we proceed. The is no charge to the Division for my time, but I respectfully request that while availing yourselves of the any benefit that may result from consultations that you to do not take unfair advantage of that fact or my availability. The main purposes of this communication are to inform you of the USFA's commitment to assisting the Division, to introduce myself, to offer my view of the coming process and to begin the task of scheduling an election and the activities leading to it. The first of these I discussed above. Now, let me introduce myself. I am currently serving as general legal counsel for the USFA, as I have done under four different presidents. In this capacity I advise the organization on legal issues and serve in a broad advisory role for the staff, officers, executive committee and board of directors of the USFA. I am also an active national referee with some international experience and a member of the FIE Commission on Discipline. I served the USFA as its president from 1996 to 2000, and among my various other functions I have been a Division officer, member of the Board, and member of many committees and task forces. I also remain an active -- if not very accomplished -- fencing competitor. Professionally (with what time is left), I practice law in Denver, Colorado, in the areas of business organizations and transactions, commercial litigation, arbitration and consultation on matters of legal fees and billing. Over the years, I have assisted several Divisions with internal problems. I have done so with the support of others, including the national office and the Executive Director of the USFA, the Divisions and Sections Committee, the USFA Executive Committee and the counsel of numerous experienced and wise members of the USFA. I expect to call upon those resources again in helping the Gulf Coast Division in addressing its issues. The principal task we face is developing at least a basic level of trust and shared vision for the Division and its members so that it can operate effectively. In the immediate future, I see two immediate needs: the election of Division leadership and the adoption of new Division bylaws. Some of the problems that plague the Gulf Coast, and which contributed to the need for assistance from the national organization, stem from confusion, inconsistencies or ambiguous and illegal provisions of the Division's Bylaws. Tackling these issues means identifying and encouraging able people to run for Division offices and to undertake the drafting of new bylaws. Members of the Division may see other approaches to resolving its problems. For now, the incumbent officers will continue in office and the electoral process remains to be established. Further, as noted above, your input is encouraged. In the near future I want to schedule a telephone conference call with representatives of the Division's executive committee and major constituencies. I anticipate a call during weekend or evening hours sometime during the next two weeks. I am therefore trying to identify who is likely to participate and when the most convenient time for a teleconference might be. Understanding that the cost of a conference call increases rapidly as more individuals join, and that the productivity of calls decreases with the addition of participants, I urge you to be judicious and selective in deciding who will participate. Please let me know of your interest and availability by return mail. The purpose of the call will be to inform me of your specific concerns, to begin the process of developing election procedures and to calendar Division elections. I will be as flexible in setting dates as possible, but will be constrained by a busy professional, USFA, FIE and personal schedule. Our deadline for the election of new officers is July 31, the end of the USFA's competitive, fiscal and membership year. Ideally, a new set of proposed bylaws will be available for adoption at that meeting, so that the Gulf Coast Division can embark on the 2005-2006 season with a fresh start. I am sending this message to all Division members with whom I have had contact or whose address have been attached to such communications. I am asking the addressees to assist with the dissemination of this e-mail to all active members of the Division, and authorize the posting of it on the Division website. I look forward to hearing from you and to working with you on these important tasks. Donald Alperstein
|
|
|
Post by phincer on Jul 15, 2005 15:51:11 GMT -6
Check your mailboxes- the election is on July 31 at 1 p.m. Where? A 'neutral' place to be posted on the TBA on the GCD website no later than July 15, 2005. I just checked and its not there yet. So, at 12:01 a.m. of the 16th, we should know where to meet. Also, according to the rules put forth in the letter, nominations for officers can be made at any time and will be accepted from the floor. Let the campaigning begin!
|
|
|
Post by phincer on Jul 15, 2005 15:51:48 GMT -6
Oh yeah, forgot to say that the letter was from the USFA and includes a proxy ballot....
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Jul 15, 2005 17:52:08 GMT -6
Is this the elections with the UN observers... oops, I mean USFA observers?
|
|
|
Post by phincer on Jul 16, 2005 11:45:06 GMT -6
Nemo, Why, yes, it IS the same election... And by my observations this afternoon, the location of the meeting was not announced by the required time on the GCD website....will this invalidate the election and cause much grief and despair as the advance purchase plane tickets for the USFA reps have to be changed, causing further drainage from the GCD treasury? And with further reading, those proxy ballots are only good if you send them to the Donald himself, arriving in CO by July 29th. The return address has to be from the voting member themselves, not a mass mail-in of proxies. Join us later for the next installment of "As the GCD Turns", aka "All My Fencers".
|
|