|
Post by August Skopik on May 1, 2005 21:14:08 GMT -6
Dear Fencers,
This is an email I sent to Nicole, John and Matt. I also sent it to the USFA information. Matt is the division secretary, and was on the bout committee for this tournament. This information has to be sent to the USFA office, and then sent back to the division for confirmation. The information can be sent electronically through askfred, but Matt acted very strangely when Nicola questioned him on her rating update. This should not happen with an officer that is looking out for the best interests of the fencers in the division.
"Dear Nicole, Matt and John, The USFA office has no records of your LOC sending in the classification changes from your tournament April 16th and 17th. The information is available on askfred, and here are the final results.
Women's Foil: 13 Competitors, a E1 Event Place Fencer Club Rating Entering Event * Rating Earned or Renewed * 1 Horscroft, Nicola KB U 2 Loveless, Leeana BCFA E2004 3 Ngo, Hang SHHSFT U 3 Calvillo, Cristal SHHSFT U 5 Tumlinson, Anna BCFA E2005 6 Reuter, Holly UST U 7 Vu, Mary UST E2003 8 Smith, Keri SHHSFT U 9 Berntsen, Francesca SHHSFT U 10 Price, Beverly CLFC U 11 Doehring, Victoria SHHSFT U 12 Perez, Margarita UST U 13 Jordan, Hannah BCFA U Why have you not sent this in through Askfred. You have a "fiduciary" responsibility to maintain these records for the fencers, and in Matt's case he was part of the bout committee and the division secretary. He has a responsibility to do this or he is neglecting his office. Please call me when this is updated or with any questions at 281.703.5064. August Skopik Katy Blades Fencing Academy
|
|
|
Post by August Skopik on May 2, 2005 9:26:52 GMT -6
Dear Fencers,
This is the email I received back from the USFA office, stating that they had not received confirmation for the ratings. I spoke with the mother of a boy that won a local event, that never received a rating before from a different tournament and an Aggie that should be a C from a past SSCC, (Heavy Metal) in saber. If these lapses continue, then there are going to be doubts about the integrity of the system and the people of the Gulf Coast Division.
"Please note, per Gulf Coast Division, all classification changes must be verified by the Division before they can be approved and entered by the USFA National Office. To date we have not yet received classification changes from the division for the tournament held April 16 & 17. Also, ALL classification changes received from ASK FRED will be forwarded back the Division for approval and independent verification. Classification changes received via ASK FRED will NOT be entered into the USFA database until after the Division has approved and verified the changes, even if ASK FRED shows that the changes were shown to be submitted by a division officer. ASK FRED is NOT a USFA program; we have no control or oversight of the ASK FRED program. We can not accept classification changes from a website, a fencer, parent or coach. All classification must come form either bout committee and/or division office (depending on the policies of the division.) In this case, as soon as we receive the classification changes from the Division we will approve and enter the classification changes. Dawn Van Hoesen Administrative Assistant US Fencing Association 719-866-4511 ext. 1 719-632-5737 (fax)"
|
|
|
Post by Odie on May 2, 2005 10:06:42 GMT -6
This kind of negligence of duty has got to stop. Thanks Augie for bringing it out in the open.
"Adults" (and I use the term loosely when speaking of the EC) with no children (and have a burr under their saddle when dealing with true adults WITH children) are delaying the hard-earned rewards these kids deserve. I'm sure if the any presidential-type officer of EC fenced in a tournament and got a rating, you'd be sure that it would be in Colorado by the next business day.
Even if the Secretary was vigilent and sent the ratings changes to the USFA in a timely fashion, it would still be several weeks until the fencer received their new USFA card in the mail. Subsequent tournaments would be affected as the fencer would not be placed correctly in pools.
Perhaps a local rating form is necessary-a form for the bout committee at any local tournament to design and fill out. Then the fencer could take the card to the following tournament(s)as proof that a rating was earned or renewed. It would be a nice thing to do for the fencers, especially the kids.
For example, Fencer N is unrated and fences, say, in the Muddy Waters Open. He/SHE earns her "E" rating in Foil. The local bout committee chair (note the use of "LOCAL"-not divisional) then issues Fencer N an official Ratings Change Card. Perhaps it could look like this:
Name: Fencer N Tournament: Muddy Waters Open Division: Banana Republic Divison Secion: South Pole Section Rating Earned: E05 Weapon: Foil
Signed: (name of person charge or who thinks they are in charge)
Short of printing out results on Askfred, which may or may not be posted by the time Fencer N leaves for his/HER next tournament, this would be a way local tournament organizers could help the fencer at the next toournament.
Fencers will have to remain vigilent about their ratings. If someone could post the Secretary's phone number, then parents and fencers could call him directly to encourage him to actually do his job and get the ratings changes to the USFA.
Remember, elections will be coming up soon, and if you like things the way they are, vote for the people that are "working" for you now.... and things will surely stay the same.
|
|
|
Post by August Skopik on May 4, 2005 12:56:39 GMT -6
Thanks Odie,
I wish that things could be that easy. Currently the USFA must receive notification from the division that a tournament is sanctioned as a USFA tournament. In the "old" days of the USFA in the 80s and early 90s, this meant that you had to let people know about the tournament and hold the tournament properly conforming to USFA specifications at the time. I was very much a part of developing these specifications, since I was trained by Nancy Anderson for bout committee work and was division chair and sectional chair involved with training others on how to run tournaments.
My director's test was administered by George Kolombatovich, so consequently I also was involved with training many of the referees in the division and section. We did not have FOC training people assigned in this section. So consequently, I trained many of the people in both directing and bout committee work that trained or trained the people that trained the people, (etc.) that are running tournaments today. Many of the people do an excellent job, but there are a few that I think missed a little in the communication.
Here is an email back from the division secretary to the USFA explaining why there has not been a ratings adjustment. The bout committee chair Matt refers to I must assume is Louise, our current chair of the division. If it is someone different then there is a mystery person assuming this role. I noticed her club members received their "E"s very quickly recently. I wonder if that had anything to do with it?
" I am intimately familiar with what transpired at that tournament, having functioned as if the head of the bout committee for it. However, it's now been two and a half weeks with no reply (on this specific topic) from the acting head of the Division's Bout Committee about whether the tournament had official legitimacy. Yes, I have reminded that I'm due a response. (I was out of the loop for the correspondence beforehand between her and the head of the LOC about having a bout committee with blessing, and I served as if chairman of the bout committee at the request of the head of the LOC with no knowledge -- to this day -- of whether there would be considered to be official blessing by my own Division.)
I'm also over a nine hour drive away from home right now, almost two full Texas-size divisions away from home, with intermittent wireless Internet connectivity and rarely the opportunity to use the laptop anywhere both electrical power and wireless connectivity can both be found.
The good news is that, if and when the acting head of the Division's Bout Committee ever reacts, I can (with minor delays for my circumstances) submit the classification change form.
Sorry about the awkward state of my division.
Matt Delevoryas Secretary Gulf Coast TX Division"
If you are competitive fencer, no matter what club you are part of, then you must not vote for the person or persons responsible for this mess to represent you again. You will go to local, regional or national tournaments without the proper rating and not be seeded acurately. Your properly earned rating will not be allowed by the USFA unless it is earned outside the division. Your local competitions will not be accurate in their strength because rated fencers will not be accurately recorded. Your children will not receive the satisfaction of knowing they have accomplished something that very few people do, earn a classification in fencing.
I do not condone "giving" away classifications. A classification is earned on the strip, such as winning a tournament with 6 or more USFA members earns an "E". Someone who does not have a classification or achieved this does not know the reward, which accompanies hard work and preparation. Don't let people who have never earned this right hurt all of the classifications and ratings in the division!!!
|
|
|
Post by Margaret Horscroft on May 9, 2005 9:04:54 GMT -6
I am very saddened that my comments are necessary on this subject. However, it has been past three weeks and the Chairperson in her wisdom appears not to have responded to requests to act in a timely manner. (I will withdraw my comments if action has taken place that I am unaware of).
On our fencing schedule the Clear Lake Open was anticipated eagerly. Nicola had set goals at the start of this season, and earning her first classification was one. This tournament promised to offer such an opportunity. She was ready mentally and physically to reach out and attempt it.
The pre-tournament information did not indicate this was an unsanctioned or nonclassified event. It referred to USFA rules being applied. It was organized and run by EC members and ex-members. One should be able to make the logical assumption that this was a legal, sanctioned event able to award any classifications earned.
Certainly from all accounts a well run tournament with no rule protests or other impediment to a legal USFA event and as such no just cause to withhold EC approval.
Nicola returned smiling from ear to ear, “Mum (it is spelt correctly) I got my E.” These were her first words. I jokingly replied “Well at least it was at Clear Lake and not Katy Blades, otherwise Coach Augie would have to jump through hoops of fire for it to be approved!”
Well…
After reading Matt’s email stating that the Chairperson of the Division had not decided whether this was a sanctioned tournament and therefore unable, at this time, to award classifications EARNED, I have had a week in which to reflect and post a more civil comment than if I had responded immediately. Points to make:
1. The tournament had been on the Division calendar for many months. Plenty of time to organize whatever representation was deemed necessary. 2. The LOC and Bout Committee made use of those in the division considered authorities on rules and tournaments, and are used in this capacity to decide on the legality of other tournaments in the Division. 3. No indication prior to the event was given that this was not a “sanctioned” event. 4. Is this Division to be held ransom to the whim of an autocratic leader? 5. The most uncivil view. With no transparency in this Division and with everything that has transpired, one might draw the conclusion that some of the wrong people earned classifications.
How do the others feel that could have earned/renewed classifications at this event?
Villarreal, Steven SHHSFT placed 3rd mixed foil D05 Pruitt, Joshua SHHSFT placed 6th mixed foil E05 Jno-Finn, Davis MIYAGI placed 8th mixed foil renew E05 Skopik, August KB placed 1st mixed saber E05 Harris, Scot CLFC placed 1st mixed epee renew D05 Horscroft, Nicola KB placed 1st womens foil E05
I long to believe in equitable and just governing by the EC, but this past year have experienced insufficient evidence to have any confidence in the status quo.
My daughter wishes to express her views to the USFA and wishes to know the most appropriate person to direct her correspondence to. Please feel free to reply on this site or madasahatter@ev1.net
On a lighter note. John, I hope that no epeeists swung on any chandeliers for that photo. Is it possible to have a copy for grandparents who don’t have the opportunity to see her fence?
From an apolitical person who has had it up to here and wishes to express opinions in the hope that the future for fencing in this Division will not continue down this very slippery slope and wallow in the sh1t at the bottom!
Margaret Horscroft
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on May 9, 2005 12:22:54 GMT -6
Indeed. I am the chairman of the board of the Clear Lake Fencing Club. My wife is the club's president.
If USFA sanction is to be witheld from our tournament, I will really have to insist on knowing why.
|
|
|
Post by August Skopik on May 9, 2005 14:49:04 GMT -6
John,
I thought that Clear Lake ran an excellent tournament. To have 13 women in the women's foil event is a step in the right direction. Whatever I can do to argue your case with the USFA I will do as needed.
We need more tournaments like this in the division, and we need the division board and chair to support them. Really, all we need the division officers to do is not interfere. The secretary of the division was on the bout committee, and the chair will not let him submit the ratings approval? It would be interesting to compare how long it takes to get the chair approval by tournament, and which clubs are quicker if any? Are these delayed across the board, or selective. I remember a Bayou City fencer earning an "E" and then competing as an "E" the next week because it was quickly approved. Was this the case, or is my memory a little hazy?
|
|
|
Post by Margaret Horscroft on May 10, 2005 11:45:02 GMT -6
I am confused. Matt states he is waiting approval from the acting chair of the Bout Committee, yet I had heard that the USFA contacted her directly. Surely, she has no reason to delay further. I presume Matt informed her that the tournament was legal.
I quote from the USFA Operations Manual 2000 Edition, Revision 2000.09, page 44.
Section 6: Administration of classifications (1) Classifications must be certified in writing to the National Office by the organizer of the competition in which said classification was earned. Every member of the USFA is personally responsible for ascertaining his or her own classification in each weapon. To avoid questions with respect to individual fencers, each division, through its executive committee or other designated officer or committee, should certify all classification changes (both major and minor) to the National Office. Changes should be reported within two weeks. Failure to report changes in a timely fashion may affect athletes competing in a national competition.
This weekend is a National Qualifier event and I know 3 of the fencers have preregistered.
The USFA have emailed to me that as soon as they have verification they will approve the changes. It only takes an email from them to confirm this from the USFA office to allow the fencers to compete with the new classifications this weekend.
TEXTTEXTWhat is the delay? It states within 2 weeks and timely fashion. Neither of which have been achieved. TEXT Elections are just around the corner. People can decide for themselves whether this is incompetence, negligence or something else!
It might still be possible for the correct seeding to be established this weekend, afterall it will be a full four weeks after the original competition. It takes those elected officials with the power, to do the right thing!
If there is just cause to deny sanctioning of the Clear Lake Open it also should have been established at the event or in a timely fashion immediately following the event. It appears none have such knowledge, so I presume there will not be further delay.
I will be emailing thye USFA on a daily basis to establish when they receive approval of the classification changes. If you are waiting on your new classification then I suggest you do the same, I am sure they have much more serious things to do than sort out our divisions odd behaviour.
Good luck to everyone competing at the SWS event.
Margaret Horscroft
|
|
|
Post by Odie on May 10, 2005 12:19:59 GMT -6
Maybe you will have to call and email-daily the Acting Chair of the Bout Committee, which I assume is Louise Herself.
Get the info straight from the horse's, uh, mouth.
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on May 10, 2005 12:25:28 GMT -6
Hey folks,
I don't want to interfere in your Division's buisiness but I do want to interject this. Even if the verification is conducted at the very last minute, we should still be able to use them at Sectionals this weekend. We may even be able to use them if we ourselves can verify through all the people invovled what exactly happened. The head of the Technical Committee for Sectionals, Terry Harkey, is in regular communication with the National Office, and while I don't want to promise anything that can't be delivered, if we can verify (verbally if neccessary) with the appropriate people that the event was indeed sanctioned, it SHOULD be possible for those ratings to count. Hopefully. I'll have to bow to Terry's expertese on that matter, as she is familar more familiar with the process than I am. Our first concern is making sure that everything with the qualifer is conducted strictly by the book in order to not have it invalidated, but there IS some wiggle room for situations like this. Not much, but a little.
However, she did help resolve a similar situation in the North Texas Division where we were trying to reconstruct some tournament results in order to properly award the ratings so a fencer could be seeded at a NAC properly. It was different in that we were sure the event was properly sanctioned, but the results were in question. If its possible for you to come to the venue for Sectionals Friday night and bring all the info, and we can determine if the event was sanctioned, we may be able to work something out.
Not being familiar with your protocols and the personnel, who is this person whom you keep referring to as the "acting chair of the Division Bout Committee" so that we can know whom to ask if the event was properly sanctioned?
David Sierra
|
|
|
Post by Tully Mars on May 10, 2005 12:44:04 GMT -6
Caution, just because you get it from the horses mouth, doesn't mean you will get the straight scoop!
|
|
|
Post by Margaret Horscroft on May 10, 2005 14:05:38 GMT -6
Thank you Augie, Odie, David and Tully Mars.
A glimmer of hope on the horizon.
I have assumed Louise is the Acting Chair of the Bout Committee, but do not know this for a fact. I may have to take a look at the Official GCD website, unless someone knows for a fact.
Once confirmed I certainly will cc all emails to her.
David, Matt is probably the best authority to confirm the legality of the tournament, and I presume he did this after the event to the appropriate person. It appears he has been waiting for a response too. Apparently he has been on a camping trip, with limited ability to communicate, but obviously able to still do so in some capacity.
If Louise is the other person responsible for sanctioning the tournament, then since the event is at Bayou City she should be present.
I presume the results listed on Askfred are correct and I listed earlier the fencers that appeared to have changes in classification. Someone should double check me.
I cannot be there on Friday night, other family committments. However, if it is possible to verify these changes and have them take effect immediately you will have 3 happy fencers and one happy mother.
The more important matter is how to ensure that sanctioning of tournaments and any classifications earned happens in a timely fashion. If not who can fencers appeal to for justice? Tournament organisers also need an independant body for appeals. A Bye-Law maybe necessary- that if there is no just cause to dispute a tournament and the division does not act in a timely fashion that the LOC can appeal to the USFA directly to approve classification changes, effectively bypasssing ineffective EC's.
Just a thought, since many of our byelaws are illegal and we will have to adopt new ones after the division elections.
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on May 10, 2005 14:31:50 GMT -6
Thank you Augie, Odie, David and Tully Mars. A glimmer of hope on the horizon. I have assumed Louise is the Acting Chair of the Bout Committee, but do not know this for a fact. I may have to take a look at the Official GCD website, unless someone knows for a fact. Once confirmed I certainly will cc all emails to her. David, Matt is probably the best authority to confirm the legality of the tournament, and I presume he did this after the event to the appropriate person. It appears he has been waiting for a response too. Apparently he has been on a camping trip, with limited ability to communicate, but obviously able to still do so in some capacity. If Louise is the other person responsible for sanctioning the tournament, then since the event is at Bayou City she should be present. I presume the results listed on Askfred are correct and I listed earlier the fencers that appeared to have changes in classification. Someone should double check me. I cannot be there on Friday night, other family committments. However, if it is possible to verify these changes and have them take effect immediately you will have 3 happy fencers and one happy mother. The more important matter is how to ensure that sanctioning of tournaments and any classifications earned happens in a timely fashion. If not who can fencers appeal to for justice? Tournament organisers also need an independant body for appeals. A Bye-Law maybe necessary- that if there is no just cause to dispute a tournament and the division does not act in a timely fashion that the LOC can appeal to the USFA directly to approve classification changes, effectively bypasssing ineffective EC's. Just a thought, since many of our byelaws are illegal and we will have to adopt new ones after the division elections. Margret, I'll see what I can do. No promises, but I'll kick the info into the food chain and see what happens. Can you at least show up a couple of hours before the event to see if there is any more info needed? David
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on May 10, 2005 21:03:53 GMT -6
David,
If Matt can't make it, I am sure I can verify any information Louise, you or Terry might require. I'll see about putting my hands on the final papers and results. If needed, I can swing by on Friday.
My apologies to any of the competitors at our event who are being inconvenienced by this.
John Trojanowski
(PS & off-topic: I got a silly email about hiding behind this moniker. Is there really anyone who does not know I am schlager 7? I mean, I kinda thought the avatar was a clue...)
|
|
|
Post by August Skopik on May 10, 2005 22:44:48 GMT -6
John,
We actually have the copies of both the women's foil and saber DE tables that you posted on the wall. We took them to our club on Sunday. It shows who fenced whom in the DE table. I don't know if this helps, but it was a good souvenir for Nicola.
Maybe someone does not recognize your picture? It looks like the same one on your website in the past. Oh well.
Augie
|
|
|
Post by Giorgio Bassa on May 10, 2005 23:27:07 GMT -6
Margaret: I sympathize and share your frustration and outrage in what should never be a problem if the "rules" were applied uniformly, justly, and with a grain of salt by the "enforcers" i.e., the people who so eagerly have sought and continue to seek their positions to SERVE all of us. Notice how your problem is handled by the "enforcers" and how other minutiae involving their petty interests are given ample consideration and prompt attention. Think about this when you are asked to give your proxy next time. Think about who is on your side or who has worked to be at your side. Vote accordingly and spread the word. Contact the USFA, copy all the EC members of the division AND the section, and see who does what. It's interesting to read the comments of everyone, including officers and former officers of the GC division and the SW section, speculating who the mysterious head of the Division Bout Committee is. They all communicate with the chair of the division (Louise Lepie) and accommodate her desires for who can and who cannot referee at the section qualifier this weekend, but they don't dare to ask a simple question, "Louise, are you the acting chair of the Division Bout Committee? If so, what's the hold up? If not, who's responsible for this snafu?" No, they ask YOU instead to show up a couple of hours before the event this weekend to see if there is anything they can do. No promises though, you understand, THEY CANNOT BEND THE RULES, FOR YOU, THAT IS! If this is not a travesty of the whole process, I don't know what it is! Read again the e-mail Matt sent to the USFA, copied hereunder, and try to decipher the meaning of Matt's prose. From: Matt Delevoryas [mailto:MDelevorya@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 11:05 AM To: Information Subject: Re: FW: USFA classification Changes from the Clear Lake Open
I am intimately familiar with what transpired at that tournament, having functioned as if the head of the bout committee for it. However, it's now been two and a half weeks with no reply (on this specific topic) from the acting head of the Division's Bout Committee about whether the tournament had official legitimacy. Yes, I have reminded that I'm due a response. (I was out of the loop for the correspondence beforehand between her and the head of the LOC about having a bout committee with blessing, and I served as if chairman of the bout committee at the request of the head of the LOC with no knowledge -- to this day -- of whether there would be considered to be official blessing by my own Division.)
I'm also over a nine hour drive away from home right now, almost two full Texas-size divisions away from home, with intermittent wireless Internet connectivity and rarely the opportunity to use the laptop anywhere both electrical power and wireless connectivity can both be found.
The good news is that, if and when the acting head of the Division's Bout Committee ever reacts, I can (with minor delays for my circumstances) submit the classification change form.
Sorry about the awkward state of my division.
Matt Delevoryas Secretary Gulf Coast TX Division
Now we all know, or should know that Matt's prose and words don't follow the canons of proper English and/or clear communication. Since he's not clear and prefers not to state who is responsible for what, it's hard for anyone, including the USFA, to respond to his e-mail and push for some action. "...having functioned as if the head of the bout committee for it"[/i] Possible English translation: "I [Matt] acted as the head of the bout committee of the tournament.""However, it's now been two and a half weeks with no reply (on this specific topic) from the acting head of the Division's Bout Committee about whether the tournament had official legitimacy."Explanation: you must be careful to distinguish between bout committee (lower case) and Bout Committee (upper case). The former is for each individual tournament and in this particular case it "appears" that Matt acted as the head of this tournament bout committee. The latter is the Division Bout Committee in charge of overseeing, sanctioning, and ordering the Secretary of the EC (Matt) to transmit the results of sanctioned tournaments to the USFA pursuant to the report of the 'acting' head of the tournament bout committee (in this case Matt again). The "mystery" is WHO is the (acting) chair of the Division BC? He never spells it clearly, though it could be construed by a scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls that it is "temporarily" the chairman of the EC, Louise Lepie. "Yes, I have reminded that I'm due a response."[/b] Again problems caused by the misuse of the English language a la Matt. He could mean "Yes, I have reminded HER or HIM (the chair of the Bout Committee) that I am due a response." Or he could mean, "Yes, I have been reminded [by others including the USFA] that I have to respond." Impossible to decide what Matt really meant to say.... And he continues: (I was out of the loop for the correspondence beforehand between her and the head of the LOC about having a bout committee with blessing, and I served as if chairman of the bout committee at the request of the head of the LOC with no knowledge -- to this day -- of whether there would be considered to be official blessing by my own Division.)The long explanation Matt provides in parentheses turns out to confuse even more since he does not specify who he refers to in his statement. "HER" could be Louise and he does not name the head of the LOC. Classic mumbo-jumbo from start to end. Finally he states the obvious that he'll send the results to the USFA when the acting head of the Division Bout Committee tells him to do so. Imagine, if you will, what the person in charge at the USFA (who must receive hundreds of such communications, hopefully written in a clearer and better English) thinks or does when receiving this type of official communication from Matt, and at the same time is also approached by you and other interested parties asking what the hell is going on? I know I am not the only one to react to this nonsense in pointing to the inadequacies of our elected officials, but it seems that I am one of the few who writes and posts these comments instead of glancing over all this and say that maybe they can bend the rules to take care of your case this time...before the elections this weekend. This is what happens in our banana republic division and appears to be blessed by another banana republic developing in our section. Shame, shame, shame on all the guilty parties...
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on May 11, 2005 0:55:18 GMT -6
Gorgio,
First of all, chill. Relax. I'm doing everything I can to see that these earned ratings get utilized. And I've a pretty good feeling for what rules can be bent and what can't. This is one case where there IS some wiggle room, if we can get the verification straight, because we can also continue checking things afterward. You're asking me to verify, soley on the basis of unatributable discussions on here, ratings. I >CAN'T< do that. Terry can't do that. Augie, John, and Matt can't do that. If any person said they could, they would be wrong. I'm aware of the sitution, and taking steps to proactively investigate the matter in order to make sure that the Section Championships are run properly. What more exactly do you want? This is NOT my problem, and I'm under no obligation to do anything about it.
What CAN be done is to verify that they are valid, after examing the paperwork and checking with the USFA. I'm going to do the second in the morning, but the first we can't do until we get down there. All I'm asking for is some sort of written document attesting to the tournament results. A printout for heaven's sakes. And no, postings on FRED do not count, sorry, FRED is not an official USFA resource. Since it seems there are several copies of the tournament results floating around down there, the concerned parties can bring them to the table. By showing up a couple of hours before the registration closes, we have the time to properly check everything. This has nothing to do with the elections. It has everything to do with classification verification protocols, and responsible tournament organizers undertake exactly this sort of thing all the time.
And while the Dead Sea Scrolls may contain the information of who is the acting chair of the Gulf Coast Division Bout Committee, no other resources available to an ouside party seem to, so its perfectly appropriate to ask that question. Now that I seem to know, I can direct inquires to her. Thank you for the information.
On a different note, Louise has had ZERO input into the referee situation this weekend. The Section officers are doing the hiring. All of it. We're utilizing a cadre composed of experienced, highly skilled individuals from across the Section, in addition to a few selected developmental referees who will be strictly monitored and mentored. The adjudication of this tournament will be of the highest caliber. Yes, I've had to make some last minute changes to the cadre, in order to make sure that the event does not fall outside the budget, and I offered several referees who have SEVERAL fencers attending the event the opportunity to be coaches instead of referees and coach their fencers, and they jumped at the chance. If any of them still want to referee, I'll still be happy to use them. Additionally, if there are any additional developmental referees out there who would like the opportunity to referee at the best competition in our Section, have them contact me and I'll see if we can use them, but my main priority is keeping the quality of the refereeing as high as possible. Are you interested in refereeing this weekend?
David
|
|
|
Post by Margaret Horscroft on May 11, 2005 6:44:52 GMT -6
Giorgio:
Thank you for bringing a smile to my face this morning. I always enjoy your posts. Please do not scrutinize my use of English with depth, it will fail!
Your support is appreciated and welcome. You are always prepared to speak out when it is required.
John:
Thank you for providing this forum for frank and honest opinion.
The Clear Lake Open your club hosted is an important part of the division's calendar and I expect you want this matter to be resolved speedily as does everyone affected.
Augie:
I think it was Ms Deb's fun loving nature that saved the DE tables from the trash. These should help verify 2 events. Lets hope complete records are kept of the other events so all classifications earned can be verified. At Katy Blades we learned early on the importance of record keeping!
David:
Thank you for your intervention in this matter. I hope all our endeavours will be successful. The seeding for these events this weekend would be markedly affected by inaccurate or outdated information. I know you want the right conditions for a challenging tournament, which it promises to be.
I was informed that Steven Villarreal earned a D05 in epee at the South Houston High School tournament 10 days ago. I do not know if this event has been officially sanctioned, and if not why not! "Timely fashion" are the words from the OPS Manual. Is he also fencing in the epee event and if so can this be verified? I am sure Jerry Dunaway would want his student to be correctly seeded.
Let the emails start!
Margaret
|
|
|
Post by Margaret Horscroft on May 11, 2005 7:20:46 GMT -6
It seems Steven Villarreal is not preregistered for epee. However, anyone earning classifications from this tournament will surely want to know that the correct timely action is taking place!
EC members please check your email.
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on May 11, 2005 8:42:19 GMT -6
Quick update. I talked with Terry this morning, and she's due an update from the USFA national office on classifications and membership shortly. Augie emailed me a list of the names and classifications in question, and I forwarded this on to her, and she's going to specifically check if they are on that list.
If they're not, she's going to check with the tournament organizers and the Secretary of the Division. If they're good there, she'll see that they get changed. In the national database. Which should hopefully be the end of the problem?
Btw, this kind of thing happens all the time - a delay getting results verified from one tournament that can dramatically effect the seeding at another. Which is why its so nice for us to have a Section Secretary who is plugged in at the national level so that we can take care of these things without resorting to nuclear warfare. (yes that was a shameless plug, sorry, couldn't resist).
FYI, just cause your classification is listed one way on FRED doesn't mean that is what the USFA recognizes. I know this has been said, but its worth mentioning again. If in the future there are concerns, a conduit that is available to everyone is Terry, she's very good about taking care of these kinds of matters in a timely manner. She really doesn't breathe fire and eat little children for breakfast...
|
|
|
Post by parrot face on May 11, 2005 9:26:42 GMT -6
Just cause it happens all the time doesn't make it right.
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on May 11, 2005 11:03:29 GMT -6
Just cause it happens all the time doesn't make it right. Never said it did. But there are good protocols to fix it when it does, because ya know, people do go on vacation and fencing isn't any of our full time jobs. Minor delays are acceptable. Fraud is not. We deal with real life here, not some lab condition.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Bone on May 11, 2005 14:37:13 GMT -6
Nicola didn't earn this rating with words or politics. She paid the entry fee, she arrived on strip on time, she won the thing with a foil in her hand.
On strip. On time. Finished the thing.
25 days with regular prodding, and two people on the EC need only to communicate by telephone, with far less labor than Nicola expended.
|
|
|
Post by Parrot Head on May 11, 2005 17:03:19 GMT -6
And too bad this isn't the first time this has happened this year.
|
|
|
Post by Giorgio Bassa on May 11, 2005 17:04:57 GMT -6
Gorgio, First of all, chill. Relax. I'm doing everything I can to see that these earned ratings get utilized. And I've a pretty good feeling for what rules can be bent and what can't. This is one case where there IS some wiggle room, if we can get the verification straight, because we can also continue checking things afterward. You're asking me to verify, soley on the basis of unatributable discussions on here, ratings. I >CAN'T< do that. Terry can't do that. Augie, John, and Matt can't do that. If any person said they could, they would be wrong. I'm aware of the sitution, and taking steps to proactively investigate the matter in order to make sure that the Section Championships are run properly. What more exactly do you want? This is NOT my problem, and I'm under no obligation to do anything about it..... .......... On a different note, Louise has had ZERO input into the referee situation this weekend. The Section officers are doing the hiring. All of it. We're utilizing a cadre composed of experienced, highly skilled individuals from across the Section, in addition to a few selected developmental referees who will be strictly monitored and mentored. The adjudication of this tournament will be of the highest caliber..... ....my main priority is keeping the quality of the refereeing as high as possible. Are you interested in refereeing this weekend? David IN DEFENSE OF MATT DELEVORYAS David: I am cool and relaxed even though some of these proceedings and discussions are very annoying and disappointing to anyone who wants to be an objective observer and cares for all the fencers, as I hope you aspire to be. 1. The ratings issueThis affects fencers, young fencers, who should be exposed to the best part of fencing, honesty, character, dedication, hard work, and hopefully justly earned praise. Anyone reading the history of this snafu should by now realize the following: (a) Matt did do his job as acting head of the bout committee at the tournament. While I very often disagree with Matt's reasoning and I find that he can't communicate concepts nor explain things, he is honest and does fill his duties to the extreme in making sure that he reports what is to be reported to the head of the Division Bout Committee on a timely basis. If there was an irregularity according to Matt at the tournament, he would have pointed it out. Here I assume that he filed his report without any caveats and then went on a trip. If this assumption proves to be incorrect, then I will revise my opinion about Matt's probity. (b) The acting head of the Division Bout Committee has been sitting on Matt's report for the past month without explaining to any of the interested parties why. This becomes an issue of accountability[/b]. One of the biggest problems of elected officials is that they forget that they have a fiduciary obligation to SERVE the community they represent. Part of this is to tell us who elected them what they do, what they don't do, AND WHY. (c) Even from Matt's contorted prose you can understand that he is ready to fulfill his other duty of Secretary of the Division and send the rating changes to the USFA, once the acting head of the Bout Committee gives the green light. It should be eminently clear that the light has been red all this time. Now, David, with this narration of the facts, it should be clear that if YOU want to enter in this melee, all you need to do is to talk to the acting chair of the Division Bout Committee and ask "What's the beef here?" and not inconvenience the victims of all this, Nicola and her mother Margaret, to show up two hours before a scheduled event to meet with you or anyone else. And lastly, as you correctly say, this is NOT your problem, and you are indeed under no obligation to do anything about it, in particular if you don't know or understand what's been going on. So please, don't go off on tangents which are not related to the problem at heart in the GC division. You could, however, invite them both after the tournament for some ice cream or such and offer them a sincere apology as an officer of the Section for the way the entire matter has been handled by the Division, and for the delay. You know the saying, justice delayed, justice denied...[/b] 2. Referee situation this weekendI hope you give me credit by not thinking that I was born yesterday, or that I am qualified to referee at a Section Qualifier tournament. Otherwise, in either case you have not done your homework. (a) I invite you to check the FOC website and filter the info of the GC Division rated referees. To help you out, here is the link: foc.askfred.net/Referee/index.php?sort=highest%20rating&_research=1&page_id=1Even though the list contains questionable entries, it should give you an idea of what the local referee's pool is made of. Notice how my name is not on the list, never was, and never will be. You say that "the adjudication of this tournament will be of the highest caliber"[/b] so, by asking ME to referee this weekend, you are lowering the caliber of judging and are kind of stretching the rules too much, or else you make decisions and suggestions based on inaccurate information. (b) You also state "Yes, I've had to make some last minute changes to the cadre, in order to make sure that the event does not fall outside the budget, and I offered several referees who have SEVERAL fencers attending the event the opportunity to be coaches instead of referees and coach their fencers, and they jumped at the chance. If any of them still want to referee, I'll still be happy to use them."[/b] Allow me to disagree with your statement and to ask you to please refrain to misrepresent what people told you. I am not speaking for others, and if they want to state what was said, when, and how, I leave it up to them. I am puzzled however when I notice that the top rated referees in our Division are not invited to referee at divisional and sectional qualifying tournaments. You know how frustrating it is when you are the victim of these exclusions, and your referee ratings are not the top in the division or section, so I am sure you should understand my puzzlement when I see top rated judges in our division being ignored. Hint, hint: Andrey & Sabina. Now, you may live too close to the Land of Oz, but you see, here in the GC banana republic we are familiar with under the table last minute changes and manipulations. We are a banana republic after all. You don't believe it? Ask everyone why Akhi got first invited and then disinvited to give the keynote speech at the NCAA banquet in Houston? You know Akhi Spencer-El? He is the ONLY TRUE Olympian in this neck of the woods -- yes, you guessed it, we have some phonies here claiming multiple Olympic glories, so it is important to stress that Akhi was and remains the only true Olympian fencer in this division -- but our Olympian was ostracized and the NCAA and HSA were threatened if Akhi was the speaker. Being the gentleman that he is, he bowed out to avoid problems to the NCAA and the HSA. Difficult to believe? Ask the people involved when you visit us this weekend. So, dear David, you see we in our Banana republic were not born yesterday and we know who does what to whom for how much, in terms of money, and/or proxy votes, or other favors. We have seen what happened last year at the GC elections, and this is why now the USFA will intervene, and we will keep an eye on what will happen this weekend at the SW section election, proxies and all. You run this event anyway you want, this time, you choose your partners any way you wish, but we, the voters, are not blind, nor deaf, nor dumb. If you walk like a duck and with a duck, and if you quack like a duck and with a duck, you become a duck...by association.
|
|