|
Post by August Skopik on May 26, 2005 8:37:32 GMT -6
Dear Fencers,
I received the following email from a fencing coach in the area, and the current Executive Committee is working on new by-laws for the division. If you have any recomendations then you should contact one of these individuals.
If you look at the posting from Don, our current by-laws are illegal and the division needs new by-laws to move forward.
"Hi Coach
I volunteered to participate on a sub-committee to re-write our By-Laws. The ultimate goal is to simplify our laws and make it easier to understand. We were asked to relate this activity to all the 7 clubs in our area. Please pass on this information to your club and any feed back or recommendations. We hope to complete the rough draft in a week or two and submit it to the USFA for approval. As you know, the current By-Laws were not accepted by the USFA Executive Board. The participating members of the sub-committee are:
Louise Lepie Nicole Trojanowski Susanne Simpson Chris Williams Rachel El-Saleh Manuel Rodriguez
Regards, Manuel"
|
|
|
Post by Giorgio Bassa on May 26, 2005 14:48:52 GMT -6
Augie, Thank you for sharing the information. Without you doing so we, the "peons" would have not known what's going on. Here are my problems: 1. In the e-mail by Donald Alperstein on May 23, there was a clear invitation to circulate it and post it on the GC Website. "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 did my part by posting it here immediately on May 23, since this forum is accessible to all. Last night, May 25, John Trojanowski posted it on the "rogue" site. But as of today, May 26, NOTHING on the official GC Division website. 2. Since Augie's posting some of us have received a e-mail from Suzanne Simpson stating that: (a) A small group has convened to start review of our Bylaws, recent Amendment revisions & more recent Amendments not voted on. We are trying to put together a very rough draft prior to Donald's [Alperstein] visit.
(b) In our attempt at providing a rough draft, the task force would like to invite the members of the Division to submit (in writing - via email preferably) any concerns or suggestions regarding our Bylaws to one of the task force members. We will be reviewing & discussing these concerns w/ Donald before attempting to include them in the Bylaws.
(c) Louise [Lepie] has asked Matt to post the members of the Task Force on the division website (but they are listed below also)
Louise Lepie (DeyCohen@aol.com) Suzanne Simpson (suzanne_simpson@gensler.com) Nicole Trojanowski (nicole@trojanowski.com) Rachel EL-Saleh (RPappworth@ses-inc.net) Manuel Rodriguez (manuelrodriguez694@earthlink.net) Chris Williams (bobb121_1999@yahoo.com) Evangelina Bibb (I do not have an address yet) Beau Brunson (I do not have an address yet)
- Is this what everyone really wants or expects from the USFA intervention in the affairs of the Division?
- How did this up to now sub rosa "small group" come into existence?
- How did the "small group" change into a "task force"?
- What is it that this "small group/task force" wants to do? Is it a rehash of Matt Delevoryas failed attempts to square impossible circles, or is it to take the USFA Bylaws and just modify the existing language and concepts to fit the GC Division governance?
If it is the former, we have not learned anything from our failure. If it is the latter, then we need to question the "small group/task force" familiarity with the USFA bylaws and the process to modify them to a specific situation.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on May 26, 2005 21:05:56 GMT -6
[/li][li]What is it that this "small group/task force" wants to do? Is it a rehash of Matt Delevoryas failed attempts to square impossible circles, or is it to take the USFA Bylaws and just modify the existing language and concepts to fit the GC Division governance? [/list] If it is the former, we have not learned anything from our failure. If it is the latter, then we need to question the "small group/task force" familiarity with the USFA bylaws and the process to modify them to a specific situation.[/quote] I may also be neither of those things. Actually, since you are now in possession of email addresses for most of those involved, why not just ask one or two of them?
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on May 27, 2005 10:19:52 GMT -6
The information has been disseminated via the rogue site, this board, and the mailing list. Is anyone really being cheated if it isn't posted redundantly in a fourth spot?
A task force is merely a small group with a specific purpose. Certainly this is close enough not to get worked up over.
There was a call a while back for volunteers for the reworking of the by-laws. I assume this group grew out of that. There certainly seems to be a variety of clubs represented on it.
I would further assume that the group's intention is that which they stated -- "...to start review of our Bylaws, recent Amendment revisions & more recent Amendments not voted on. We are trying to put together a very rough draft prior to Donald's [Alperstein] visit." Additionally they are seeking input from the membership.
To me this simply means they're reviewing what we have, seeking new input, and trying to flesh out something to show Donald Alperstein. I suppose John's suggestion to ask the group would clear up these assumptions.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jun 17, 2005 16:00:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by August Skopik on Jun 18, 2005 11:09:08 GMT -6
Dear Fencers,
There are several items about the new by-laws that we must change if we are to grow as a division and a sport. The Gulf Coast Division is the 5th largest in membership in the country with 685? members. If the USFA doubles in membership in growth, that puts us at 1300+ members.
1. We only address an attended meeting for voting. We need to adapt the same election procedures as the USFA national office for elections. We have members from Corpus Christi to Beaumont to Huntsville to Katy/West. We need a mail in election process. Where will we get locations for meetings of 1300+ members?
2. In Article XI, Section 3 the Privately sponsored competitions requires 1 member of the Divisions Bout Committee to be present at such competitions. With 1300 members, there should be multiple competitions in the division the same weekend to "encourage" fencing as it states in these by-laws. We are not paying these bout committee members, and to expect them to give up every weekend of the year for fencing is a lot. This Section will limit our growth in the division, and will limit the new fencers you have to fence.
I only took a quick look at the by-laws, and there may be other comments to follow. I especially want to thank the hard work of everyone involved in this process. It is easy to criticize when you were not part of the process. I will be happy to help research and adapt language for the future.
Augie
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jun 18, 2005 13:25:19 GMT -6
Augie: I concur with some of your notes. Now, I must admit that I did not attend that critical meeting with Mr. Alperstein and Ms. Baumgart. I also must acknowledge that I am not privy (believe it or not ) to the various correspondance back and forth between our folks and Alperstein and/or Baumgart. It is my understand, however, that one thing which they seriously disapproved of was the concept that our division hold more than one USFA-sanctioned tournament per weekend. (It seems multiple tournaments are okay, but only ONE could award letters.) If my understanding is flawed, I hope someone from the bylaws task force will correct me, please. If this is correct, I must ask, "Why?" If our division has the fencers, referees, facilities, bout committee personnel, etc to hold completely up-and-up tournaments that conform to USFA rules and are organized fairly efficiently, with good turn-out... what is the problem? I was initially against multiple tournaments on the same weekend. I think we all know that some of those in the recent past were organized deliberately by some club operators to detract from other club operators' events. First and foremost was a post by Saberbobcat (from the Robstown/Corpus Christi area... where they are the sole fencing group) to the effect that she didn't want to hear us complain that we have TOO MANY OPPORTUNITIES TO COMPETE. When you think about it that way, you start doing a hard re-assessment. The I looked and saw that when we had one tournament we had so many fencers show up. On weekends with two, each tournament got only SLIGHTLY smaller numbers than similar events held when they were the only game in town. Either some folks were fencing in both tournaments (and that did happen) or MORE PEOPLE COMPETED ON THOSE WEEKENDS. Someone please show me where this is bad... Let's face it, for a beginner or local E-rated fencer at Texas A&M or Augie's club (Katy Blades) it is faster to drive to a tournament in San Marcos in the South Texas Division than to drive through Houston to a tournament at one the clubs I belong to (Galveston and Clear Lake). One tournament per week is fine for elite fencers, they have a slightly bigger field of play. I just do not know if this helps those of us working on the grass roots level, though. Augie is right about one thing, we will need an entire bout COMMITTEE though. One person sure can't keep up...
|
|
|
Post by phincer on Jun 20, 2005 8:28:01 GMT -6
I have a few questions about subjects being discussed here-maybe the more experienced fencers in the division can answer.
1. In the past, did the division send a 'bout committee' person to oversee each and every event in the division? And who oversees division events? The section? And on up the line it goes... If a local club that is holding a tournament has proper documentation of each and every event, is that not enough for the EC to mediate any discrepancies should they arise?
2. Can someone in the division tell the USFA that two tournaments on one weekend actually work here? Like Schlager said, we can have two tournaments on one weekend, and the clubs have the courtesy to organize the events so that Foil and Epee are on opposite days. With a greater Houston population of 4 million people, we have more fencers to draw from. Then we also draw from the I-35 area. If we have two tourns. on the same weekend, those fencers from out of town get twice the action for their hotel dollar.
3. This is more of a comment- In every non-profit orgainzation that I've ever been a member of, or written by-laws for, NEVER did the Chair get to 'appoint' an officer of his or her choosing if another executive committee member had to leave office.
I would recommend this: Nominations to replace a leaving officer/ EC member are made by the executive committee and candidates have to pass a 2/3 vote of the EC. The Chair is not allowed to vote unless there is a tie between two candidates.
My humble .02 worth.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jun 20, 2005 9:52:24 GMT -6
As an aside to our discussions, bear in mind that some of these things we are noticing (the framework to restrict the number of tournaments per weekend) came not from the bylaws committee, but the USFA reps.
They were included, as I understand it, at some insistence.
In answer to Phincer, about someone from a division bout committee showing up at every tournament: until I ever so briefly held the sole appointment for the first half of this season, the had not been a "division bout committee" in the time since I began fencing (1995). At least, they never showed at any of my clubs' tournaments.
It is a long drive from Galveston County to Katy... or College Station... You get the idea.
When it was only me, I tried to get an idea from each club hosting a tournament who was on their bout committee and make sure that they were USFA members and folks who had previously shown some knowledge of the rules.
I'll be the first to admit this did not always work as well as I hoped, but by this point we were in the 2+ tournaments every other weekend. There was only one of me and few volunteers.
In many ways, we are working uphill against a lot of inertia that built up from a few years back (when you counted yourself lucky that you even learned when qualifiers were to be held more than a week in advance).
[Actually, that was one of the reasons the rogue site was created.]
|
|
|
Post by August Skopik on Jun 20, 2005 16:00:12 GMT -6
I hope everyone sees healthy discussion on this site, because that is how John intended for it in the beginning.
Gerrie and Don were not happy with the practice of scheduling tournaments on top of each other the same weekend. On the other hand, having an open Epee or a C+ epee in one part of the division and a Div. III epee is not competing. Youth 12 and Youth 14 do not often compete with Open events, etc. We do need more opportunities like this, and just need to better coordinate these events.
I have an update on the current officers and ratings updates. I received a call from the USFA office and the latest Houston Cup rating changes had not been acknowledged by the officers, (Matt is waiting for Louise to confirm). This is going to have a seeding effect for Alex P. and Jesse B. at nationals, and that should not be. The Corpus Christi tournament the next weekend has been approved by South Texas already, (way to go Oscar).
This has happened continually this year, and you will see emails from the sectional secretary fixing these ratings before sectionals, but that was not a one time instance. This is what we as fencers need to look at when elections are conducted.
The USGA, (United States Golf Association), monitors handicaps and holes-in-one records through the local clubs. A golf pro knows that if he sends a scratch golfer to the US Open qualifiers that can't shoot 100 then his reputation is on the line. The coaches are not going to inflate the ratings, at least for long. What will happen is that all the Ds, Es and Us will beat up on the "false" As in this brutally Darwinian process. This section is not helpful in growing fencing, and we need to imitate the sports that grow and not be retroactive in our thinking.
I have a hole-in-one on record, and had one witness. It was painless to have it acknowledged. It does not mean I can beat Tiger, but if we both played the same hole at that exact time I would have at least tied. I wish the ratings in the division were that painless.
|
|
|
Post by phincer on Jun 21, 2005 9:44:22 GMT -6
When it was only me, I tried to get an idea from each club hosting a tournament who was on their bout committee and make sure that they were USFA members and folks who had previously shown some knowledge of the rules. Gee, what a sensible idea! Too bad the EC didn't run with it. You are right-even with only one tournament on a weekend, the Metro area is too large to send someone from the division to each tournament. There are enough experienced fencers, parents of fencers around that IF anything drastic is amiss at a tournament, it will be brought before the division. I hope the By-Laws committee is watching this discussion and taking notes. It'd be nice is the USFA were watching as well, but we can't tell who's lurking out there.... Oh yes-Everyone should exalt Schlager over and over for the publication of the draft of the new by-laws on the Rogue Site. They sure can't be found on our Division Site! Thanks John!
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jun 21, 2005 10:02:38 GMT -6
I have received the following request from Suzanne Simpson: To all,
The Draft of the Gulf Coast Division Bylaws has been posted on John's "Unofficial" GC Website clfc.2itb.com/index.html for review.
Please feel free to send comments to the Bylaw Task Force w/ a cc to Donald Alperstein DAlp@aol.com.
The deadline for comments is June 29th (per Donald's email to the Division).
Bylaws Task Force:
Louise Lepie DeyCohen@aol.com
Suzanne Simpson suzanne_simpson@gensler.com
Nicole Trojanowski nicole@trojanowski.com
Rachel EL-Saleh RPappworth@ses-inc.net
Manuel Rodriguez manuelrodriguez694@earthlink.net
Chris Williams bobb121_1999@yahoo.com
Evangelina Bibb evbibb@sbcglobal.net
Beau Brunson bmb4516@neo.tamu.edu
Thank you for your patience, Suzanne Simpson
She also referenced this message from Donald Alperstein: On the Bylaws: I think the draft should be posted on the Division Web site and a broadcast mailing or e-mailng done asking for written comments. Those comments should be sent to the Division Bylaw Task Force with a copy to me. I'd ask that that be done promptly, with a deadline for comments two weeks from today. That way I would have them when I leave for Sacramento
|
|
|
Post by August Skopik on Jun 23, 2005 22:28:06 GMT -6
I sent this email to the committee and Don.
"Dear Fencers,
There are several items about the new by-laws that we must change if we are to grow as a division and a sport. The Gulf Coast Division is the 5th largest in membership in the country with 685? members. If the USFA doubles in membership in growth, that puts us at 1300+ members.
1. We only address an attended meeting for voting. We need to adapt the same election procedures as the USFA national office for elections. We have members from Corpus Christi to Beaumont to Huntsville to Katy/West. We need a mail in election process. Where will we get locations for meetings of 1300+ members? Other divisions have their elections mailed into the USFA office. I do not think we have to always resort to this, but we should not be forcing attended meetings with the proxy issues on division. Let each person vote by mailing in if they are interested in fencing. Let each candidate have access to the same information and voter access. Let the candidates be known before the election, so fencers can vote with knowledge.
2. In Article XI, Section 3 the Privately sponsored competitions requires 1 member of the Divisions Bout Committee to be present at such competitions. With 1300 members, there should be multiple competitions in the division the same weekend to "encourage" fencing as it states in these by-laws. This does not mean competing tournaments necessarily, but we are large enough to be able to host a Div. III competition in epee in one area in the city and a C+ tournament in another with 25+ fencers in both. We can also hold youth competitions and adult competitions the same weekend without weakening either competition. We are not paying these bout committee members, and to expect them to give up every weekend of the year for fencing is a lot. This Section will limit our growth in the division, and will limit the new fencers you have to fence. We should adapt a process similar to the USGA (United States Golf Association). They do not have these same problems in handicaps or hole-in-ones. You have to be a scratch golfer handicap acknowledged by your golf pro to play in a qualifier for the US Open. I understand that pros do not want to suffer shame by sending someone that does not meet these standards, although some have and suffered the humiliation for it. A "falsely" given rating will suffer the fencer the most, because everyone shoots to fence and beat the top dog.
I only took a quick look at the by-laws, and there may be other comments to follow. I especially want to thank the hard work of everyone involved in this process. It is easy to criticize when you were not part of the process. I will be happy to help research and adapt language for the future.
August Skopik Katy Blades Fencing Academy 281.704.5064
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jun 28, 2005 22:24:05 GMT -6
Actually reading stuff is so cool:
Section 3: Member Organization Sponsored Competitions. Privately sponsored competitions may be listed in THE DIVISION’s schedule of events if the Executive Committee approves the conditions, qualifications and restrictions of such competitions held within THE DIVISION. At least one (1) member of the Division’s Bout Committee shall be present at such approved competitions. The results of such approved competitions which otherwise comply with all USFA and Division rules and regulations may be used for the purpose of determining weapon classification upon approval by the Executive Committee.
We are years from doubling our size. If the Division bout committee is, in fact, a committee (i. e. connotating more than one person), I think our current size will not prove overmuch of a burden.
I tip my hat to Suzanne, et al, for their work. I've read the document twice now and found it well-organized and intuitive. There are one or two (very) small places that thrill me hardly at all, but I can live with it.
Then, too, I'm a bottom-feeder in a dark corner of the division and the USFA.
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Jul 15, 2005 17:54:26 GMT -6
Scuttlebutt is that, at least as of Nationals, Donald Alperstein had yet to read the draft of the new bylaws.
The USFA inaction... uhmm I meant "in action."
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jul 25, 2005 11:56:24 GMT -6
Somewhat obviously Mr. Alperstein has looked at them now. He also strongly urged some changes. There has been communication back and forth for a bit and the most current draft can be found on the official Gulf Coast Division site and here: clfc.2itb.com/photo4.htmlThe majority of voting Gulf Coast Division members may wind up passing these bylaws or not. Whichever way it goes, I truly hope it will be because they have taken the time to actually read the bylaws for themselves. I also hope that, whichever way the vote goes, those voting (for OR against the bylaws) will take some time to consider what will happen in either event. I will also make my usual plea (just so it can be derided later) that we each understand that it is possible for men and women of good character and good will to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by August Skopik on Jul 25, 2005 19:57:42 GMT -6
John,
I agree that we can disagree on these by-laws. I disagree that these by-laws take us forward. The competitions are limited by growth and the number of tournaments are too restrictive. There are some very good points in the by-laws, but the most important reason for the USFA to exist are to run tournaments to encourage fencing. It does not exist for any other reason, and that is the number one reason in the by-laws. Any parts of the by-laws that restricts growth goes against the very reason for its existence.
That is why those parts of the by-laws will force me to vote against it. I would be happy to discuss this with anyone that wants to discuss it. Like I said in earlier posts, South Houston will be limited to two tournaments and they hosted four tournaments last year.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Jul 25, 2005 22:00:30 GMT -6
What was wrong with clubs holding tournaments whenever they wanted? I think the only guideline that should be applied to whether it was a sanctioned tournament is whether USFA rules were followed at a USFA member club with say a 15-30 day notice on the club's website that the tournament will be held. Anything else is no business of the division.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by MJ WYSOCKI on Jul 26, 2005 6:11:41 GMT -6
I agree with Dan completely. Well said.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jul 26, 2005 8:00:38 GMT -6
From what little I've seen of the correspondance (which is very little) between Mr. Alperstein and some in our division, it is my understanding that the USFA believes our holding so many tournaments:
a.) produces too many rated fencers;
b.) strains the personnel/resources available to adequately administer tournaments;
c.) and/or prevents our fencers from necessary diverse and higher level competition.
For my part, I'd like to argue these points here, since I intend to shut up at the meeting (allowing I attend). This won't do any good, but it will make me feel better.
a.) Actually, once a certain number of tournaments and level of fencing is reached, while there is some extra advancement, you primarily see the same individuals simply renewing their letter classifications throughout the year. There seems to be a law of diminishing returns in this respect.
b.) The large number of tournaments HAS strained the personnel of the division, but this forced each club to recruit and train ever more personnel for bout committee and miscellaneous LOC duties. Indeed, the tremendous spike in Gulf Coast Division personnel who took the referee seminars and went to be observed illustrates this. I can recall there being less than half a dozen rated referees in this division.
c.) As to the diversity issue, large as it is, our division is still only so large with a healthy but finite number of competitors at any given moment. Ultimately, the top fencers from our various clubs will consistently find themselves fencing each other, whether they started with a table of 16 or a table of 64.
I've been to tournaments in our division which were one of 2 or 3 being held on a single weekend and watched 40+ fencers competing in an event. Not bad with a 3-way split.
Even if I allow that, under other circumstance, there might have been but one tournament on that weekend, it does not follow that EVERY fencer at ALL of the weekend's tournaments would have attended the one. Some, no doubt, fenced in the tournament they chose due to geographic proximity or to simply show support for their home club. (This last part involves primarily recreational fencers, a group frequently overlooked by Colorado Springs).
All this said, regardless of our wishes or belief in our own ability to rise to the challenges we set for ourselves, what the USFA demands of its divisions, it generally gets. If they say we each get two tournaments, whatever we vote, they will ultimately get their way.
I'll shut up now.
|
|
|
Post by captain jon on Jul 26, 2005 20:38:22 GMT -6
OK I'de like to start my own club...Salle Loud Fencers. I'de like to host 2 Houston Cup events, please. Anyone got a problem with that? Could this help?
|
|
|
Post by cowpaste on Jul 27, 2005 5:49:59 GMT -6
I'm not saying I support the new laws, but I can see some benefit to limiting each club to two tournaments. First of all, it would most likely increase the average number of fencers per tournament. Sure, it would reduce the overall amount of fencing, but I'm in favor of quality over quantity. Secondly, it would help ensure that each club be more prepared to host their tournaments, since they get only so many chances.
|
|
|
Post by August Skopik on Jul 27, 2005 6:12:45 GMT -6
Jon,
You're in for two. Actually, any club that wants to host Houston Cup tournaments have been invited from the very beginning. That was the problem, no one wanted to host them since Louise called many of the clubs and told them not to participate. I have been contacted and several other people have been contacted by fencers and clubs across the nation and they are looking to put the Houston Cup events on their calendar because they see the level of competition it is beginning to spur.
I agree totally with Dan. I know that he and Beau were looking for big things from A&M since Dan was back,(*thanks Dan*), and they were looking for 50+ new USFA members. What we are telling them is that they can't host but two tournaments. Their choices are to not fence and join the USFA, or drive to San Marcos and Austin. In the early 80s that is what happened, with San Marcos holding unclassified tournaments for several years to build up its base since the Gulf Coast at that time would not do it. Nancy Anderson began the beginner series to help beginner fencing, and she and I worked at hosting Gulf Coast events at A&M. We held 3 to 4 per year there back in the dark ages, so how is hosting 2 there good for fencing with the increase in growth and size?
The top international coaches have pointed out that fencing development is not a linear but a geometric progression. If two fencers begin at the same time, and one fences in 10 tournaments and one fences in 20, two years later the one that competes in more tournaments is multi-years ahead. The first fencer can't catch up by fencing in 40 tournaments, it just is not possible.
This was confirmed by Bob Hurley and Tracey Hurley at nationals, with the development of their daughters. Bob said that Kelley was the first American to win a World Championship in any fencing event, (not the Olympics). He said that so many things have to go right, but you have to put them into so many competitions to even have that chance. He said the early and many competitions were the key in making certain that they are ready to take advantage of the opportunity.
The other issue is that this document is supposed to provide guidelines for the future. What happens if Louise gets sick again, John has to move, Kevin decides he can't do it any more at the same time? Then we don't have any clubs with the legal ability to host USFA tournaments in the GCD. How is that a good thing? That has all happened recently to several clubs, so you know the scenario is unrealistic. Then each of us will be wishing for the good ole' days under the old by-laws. Let's not make the mistake of the Texas Constitution and micromanage this process, or we will be doing this every year.
|
|
|
Post by not power greedy on Jul 27, 2005 6:34:37 GMT -6
So how do you determine which club gets to host and how to limit them? It is insanity to limit tournaments as long as rules and regs are kept. We are setting up the possibility for one or two people deciding who can and cannot have tournaments. Perspective:the USFA (who has NO idea of what fencing in the divisin is like...consider this:our division covers more area than a good number of states!) says nothing about the amount of tournaments in NYC, and proportionately they have MORE than we do. If tournaments are poorly run the market will get rid of them naturally, people will stop attending. Limiting tournaments sets up political problems that we do not need in the division. If y'all are concerned about having tournaments with greater degree of difficulty (a higher level of competition), then get yourselves to some of the better tournaments outside of the division. Question, how are you going to determine how many is too many? How are you going to determine who can host tournaments? The USFA is allowing a group in Houston to host a DIV. 1 NAC that has NEVER hosted a tournament, so you can't limit it to clubs that have a hosting history, or clubs that have a large number of competitive fencers, or clubs that have nationally ranked fencers. Dan is right, it is the division sticking it's nose in where it does not need to be. Think we've had political problems in the past??? It is moronic to think that if we empower a few people to determine how many tournaments we hold, and who gets to host them, that we won't have major political problems. Do you honestly think having fewer tournaments will cause political healing, peace and improvement in our fencing? Question, how many c and under tournaments should we allow?? How many d and under? How many b and above? How many at all?? What a can or worms! From a legal perspective ponder this:several of our division clubs are businesses, providing livelihoods for the owners/coaches. You want a restraint of trade lawsuit to deal with??? I suspect this is a power and control issue with some folks who are currently in office or running for office.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jul 27, 2005 10:40:21 GMT -6
For the purposes of context, here is part of the new bylaws draft that is the main subject of discussion.
Section 3: Sanctioned Competitions THE DIVISION wants to encourage safe, strong, well run competitions under its authority. In order to be a USFA sanctioned competition it shall be necessary to have at least one (1) independent member of the Division Bout Committee, who shall not be affiliated with the club holding the competition, present as chair of the tournament bout committee to certify that the competition complies with all USFA and DIVISION rules and regulations. The competition, if properly conducted, shall then qualify for the purpose of determining weapon classifications. Because of the physical size of THE DIVISION, combined with the large number of clubs and the limited number of members qualified to be part of a tournament bout committee, the following system has been developed to allow all qualified USFA member clubs an equal opportunity to hold a USFA sanctioned competition:
1. Number of Available Weekends The number of weekends available for Divisional USFA sanctioned competitions shall be calculated by removing the blackout weekends (e.g. Summer Nationals, The Divisional Junior Olympic Qualifier, the Divisional and Sectional Qualifiers for Summer Nationals, Southwest Section Circuit Cup Competitions, and Regional Youth Circuit (RYC) and Super Regional Youth Circuit (SYC) competitions held in the DIVISION) and the weekends that are considered dead (e.g. the two weekends after Summer Nationals).
2. Allotment of Sanctioned Competitions to Member Clubs The number of USFA sanctioned competitions that each qualified member club may hold each year shall be calculated by dividing the number of available weekends by the number of qualified member clubs in THE DIVISION. The number of competitions shall be rounded down to the nearest number. For example, if there are 17 qualified member clubs in THE DIVISION, the number of competitions is 35/17 rounded down to the nearest whole number, which is 2. In order to be considered a qualified member club, the club must have been a member of the USFA for a minimum of six months of the previous season, and must have been a member of the USFA for six weeks before the requested competition date. In addition, the club must remain a member of the USFA prior to and during its allocated competitions, in order for the competitions to be USFA sanctioned.
3. Allocation of Weekends The Executive Committee shall publish on a Division Web site a calendar with the blackout and dead weekends as they are identified, and shall update the calendar as the blackout weekends are designated and Divisional USFA sanctioned competitions are assigned. Qualified member clubs may request a particular weekend(s) to hold their USFA sanctioned competitions for the ensuing season, starting the Monday after the Divisional Qualifiers for Summer Nationals. The request should be made via e-mail to the Executive Committee members. The Executive Committee shall assign the weekend to the club that requests it first. The time of the request shall be the earliest date and time that an Executive Committee member received it. The Secretary shall keep hard copies of the requests until the competition has been held.
4. Designation of Blackout Weekend after the Weekend has been Assigned Note that each member club asks for dates at its own risk. Because some of the “blackout weekends” may not be identified until well into the season, it is possible that a date that has been assigned for a Divisional USFA sanctioned Competition may subsequently become a blackout weekend. The member club shall therefore have to change the date of its competition or revise the competition to a non-USFA sanctioned competition. The Executive Committee shall send the affected member club a calendar with all the available dates noted and the club shall have first priority on the available dates for two weeks after the e-mail is sent.
5. Relinquishing Assigned Competition Dates In the event that a member club has requested and been assigned a date for a Divisional USFA Sanctioned Competition and subsequently decides not to hold the competition that weekend, the Club shall notify the Executive Committee in writing (by e-mail or hard copy) at least six weeks prior to the competition date. In the event that six weeks notification is not given, the date shall be counted as one of the club’s sanctioned competitions.
In the event that the number of qualified member clubs in THE DIVISION is significantly reduced during the year, it shall be left to the discretion of the Executive Committee to assign additional competitions in a fair and equitable manner. The Executive Committee shall not be allowed to offer dates to some clubs and not others. All qualified member clubs shall have an equal opportunity to hold additional sanctioned competitions.
Section 4: Non-Sanctioned Competitions. All non-sanctioned competitions may be listed in THE DIVISION’s schedule of events at the discretion of the Executive Committee. These competitions should follow USFA and DIVISION rules and regulations. However, no classifications can be earned at these non- sanctioned competitions.
|
|