|
Post by LongBlade on Feb 9, 2008 17:00:28 GMT -6
Heavy Metal 2008Texas A&M Rec Center College Station, TX 4/26-27/08askfred.net/Events/moreInfo.php?tournament_id=5374Events Scheduled:Women's Epee Women's Foil Women's Saber D & Under Mixed Epee Mixed Epee D & Under Mixed Foil Mixed Foil Mixed Saber Preregistration opens on 01/29/2008. Preregistration closes on 04/25/2008. Entry Fee is $40.00. All events after the first event are $10.00 per event. For more information: wholegrainkashi@neo.tamu.edu
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Apr 24, 2008 21:28:37 GMT -6
Looks as if this could be a good tournament per FRED: askfred.net/Events/moreInfo.php?tournament_id=5374BUT! I understand it is NOT sanctioned by the Gulf Coast Division according to their rules. So? No ratings changes will be recognized. I don't want to hurt the Aggies! A lot of them are my friends! But... before you go, check this out and get confirmation. You just want to fence? This will be a good tourney. Still... You need to check if it is sanctioned before you go thinking your ranking could change. I hope they can fix this.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Apr 24, 2008 22:09:11 GMT -6
The fencing will be strong as long as people show up. I've always felt that was the important part. It's not as if there are other tournaments to go to intstead -- at least not on AskFRED.net. As for the sanctioning, we are making the case that the by-laws posted on the Gulf Coast site make no reference to the by-laws quoted in the explaination as to why the division wouldn't sanction the event. I think it's a reasonable position. Dan
|
|
|
Post by Maupin on Apr 24, 2008 22:29:56 GMT -6
As for the sanctioning, we are making the case that the by-laws posted on the Gulf Coast site make no reference to the by-laws quoted in the explaination as to why the division wouldn't sanction the event. BylawsArticle XI Section 3 Part 2 (It is on Page 12)
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Apr 24, 2008 23:12:31 GMT -6
I had difficulty finding a direct link to that document on the division site. It's buried in an old news post. Why is it not on the bylaw page ( www.gulfcoastfencing.org/bylaws.htm)? Additionally, the name of the file is bylawdraft20050723.doc. The news page talks about the meeting making some changes to July 23 draft, but doesn't list them. Has this draft updated those changes? Why would I believe this document in any way supersedes what the division openly presents as the by-laws on the page reserved for the by-laws? I don't mean to be hyper-critical, but again the idea is that the division promotes fencing. I see no reason to withhold sanction for this tournament. There seems to be enough wiggle room here to offer sanction, clean up the website, and revisit whether the draft document's positions really serve the division. Dan
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Apr 24, 2008 23:47:35 GMT -6
Dan,
Let me put this to you.
As the friend of one member of the EC and the husband of another, I promise you, over many, many, many weeks the Gulf Coast Division EC sent message after message after message to the Texas A&M Fencing Club using every contact they could find (old emails, club website, the USFA) asking them about their membership status... letting them know the USFA did not list them as members... voicing concerns... warning what could happen...
They did not act until this week.
I know they are college kids, but...
I mean, c'mon...
Nobody set out to torpedo the TAMUFC. We gain nothing by that. I have not spoken to Louise in over a week, but I promise you (from emails and personal conversations) Rachel, Nicole and Matt only want TAMU to succeed.
Yet you can't just ignore everyone's warnings and calls and then expect they will make it all better when you look up and the deadlines have all passed.
It can be a good, even great, tournament. No one's letters change. That is all. That is the ONLY difference between this and some other tournaments.
|
|
|
Post by MTD on Apr 25, 2008 0:01:58 GMT -6
Dan does observe correctly that the Bylaw section I quoted cannot be located on the Division Web site. He has inadvertently stumbled into an embarrassing piece of Division dirty laundry, a piece of dirty laundry for which I refuse any blame because for the past two and a half years I have been a gadfly complaining that it needs to be corrected. What is listed in the easy-to-find place on the Division Web site is the Bylaws previous to the July 31, 2005 meeting when the Division adopted new Bylaws. But, the truth is actually more complcated than that. The Division didn't actually do a complete and finished job of adopting new Bylaws. What was brought to the meeting was a draft document, prepared by a group of eight people who had no actual legal authority distinguishing them from anybody else, referred to as the bylaw committee. That draft, known as the "July 23rd draft", is still available on the Web site (http://www.gulfcoastfencing.org/bylawdraft20050723.doc), being pointed to by a news item which describes its availability and referring to the then-upcoming July 31, 2005 special meeting. The "July 23rd draft" also appears as an appendix to the minutes of the July 31, 2005 meeting. The minutes of the July 31st, 2005 meeting are available on the Web site. They were available in a different draft not too long after the meeting itself, and were entertained at the the April 1st, 2006 annual meeting, but the meeting took no action to adopt or revise them because an objection to the draft was voiced (which doesn't relate to the present issue) and the assembly decided that there wasn't information available (translation: I was not present to explain) to decide about the objection but there would be on a future occasion. That future occasion was the March 24, 2007 meeting, at which I explained why the original draft was actually acceptable, but the meeting ordered that that section be revised, which was done in the requested fashion, ironically leaving the objecting party looking less good than in the original draft. Anyway, please consult those minutes (http://www.gulfcoastfencing.org/minutes/M20050731.htm and www.gulfcoastfencing.org/minutes/M20050731.doc). The gist of the story explained in those minutes is that the vast majority of the "July 23rd draft" was adopted verbatim. Of what was not adopted verbatin, a big part was adopted with explicitly specified emendations. The problem is the rest, where the membership ordered that the draft be altered in appropriate fashion as to achieve specific objectives but where the membership did not provide any words! The membership implicitly ordered the bylaw committee to take the "July 23rd draft" with the alterations made in the meeting, and then do whatever was necessary and appropriate to achieve the remaining orders of the membership which were not accompanied by actual words which could be used as Bylaws. The minutes say: "By general consent, this was assumed to include authorizing the bylaw committee to prepare actual wording for such portions of the draft Bylaws for which the assembly has passed motions stating the philosophy which needed to be embodied in the Bylaws but not specifying actual wording." Now, we get the the heart of the problem. The last draft to come out of the bylaw committee was produced on July 29, 2006, but the bylaw committee still had not yet finished the job of coming into compliance with the orders of the membership! In my personal opinion, all that remains is to correct corrupted numbering which resulted in accidentally joining two different sections (with different indentation levels) into one, and making adjustments in two different places to remove a change which the membership NEVER ordered involving the notice required for a special meeting. But, the bottom line is that, in the eyes of the law, we know what 95% of our Bylaws are, but we still do not yet have a complete copy of our current Bylaws because the bylaw committee has yet to complete the job which it was given by the membership on July 31, 2005. Very recently, I have been given some cause to believe that the bylaw committee may finally finish. But, until that happens, the truth is that nobody has given the Webmaster, and nobody CAN give the Webmaster, a complete and correct copy of the current Bylaws. Thats why, with no fanfare, the Webmaster has not posted the "current" Bylaws. However, you will find that the six weeks provision is part of the "July 23rd draft", and you will find that the minutes of the meeting show that that portion (Article XI Section 3 part 2) was adopted unchanged by the membership, other than that it was prefixed and suffixed by additional text which did nothing to reduce the applicability or provide exemptions. The "July 23rd draft" said: 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. The minutes show that the additional text which has become prefixed embodied an order of the membership: After some additional discussion over the text of the main motion, it was restated to specify that the number of available weekends would be determined, one weekend would go exclusively to each USFA member club resorting to the lottery in case negotiation cannot resolve conflicts, and thereafter the remaining dates would be claimed by clubs rotating in lottery order where conflicting tournaments would be permitted but conflicting events would not, continuing until either the calendar is full or no club seeks additional days. The motion passed without objection. I cannot find in a quick search where the authorization for the suffixed words appears in the minutes, but the suffixed don't actually say much. It essentially says, "If you're trying to find out about allocation of calendar dates and you've read this far without the question being answered, then the answer comes in what follows." The latest draft from the bylaw committee says: Each qualified USFA member club in the Division is allocated one exclusive weekend per season on which to hold a USFA sanctioned tournament. 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 competition, in order for the competition to be USFA sanctioned. All other non black-out weekends shall be assigned in the manner described in the “Allocation of Weekends” paragraph that follows. Now, aren't you sorry you opened the can of worms about the latest bylaw text not being posted on the Web site as the Bylaws? And, don't blame me for the situation. I'm not part of the bylaw committee. I'm merely the worst thorn in their side.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Apr 25, 2008 0:03:41 GMT -6
I don't know this is the place for this discussion. We feel there is a second side to this story and I'd like to discuss it with the officers. I think bad assumptions were made on both sides and the e-mails I've seen make the Aggie club position understandable if not entirely correct. To present it as college kids ignoring the wise adults looking out for them isn't entirely fair though from what I'm seeing.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Apr 25, 2008 0:20:27 GMT -6
Nor is that what I mean to represent.
However, if you post a tournament on FRED for weeks, then join the USFA in the last, what(?), 5 days, before the tournament...
Is it reasonable to expect the USFA to sanction your event if you do not even bother to JOIN the organization until the last minute.
Also, just FWIW, I do not blame the college students.
Any of us that they turned to for guidance should have directed them properly. It is a college club. They regularly have (expected) turnover. It is to any and all of us in the day-to-day fencing world that they turn to for guidance or advice who bear the burden of this.
The Gulf Coast Division is not the heavy (this time!). Look at virtually any of the 65+ divisions that make up the USFA and you will find similar requirements.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Apr 25, 2008 0:20:55 GMT -6
I want to make it clear, that I understand the Ags screwed up. I don't think the Ags are the only one to do so though. I know the division officers work hard. The Ags do too.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by Beau Brunson on Apr 25, 2008 0:20:56 GMT -6
I've tried to stay out of this, but I've got to say something. I've poured over every email that the TAMUFC officers say they recieved from division representatives over the course of this semester. Not one email mentions the six week requirement for tournament sanctioning. The only email I've seen that even mentions anything requiring membership is to get on the tournament reservation list. This list has been almost irrelevant to our club since its conception since we can't reserve dates for our facilities until well have school begins. For the past severals years we've been diligent about picking weekends that don't conflict with anyone else after the division assigns tournaments. This year we finally thought we had a picked date set, but the Pouj dropped on top of us.
I talked to Rachel, in person, towards the begining of the semester, and told her we wanted to host a tournament this weekend. At the time the only information I got from her was that the date needed to be sent out to see if any other club wanted to claim it. None did, and that was the last I heard from Rachel.
Sarah Kashinsky told that she did in fact try to contact Rachel to no avail. For the first time in three years our club is under new leadership entirely. As such, she had no idea that the bylaws were so stringent on the tournament time table with USFA membership.
Furthermore, I have seen every one of the division officers in person on more than one occasion throughout this semester. At no point in time was it mentioned (shockingly even by Matt) that there was any problems with the Heavy Metal. In fact, the first I heard that the tournament was not going to be sanctioned was from an email from Mrs. Bone.
This afternoon, I spent about 6 hours trying to find the sanctioning rules on the Gulf Coast Website. It wasn't until I saw Nicole's post that was finally able to see the "draft." For something that was so utterly and completely fought over four years ago, the division doesn't seem to be publiziing its rules very well. I understand that no one is trying to sink the TAMUFC, but the end result is the same. This will greatly hurt our tournament. This does not just make TAMUFC look bad, it makes our entire division look bad. This is a case of following the "letter of the law," but not the "spirit of the law." The TAMUFC is not hosting over anyone and the tournament has been up for almost 4 months now. The club made sure that they were not scheduling over anyone. The club was also compliant in not scheduling over a blackout date. The EC has used its power in the past to sanction tournaments not sanctioned by the Tournament Commitee (August 15, 2007), and now would be a wonderful time to do so again.
Beau
|
|
|
Post by Beau Brunson on Apr 25, 2008 0:26:27 GMT -6
The Gulf Coast Division is not the heavy (this time!). Look at virtually any of the 65+ divisions that make up the USFA and you will find similar requirements. Not entirely true, per a conversation with staff in the USFA office, the USFA does not require a host club to have a membership to the USFA to be sanctioned. That is strictly a division issue. Many divisions do require it, many do not. If I remember correctly, this rule was instituted to keep certain heads of certain clubs from doing the "find a way to screw you over dance." I'm realatively certain the TAMUFC is not trying to keep the older fencers in our division and section from participating in the Youth NAC.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Apr 25, 2008 7:52:45 GMT -6
As I said, no one wanted this situation.
I am not looking to start a fight.
I do not speak for the division hierarchy's official position, just as someone who had a bird's-eye view of the frustration from some officers who (variously) got silence or inaccurrate replies.
I have friends going to Heavy Metal who would like to up their classifications, too!
|
|
|
Post by fox on Apr 25, 2008 8:19:29 GMT -6
As an outsider to this, might I suggest everyone take a step back and breathe?
If there is a way, within the rules, to grant sanction to this event, I think every effort should be made.
If the rules absolutely prohibit sanction, then everyone should go anyway and use the tournament as a chance to hone their skills before nationals. There are not many tournament opportunities left.
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Apr 25, 2008 8:26:26 GMT -6
How funny.
From my experience (granted, not vast) schlager7 is usually the activist/bleeding-heart and Dan Gorman the minimalist, keep-the-division out of club affairs advocate.
Not trying to goad.
Really.
Just a casual observation from a fencer who is not going to nationals but is planning to show up in College Station this weekend...
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Apr 25, 2008 9:03:45 GMT -6
activist/bleeding-heart?
Well, I have certainly been called worse. Like I said, I have friends who would not turn down an improved ranking this weekend. If it can be sanctioned, I actually hope it will.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Apr 25, 2008 9:47:16 GMT -6
The trick is the rules prohibit the tournament being sanctioned. I don't deny that. The issue is that the club officers say they weren't told this. The emails I've seen support this contention. The by-laws that are presented on the division site don't reference this. What's the right thing to do?
I think this situation allows the division to be flexible. I've always been an advocate of flexibility in leadship. I also am a minimalist when it comes to rules. That's why I think this is a bad rule and the SNAFU gives us a good reason to ignore what I feel is a bad rule. It's not like this is a surprise tournament sprung from the depths at the last minute -- it's been out there for a while. There isn't in my mind a good reason not to sanction it.
Dan
Dan
|
|
|
Post by JEC on Apr 25, 2008 10:32:46 GMT -6
I don't think it is a bad rule. I actually think it is a helpful step to encourage clubs keep their membership with USFA. However, what is bad is not having the rule clearly stated in the Division website.
Two other points:
If a club cancels "more than 3" tournaments of their selected blocked weekend (or does not schedule a tournament) over a 2 year cycle, they should be penalized with not been able to be in the rotation for a year.
If a blocked weekend tournament is Open, then other clubs can host youth or Veteran. If it is Junior/Cadet, other clubs can host Veteran or Y10/12. If it is Youth, then an Open or Veteran can be hosted by other clubs. You could have a secondary list of clubs for the blocked weekend selection after the primary club has choosen their tournament. ...
or you could default to the South Texas model.
Just my $ 0.02 from a neighboring division.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Apr 25, 2008 19:41:17 GMT -6
Official word has come down. The tournament will not be sanctioned. The fencing will still be great, we'll still be happy to see everyone, and it's still the only tournament in Texas this weekend. Have fun fencing.
So what is the South Texas model?
Dan
|
|
|
Post by Daniel MacLeod on Apr 25, 2008 21:08:37 GMT -6
UTSA is now the host club for the Heavy Metal tournament. As such, it will be sanctioned by the South Texas division. Ratings will be given.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Apr 25, 2008 21:37:21 GMT -6
Drive on.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Apr 25, 2008 22:22:53 GMT -6
Intriguing, but College Station is a few miles east of Highway 77.
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Apr 25, 2008 22:51:27 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Apr 26, 2008 8:18:56 GMT -6
The location hasn't changed.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by katyblades on Apr 26, 2008 13:55:13 GMT -6
I am very interested in UTSA sponsoring a tournament for a club within the Gulf Coast Division. What this boils down to is that is people want more USFA Sanctioned events, and clubs can't host them because all the dates are taken. Everyone but the leadership wants more tournaments. As long as the people allow for less tournaments then we will have less tournaments.
I do have a location in Katy that is available every weekend. I also can host an A1 epee event with just Katy Blades fencers, so we would definitely have a rating opportunity.
There were supposed to be Aggie representatives at the meeting in August, and at the meeting it was discussed club USFA membership. Please make certain that they and all clubs know the rule in the future.
I have several fencers there right now that will probably be upset. I have not been at on the board lately, so this is the first time I heard this.
|
|