|
Post by schlager7 on Apr 25, 2005 22:28:04 GMT -6
FYI, I have received the following from David Sierra:
Dear Friends, Colleagues, and Fellow Fencers, Your vote is important to the Southwest Section and I want your vote! I have decided to run for Southwest Section Chair, because I believe in you, the fencing community, and want to keep our Section in the forefront of development and moving towards the future of US Fencing.
As many of you know, I have served the Southwest Section as an officer (Vice-Chair 2000-2003 and 2004-2005), Commissioner of the SSCC (2000-2005), and referee (currently rated 5 in all weapons and been rated since 2001) out of a genuine love for our sport, and a desire to build and develop our shared passion. I am writing you at this time to ask for your support in furthering the progress that has been accomplished lately. Over the past years, I have developed strong, professional relationships with fencers, coaches, referees, tournament organizers, and parents across our Section and within the USFA and believe that these relationships, combined with my knowledge of our sport gained from the perspective of an athlete, a coach, a referee and as a tournament organizer will allow me to be an effective leader of our Section.
Many of you are familiar with my role as the Commissioner of the Southwest Sectional Circuit Cup (or as its commonly referred to, the SSCC) for the past five years. During that time, I have guided the SSCC using policies of mutual respect, consensus-based decision making and adherence to the mission statement of the SSCC, “To promote increased participation among all levels of fencers in tournaments outside their home Divisions, to provide elite athletes with serious fencing at Regional competitions, to increase the size and strength of tournaments throughout the Section, to better prepare fencers for competition on the National level, and to promote fencing in general across the Section.” During my tenure as SSCC Commissioner, it has grown to one of the best regional circuits in the USFA. Many of the best fencers and coaches in our region regularly use SSCC events as training grounds and have gone on to very respectable results at the national and even international level. SSCC events are well run, efficiently organized tournaments, with quality bout committees, top caliber referees, excellent equipment (often with all grounded strips), and some of the best athletes in our region competing. We routinely draw competitors from outside our Section as well. Through collective action, ingenuity and a dedication to the mission of the SSCC, we can continue to grow and serve the elite athletes, the recreational athletes, the student athletes, and the developmental athletes of the Section by providing the very best series of tournaments we can.
As Section Chair, I will continue to support the SSCC in its current form and strive to continue building an atmosphere of success and positive growth.
As with any endeavor of this magnitude and importance, there are naysayers and growing pains, and those who are just adverse to change. However, I believe that the general consensus is that the SSCC is a positive force for fencing in our Section and can continue providing some of the best competitive opportunities in our region.
We must also continue our program of referee development if we are to grow and continue to have the quality level of events we’ve enjoyed recently, not just in the SSCC, but also throughout the calendar. I have been personally involved in identifying, training and developing new referees in conjunction with the three FOC examiners in our Section, as well as tournament organizers and individual clubs. We must continue to put on regular referee training seminars and provide mentoring to developing referees in actual competitive situations. Additionally, I would like to add a series of advanced clinics, focusing on weapon specific issues and calls, and I believe the Section can play a role in coordinating and fostering such clinics.
To support these efforts, an excellent slate of potential officers possessing experience and leadership has been assembled. Standing for election to continue as Treasurer and Secretary will be Anjea Earle Ray of Austin, Texas and Terry Harkey of Shreveport, Louisiana, respectively. Both have been critical components of the successes of recent years. Jerry Benson will stand again for election as Representative to the USFA Board of Directors, providing an excellent voice for our Section in the National Leadership. Joining the team will be Rachel El-Salah of Houston, Texas, as Vice-Chair and Commissioner of the SSCC, bringing with her valuable leadership experience and positive vision.
There has never been a time more critical to our Section than this year. The resources needed to continue the positive development of our Section require experienced, effective leadership. Your vote is highly important. If you are unable to attend the business meeting at the Section Qualifier in Houston, please sign your proxy (found on the Southwest Section website...) and give it to someone who will be attending. Either myself or any one of the slate above will be honored to represent you. Vote for continued progress as a leading Section of the USFA. Vote for me, David Sierra as Section Chair, and I promise I will work for you. Together we can make great things happen!
Yours in Fencing, David A. Sierra
|
|
|
Post by 'Guest' on Apr 28, 2005 9:00:11 GMT -6
This is a joke , Right?
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Apr 28, 2005 12:03:31 GMT -6
It's no joke, nameless "Guest"! David is clearly the best person for the job and he has my vote!
|
|
|
Post by saberbobcat on Apr 30, 2005 9:36:04 GMT -6
Alright... I usually stay out of this kind of thing, BUT when/where are the elections? David can have my vote, too.
|
|
|
Post by guest 2 on Apr 30, 2005 11:12:56 GMT -6
anybody but....
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Apr 30, 2005 12:29:29 GMT -6
Yet another nameless guest weighs in with a constructive post! *LMAO*
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Apr 30, 2005 12:38:49 GMT -6
Saberbob: The Annual Section Meeting is at the Section Championship tournament on Saturday, May 14th at the Houston Athletic Fencing Center. There is also a Proxy form on the back of the Sectionals flyer if you aren't going to be there.
|
|
|
Post by David Sierra on May 4, 2005 13:18:02 GMT -6
I appreciate your confidence and support Longblade and others and hope I can count on you at crunch time in a couple of weeks. I am doing this, not out of some sense of overinflated ego or personal glorification, but because I have made a committment to the fencing community. I have worked hard over the past several years to help our sport and want to continue the excellent program we've begun. Yes, its true, there are some differences over the nuances of direction and substance of some of the issues at hand, but I believe we ALL want to help improve our sport.
Reasonable people can reasonably disgree over some of the details, and work together to come to a resolution that all can live with and proceed in a positive direction. This is an important election for our Section - all of them are - but this one in particular, as it will determine if we continue the successes or retract. Anyone wishing to contribute to the discussions and protocols that are being developed is highly encouraged to submit their suggestions and ideas. And if you're concerned about a specific issue, participate in the conversations that address that issue!
Again, I appreciate your support!
David Sierra oso97@hotmail.com
|
|
|
Post by August Skopik on May 4, 2005 14:11:05 GMT -6
Dear David,
Thank you for the invitation to discuss, and I want to make several points about the current direction of fencing in the section, division and nation. In 1990 I laid out for Michelle the newly elected president of the USFA the same ideas laid out by Oliver in discussing the sectional circuit and promoting fencing, (This Oliver I think was actually the Oliver over the Houston Sports Authority). Michelle rejected fencing giving anything away or hosting anything like it because we had never done anything like that before.
In a recent vote by current Section officers over the Katy Blades hosting the SSCC in conjuction with the Houston Sports Authority, this was the vote;
No No No No No No
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Please note that David Sierra did not vote.
This banning of the Katy Blades/HSA hosting the Sectional Circuit was enforced because Katy Blades hosted a youth/ "D" and under tournament the same day as the Rose Condon, a sectional circuit held over 200+ miles away. There are no youth competitions at the Sectional Circuits, and there was not a single fencer that would have traveled to Shreveport that fenced in the Katy Blades tournament. The tournament brought in over 10 new USFA members, fencing in their first tournament.
The public explanation is that they are helping fencing, but we all know what it takes to go to a tournament in your own city, much less to travel. Quite frankly, the sectional officers that made the decision are Jerry Benson, Terry Harkey and Anjea Ray. The ALM Rep and the OK Rep may have alliances or differences but that is understandable. The Gulf Coast Rep and Terry Harkey also have reasons to never work with the HSA or have the HSA involved in fencing in Houston. In this election it is those sectional officers that need to be questioned.
As a section, do you see the vision of fencing limiting tournaments in different areas of the country? It is not that way in the USFA by-laws. There are world cups, NACs, regional and local tournaments every weekend and these often conflict. Last year there were two Super RYCs the same weekend. Instead of having one event with 200 people what resulted were two events with 200 people in each. Amazing.
Are the "D" and unders the people that are being targeted for the SSCCs. As an experienced fencer, when you go a training tournament such as the SSCC it would be good to be able to fence fellow highly competitive fencers in the first round. When you dilute the rated fencers by forcing the beginners to fence the SSCC or stay home, how are you helping the sport?
In addition, when you force the youth not to have a tournament because the adults are in a separate state, (and Texas is a big state), then are you helping fencing?
I have heard that there are ideas about changing the by-laws and rulings for the SSCCs. I would like to see specifics on this area to know what I am voting for. I think the fencing community deserves it. I would like to know how the section will be working to "promote" fencing, which is the main goal of any administrative USFA board. "Promote" means attract the sport to others, sell the attractiveness of the sport to non-fencers. Encourage others to take up the sport in a meaningful way. I am not implying that any of the current section officers are not doing that in their own clubs, it is just that their long term policies in the past have been to NOT "Promote" the sport based upon recent decisions. It would be good to see how they will promote the sport in the future.
We have many issues in the Gulf Coast Division currently, with the USFA having to intercede for the division and conduct the elections. We need to be vigilant to make certain that the same type of leadership does not emerge on the Sectional level.
August Skopik Katy Blades Fencing Academy katyblades@sbcglobal.net
|
|
|
Post by David Sierra on May 5, 2005 0:12:06 GMT -6
August,
To begin with, the issue of the automatic declining of Katy Blades as an SSCC LOC by the Southwest Section Executive Committee had nothing to do with any of the issues you are citing. It was a proceedural vote to set aside the Operations Manual under which all potential SSCC hosts agree to operate under, which the EC declined to do at this time, given the immediacy of the issue. Should sufficent time pass without additional concerns, I am confident that the EC will agree to lift the prohibition, as it has for other potential LOCs in the past, once a sufficent amount of time has passed. Additionally, you incorrectly cite both the number and identity of persons who voted on the Executive Committee and how they voted, which is not a matter of open record. The question did not pass by a vote of 7-4, with the specific provisions of the SSCC Ops Manual being followed. If you want to know who voted and how, then you need to ask the persons directly. This is a matter totally independant of your division politics, no "alliances" were formed (see the SSCC Ops Manual), and the matter is closed for the remainder of this season.
Now, with respect to the proposed changes to the SSCC Ops Manual for next season. It is difficult to specify them, because they have not been fully elucidated yet however, I intend to present the proposed changes to the membership at the Sectional meeting during the SSCC Commissioner's Report. It is customary for the Section membership to discuss issues involving seeding protocols, preregistration and tournament operations like these at the Section meeting and vote on recomendations to the Executive Committee, which typcially follows thier recomendations.
These are two minor proceedural issues (with significant impacts on some specific operational aspects to be sure), but no major overhaul of SSCC policies or guidelines has been envisioned or proposed at this time. Major overhauls in tournament designation protocols, referee development and "coordination issues" are saved for the SSCC planning meeting typically held in the fall at the Longhorn Open. This meeting is open to _all_ interested persons, and decisions reached are by consensus, which are forwarded to the Executive Committee for ratification. If you have concerns about the overall structure of the SSCC, that meeting is the proper time to air them.
With respect to the first, its obvious that the current protocols do not work. Based upon conversations I've had with competitors, coaches and tournament organizers across the Section, a consensus seems to be forming around a pre-paid preregistration scheme, similar in format to the one utilized by the Crescent City Open or Southwest Sectional Championships, with a discount of $5-$15 given for pre-paid registrations, and only prepaid registrations counted as being "pre-registered." Pre-paid registrations will need to be recieved by a certain date (either 1 or 2 weeks prior to the event). The exact details need to be finalized and hopefully the membership can decide that.
The second issue concerns the seeding protocols for SSCC events. Currently, SSCC events utilize SSCC points as part of the seeding protocols, as well as national points, with the top 8 SSCC point holders being "protected." A proposal has been floated to remove the "protection" point holders, and instead utilze National and SSCC points to resolve ties among ratings, either before or after year of earning. Additionally, its been proposed that the SSCC points system utilize a Rolling Points Standing, with events kept on the Rolling points for either a year or until an event is held in the same Division. Again, it is hoped the membership can come to a consensus on this issue.
If there are other issues of tournament operations and protocols that you feel need to be addressed, please forward them to me, and I'll see that they are presented in a similar fashion. Please save coordination and overall structure proposals for the SSCC planning meeting in the fall when major changes can be presented and discussed in a more nuanced and thoughtful manner with time to comment and reflect on the consequenses of major changes, both forseen, and unintended.
If you ask how I and the other members of the proposed slate will vote on these specific issues when presented to the EC, they will follow the recomendation of the Section membership. If you wish to know how the proposed slate will vote on issues that have not been proposed, I cannot comment, other than to say we remain committed to preserving the integrity and overall structure of the SSCC as it is currently composed, focused on attracting a broad range of competitors of all rankings to the events and attempting to provide a valuable experience for both the highly competitive and recreational fencer (you are correct when you say that total novices do not belong in SSCC-point events, however, a number of SSCC LOCs this year chose to include developmental events hosted after the conclusion of point events at SSCC tournaments and it is hoped that other LOCs follow their lead, assuming the resources are available). If a clear consensus for change emerges at the SSCC planning meeting in the fall, we will likely follow the consensus that emerges.
I would like to reiterate - the proposed slate is a TEAM, with each individual having specific roles to play in building fencing across the Section in a focused, yet limited manner. Many of these roles are "behind the scenes" and are not readily apparent to the casual observer, such as the USFA membership and rating verification service, Bout Committee and referee training, fiscial responsibility, and calendar coordination of both SSCC and non-SSCC events (RYC's, Division qualifiers, and other large regional events). It is NOT the role of the Section to promote fencing on the local level, although there are things we can and do undertake to support those who do. I do feel it important that we as a Section try to coordinate with each other with respect to our larger events, and try to keep them free of other competition as much as possible, to avoid stretching our already thin (but getting better!) referee and bout committee cadre. The degree of coordination that we need to acheive in the future may need to be revamped - and should be included possibly in the fall SSCC planning meeting - based upon an accurate and realistic assesment of available resources, but until then, I think the current guidelines are appropriate and should stay in effect.
David Sierra oso97@hotmail.com
|
|
|
Post by Exnicios on May 5, 2005 0:52:46 GMT -6
I don't know who is on "the slate" so I cannot comment on their qualifications and prior performance but I can add this. I disagree completely with David. I do not believe that he is what our section needs. I would like to recap a few things from another viewpoint. This season saw a drastic increase in the late fees and micro management of the SSCC events and the rules of the SSCC being arbitrarily applied. For instance the Rose Condon was allowed to select their date out of order, which force the CCO to a later date in April. The Double and Triple late fees for the SSCC events and the high number of no shows at the SSCC events either directly or partially caused by this double and triple late fee policy. The no show numbers (pre-registration compared to actual entries) SSCC #1, The Longhorn, 23% no-show SSCC #2, The Oz Parsons, 29% no-show SSCC #3, Space City Rendezvous, 53% no-show SSCC #4, The Rose Condon, 37% no-show SSCC #5, North Texas Grand Prix, 43 % no show And the CCOO which was slated to be SSCC #6 DID NOT follow the Sierra policy of late fees, 4% no show. Other SSCC problems. The questionable vote taken at last years Section meeting which changed the events from Mixed & Women's to the segregated Men�s & Women's. During the course of David�s reasoning and justification for this change several things were stated as facts that were false. Mainly that the USFA was looking at the Southwest Section and the SSCC as a model for future national qualifying paths. This was completely false. There were other references to the USFA's opinion on the segregation, which also proved to be false. We met with USFA at Nationals to discuss this and Michael knew very little about the entire situation other than that there were some issues and that they could best be solved internally. There was no �official� USFA position or endorsement. Another bit of false information that David quoted, was the number of women fencing in mixed events and not women's events. I have been tracking the gender statistics in SSCC events and his assessment is wholly incorrect. He knew of the number and statistics, in his own internal memo he stated that only 10% of the women entries fenced in only the Mixed events and he knew this information would weaken his position so he concluded the memo with "while I have highlighted the Women who only fenced mixed events this past year, I don't think it is particularly helpful to widely publicize that information. For now, let us keep that information on close hold I think, to avoid engendering any more ill wind." Yet he still stated that the women's events were suffering because so many women were fencing mixed and not women's Katy Blades is being denied the ability to host the 2005-2006 SSCC event for their division. The CCO lost its SSCC status for the 2004-2005 season based on the CCO following the rules for the SSCC as they existed at the time their bid to host SSCC#6 was accepted (i.e. non-segregated events, Mixed and Women's) This all would not be so bad if the rules were being equally enforced. North Texas and Oklahoma violated the SSCC rules by having other events during their SSCC events. Not that I think that was a bad thing but if the rules are the rules why were these two divisions allowed to violate the rules. I guess for the same reason that Ark-La-miss was allowed to schedule out of turn last year and also again this year. The rose has already published their date (see I am not criticizing these tournaments. The rose is an outstanding tournament and one that I normally take my team to every year. Same for the other SSCC events, they are all excellent tournaments. They are quality events because the people running these events work their butts off and know what they are doing. It is a slap in the face to all of these tournaments for David to even imply that they owe their success to his efforts. As I have stated many times these events are successful DESPITE their SSCC affiliation. The MONEY I don't have the numbers but I believe the SSCC lost money this year. This is based on the policy change that the prior year top three SSCC point holders fenced for free and the SSCC would cover half of that from the head tax. My calculations are based on the entries from askfred.net SSCC #1, 272 entries, 11 SSCC free entries, head tax less 1/2 free entries: $107 SSCC #2, 161 entries, 10 SSCC free entries, head tax less 1/2 free entries: - $39 SSCC #3, 100 entries, 7 SSCC free entries, head tax less 1/2 free entries: - $5 SSCC #4, 181 entries, 12 SSCC free entries, head tax less 1/2 free entries: - $59 SSCC #5, 143 entries, 9 SSCC free entries, head tax less 1/2 free entries: $8 SSCC #6 no head tax collected would have been approx $260 The grand total excluding SSCC#6 is $12 and I am sure that the awards and other costs exceed $12. So is the section subsidizing the SSCC now? Hmm The SSCC is a good thing but it has gotten completely out of hand when it calls for the micro managing of the tournaments by the SSCC commissioner. Things as trivial as how the posting on askfred must read all the way to who must be hired and paid to referee Other issues. The Section did not send out a mailing for any of the SSCC events that I know of, I believe that they, like the CCO took care of doing their own mailings. In the past the section did do a mailing with information on the SSCC events. Dovid did make sure that the section got a newsletter out to announce sectionals and of course remind everyone that the CCO was not an SSCC event (see www.southwestfencing.org/newsletters/SWS%20Spring%2005%20NL.pdf)David has taken it upon himself to control the section as he sees fit. Sectionals were slated for South Texas then North Texas then finally they were scheduled in Gulf Coast Division. I understand scheduling problems and such but according to the section bylaws: Article VII. Section 1. . . . . .The Championships shall be held on a rotation basis according to the following order of invitations: (1) Oklahoma; (2) South Texas; (3) Ark-La-Miss; (4) North Texas; (5) Border Texas; (6) Louisiana; (7) Gulf Coast. In the event that the Division whose turn it is to host the Championships fails to accommodate the invitation, that Division then goes to the bottom of the list. The next Division then being eligible shall be asked to tender an invitation. So the rotation was NOT followed. This was Not the section Chair, Angela Torres making these decisions but David. Interesting enough the bylaws also state: Article VII. Section 1. The Southwest Section Championships shall be held annually between April 15 and May 10 (inclusive) unless changed by a majority vote of the Executive Committee. My calendar has May 14&15 AFTER May 10th. Despite how it appears, I have nothing personal against David nor do I have any "agenda." We all fence because we love the sport and want the same thing, the growth of the sport and to be able to enjoy the sport; but I honestly believe that what is best for our section next year is NOT David Sierra. Richard Exnicios exnicios@bellsouth.net Oh and to dispel all the rumors, I am not running for Section Chair.
|
|
|
Post by Terry Harkey on May 5, 2005 9:04:34 GMT -6
Hello Gulf Coast!!
I appreciate the Gulf Coast allowing “intruders” like me into their forums. I normally do not participate in ANY forums, but I feel obligated to address a few misconceptions that left unchallenged could gain strength. You will not read me often on this forum especially not on this subject, although feel free to contact me personally to discuss anything that you wish regarding our section.
1) The EC purpose: The Executive Committee of the Southwest Section is composed of the officers of the section and the chairs of the 7 divisions (12 people) who are charged with running a sectional qualifier and an annual meeting. Additionally, and almost unique to our section they coordinate a wonderful series of tournaments that span the section (hopefully someday including Border!) Jerry, Terry and Anjea do NOT run this thing!
2) The EC votes Our Executive Committee has never published roll call votes, even though I believe all of us are quite open to discuss our votes with individuals who wish to do so. Every officer and chair has people who dislike them. The reason we do not publish specific votes is to lessen smear attacks by those who would like to twist the vote without fear of rebuttal in their own divisions. It is a trust that we give each other on the committee – we don’t share how others vote. Mr. Skopik already has violated this trust by publishing what he believes to be the final tally on the vote which took place last month with regard to his gaining designation as the Circuit Cup from Gulf Coast. For everyone’s information, as secretary, I receive, count and record all votes. Mr. Sierra DID vote. His vote is confidential, just as are all the others. Apparently the person who was copying Mr. Skopik realized he/she was violating protocol and did not give him the final information.
3) The SSCC censure In the early years of the SSCC, Salle Mauro held a few tournaments on top of SSCC events and was censured for a time until they asked to be replaced into the rotation. At that time, as recorded in the minutes, the EC voted to reestablish Salle Mauro into the circuit rotation. At that time there were no pending or outstanding complaints regarding anyone in any of the divisions for violating the cooperative effort that is necessary for our section to have these unique tournaments. So in January 2003, the slate was clean, and currently only Katy Blades is under censure – and that only until the next EC meeting at which time I am sure the EC will vote to (if no further violations occur this coming season) reestablish Katy Blades into the viable rotation.
4) Bidding Those who know the SSCC and have followed the process know that the tournaments sending in their information first – get the spots first, especially those who have been established as their division’s standard designation. Rose has had a long standing history of January. Two seasons ago, the organizers were able to secure a venue at the desired time, but immediately made arrangements for the larger venue which could not be acquired in the January time frame. The organizers are locked in by contract a year in advance to this venue and are already set for next season (Jan 7-8) and the following! The only one the Rose stepped on in 2004-2005 was Oz Parson’s and Oz organizers were very gracious to change their date, since Rose could not. The Rose bid is probably the first one in every season. It was not done out of turn this season or any other season.
5) Katy Blades decision If anyone desires any information regarding the Katy Blades/SSCC matter, please enquire of the chair of your own division or a section officer because this matter has been thoroughly discussed and decided for this season. And I for one am completely confident that had Mr. Skopik just 3 weeks prior to the SSCC not changed his all youth “Rising Star” event that was on the Gulf Coast calendar for months into a D and under, he would be the SSCC host this season for Gulf Coast. However, even after consultation at the Arlington NAC with several officers, he insisted he didn’t care that he would be denied designation, he was having his tournament. He did it with knowledge aforethought. When it turned out Katy Blades came up in the Gulf Coast rotation and was denied, he blames others. It is a clear cut case of the EC following the rules, fairly, the same for everyone.
6) Women and fencing Mr. Exnixios claims that the statistics do not support improvement of women’s events. How would we know? While we have had 4 seasons of mixed, we have only had this ONE season in which to try this and according to MY statistics for the season, strength and numbers were up in all the women’s events. Since I recruit new women fencers in my area and the foundation for which I volunteer provides training and assistance to those female athletes who can’t afford it, I can say I am somewhat invested in the plight of women in fencing. I am concerned with the D and unders who never get a chance to fence the excellent female athletes in our section. Any WOMEN who wish to discuss the finer points of this please contact me either by phone or email (both are online) and we will discuss because I am still evaluating this situation. At this time however, I am just going in the direction that I believe will help the most women in our section. And please remember two important factors. 1) This only applies to the six events during the season that are part of the Circuit it has no effect on other tournaments! 2) This separation of men and women in competition is the norm in the rest of the world!
7) David Sierra’s job Lastly, I would like to address the subject of our “chair”. David Sierra was given one of the most difficult jobs anyone can imagine. Two actually. Anyone, including David, will tell you that he and I “lock horns” occasionally and we do not agree on everything, but I respect the job he has done under the most difficult circumstances. He has wisdom and patience beyond his young years. He truly tries to make everyone happy – something that a jaded old woman like me ceased worrying about long ago! You may or may not know – he actually is NOT Southwest Section Chair, he is Vice-Chair. He has been acting on behalf of the chair in her absence (off and on most of this season and part of last season due to personal and family health problems.) He, however, was NOT given the chair, therefore the decisions were not his to make, and everything ground very slowly because contact had to be made with our chair which was sometimes a long process. To act as chair, without being able to make decisions, is a very frustrating job.
The other job he has done, and done quite well, is the SSCC Commissioner, assissting in coordinating six large events in our section every year. Prior to 2000, the circuit had died, and it was Mr. Sierra who reanimated it. He found sponsors, he promoted, and he works tirelessly on getting things arranged so that our section is most admired for its circuit. I’m so glad that others think (now it is up and running) that it is such an easy job to do!! He makes it look easy! Our Southwest Section Circuit is a huge effort. Some of the hosts have near NAC size events. It takes all our combined resources to produce the desired quality. You should all be very proud because at the national level, this multi-divisional cooperation is highly regarded.
8) Pre-registration issues In the past, large numbers of fencers didn’t bother to register but would show up at the door. This caused problems for organizers who planned on 8 pools, but end up with 11 and had to flight events causing delays of hours for the whole day. Three seasons ago, the EC addressed this and voted to try to get fencers to pre-register by having registration fees increase two weeks out and again toward the day of. It worked pretty well the first season; however, this season, we were plagued with fencers who registered for every SSCC even though they knew they would probably not attend. There were even instances of those who attempted sabotaging tournaments by fraudulently registering other fencers! The point of raising the fees was not to disenfranchise fencers, but to assure organizers of reasonably correct numbers. Since this isn’t working as well as last season, obviously, we need to find a different plan, and one of the options for this next season will be to lower the late fee and go for pre-pay. These are things that need your input at the annual meeting.
9) Proxy War It is my belief that we will have LARGE numbers of proxies showing up for people who have no idea what the real agenda is here. If you can’t come to the meeting, and you have strong opinions on any of the subjects, please make sure that the person to whom you give your proxy doesn’t have a personal or hidden agenda that would work counter to the benefit of the section as a whole.
My wish is that everyone who can will attend the annual meeting personally and offer their ideas with a positive attitude.
Hope to see you all there!
Terry Harkey
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on May 5, 2005 10:55:11 GMT -6
Terry:
(What happened to Delafiquiana?)
You are certainly no intruder. Nor are Richard, David, Kyle, Grace or any others. First, this particular "section" of the forum is dedicated to... the Section. We are all members.
While I certainly created this site to advance communication in the Gulf Coast Division, participation is by no means limited or restricted. Both Longblade and Saberbobcat live and fence in the South Texas Division, but they are also among this site's most active members.
Just running IPs of "anonymous" "guest" posters, I have seen locations in Louisiana, Alabama, Washington, Oklahoma, New Jersey, Illinois, New York, and New Mexico appear. All are welcome. (Well. I did block the IPs out of New Dehli, but they were spamming the board.)
Feel free to speak your piece, all of you. I am, myself, often in someone's crosshairs. You will note those posts have not been pulled.
Back to the topic, since Richard states he is not running, does anyone have an idea who is running for the various posts (other than the slate listed in David's post)?
|
|
|
Post by Helen Mitchell on May 5, 2005 14:08:07 GMT -6
Terry,
Proxy wars are a fine upstanding TRADITION in this section, only ocurring when someone, usually with only good intentions, has managed to incurr the wrath of the majority of fencers within the section.
Last year's section meeting did not have an agenda posted before the meeting. Several of the more unpopular policy changes that were passed at that meeting have caused much of the accrymonious allegations that have occurred.
Another source of contention were EC meetings that where held with little or no notice of the meeting or agenda to the section fencers in advance. Also, no published minutes of those meetings are posted on the section website. As long as section business is not conducted in a tranparent manner, we (the section) will only devolve into petty political mudslinging.
As Pouj Jr. was fond of quoting his father in these situations "Screw the politics, let's fence". Please, in the interest of fencing, could you post the agenda for the section meeting and slate of officers running on the section website.
Helen Mitchell
|
|
|
Post by August Skopik on May 5, 2005 14:37:51 GMT -6
I need to respond to Terry Harkey's post and David Sierra's post. I was part of the USFA since it changed from AFLA, and part of the divisional and sectional leadership since this was formed, (mostly by a everyone step back methodology of selection). Since I was involved at that time, I was instructed and trained by many of these "legends" or current and past USFA presidents and their instructions ring in my ears when I see these emails and decisions.
Every USFA officer's, (and Fencer's), obligation is first to promote and grow the sport. We have been provided a gift of being trained in a sport that many do not have an opportunity to participate in. We owe obligations to the sport to allow others to see or participate in the sport to appreciate it.
That is why I disagree with Terry Harkey's and David Sierra's position that it is not the Section's, Division's or any of the officer's position to promote fencing. It is a philosophical difference. Without fencing and fencers there would be no division, section or officers needed. The fencers do not serve the officers, the officers serve the fencers.
Terry Harkey made implications that I broke a trust in revealing voting of the Sectional officers. I actually copied the voting positions of the sectional officers from the denial email I received. I will forward this email to anyone that would like to receive it, to validate this word for word. I have sat back quietly for too long while people assinate my character publicly, and will not put up with this any longer. Ms. Harkey, that is a lie that I was "told" this information or breached any confidence when it was given to me by the SSCC commissioner in a written correspondence. I also have written correspondence from Ms. Harkey that I will be happy to share with anyone regarding her position with the SSCCs. I WILL ALSO SHARE MY POSITIONS. I AM PROUD OF MY POSITIONS, AND DO NOT HIDE FROM THEM BY MAKING INSINUATIONS INTO THE CHARACTER OF OTHERS.
Terry also implied that the three officers Jerry, Terry and Anjea do not run the SSCC. They ran the event by their vote to censure Katy Blades. I accept responsibility for promoting fencing, but Terry you need to accept responsibility for your vote. YOUR VOTE ASSUMED A RESPONSIBILITY ROLE. I wanted to point out that on the Sectional level, if we as members want to continue the policy laid out in this vote then we vote for Jerry, Terry and Anjea. If don't support it, then we vote against them. Accept responsibility for your position. I have. I disagree that your position is the best for fencing, and that your role as a sectional officer is limited against the growth of fencing by your decisions. You already sent an email resigning from Secretary of the Section over this issue. I don't know why you did not follow through with this resignation, but if you feel that strongly that we should not have a tournament that helps beginners get started and youth the same time as an SSCC 200+ miles away then go public. I have the emails.
Ms. Harkey came to the Katy Blades SSCC directly to fight for the D and Under scheduled locally against a SSCC. The D and Under DID NOT SCHEDULE THE EVENT ON THE DIVISION SCHEDULE UNTIL AFTER THE SSCC WAS SCHEDULED AND IN STONE, although they did reserve the gym. I also have email correspondence from these records. Again, this is a lie, and I have email correspondence from Ms. Harkey which imply differently in what she tells others.
I do not hate or dislike any people, but I do hate or dislike lack of character, lies and deceit. I have been welcome in many of the clubs in this area, and have welcomed any of the fencers in this area to visit our club and sit down and ask me questions. When people who have prejudgements about certain issues sit down and see what happens, then it is amazing the transformation that takes place.
Here are clear and distinct issues that are laid out for our Sectional, (and local division), elections.
1. Fencing is a growing sport, and you need to elect leaders that have a vision for growth. Promoting fencing should be the first item on the agenda for each of these elected officials.
2. We need to vote on each officer position individually, and not as a slate. I personally cannot support a block or slate as it is laid out in the David's group. There are qualified candidates in the slate, and there are people that do an excellent job at certain tasks but should not be in the visionary role influencing fencing on a Sectional level. If we elect these people as a group then we are to blame for our lack of success as a sport.
Again, I will put my contact information and telephone number. I appreciate an open discussion and disagreement, but I can validate the hypocrisy and untruths that have been posted. If you need to see proof the please email or call.
August Skopik 281.703.5064 katyblades@sbcglobal.net
|
|
|
Post by David Sierra on May 5, 2005 16:03:31 GMT -6
August,
There is one minor correction I would like to make to your statement with respect to the responsibility for growth and development. Specifically, it is my firm and stated belief, and one that is shared by all the members of my proposed team, that it is the responsibility of Sectional officers to support those who are directly involved in promoting the sport on the local level. It is much more effective for a person who lives in, say Katy Texas, to develop fencing there, than an officer of the Section, who resides in Shreveport, Oklahoma City or Dallas. What the Section officers can do is provide some tools to help the persons working at the local level, such as referee clinics, section circuit events, membership verification services and the like.
I can assure you, all of us are deeply involved in promoting fencing directly, but not when wearing our Sectional officer hats. Jerry Benson runs a highly successful salle in Oklahoma City and has introduced countless people over the years to the sport of fencing, in addition to being involved in coach's training and referee development. Terry Harkey is a member of several groups in Shreveport that directly support the development of fencing, in additon to working as Bout Committee at dozens of small tournaments across the Section. Anjea has worked as an assistant coach at the University of Texas and works consistently as a referee. I myself run a club in Fort Worth that is currently composed almost entirely of developmental and recrational fencers in addition to refereeing all across the Section. These are all actions taken outside of our jobs as Sectional officers. It would be an abuse of the responsibility entrusted to us by the membership for us to utilize Sectional resources to promote our own clubs.
To be an effective Sectional officer, requires vision beyond the immediate concerns of one's own club or Division. It requires a grasp of regional concerns and experince working in an adminstrative capacity with a geographically dispersed group. Persons primarily focused on narrow happenings in their own club and division do not make effective Sectional (or National) officers. I assure you and everyone else that myself, Rachel, Terry, Anjea and Jerry are commited to developing fencing across the Section, not some small corner of it. In order to most effectively do this, we need rules, policies and guidelines and an efficent process for developing and modifying them as circumstances warrant.
Finally, the issue of the censure of Katy Blades as an SSCC event, is, as has been promulgated, a closed one and does not belong in this conversation. The EC will take up the matter again next season.
David Sierra
|
|
|
Post by David Sierra on May 5, 2005 16:26:36 GMT -6
Last year's section meeting did not have an agenda posted before the meeting. Several of the more unpopular policy changes that were passed at that meeting have caused much of the accrymonious allegations that have occurred. [snip] As Pouj Jr. was fond of quoting his father in these situations "Screw the politics, let's fence". Please, in the interest of fencing, could you post the agenda for the section meeting and slate of officers running on the section website. Helen, The Agenda is the responsibility of the Section Chair. None of the other officers have seen one either, if its of any consolation. You should direct your comments and requests for an agenda to her. David
|
|
|
Post by Sword Master on May 5, 2005 17:45:09 GMT -6
It is just wonderful to read posts by people who have all of the criticism and no answers. RE seems to not like anything that has been accomplished in the past, but yet he has no answers of any merit. For someone to say that they disagree with EVERYTHING that someone else has said is just ludicrous.
That being said, Here are some rebuttals to these misstatements and references to the corrections that are being proposed by David Sierra and the EC.
1. The fees for waiting until the last two weeks before an event have been in place for more than the last two seasons. The doubling and tripling of these fees was an exercise to see if the SSCC could get more accurate numbers of attendance. It turned out to be an exercise in the honesty and integrity of the fencers in our section. Sadly, it has proven that even among the fencers in our section there are those who will dishonor themselves and others by not being responsible and by perpetrating fraud upon the organizers of these events. The EC has proposed that changes be made in this system to make it more difficult for those who would enter fraudulent data and make everyone more accountable for their actions. Plus, they are proposing to reduce the "late" fee (actually there is a early bird special for those who register more than two weeks out and a pre-registration discount for those who wait until one week before the event. Those who register within one week from the event have the privilege of paying the full registration fee.) to a more manageable number for those who don't have the capability to pre-register two weeks before an event. Pre-payment, which has already been mentioned by DS, is the other change which is being proposed for next seasons SSCC. It was done at the CCO and is being done for the sectional championships. It is something that is already done at national and international events, without question. 2. As far as the EC of the section "micro-managing" the SSCC, this must be their uncanny ability to actually be able to read the operations manual and make sure that the organizers play by the same rules. It was voted on and adopted for the SSCC this past season to have segregated events for men and women. This was done for several reasons which I won't go into at this time. There was one event, the CCO, that had previously been designated as a SSCC event, that the organizer decided that they would not adhere to this rule in the operations manual. When contacted they refused to reply as though they didn't care if the sanctioning was removed or not, so as I understand it, by their own actions or lack there of, they were comfortable with the decision of the EC - not just DS - to remove this event from the list of sanctioned events of the SSCC. RE has a problem with this because he was behind the "group" of fencers who he said were ready to file a lawsuit against everyone who organized a tournament with segregated events. This action was quickly halted after contact from the council of the USFA, who got in touch with the attorney who was representing this "group" and asked if he wanted them to bring in the lawyers who represent the USOC.
3. Other Divisions not following the rules, NTX and OK Divisions first off asked the SSCCC and the EC about holding these additional events with their SSCC tournaments. They didn't just do it and live with the consequences. They were told that as long as they didn't use SSCC resources and that the events didn't conflict with the SSCC events, then it would be fine. This was voted on by the EC - not a DS policy. I was at the SSCC in OK, it was ran according to the stipulations of the EC. Where was RE? Oh, he wasn't there I guess. I had fencers at the Grand Prix in NTX, they said the one non-SSCC y14 mixed epee event was ran after the completion of the SSCC events just as had been agreed to. Where was RE? Oh, he wasn't there either I guess. Now that I think about it, there was no one from the LA div at the Rose Condon this year either. What about last year, where was RE? It amazes me that people who don't show up at these SSCC event have the biggest gripes about them! The Rose Condon has been one of the fondest, well staffed, and lately one of the best venues of the SSCC. This is not coming from me, but from fencers and officials from all over the country who are making it a point to come to or be invited to this tournament. To get a venue like the Rose Condon has takes commitment to a date months in advance. This is not something that is up for discussion with the city officials who run the complex. Of course if you haven't been there then you wouldn't know...
DS has worked his butt off to make sure that these SSCC events, for which he is the commissioner, are ran in the most professional manner possible; well staffed, with a competent referee cadre', armorers and bout committee personnel; that they have an appropriate size venue; and that the rules of the operations manual are followed or at least if there is a question that it be addressed before the event is held, by the EC. This is his job. I believe it is one that he was done well for the past several seasons. 4. SSCC not a money maker. Duh! It is not the purpose of the SSCC to make the Section money. In fact, the section has been supporting this circuit since it was conceived. If one would look at the mission statement of the SSCC one would realize this fact, that the section has done this to help the divisions run a cohesive circuit that is one of, if not the best, in the country. That fencing is being promoted, fencers developed, referees trained, and elite fencers given a venue all at the expense of the section. The pitiful head tax that is collected doesn't even come close to covering the expenses which have been incurred. 4. Mailings and Championships, I was disappointed also with the mailings from the section this year. But you know what, that was the responsibility of the chair - not the vice chair, who ended up having to pull that out of his hat as well. Guess what, the selection of the site for the SWS Championships is also the responsibility of the chair, once again the VC had to step in the take charge at the last minute when he was told to by the EC. DS was also told by the Chair when to look for a different venue in GC Div and skip the rest of the rotation because time was running out. We are lucky to even be having the Championships at all, and if RE shows up in Houston I am sure he will be pleased with the venue that the EC was able to rent at the last minute. There have been times when I have had my doubts about David as a candidate for chair of the section. But after seeing how fairly and justly he has handled some of the crap that he has had to deal with in the past few months, I can think of non better for this thank-less job.
One more thing, If AS really is interested in the growth of fencing in the GC area then why doesn't he just help out another club in Houston by supplying them with the HSA contact that he has in his pocket? If he was so concerned about holding the SSCC next season, why did he change his approved youth event, that had been scheduled from the beginning of the season, to include a D and under event that he knew would have the potential of not only siphoning off resources and fencers from a scheduled SSCC, but might also get his club pulled from the rotation of holding a SSCC event? Could it be that he has an adgenda that is not as open as he is saying? Could it be greed and spite that are motivating him to make the misstatements and half truths? I guess we will never know, unless we allow him to have the kind of power that he is seeking.
|
|
|
Post by A Happy Parent on May 5, 2005 19:29:27 GMT -6
Oh Terry, you poor misguided soul. Let me set you straight on something....at least one thing I know about for sure... "AS" ( I'm assuming you meant August Skopik) no more "siphoned off" any fencers from the Rose by having a D and under than he flew to the moon that night. I do believe that tournament was re-scheduled to Feb. 26 to accomodate someone else in the GCD who wanted the previous date. Because fencing is growing, and has grown, we chose not to drive 200+ miles, pay for food and hotel, fencing fees for at least two U fencers to take part in the Rose. If the venue is over 2 hours away (like say, Dallas, Shreveport, N.Orleans, Oklahoma) we AIN'T GOIN'!!! The people that are interested in attending every SSCC event were there. According to my records, the main fencer in my family has fenced 29 tournament events in the last 16 months. Over HALF (15) of these events were B1 or higher. In fact only three of the 15 were B1. The rest were all A1-A4. So we decided NOT to drive all the way to the 'Pit (I lived there for 5 years, so I can call it that), fork over the money, and leave after the first DE. Instead we opted for a new-fencer friendly D and Under, in our own fair area of the world. Our fencer got to fence more than one DE, which did more for his ego than your tournament ever could. We get plenty of "A" rated experience down here thankyewveddymuch. Yeah, Augie's plan to promote only his club and take over the world was working incredibly well that night. No Katy Blades fencers earned a rating that I recall. One KB renewed his E, but whoop-de-doo. As for your other insinuations about "AS"....you are so far off the mark, its laughable.
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on May 5, 2005 22:04:06 GMT -6
Screw the politics, Let's Fence! What's good for fencing?
|
|
|
Post by Exnicios on May 5, 2005 22:09:31 GMT -6
More incorrect information.
Concerning the lawsuit that was in the working at the beginning of the season. Sword Master (aka Scott Harkey) is way off the mark. Scott knows absolutely nothing about the litigation, the conversations that took place or with whom we met. He has no idea.
The "group" he refers to, trying to imply that it was only a few people, was actually 22 female fencers, and two National organizations, one with a membership much LARGER than the USFA. The names of these parties is being withheld by their request and the request of the other lawyers involved. And yes, there were other lawyers involved.
The action was halted for a number of reasons and none of then had to do with the meeting with the USFA lawyers or the USOC lawyers. The main reason everyone decided that it was best to drop the litigation was that the scope of the litigation was growing too large and there was a real chance that win or lose there would be other significant ramifications that were far more than we wanted.
It is no appropriate for me to go into any other details but anyone who knows me knows I do not bluff.
And as far as attending SSCC events. This season we attended none of the events. Tulane University will not send students to a segregated event as part of its title nine compliance. You can verify this with the NCAA compliance officer.
Prior seasons we sent several fencers to most of the SSCC events. The only SSCC event we have not made it to is the Oklahoma event. Nothing against Oklahoma, the Oz is an excellent tournament it�s just too far. And the Rose has ALWAYS been a top tournament and we usually send 10-15 fencers to it. But not if it is segregated.
For those who do not know me, yes I am a lawyer. I have a specialization in sports law and was on the legal team for the Atlanta Olympic Games and also work a few other small events that come to through New Orleans every few years.
Richard Exnicios
- It is good that this whole discussion is in a relatively closed forum and not on fencing.net, lets try to keep our section problems within the section if we can.
|
|
|
Post by August Skopik on May 5, 2005 22:22:43 GMT -6
I will answer Terry Harkey's email, because once again she has not told the truth. The Houston Sports Association is NOT a contract, it is the group the manages Reliant Stadium, Toyota Center and others by bringing top sporting events to Houston. THEY brought the NCAAs to Houston, and I understand that they were the only bidder for next year's NCAAs. I understand many colleges are making their reservations.
YOU won't deal with the HSA, and you and I know why.
Louise won't call the HSA to provide FREE Astros tickets to all NCAA volunteers, so I reckon Bayou City is out. Jerry Dunaway has not called HSA to get the free tickets, (as of this morning), so I reckon that South Houston, Clear Lake and Galveston are out.
Houston Sports Authority will be working with the Houston Cup Events next year, and Louise called clubs such as UH to keep them from participating in the Houston Cup last year, so I anticipate she will not participate although she is welcome. Alliance and Salle Mauro have both committed to participating in next year's Houston Cup, along with Westchester and Brazosport. These clubs all have access to the Houston Cup, and I will bring them in to facilitate the process. Andrey and I both met with HSA, and they will work with any reasonable sports group.
I do not do this for my personal gain at above market rates, and maybe that bothers you. Honestly, I am just helping the sport in this case.
I want to also comment again on David's point about promoting fencing. The SSCC bylaws need to be changed to adapt to this process, or eventually it will not be a help but a block to the growth of fencing. I was in meetings two years ago where cooler heads admitted the problems facing this calendar. David admitted that there was no plan to address the growth of youth as they move to the SSCC age at the Longhorn.
Terry, you want a plan. Stop trying to sell the USFA on the section circuit being the model that the USFA patterns itself after. Most of the top officials don't know of it, and people like Nancy Anderson remember the early 80s when this was attempted when Lewis Siegel was president. It has already failed in exactly the manner you are prescribing.
Focus the Section on properly managing the Sectional championships, which is its primary job.
Change the by-laws where tournaments such as Youth and D and under (basically beginner) tournaments are not viewed as a threat to a SSCC. Use the resources of the section to allow clubs and divisions to share good ideas and plans that have worked.
I currently have shared my growth and club strategies with several clubs and officials. I don't do this for a fee. I do this because I enjoy fencing and I honestly enjoy helping people in fencing. When Thomasz was fired and given an airline ticket to Poland and told that emigration and police were being called to deport him, I met with him to help him set up his club. That is a difference between myself and you and the current GC Division Chair.
|
|
|
Post by Sword Master on May 5, 2005 23:46:39 GMT -6
Well, RE the jest of the matter is that for whatever reason you wish to site, the dogs of law were called off because everyone woke up and saw that it would be bad for the sport, "win or loose". By and way, I was at the NCAA Fencing Championships and I didn't see a single mixed event....hmmm. I guess taking you foil and going home is the only way to deal with change. It is a shame though that your female fencers don't get the opportunity to fence some of the best women in the country!
Happy Parent, glad you are having a great time in the great city of Houston. I have spent my share of money there, it doesn't keep me from dragging tons of equipment and fencers around the section to make sure the circuit is supported. If Border Div were to join in the fun of the SSCC you would find me there also. By the way, I am not my wife and she doesn't control my keyboard. Just ask her.
Hey Augie, How about some free Sports tickets or Mudbug tickets, could you get me some, Pleeease? GMAB! It would have been nice for the HSA to just supply enough meal tickets for the volunteers at this years NCAAFC so that the kids who were told that they could bring their lunch would have been able to at least eat something. I guess you were too busy this year going around introduing yourself to all of the coaches , NCAA people, HSA personnel and letting them all know how terrible the people they had been working with for the past 6 months were. Sometimes you have to be careful when you run other people down that have poured themselves into a project of that size. It was a thankless job and I am sure the people that helped host it this year will be glad to let you have it next year.
Enough of the venting now....were we not talking about the election of section officers? So who else is throwing their little pointed hats into the ring? Or is this just a place to come and beatup the current officers? I say if you don't like it, run for it. If you don't win, shutup and play along. To keep beating the same dead horse is so...blue state, if you know what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by Giorgio Bassa on May 6, 2005 0:20:34 GMT -6
I have some questions and comments for the people who put themselves up as candidates for the EC of the SW Section, and who are engaged in this diatribe full of ad hominem attacks. 1. Do you think that this is the best way to get votes and go forward? 2. Does any of you reread his/her own postings on this thread after a good night of sleep and would you still rewrite what you did the night before while under the influence of some controlled substance? 3. If politics is the art of compromise, and considering that so far at least you are running unopposed, why are you bickering so loud, so long, and so much? I've met or know most of you and most of you seemed to be reasonable people with at least some interest in the sport of fencing and some knowledge. I'm ready to concede that each one of you knows more than I do about fencing, but even in my relative ignorance, I'm also capable to distinguish who knows more and who knows less. If I compare your "experience" with at least one of your nemesis, namely August Skopic, I am sorry to say but all of you, even collectively, come way short. I don't know Richard Exnicios, but I have read many of his postings in a different forum, and even though I don't always agree with him, I find he has interesting information which he's willing to share. Just on this basis alone, I judge him to have also more experience. At least one undercurrent in all this is the mortal sin committed by that guy with a hidden agenda, a certain Augie who everyone knows is in this just for his craving for power and money. I am sorry to see that you all make a mountain out of what should not even be recognized as a mole hill. And this worries me, because in this absurd and idiotic way to handle a minor problem -- or a no problem -- you reveal your lack of competence to run for anything above dog catcher, and I'm sure my dog would object if you'd do even that. The other trait which you have shown and which bothers me even more, is your vindictiveness, masked by your professed desire to uphold the "rules" -- I'd hope all the rules. I like to associate with people who don't lie, cheat, or steal, nor who tolerate anyone who does. I'd hope that all of you share this preference. If you do, and I don't have any reason to think that you don't, than why all these vitriolic attacks against Augie and Richard, but none of you ever once objected or acted to put a stop to the lies, the cheating, the prevarication of some known rotten apples in our Division? Or in our Section? Why use kid gloves with people who have only brought infamy, shame, ridicule, and embarrassment to our division and section, because you preferred not to rock the boat, and come down like a ton of bricks on Augie for his capital crime of scheduling a D and under tournament in Katy, TX, while the Rose tournament was taking place in Shreveport, LA? I cannot think of ANYONE who had the dilemma about going to one or the other tournament and being torn apart by this hamletic doubt. So where is/was the beef? And speaking of conflicts in scheduling tournaments, what about the GC Division scheduling the JO qualifiers the same weekend of a NAC tournament in Richmond, VA? Funny thing about this conflict is that when it was pointed out to the EC of the GC Division, the answer was that it was set and the topic was not open for discussion -- just like David Sierra dismisses the current dispute with KB and its banning for this season. As they used to say in the Middle Ages "ipse dixit" or "He said it" (where He stands for Aristotle the final repository of all the truth and knowledge for ever) to ban any discussion about possible changes. It was even funnier -- in a perverse sense of humor -- when at a meeting with USFA representatives in Houston this was brought up. They were appalled -- as any sensible person would be -- that anyone could be so "stupid" and "dumb" (their words) to do this. When they asked why this had happened, we had our pseudo legal eagle state that "it was not specifically prohibited by the rules." When they asked the Chairman and the Secretary of the GC Division who was responsible for this decision, NOBODY raised to the occasion. The silence was deafening... But in this case, Augie is the one who challenged the system with a "crime" sanctioned by the rules, that affected no one, and for this he must be punished. And some of you want to be judges and jury in castigating our local "rascal." But with the JO qualifiers and NAC screw-up, nobody had the guts to take the responsibility for their action -- which affected several fencers -- and they can continue to play their silly games. If you still want to be elected, go ahead and campaign -- positively. Show that you are mature and reasonable. Check your ego at the door. Be cooperative and constructive, rather than vindictive and disruptive. Be mindful that you are supposed to serve the members, not to pontificate to the members. And remember, NOBODY is perfect. Not me, not Augie, not Richard, AND NOT YOU! So show fairness and genuine interest for the sport and all the fencers, not for your petty causes, and move forward and lead, or else get out of the way!
|
|
|
Post by August Skopik on May 6, 2005 0:26:05 GMT -6
Scott?,
I guess your friend Louise did not give you the lunch vouchers. In case you did not know, she was the one that controlled them. She did not give them to many of the volunteers, so I guess you were not on her good list if you did not get any. Louise was the person in charge of the technical matters, you know that because of the sweet insider deal you tried to set up. Don't dodge the issue of honesty and doing the best for fencing.
As far as introducing myself to the coaches, I am sorry but many of them were my friends from a long time ago. Many of them remembered me from directing my bouts. Many of them remembered me when I ran the Olympic Festival. Many of them remembered me when I fenced with or against them. Several coaches I helped get started when they came to Texas. I hung out with many of them at Olympic Festivals. I saw old bosses, such as Jack Kelley from when he ran the Olympic Festival in Houston and met the person that ran the Baton Rouge Olympic Festival. I DID NOT MEAN TO MAKE YOU JEALOUS. The HSA people told me who they had to work with, I did not tell them. I took it upon myself to do the gopher work, anything they needed to have done. I even volunteered to go get change when your wife's table ran out, but someone came up with some change. I don't have anything to do with tickets to any of these events you referred to in your posting. Why don't you use your name each time you post?
As far as other people throwing in their names, it looks like it is a good time. If anyone wants to be a candidate maybe you should contact some of your division or club officers. There may be a different group running based upon the way things have become.
You really turned this into what it has become. You and your wife can't discuss the point without changing the facts and then you call people names when they disagree. I may disagree with Richard about mixed events or I may not, but to call him names is childish. You deserve to fence with #2 or smaller blades, but you would not know what that was for since they are for Y10, (youth), tournaments and you see these as a threat to the Rose Condon.
I have seen the emails and discussions that your wife have put out there, and I have decided to take a stand. The truth needs to be told.
If you have a problem with not getting supplies, paid, meals, whatever from the NCAAs you needed to talk to Louise. I brought over officials that did not get their lunch such as Jeff, Gerrie and Don to get their meals to her to provide meals for. I did not run the tournament, and have never implied that I did. My role was to help and do whatever I could to make it a successful event.
I think that it was.
|
|