|
Post by schlager7 on Apr 3, 2006 11:37:33 GMT -6
Sectional Qualifiers are only a month away and, along with that, elections for officers of the Southwest Section's Executive Committee.
Does anyone know who is running for any of the offices?
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Apr 3, 2006 13:27:19 GMT -6
I heard some rumors, but I don't wish to commit people who may have changed their minds.
|
|
|
Post by jazz007 on Apr 3, 2006 16:53:16 GMT -6
Can someone post a summary of the SW Section org chart, so to speak? I know there exists chair, vice chair, secretary, treasurer, and EC, and it's the composition of the EC I'm unclear on.
And/Or a link to the bylaws, which I can peruse at leisure.
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on Apr 3, 2006 21:52:55 GMT -6
The EC is comprised of the officers (chair, vice-chair, secretary, treasurer and USFA Board of Directors representative) and the chairs of the component Divisions. The Section Bylaws are available on the SWS Website ( www.southwestfencing.org).
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Apr 6, 2006 10:06:26 GMT -6
Is it at least safe to presume that all/most of the incumbents are seeking re-election?
Anyone?
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Apr 7, 2006 9:54:27 GMT -6
Thanks to the SW Section we have a link to their page with a list of all of the eligible voters in the Southwest Section. It is here: www.southwestfencing.org/05-06/2006voters.htmPlease note this paragraph which appears above said list: Below are the 811 members of the Southwest Section entitled to vote at the 2006 annual meeting of the Section. Note that the Southwest Section has no control over who is on or not on the list. The list is provided by the USFA. Note also that it is possible to be a member of the Southwest Section yet not be a voter for multiple reasons. A voter must have joined the USFA before Feburary 1, 2006, must be 18 years old before February 1, 2006, and must before February 1, 2006 make the National Office aware of the sufficiency of his age. ( For reference, there are 40 members of the Southwest Section who the USFA considers to have joined soon enough, but whose birth dates were not provided to the National Office, so cannot vote no matter when they were born.) Any questions about absense from this list need to be directed to the USFA, not to the Section. -------------------------------------------------------------- On a personal note, I would encourage anyone who cannot/will not be there to find someone whose judgement you trust, whose positions are close to your own (and who will be attending) and give them your proxy. While I am on record as being no fan of proxies, it is the system the USFA has set up. If you wish your point of view to have a hope of prevailing, you will usually have to work in concert with others. Like we said in the early 70s, "If you don't vote, don't b****!" Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Apr 7, 2006 10:06:01 GMT -6
The EC is comprised of the officers (chair, vice-chair, secretary, treasurer and USFA Board of Directors representative) and the chairs of the component Divisions. ...which this season means Chair: Scott Stevens Vice-Chair: Rhonda Trietsch Secretary: Terry Harkey Treasurer: Anjea Ehrle Ray USFA BoD Representative: Jerry Benson Border Texas Chair: Tony Conde South Texas Chair: Oscar Barrera North Texas Chair: Jeff Crowe Gulf Coast Chair: Louise Lepie Oklahoma Chair: Carolyn Gresham-Fiegel Louisiana Chair: Jonathan Cohen Ark-La-Miss Chair: Scott Harkey
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Apr 26, 2006 9:09:40 GMT -6
I'm starting to get pestered for my proxy and it's kind of annoying. Everyone is saying let me use your vote, but when ask who they are going to use it to elect, all I hear are crickets and bullfrogs in the distance.
No one has come out publicly saying they want to run for such and such, but the activists all want my vote.
Anyone who wants to explain why I should care may feel free to jump in at any time.
|
|
|
Post by swordmaster on Apr 26, 2006 9:43:05 GMT -6
Sectional Qualifiers are only a month away and, along with that, elections for officers of the Southwest Section's Executive Committee. Does anyone know who is running for any of the offices? Unlike KD5MDK, I don't mind bantering peoples names around. Here is what I have heard the slate of challengers might look like... Chair: Carolyn Grisham-Feigel (OK) Vice-Chair: Anjea Ray (STX) Treasurer: Marty Wysocki (GC) Secretary: Terry Harkey (ALM) USFA Rep: Jerry Benson (OK) All of these may or may not be true...but somebody needs to shoot up here amoungst us because we need some relief. Why people won't announce their willingness to run for these jobs should be evident from the postings that occurred last year....OMG what a fevered debated that was!
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Apr 26, 2006 10:46:58 GMT -6
Why people won't announce their willingness to run for these jobs should be evident from the postings that occurred last year....OMG what a fevered debated that was! Lemme see if I got this right. People don't want to announce candidacy because last year there was a lot of arguing, but they want us to elect them to posts where they are in charge of tournaments?
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Apr 26, 2006 11:58:33 GMT -6
Reading the previous thread makes it reasonably easy for me to understand.
|
|
|
Post by swordmaster on Apr 26, 2006 13:04:54 GMT -6
[quote author=nemo board=SWSection thread=1144085853 post=1146070018[/quote] Lemme see if I got this right. People don't want to announce candidacy because last year there was a lot of arguing, but they want us to elect them to posts where they are in charge of tournaments?[/quote]
Hmmmm, Nemo it looks like you do care...why don't you just show up and cast your vote on your own? Then you can make an informed decision on who is "in charge of tournaments".
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on Apr 27, 2006 11:20:41 GMT -6
Or, if you can't make it, then don't give your proxy blindly, but find someone you trust and explain your concerns and feelings, and ask him/her to vote as you would like to have it voted. There are trustworthy people who will do that, not everyone is a political hack.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on May 6, 2006 22:06:44 GMT -6
The Winners:
Chairman Carolyn Gresham-Fiegel. Vice Chairman Jason Ray. Secretary Terry Harkey. Treasurer Anjea Ray. USFA Director Jerry Benson.
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on May 7, 2006 13:08:58 GMT -6
Hmm...
The new order looks a lot like the old, pre-2005 "reform" order.
Now to the REAL question. Does Louisiana play like everyone else or will the Crescent City Open feature mixed events and get them zapped out of the SSCC AGAIN?
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on May 8, 2006 1:32:11 GMT -6
The word from the incoming LA division chair is that he doesn't believe the CCO organizers are interested in running separate events, but put in their bid in case the format changed. Also, there isn't a club capable of hosting an SSCC event outside of the CCO yet, although there may be next year.
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on May 8, 2006 10:32:44 GMT -6
Hmm... The new order looks a lot like the old, pre-2005 "reform" order. Now to the REAL question. Does Louisiana play like everyone else or will the Crescent City Open feature mixed events and get them zapped out of the SSCC AGAIN? Yea, funny how the "reform" movement kinda lost steam when it was expected that they actually have to do work in their positions. I dunno how the people running Sectionals managed to do it but somehow, they pulled of a good tournament under some of the most horrendous challenges I've seen in a while, including, barely enough equipment, a severe shortage of referees, and numerous other issues. Even better, there weren't even AWARDS for the medalists... And no, it seems that the folks who run the CCO want everyone to play by their rules instead of working with everyone else. I'll be really surprised of course if the CCO even manages to happen again, there isn't enough infrastructure there to support anything. Eventually I think there will be other people in the Louisiana Division who are capable of pulling off a good SSCC event.
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on May 8, 2006 12:19:48 GMT -6
Assuming the LA division doesn't intend to designate any other tournaments, how long does the CCO have before they are forced to decide whether to be an SSCC event or not? Can they just carry on until a month or so before the event, and they make a choice?
|
|
|
Post by Evelyn S on May 8, 2006 23:01:45 GMT -6
I believe there's a date - it's in the SSCC ops manual somewhere - early in the season by which divisions have to submit tournaments. It has to be designated - with dates - early in the season because you're not supposed to hold other tournaments on top of the SSCCs. Everyone needs to know what those dates are so they can plan around them.
|
|
|
Post by Exnicios on May 9, 2006 13:16:33 GMT -6
In case you forgot, most of the Louisiana division is trying to simply exist! There was a bit of a wind and water problem here. Try to cut us a little slack!
Richard Exnicios
|
|
|
Post by MTD on May 9, 2006 15:33:40 GMT -6
I believe there's a date - it's in the SSCC ops manual somewhere - early in the season by which divisions have to submit tournaments. There does seem to be a date mentioned in the documentation, but that date is the deadline of two weeks before Sectionals for the divisions to report the LOCs for their respective SSCC tournaments. The Louisiana Division appears to have reported that the Louisiana Division (I assume, after all, the Louisiana Division as a whole is the traditional LOC for the CCO) is the LOC for the Lousiana Division SSCC tournament. The way I'm reading it, the CCO is an SSCC tournament, regardless of whether it will end up happening, and regardless of whether it will end up conforming with requirements, until something changes, something not having to do with a date. My guess is that one of four things could happen which forces the issue. 1) The 2007 CCO could be canceled. (No, I don't have any inside knowledge of the future. I'm just saying that if this happened, then CCO would not be an SSCC.) 2) The 2007 CCO could fail to clarify its own plans soon enough to satisfy the SSCC powers-that-be, and a decision could be made by the powers-that-be to abandon the Louisiana Division, or at least the CCO, due to inadequate preparation. Historically, this has occurred. My own Division once had a tournament scheduled to be an SSCC which had that status stripped from it by the SSCC powers-that-be and summarily awarded to a different tournament. (This was probably good. The former tournament ended up not even happening.) 3) The 2007 CCO could make a public declaration which conflicts with SSCC requirements (e.g., a declaration that it will definitely have no men's events when SSCC requirements definitely require men's events). 4) The SSCC requirements for men's events could change before possibilities (1), (2), or (3) occur, and then we'd still be looking at the CCO as a planned SSCC tournament until and unless (1) happens, or (2) happens, or sort of the reverse of (3) happens (the CCO declares that it will not hold mixed events when SSCC requirements are hypothesized to have changed to require them). Don't hold your breath. The world will become clearer, but we're not facing any specific deadlines which will cause it to clarify.
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on May 10, 2006 8:19:01 GMT -6
And furthermore, the entire SSCC aparatus is under revision at this time. The odds are substantial that we'll come out the otherside with a beast of a differenet color.
As far as the CCO goes, I'll cut the New Orleans fencers all the slack that they need! Hey, I was one of the organizers for a relief tournament we held in North Texas that raised a bit of money (which, I'm told, is finally on its way, winding its way through the various levels of non-profit beaurocracy). My comment about the lack of infrastructure was about the infrastructure.
As I recall, the reasons the CCO didn't happen this past season were that there wasn't a suitable venue able to be found, limited hotel space available for out of town guests, and a lack of local help available to run the event. As someone with family and friends (of the non-fencing variety) in New Orleans currently trying to put their lives back together, nothing I've heard out of that city leads me to believe the situation is going to be resolved any time soon. When the city does get back together and is able to once again host events like the CCO, the organizers would be wise to see if they can work together with the SSCC aparatus to develop the event again, as SSCC stutus was part of what helped develop the CCO the first time around.
The gender issue, is, as I see it, a red herring. Yes, there are legitmate reasons for the disagreement on that front. But on another level entirely, the SSCC events have continued to develop, setting the bar higher and higher for what constitutes an "elite" tournament in our region. High level referees, paid according to national pay scales, and reimbursed for travel and lodging. Professional and experienced technical committees composed of multiple persons, again, paid and reimbursed for travel and lodging. Same goes for the armourers. Nice venues. Grounded strips. Events that start on time and finish on time, with minimal delay in between. Independent vendors and equipment repair personnel. The list goes on and on. The CCO was part of driving the development of these standards (being one of the first events to have grounded strips, have pre-paid entries and bring in professional TC people), but the SSCC events have continued developing.
Its not just the CCO that has a high bar set for it, its ANY tournament that wants to be an SSCC. Heck, in my own division, I'm up in the rotation for an SSCC event next year, and I'm giving serious thought to passing on it, simply because my little club does NOT have the resources to pull off a good SSCC event, at the level at which the athletes have become accustomed to.
|
|