|
Post by kd5mdk on Jan 26, 2006 17:00:15 GMT -6
Offhand, Austin Fencer's Club lists itself as a recognized alternative to school PE or something like that. I don't know exactly how that works, but apparently it works some places.
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Jan 27, 2006 20:22:25 GMT -6
Okay, now I've heard that Jerry Dunaway's thing at South Houston HS has a kind of varsity status. I don't know how Steve Moss' group at Westchester is arranged except that it is a "club." I know Dunaway teaches fencing as a PE coures. Does Moss? (BTW, doesn't this deserve it's own thread on the school/UIL/RYC board?) As to the recall, the proponents have good points... if they want to field a candidate at the next election. Right now, all I read is what they're against, but no clear path forward. It's starting to sound like one group of power elites got snubbed by the in-office power elites. Somebody tell me why I should care...
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Feb 18, 2006 10:48:13 GMT -6
This is, no doubt, tied in to the recall drive. The following motion is a recent addition to the agenda for the USFA Board of Directors' meeting this weekend in Hartford, CT:
Motion (Ron Herman): 1) Signatories of official USFA petitions must be members of the USFA both at the time of their signing and at the time of the petition’s submission;
2) the signatures of members on petitions must be dated and
3) signatures on petitions must remain valid for a period of 90 days.
Rational: The first two motions serve as a clarification of the bylaws, which state:
(Article VI, Sec. 9 and Article XIII, Sec. 3) that petition signatories must be "eligible to vote in the election for which the petition is intended."
While it seems obvious that signers should be members of the USFA, since our members join at various times of the year, many are not until Qualifiers and Summer Nationals, the dating of signatures is necessary to provide the Election Committee with a means to validate those signatures.
The second motion is intended to provide a method of arriving at an end date for petition campaigns and to prevent, to a reasonable degree, signatures from being counted when the signatory may no longer support the petition.
It is not in the interest of this organization or its members to have a recall or nomination procedure that is open ended. Whether or not a petition is successful, the process needs to be finite. The near paralysis caused by a lingering process hurts the organization, and the prospect of possibly years of uncertainty is daunting.
In addition, it is apparent that petition campaigns, if unduly prolonged, can only show our organization in a bad light to the USOC at a time when being perceived as a nonfunctioning NGB has serious consequences.
It is proper for the Board to consider whether it is in the interest of the organization to regulate the length of time that such a process can continue, and to discuss methods of doing so that do not limit the ability of petitioners to successfully pursue their goals.
The bylaws, Article XIII, Sec. 5(e) empowers the Board of Directors to make election rules not inconsistent with the bylaws and requires the election committee to enforce them.
If grounds for a petition are sufficiently compelling, it is reasonable to assume that the required signatures could be obtained in a specified timeframe.
|
|
|
Post by fox on Feb 21, 2006 8:59:32 GMT -6
Since I suppose the Board of Directors meeting is now history, does anyone know what happened?
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Feb 21, 2006 16:04:39 GMT -6
From oiuyt on f.net:
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Feb 22, 2006 10:55:49 GMT -6
Brad/oiuyt has also posted, with regard to this last-minute motion:
Motion 5, having been submitted after the agenda deadline, first needed a vote to be considered. That vote approved considering the motion with 2 dissenting voters. It was moved to urgent status in a close vote (9-7). After some discussion it was split into 3 motions (the motions were split by the three numbered sections in the original motion). The first passed unanimously, the second passed with 1 dissenting vote (after an admendment that specifies that the dating must be done by the signatory), the third failed by a vote of 3 to many-more-than-three (sorry, I didn't get the count).
|
|