|
Post by LC Foil on Oct 8, 2003 15:35:46 GMT -6
BTW guys, I presume this is some kind of typo, but the stuff on the division officers meetings on the other site has two lines that read [glow=red,2,300]Trophies and medals for local tournaments will be the responsibility of the hosting club; Trophies and medals for local tournaments will be the responsibility of the Gulf Coast Division; [/glow] Like, huh?
|
|
|
Post by Passing Through on Oct 9, 2003 6:27:42 GMT -6
Yeah, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that one of those is a typo. See what happens when you can't keep up while taking notes. Or drift away while your typing them in.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Oct 10, 2003 19:17:06 GMT -6
Since the minutes of two meetings of officers of the Gulf Coast Division have generated a lot of emails and controversey, I posted those minutes on the Gulf Coast Division Rogue site.
The emails were addressed to multiple individuals as they flew back and forth and ceased to be very private (some, anyway). I posted the minutes and two responses on the Rogue site, but the time has come for them to be replaced by newer items.
However, as the issues raised may still require resolution, I am reprinting them here:
Division Officers Meeting - Part 1 (written by John Trojanowski)
Gulf Coast Division Chair Andrey Geva called a meeting of the Division Officers for Tuesday, September 30th, 2003 at Salle Mauro. In attendance were Division Chair Andrey Geva and Division Treasurer John Trojanowski. Vice Chair August Skopik and Secretary Mauro Hamza were unable to attend.
Matters determined at the meeting included:
a schedule of tournaments should be sent out to the Division membership;
contact information would be distributed to the member clubs so that they might call upon the Division to assist in supplying directors/referees or bout committee members if the club needed such assistance for a tournament;
get the official weebsite of the Gulf Coast Division up and running;
and post the Division's financial records in a manner such that they can be examined by the membership.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Oct 10, 2003 19:21:18 GMT -6
Be advised that the following minutes of the second meeting contains what appears to be a typo in the section about trophies:
USFA Gulf Coast Division Officer’s Meeting October 2, 2003 Location: Salle Mauro Officers Present: Andrey Geva, Chairman Mauro Hamza, Secretary August Skopik, Vice-Chairman John Trojanowski, Treasurer had met with Andrey Geva on Tuesday, September 30, 2003
Items Discussed
John Trojanowski will update the website, change the USFA website to the list the new Gulf Coast Division website, and send a link to the Gulf Coast Division website to all members of the division.
The Gulf Coast Division Officers will write and send a letter to the Bayou City Fencing Academy discussing the conflict of tournaments with USFA tournaments. This letter will also go to the USFA national office, Sectional Office and division officers in the section.
The Gulf Coast Division will send out by mail an updated version of the 2003-2004 division schedule, utilizing the list from the USFA office.
The Officers discussed and agreed to suggest the directing fees for Gulf Coast tournaments be $50 per day for unrated directors, and $80 per day for qualified ranked judges.
The Gulf Coast Division will attach a newsletter to the mailed schedule to be distributed. The division will ask for interested parties to reply with an email address for this year’s future newsletters and updates.
The Gulf Coast Division currently has $255 in the bank account, and has as assets two working strips. These strips are required for SW Section tournaments.
Trophies and medals for local tournaments will be the responsibility of the hosting club.
Trophies and medals for local tournaments will be the responsibility of the Gulf Coast Division.
There is a proposed but not voted on head tax of $1 for the 2004-2005 division tournaments.
Per USFA guidelines, the division officers will add Andrey to signature authority on the two person savings account of the USFA. August Skopik and John Trojanowski have be the two signatures required for withdrawals in the past year.
There was a discussion of classification changes. Per USFA policy, an officer of the division must sign for and approve all classification changes in a Gulf Coast Division tournament. It was discussed and approved that the division secretary, (Mauro) be the focal point for forwarding the USFA classification changes for the Gulf Coast Division.
The officers also discussed and approved that the Gulf Coast division will offer bout committee services to any hosting club for USFA tournaments. Gulf Coast Division officers presiding over JO qualifiers and Division qualifiers is mandatory per by-laws and USFA rules.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Oct 10, 2003 19:24:41 GMT -6
A review of these items generated the following response:
As outlined in Article VII , section 3 of the By-laws of the Gulf Coast Division, "Notice: written notice of the date, time and place of the annual meeting shall be given to all members not less than fifteen (15) days in advance of such meeting. The notice shall contain a statement of the officers to be filled at such meeting, a statement as to any proposed amendments to the By-Laws to be voted upon at such meeting, and a statement of other matters required a vote of the membership at such meeting. All members shall be given AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE of all special meetings, which shall set forth the business to be transacted at the meeting." I have never received notice of these meetings being hosted by the division. I, and the other clubs in the Division, are entitled to FIFTEEN DAYS NOTICE OF DIVISION MEETINGS. I expect notification of future meetings. These "secret" meetings that have been going on are unacceptable.
Please site for me the following reparations as oulined in the bylaws. I, along with other officers, could find no such regulations limiting the scheduling of tournaments over USFA events. This is plain and simple harassment of Bayou City Fencing Academy and the clubs in the Division and the USFA will not stand for it. "The Gulf Coast Division Officers will write and send a letter to the Bayou City Fencing Academy discussing the conflict of tournaments with USFA tournaments. This letter will also go to the USFA national office, Sectional Office and division officers in the section; The Gulf Coast Division will send out by mail an updated version of the 2003-2004 division schedule, utilizing the list from the USFA office;" Attack of Ms. Lepie is unacceptable. If you want to get that technical about things, please look at the date of which you turned in the SSCC location for the division...August 7th. According to section by-laws, the location for the SSCC must be submitted by August 1st (as cited by article IIB of the Operations Manual for the Southwest Section Circuit Cup).
It appears that the Gulf Coast Division is paying for SOME local events but not for others? How does this work? "Trophies and medals for local tournaments will be the responsibility of the hosting club; Trophies and medals for local tournaments will be the responsibility of the Gulf Coast Division;"
Additionally, the Division officers cannot amend the bylaws in an "officer only" meeting, only policy can by changed. According to Article XI- Amendments of the Gulf Coast Division By-laws, "These By-Laws may be amended at any annual meeting of the members, or at any special meeting of the members called for that purpose. An amendment receiving a majority of all votes cast by the members voting in person shall be deemed adopted." I did not get notice of any meeting intended for this purpose. I noted the following policy change in the division meeting minutes (the meeting that was not announced) "There was a discussion of classification changes. Per USFA policy, an officer of the division must sign for and approve all classification changes in a Gulf Coast Division tournament. It was discussed and approved that the division secretary, (Mauro) be the focal point for forwarding the USFA classification changes for the Gulf Coast Division"
Please clarify these points for me and the rest of the division. We are eager to hear any sort of explanation of the goings on of this meeting we were not invited to attend.
Best Regards,
Robyn Denise Schuster
President of Texas A&M University Fencing
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Oct 10, 2003 19:26:17 GMT -6
That, in turn, drew this response:
Robyn,
The divisional meeting was posted on the web site last March. That is theonly division meeting that has taken place in the past year until the next annual meeting.
The Gulf Coast division, (in particular the division officers), are responsible for running the JO qualifiers and the divisional qualifiers. That is why the division is responsible for those medals, and only the tournaments that the division is responsible for will the division provide the awards for. Any information posted to the contrary must be a mistake.
The national USFA office has notified the officers of the division that any classification changes require a division officer signature for validation. The officers of the division set up an operational procedure to insure that classification changes would not be invalidated. This is not a by-law change of the Gulf Coast Division, only a procedure for working with the USFA.
There is also concern with the division being liable for any copyright infringement on utilizing the terms "Regional Youth ..." in a context that the Gulf Coast division validates, after speaking personally with Wendell Kubik this weekend. I don't want to be responsible for youth that have to qualify by participating in a tournament to not be able to fence at nationals, or to put the Gulf Coast division at risk.
August Skopik
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Oct 10, 2003 19:29:13 GMT -6
...and this...
I would like to hear an explanation also. The Gulf Coast Division is part of the Southwest Section.
If You are not following the bylaws that are part of the USFA, I will have no choice but to get involed. Meaning I will have to notify USFA of the Bylaw violations.
Thanks,
Angela M. Torres Southwest Section Chair
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Oct 10, 2003 19:34:50 GMT -6
...and, finally, this...
I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm simply bringing about many things that haven't gone according to policy. I've gotten many MANY emails from clubs applauding my stance on this position. There have been NUMEROUS division meetings that we have not been aware of and only find out via John's site at the last minute. You CANNOT try to tell me this is the first time it's happened. I sited the section in my previous email which stated that the clubs must have notification of these meetings. TAMU would send representation to sit in on these meetings if we knew they were to take place...especially the one where they decided to knock A&M out of hosting the SSCC and give it to you, Mr. Skopik. The one where after talking to you, we were lead to believe was an "officer's only" meeting. I'd like to stick up for the other clubs in the division since it doesn't look like there's many people doing so. Next time there is a meeting, be it an annual meeting or an organizational meeting, I expect to be notified in writing as the by-laws state. You have my email, we've written and spoke on the phone several times this year, that should not be a problem.
I think it is often overlooked that there are two people in the division that consitently schedule tournaments one over another. One just happens to be in a position of power to exhert some control over the other. If one is to be punished by letters to the USFA, should not the other? Or does it not count if you hold an officer position? Writing petty letters to the USFA only reflects poorly on our division.
Also, lest we all forget the numerous incidents of certain people in the division blantantly coping other people's flyers to send out? What about that? Not even changing the dates? Should we also send a letter to the USFA regarding that? Please let me know if someone does not have the capacity to create a flyer and I would be more than happy to assist in that matter.
Play nice and play by the rules, boys. I'm simply telling you that the clubs in the division are not happy the way things are running right now. I don't mean any animosity towards anyone. I tend to be more in the philosophy of "can't we all just get along." But it seems like lately everyone wants to play hard ball. Drop your swords gentleman and treat your division clubs who you represent with respect.
Anyway, I have to go. A truck just drove through my living room, literally.
Robyn Schuster President of Texas A&M University Fencing
I have reprinted these items because they dealt with controversial positions within the Gulf Coast Division. They were sent as emails to a wide and diverse collection of individuals, wide enough that they could hardly be considered private. I also commend the various authors. While dealing with fairly intense subject matter, I think the exchanges were quite civil and direct.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Oct 10, 2003 22:49:02 GMT -6
The division by-laws have provisions for calling general membership meetings. There are supposed to be 2 per year (one spring, one fall). There can be numerous other general membership meetings if the membership calls for one, but as I've yet to see enough division members show up at a meeting to have called it (except once), I'd be pretty surprised to see that happen.
As for officer meetings, the day to day running of the division is left to the executive committee. The executive committee members need 48 hour notification of those meetings and they have to have at least 3 per year. There are no provisions for inviting the general membership to meetings of the executive committee. They aren't secret meetings -- they are the officers' prerogative.
That said, I think the awarding of the Division's SSCC should have been done in a more open manner, if for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. That's in the past now, however, and we need to learn from that and move on.
As for unhappiness among the general membership regarding how the division is run, I'd be more sympathetic if some of them would show up at the meetings and speak up as opposed to complain in the shadows. Last time anyone showed up in force, they all split as soon as the elections took place and they lost. There has never to my knowledge been any kind of attempt from either side to engage in open dialog and right or wrong the onus is on those on the outside of the power structure looking in to make their voice heard. I haven't seen that happen. When I was the chair, I actively sought involvement from everyone. I'd send e-mails and flyers to all the clubs in the division and never got much in the way of replies. I'd ask for clubs to volunteer to host tournaments and not hear replies until another club had them. Do we need a group hug? Yes. Do we ALL need to put down our axes and drop our grindstones long enough to do it? Yes. Is that going to happen soon? Please surprise me.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Oct 11, 2003 8:54:46 GMT -6
I'd like to add this to Dan's remarks about showing up at the annual meeting. At the last one, where elections were held for the current officers, in the spring of 2003, the actual attendees were: Mauro Hamza Andrey Geva August Skopik Dan Gorman John Trojanowski Nicole Trojanowski 2 parents (of Bethlehem and Zion Witte) and one parent (of a fencer who eludes my memory).
This was a total of nine voting members (the parents had family memberships). According to our own by-laws (Article IV, Section 4):
[glow=red,2,300]Quorum: a quorum shall consist of not less than seven (7) members of THE DIVISION present in person and a majority vote of those present shall control, except as herein otherwise provides. [/glow]
In a division with a little over 300 USFA member fencers (by the end of that season) we BARELY had a quorum.
One of my promises to myself is that, as the next annual meeting draws near, I will purchase a group of mailing labels for all our Division members from the USFA and snail mail EVERY fencer on it (including the one in Surrey, England). Everyone whose email I possess at that time can expect at least one reminder per week in that last month or two.
|
|
Guest from near but not here
Guest
|
Post by Guest from near but not here on Oct 16, 2003 19:18:45 GMT -6
I have to say that given the quality of fencing in your division, you are wasting your efforts in lesser things, providing a soap opera for the neighboring fencers to be entertained. I am amused at the bickering for so little. Aren't we trying to grow the sport? Haven't been taught to take turns?
I commend Schlager7 for keeping this forum open for you to debate your "ideas" rather than the "people" who created the ideas on how to improve scheduling.
Regards from near but not here!
|
|
|
Post by Passing Through on Oct 20, 2003 6:19:39 GMT -6
I dunno. I saw Schlager7's post on the FencingNet site about what Divisions should do for their fencers and club. It devolved into a real brouhaha among fencers in the Virginia Division.
Looked like a lot more rancour there than I see here.
Besides, if there was a site like this for YOUR div you're saying it would be one big on-line group hug?
|
|