|
Post by schlager7 on Dec 18, 2005 17:48:02 GMT -6
Now I am asking for serious thought and responses here. No calls to run so-and-so out of office or push so-and-so INTO office.
We have had contentious SW Section elections (recently) and contentious Gulf Coast Division elections (usually). There is also a recall petition being worked on by some regarding the current USFA President (you can see that thread in the FIE/USFA board).
So there is always someone unhappy, and someone content, with the staus quo.
My question is, regardless of what division of the USFA you may be in, or who your officers are, what do see as the role of a USFA division? What should it do (and, if its been thought out, how should it accomplish what you think it should do)? Perhaps just as important what sort of things should it play no part in?
No sniping, please. Let us think in broad terms and mull over each person's contribution.
|
|
|
Post by JEC on Dec 18, 2005 22:41:50 GMT -6
A division is a regional arm of the USFA in a given region. It's main mission is to grow, develop and nurture the sport of fencing in that area.
- The division encourages the success of local/regional tournaments in a way that tournaments do not compete against each other and in an equitable manner among the club members.
- When the number of clubs falls below a given critical mass, the division encourages the formation of new clubs, and might facilitate the recruitment of new coaches.
- The division is also interested in the developing and retention of quality referees.
In the bylaws of Western PA division, these were their objectives:
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on Dec 19, 2005 9:37:38 GMT -6
Its worthwhile to look at the historical role of the Division, and what its purpose has been throughout the history of the USFA and its predicessor, the AFLA. The primary purpose of the division has been to organize and certify competitions. As impossible as it seems to be able to live without, remember, as recently as 20 years ago there was no email, no internet, no regularly available computer software for running tournaments. The pool of people who knew how to organize a competition was dramatically smaller as well.
The current USFA Operations Manual and Rulebook don't clarify this too well (although if you know where to look you can find it), but the Division Chair was origionally set up as the President of the Bout Committee of Division events. And >ALL< events were Division events, if they were going to be something at which ratings could be earned. The other officers were to support such endeavors. It was a service position, plain, pure and simple.
Since then though the role of the Division has become, to put it mildly, muddied (Sections too, but that's another matter entirely), as they have taken on more and more tasks, and become a place for political infighting. This is not something limited to the Southwest Section, by any stretch of the imagination.
I think a dramatic paradigm shift is in order - and its quite possible its going to happen.
However a couple of thoughts I think are important: What we think of now as "the Division" is really a number of different groups. Leave the referee training to those who understand refereeing - local and regional FOC boards. Leave the promotion of fencing to those who do it best - clubs and coaches. Leave bout committee work to those who are trained in it (and yes the National Bout Committee is exploring how to certifiy Bout Committee people in a manner similar to Armourers and Referees).
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Dec 19, 2005 13:14:39 GMT -6
What we think of now as "the Division" is really a number of different groups. Leave the referee training to those who understand refereeing - local and regional FOC boards. Leave the promotion of fencing to those who do it best - clubs and coaches. Leave bout committee work to those who are trained in it (and yes the National Bout Committee is exploring how to certifiy Bout Committee people in a manner similar to Armourers and Referees). I am reminded of how, a year or two back, when I posed the question "What should a division do?" on Fencing Net, Eric Dew responded, "As little as possible." His thesis was that the it was the job of the division to hold the two qualifying competitions (JOs and Nationals) and leave the rest of the tournaments to the clubs. Taking David's statement above, we could go a step further and add that we could leave those other duties to the governing bodies of those specialized duties. Yet our lengthy recent experiences, including the visit by Donald Alperstein, lead us to the thesis that ALL sanctioned tournaments within the division BELONG to the division, regardless of the club hosting it. (I suspect here is where most political strife originates). The most current version of the Gulf Coast Division's bylaws states: It sounds like our stated objectives, as a division, are broader than Mr. Dew or Mr. Sierra would suggest. Should the division simply pull back to qualifying competitions? Should it hold qualifiers but also run all of the sanctioned tournaments in the division? Should it take the broader approached expressed in the current bylaws and become involved in "encouraging the sport of fencing" & etc.?
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Dec 19, 2005 15:01:32 GMT -6
I think that the Division serves as the local representative of the USFA, and as such inherits the obligations of the USFA charter in terms of the promotion of fencing, etc. Which isn't to say the Division needs to be advertising from its own budget, hosting beginners lessons or anything like that. However, I agree with JEC that if fencing becomes or is too sparse in its area, the Division ought to promote the creation of new clubs etc to ensure people have the opportunity to participate.
As far as tournaments go, it is probably no longer the case that the Division needs to manage all tournaments - there are a number of people who know how it ought to be done. However, the Division ought to supervise all of them, as it is responsible for certifying that the rules were followed and everything took place in a proper manner. If a Division cannot verify that (ideally, by having a representative present), it should withhold its sanction.
With regard to skills training, I think that independent programs for referees, armorers, bout committee are probably a good idea. However, the Division retains some obligation to encourage its members to attend them, and to support them, as part of its role of promoting fencing. Without those skill positions adequately filled, it's just a bunch of "assaults", according to the rulebook.
I'll see what people have to say to this and then we can bring up the topic of equipment ownership and finances.
|
|
|
Post by Parry Nine on Dec 20, 2005 0:03:19 GMT -6
Simply: Promote the sport of Fencing
|
|
|
Post by fox on Dec 20, 2005 8:26:48 GMT -6
Promote or support? Not always the same thing.
I become inclined, more and more, to the minimalist approach. The division should insure that all tournaments held within ints boundaries follow USFA guidelines and are above board.
They should probably also have some control on the schedule to avoid tournament scheduling conflicts.
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Dec 20, 2005 9:18:53 GMT -6
I would take JEC's remark a step further.
I'm in the Gulf Coast Division and have noticed the huge concentration of fencing on the the north, west and south sides of the Houston area. To the east there is nothing until you hit the recently hurricane-smited Spindletop Cavaliers, in Port Arthur.
Our division has lots of fencers and clubs, but in some areas the fencing could still use some development. I'd bet the same is true for a lot of divisions.
|
|
|
Post by fox on Dec 20, 2005 10:34:43 GMT -6
Leave the referee training to those who understand refereeing - local and regional FOC boards. Leave the promotion of fencing to those who do it best - clubs and coaches. Leave bout committee work to those who are trained in it (and yes the National Bout Committee is exploring how to certifiy Bout Committee people in a manner similar to Armourers and Referees). This is in keeping with my thoughts, exactly. Run the qualifiers and post a representative/observer at local tournaments. Don't let them schedule over each other. Let the specialized groups see to those other aspects.
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Dec 22, 2005 1:21:50 GMT -6
If we are to say the Division isn't responsible for referee training, etc, then we need local and regional FOC boards to be set up. Also, the financial support I've seen Divisions play in hosting referee seminars, etc will need replacing. The work still needs doing, and if we're to get it done, it will take some work.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Dec 22, 2005 9:29:52 GMT -6
For my own money, I'd prefer to live and fence in a division with an activist metality on the part of the division.
By that, I mean, the division sponsors (or co-sponsors with a host club) referee seminars, armory and bout committee workshops and seminars, as well as working with groups like the USFCA to increase the pool of qualified coaches.
These are precisely the sort of grass roots, ground-up programs that I feel have a much more lasting effect on the local fencing environment, as a whole, than top-down programs.
This is not to disparage top-down projects. Bringing NACs, Nationals, NCAAs, and RYCs to your division provides a very real incentive to both your avid competitors. It also gives the occasional competitor and social fencers an great chance to see top-flight fencing. It also often gives developing local armorers, referees and bout committees personnel to assist with and learn from higher-level tournament environments.
There are, however, very real hazards with this approach. A division leadership with the motivation and resources to successfully pursue even a portion of these tasks, generally pursues all of their functions with such vigor. Bruised egos often result.
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Dec 22, 2005 16:37:17 GMT -6
Not to mention the risk of divided efforts across too many projects risks having none of them done, or done well. However, I tend to agree that absent other Local fencing promoting bodies, the Division needs to step up and do the job.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Dec 23, 2005 10:20:19 GMT -6
I'm a fan of as little as possible. Run Divisionals and JO qualifiers and have a rep at the rest of the tournaments. That's it. The clubs are better at doing everything else.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Dec 23, 2005 21:12:12 GMT -6
I don't see many clubs producing skilled referees.
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Dec 23, 2005 23:47:46 GMT -6
Hugh... I see a lot of referees who came up through their local clubs. I guess it's really a matter of perspective, Andy
Ask the next person in a local tournament (who you think is a decent ref), and see where they started fencing, and learned to ref. The vast majority came from local clubs. Some moved here to this area later, but they still came from their local clubs, too.
I'm also seeing a lot of developmental programs going on right now. I find it very incouraging to see that! It's something we really need! And the vast majority of that training is coming from individuals from the local clubs who just like to teach new referees.
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Dec 24, 2005 0:13:15 GMT -6
Well, I suppose it's all perspective. For example, I got my fencing experience with UTFC, and they worked in making people referee bouts when they weren't fencing, etc, but there was no actual program or anything other than a few words of support from Paul. I learned to be a referee from studying the rulebook, observing others, and Gary van der Wege, Brian Gibson, Jerry Benson, etc.'s personal assistance. The referee seminars I've heard of have been put on by the Divisions (GC and ST specifically) So perhaps other clubs are different, but in what I've seen it's the existing referees who are doing the work of teaching their successors.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Dec 24, 2005 9:04:40 GMT -6
With regard to referees in the last few years, I can speak for my division. A little over three years ago, when I started the rogue Gulf Coast Division site (time flies), the FOC listed three rated referees for our division (Dan Gorman, Jerry Dunaway and Luis Casados who never referees locally).
Then just before the Katy Blades SSCC in November of 2002, either Katy Blades or Salle Mauro hosted a referee seminar.
Just prior to the Alliance SSCC last Spring there was a kind of partnership with the division to host one, but the division paid Gary for giving the seminar. (Alliance paid him to referee, so the seminar was not exactly a partnership, just a separate, closely-timed 2nd job).
Salle Mauro has hosted one on its own since.
All the others (3-4) since I first became a division officer, have been paid for by the division. In a few cases, at NO charge to the student if they agreed to referee at that weekend's event.
So it is something of a mixed bag, but most of those with 12-20 attendess were the division's doing. This is an example of my reference to an "activist" division.
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Dec 24, 2005 16:03:32 GMT -6
The GC Division is also nearly twice the size of the ST Division counting by number of clubs, and of the 9 South Texas clubs listed by the USFA, 3 of them (TFA, Alamo and SASF) appear to be concentrating on Youth fencing, which usually isn't a source of referees. Round Rock doesn't have a website, and Spectrum's is down. I don't know what Salle Pouj, AFC or Coastal Bend do, and I covered UT, who concentrates on team competitions (SWIFA, USACFC). That's the division.
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Dec 24, 2005 22:20:11 GMT -6
You forgot the All Texas Athletic Center, Texas State and Salle Gary.
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Dec 25, 2005 10:35:21 GMT -6
Indeed, but apparently so has the USFA, since I was going off their list. In any event, I'm not familiar with those programs personally, other than Texas State's tournaments, so I can't say anything useful about them.
|
|