Comments for Mary Griffith

Comment on Now That I’ve Got Your Attention… by failure is not an option

failure is not an option — Sat, 19 May 2012 22:10:49 +0000

First, you play. If you can’t play, you teach. If you can’t teach, you referee. If you can’t referee, you go into politics.

Comment on Random Further Thoughts by Volunteer Frustration with USA Fencing Mounts | Fencing Gear 365

Volunteer Frustration with USA Fencing Mounts | Fencing Gear 365 — Fri, 18 May 2012 19:20:43 +0000

[...] is a letter that Kevin Smith authored following a discussion with Mary Griffith about her recent blog post and his [...]

Comment on Burning My Bridges by Larry Pinkus

Larry Pinkus — Fri, 18 May 2012 18:16:24 +0000

Reading what precedes this and George K’s. e-mail, one can easily conclude that we need new leadership. So we can elect new leaders, but that does not necessarily result in success. Don’t get me wrong, I agree that we need new leadership, but we must remember history. Go back to the late 1980s, a time of minimal international success for the USFA (we did not have large numbers of fencers spending long periods fencing internationallly as we do now) and much unhappiness within the USFA. My friend, Michel Mamlouk, who founded the National Office during his first term as President in the early 1980s and was well regarded in the FIE, decided that he wanted to help. He ran for President as a reformer and won handily. Michel recognized the need for us to have a better international presence and more professional approach for our fencers. At that time the idea that we could win a World or Olympic Championship was so far fetched that the USFA offerred to give $100,000 to any fencers who accomplished this. (It took ten years, but our young women’s sabre team unexpectedly did it!). Michel was a successful business man who wanted us to eliminate waste and to spend our money more wisely (sound familiar?). He foresaw what was needed for success. However, he was overly critical of the status quo. This rubbed people the wrong way. The volunteer leadership was strongly entrenched and he lacked the political skill to advance his ideas. He tried, but failed to reform the USFA. However, he called attention to the need for change and his successor, Stacey Johnson (who defeated him) and her team, finally began moving the USFA towards the success that was dreamed of. Private efforts, e.g., the brilliant Westbrook Foundation, started. The influx of great coaches from Europe, who opened new clubs, attracted new fencers, taught new coaches and inspired our wonderful athletes, helped us to get :”over the hump” and has made for accomplishments that are truly astounding. But, as flawed as it was, the USFA and an army of volunteers also played a critical role in this.

So we need new leadership, but it has to be smart, realistic and politically savy to make the necessary changes. Less ego, more transparency and openness to acknowledging and learning from our mistakes (and successes) would be delightful. It is time for the kind of USFA leadership that is able to finally parlay the amazing international results of our fencers and coaches to fulfill a dream: dramatic growth and sponsorship that solves our financial problems and secures the future success of American fencing.

Larry Pinkus
Formerly Southeast Section Chair, Club Owner
and Veterans World Champion

Comment on Burning My Bridges by It is time for a change in USA Fencing leadership - Be sure to vote

It is time for a change in USA Fencing leadership - Be sure to vote — Thu, 17 May 2012 20:01:18 +0000

[...] an eloquent piece on why she is considering giving up on USA Fencing. Please go to this link: http://marygriff.com/2012/05/13/burning-my-bridges/. You should know that our sport will suffer if there is not a change. She, as am I, is just fed up [...]

Comment on Random Further Thoughts by David Sierra

David Sierra — Thu, 17 May 2012 02:10:49 +0000

One major frustration I’ve had is that I’d really like to push and develop the ROC system. Sure, I’ve got some ideas about directions it could go and ways it could be developed, but what I really want to do is to start some discussions, get input, and develop the process in a cohesive, organized fashion. But, unless you’re a committee CHAIR these days, you don’t have a lot of room to work. And what I keep getting back is, “Well, unless you can present a cohesive idea, there’s really not any reason for it to be pushed.” No single person, however good minded, and however inclusive is going to be able to pull together something as broad and encompassing as the ROC. It needs input – REAL input, with true back and forth, compromise and hammering out – from a broad array of people. Identifying the people to do it is not the hard part. But getting them to commit to develop a product without some assurance that its not going to be circle-filed? A lot more difficult.

Comment on Random Further Thoughts by Staff members going to London?

Staff members going to London? — Thu, 17 May 2012 01:59:05 +0000

[...] and that, apparently, Greg could not even name who they were during the last Board Meeting: http://marygriff.com/2012/05/16/rand…ther-thoughts/ I am not saying that these staff members' travel, etc. cannot be justified…but it is hard to do [...]

Comment on Random Further Thoughts by Allex Gruman

Allex Gruman — Wed, 16 May 2012 22:18:49 +0000

Mary – I could not agree more with the entire post.
Personally I gave up on reconciliation of personal expenses, as return emails do not match, paperwork gets lost, etc, etc, etc. I keep promising myself that from the next event on – I will become more vigilant, and guess self discipline is not my forte. IMHO – the National Office is simply understaffed to deal with such deluge of paperwork,
Definitely – it is the beauty of the sport that keeps the officials going, I fail to see any other reason. Thanks so much for your ability to crystallize the opinions of many.
See you in Anaheim.

Comment on Random Further Thoughts by Mary

Mary — Wed, 16 May 2012 19:28:04 +0000

David, Tanya’s been able to pull up answers for all the questions I’ve asked so far–fairly simple stuff compared to what we ought to be asking, probably, but there’s quite a bit available right now just for the asking.
And I know for a fact that both Peet and the RS developers are ready to make FRED and RS communicate directly, so I’m as much mystified by that holdup as you are.

Comment on Random Further Thoughts by David Sierra

David Sierra — Wed, 16 May 2012 18:57:35 +0000

I have three points to comment on:

First, your change of mind about secrecy and confidentiality is both welcome and wonderful. Its not too often that you see someone in our organization willing to reconsider even the most trivial of matters, much less a fundamental guiding principle. People in this organization have to move beyond our individual silos and in order for that to happen, access to critical information is key.

Second, and this is perhaps even more important, and a caveat to anyone else who might be reading this: don’t assume that because someone in the current election is an incumbent that they have been part of the problems, and don’t assume that someone who is a non-incumbent is automatically the answer. A number of the folks who are running against incumbents have long histories with our association, and, especially with regard to the secrecy and information-hoarding.

Third, and this is a very minor point, but I’d be REALLY surprised if Railstation allowed the kind of queries you ask. All of the real data about who is competing at a non-NAC leve is in askFRED, unless our friends at Railstation have figured out how to write JSON queries recently and are importing FRED data – and given the kludgieness of their UI, I’d not be willing to put too much money on it. Of course, open access and sharing of data between National Office databases and FRED was the subject of 2? 3? different BOD resolutions 4? 5? years ago, and has yet to happen…

Comment on Random Further Thoughts by Allen Evans

Allen Evans — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:54:11 +0000

Mary, thanks. I once had this identical conversation about stove-piping information with Delia Turner, and neither one of us came up with a good answer. Often, the NO or the BoD would make some decision that I thought was ludicrous, only to find out (in side bar conversations with others) that it was the best of a series of bad choices as people tried to forge compromises among various groups. If I’d known the background before hand, I might have jumped to fewer conclusions.

But now, I’m not sure what the reasons are for this lack of information and confusion. Everyone seems quick to point blame at someone, so perhaps information is being hidden simply to prevent premature finger pointing. But why? The facts are the facts, and in the case of something like the audit report, the numbers don’t change the longer you sit on them.

Somewhere, the USFA has lost it’s way, despite the work of a number of capable and (I think) well meaning people. It’s easy to blame the current administration, but we’ve been having (and listening) to conversations like this for years. The difference now is that there are more mistakes, with more money involved, and even — yes — more good opportunities lost.

It’s disturbing, but perhaps we’re finally seeing enough awareness and irritation to effect a change.

Allen Evans