Tag Archives: board election

The Long Goodbye?

I’m submerged in my manuscript again. If I hadn’t been attending Left Coast Crime mystery conventions for the past few years, I’d be more upset that I missed my Tax Day deadline to finish my book, but it turns out that it’s not uncommon for mystery writers to discover their murderer changing on them. Since somebody unexpected turns out to have dunnit (not the butler, though—there is no butler), I have to go back to the beginning to make sure everything else makes sense this new way, too. It’ll definitely be a better book now, but I’m not predicting any completion date yet.

In the meantime, I’m also finishing up with various odds and ends with USA Fencing over the last few months of my board term. My decision not to run for reelection was about half to do with USFA (and my unwillingness to keep banging my stupid head against the same stupid wall) and about half to do with wanting to move on to other areas (including finishing the current book and getting to the others lined up behind it). While I can’t say I’m entirely happy about what I’ll be leaving undone by the end of August, when I look away from that frustration, I have to admit that there’s been some progress:

  • Brandon Rochelle, who replaced me as TC chair, has followed up in the direction I was going with the TC to recruit and train more BC staff. He had more staff interested in working this year’s SN than there were slots, and he’s got several BC staff well on the way to being able to serve as new BC chairs or computer leads, so the BC pool is in better shape than I would have predicted two or three years ago. He’s great on the policy side, too, so the TC is in excellent hands.
  • Kris Ekeren, Lorrie Marcil, David Blake, and I took the first steps in revamping USFA’s committee governance structure, figuring out what committees are needed, which ones could go away, and where they should be placed in the governance structure. We created a schedule and process for recruiting and appointing new committee members—the new web page for that purpose is set to go live tomorrow (May 18, 2015), so if you’re at all interested in helping make USFA function, keep an eye out for that. There’s still work to be done clarifying the lines of authority and responsibility among the board, the national office, and the various committees, but at least we’ve made a start. (The eventual goal is for our governance processes to be clear, explicit, and documented.)
  • There’s good stuff coming on the marketing side. Phil Reilly’s CMD has done a ton of work (pro bono, too) on branding and is only just getting started on a long process that we should have begun (like so much necessary work) years ago. I’m looking forward to see how that develops.

The frustration, of course, has to do with the tournament side of USFA. We still haven’t made enough progress figuring out a relatively permanent tournament structure capable of adapting to our continuing growth. (Contrary to what some seem to believe, growth in the sport of fencing is neither stagnant nor stopped, and what tweaks and changes USFA makes to our tournament structure will have little effect on that growth.) Despite pleas from the TC for as long as I can remember (and certainly as long as I was TC chair), we’ve not made much progress figuring out exactly how we will adapt to the growth beyond the general commitment to some sort of point-based qualification (PBQ) system. But the details of how PBQ will be implemented over the next few quads have yet to be determined, which is frustrating both for those in governance, who need to prepare for the coming-someday new system, and for the general membership, who’d like to have some idea how the new system will work. (Obviously also frustrating for those who believe the decisions have already been made but are being kept secret because Conspiracy!)

But for me, this is all becoming someone else’s problem as I shift my focus more to my writing and my personal life. As I’ve begun to pull back from my fencing activities, I’ve been startled to discover how little I’ve missed them. I’d not entirely realized how actively unpleasant much of what I’ve been doing at NACs had become for me. After three or four years of saying that this year’s SN would be my last, the 2014 SN was my last straw. Too many preventable problems recurring, too many of the same old discussions too many times, too many badly behaved people who should know better—and would probably have been even more infuriated if they’d known I was mentally scoring their rants for style and originality. Working as BC chair requires a level of patience I can no longer maintain—which is why I told Brandon I could work only six days at this year’s SN, and those only if I didn’t work more than three in a row. (I’ve already warned him I won’t be available at all for Dallas next summer.)

IMG_1683I’ve not decided yet whether I want to work NACs next season. At only four days, they are much less complex and stressful to work than SN, but the 2015-2016 NACs are mostly east of the Rockies and I don’t know that I want to travel that much. Maybe, maybe not.

One decision I have made, though, is who to vote for in the USFA board election that opens tomorrow. There are three candidates for two open slots, and all three have long experience with USFA and its governance. Laurie Schiller is an easy choice for me—he is the single most underestimated member of our board. I consider him the conscience of the board—time after time at meetings (and especially in executive sessions), he’s the director who cuts straight to the salient point that the rest of us too often dance around. The board desperately needs his dogged honesty.

I will also vote for Donald Alperstein. Donald is not someone I always agree with, but he’s got a long history of service to USFA, and is utterly conscientious about his fencing work. He’s got a better feel for the long-term consequences of decisions the board makes than does Jeff Salmon, also a diligent worker as a board member. (I have to admit that I disagree more often with Jeff on various policies, so that probably contributes to my choice of Donald as well.)

See you in San Jose, I hope, and in the meantime, back to work on that manuscript for me.


1 Comment

Filed under Fencing

Fencing Wish List: Pronouns

This is the final of four posts in which I’m expanding on the four areas I listed on my candidate info sheet, which I think are crucial for USA Fencing  to address:

These are not so much separate items, though, as different aspects of one gigantic puzzle. With the exception of the fourth item, which may well happen on its own as the other three are addressed (though I think there is much we can do deliberately in that direction as well), you make any major changes in one area and the others will be drastically affected.

So while I’m tackling each of these areas in separate posts, there will inevitably be some redundancy among them, because so much is so interrelated and interdependent.

Become a “We” instead of a “They” organization.

You can tell a lot about an organization by the pronouns people use to refer to it.

For all too many of its members, USFA is currently a They whose overriding goal is to wreck their competitive opportunities and ruin their lives.

  • THEY make me fence in the same pool as my teammate, even though that’s how the rules say it’s supposed to work.
  • THEY don’t book the flights referees want or pay officials on time.
  • THEY create schedules with conflicts that make me choose between two events that I want to enter.
  • THEY keep changing the rules.
  • THEY won’t tell me when my event will be done so I can fly out on the same day I fence.
  • THEY triple-flight my saber event or double-flight my foil or epee event so I have to spend too much time sitting around waiting.
  • THEY keep holding tournaments in cities I don’t like in parts of the country I don’t like traveling to.
  • THEY keep choosing hotels that are too expensive.
  • THEY won’t let me fence in the championship just because I forgot to enter by the deadline.
  • THEY keep assigning crappy referees to my pools.
  • THEY make it too hard to figure out what the rules are.
  • THEY won’t do what I think they should do.

It’s much easier to think of a dysfunctional organization as a disembodied entity acting maliciously against you. I’m not immune to the tendency—THEY’ve paid me much later than events I’ve worked, THEY’ve messed up my flight reservations, THEY’ve published schedules that were harder to run than they needed to be, THEY’ve changed the rules in ways that make tournaments more difficult to run.

But THEY are scores—even hundreds—of individuals. We’re a pretty typical subset of the general population—some highly accomplished, some less so, some passionate about making everything work better, others just trying to get by with the least possible effort. The problem with thinking of this eclectic group of individuals as a THEY is that an impersonal THEY is not something that can be changed or redesigned or improved. THEY can only be coped with or survived or avoided, and eventually it’s easier for the rest, the non-THEY, to give up hope of anything different, to decide that attempting anything else is a lost cause.

That’ll kill an organization fast.

Solving some of the problems I talked about in my previous three posts can help us become less of a THEY organization and more of the WE we need to be if we’re to survive our current muddle and thrive. We need to be more transparent and responsive as an organization, more competent and responsible. More than that, we need to develop an attitude, a sense of belonging among our members, a belief that we all have a part to play to improve USA Fencing, that we get the association we build together.

A former colleague in another nonprofit a couple of lifetimes ago was an absolute genius at making this happen. Someone would accost her, ranting about something or other they were unhappy about: “You people need to [do whatever was needed to handle whatever the problem was]!” My friend would ask a couple of questions, make a comment, and then ask one more question: “When do you plan to start working on that?” Somehow, without realizing how it happened, the infuriated ranter would find himself in charge of the project he’d not even realized he’d proposed.

We got some of our best volunteers that way.

But it only works when you’ve got a culture that enables participation, where the participants believe that what they can do will be valued and make a real difference. That’s the culture WE need to create.


Filed under Fencing

Fencing Wish List: Tournament Structure

This is the third of four posts in which I’m expanding on the four areas I listed on my candidate info sheet, which I think are crucial for USA Fencing  to address:

These are not so much separate items, though, as different aspects of one gigantic puzzle. With the exception of the fourth item, which may well happen on its own as the other three are addressed (though I think there is much we can do deliberately in that direction as well), you make any major changes in one area and the others will be drastically affected.

So while I’m tackling each of these areas in separate posts, there will inevitably be some redundancy among them, because so much is so interrelated and interdependent.

Create a tournament calendar and structure appropriate to our fencer demographics.

This is an easy post for me to write. I’ve worked a lot of tournaments in the last 15 years—local club  and circuit events, divisional qualifiers, section championships, regional events, and national events. I’ve learned a lot about what works and what doesn’t at each level, and I’ve had plenty of time to think about how we could improve almost every aspect of our tournaments, and along with that time, plenty of fencing people to bounce those ideas around with. We’ve changed a lot in how we run tournaments: some of those changes are obvious, like the change of software to Fencing Time or the standardization of venue layouts to pods of 4 strips. Others, like changes to BC internal procedures for managing events, are mostly invisible to competitors.

This is also a difficult post to write. I’ve fairly firm opinions about changes we still need, and I’ve more than a few victims who’ve asked me a simple question about tournaments and been inflicted with a lengthy lecture in response. Once you get me started on tournaments, I can go on for hours, a phenomenon with which several of my tournament roommates are familiar. (At least they are usually BC people, who tend to do the same.)

Since it’s no secret that I think our national events are too big, I’m not going to spend any time rehashing what I’ve written before here and here and here and even here, for example. Instead, I’m going to list some of the things we can’t do because our national tournaments are so large, and follow that up with a few ideas that we ought to be considering to replace our current tournament structure.

  • Scheduled finals. I’ve lost track of the number of times we’ve attempted to schedule and showcase the final rounds of NAC and championship events. The idea is that with scheduled final bouts, the local organizing committee (LOC) or sports commission can promote the tournament to attract local sponsors and local spectators.  An LOC like that in Detroit could work wonders with scheduled finals to promote their local clubs and the sport in general. But with our huge events, we can’t reliably schedule finals at times convenient for local TV news crews, or when we do try to schedule finals, some minor early slowdown cascades through the day into a 2-hour delay. (Always makes me think of what a CHP friend told me years ago, about how a single car slowing 10 mph at the right time of day on the SF Bay Bridge can result in complete gridlock on the bridge a couple of hours later.)
  • Training, part 1. You’d think giant tournaments would offer lots of opportunities for training new tournament personnel, but for BC, at least, it’s the other way around. Most of our trainees are familiar with basic tournament operations, so what they need is hands-on experience with national procedures. We’ve learned over the years, that trainees need to be additions to regular staff, so they can be paired with someone who they can observe and then be observed by. Our huge events, though, are so tightly scheduled that we can’t allow trainees the little bit of slack, the slight extra amount of time they need to do tasks themselves, and because of that cascade effect, we can’t afford to let them make what would be minor, relatively harmless errors at smaller tournaments.
  • Training, part 2. At last season’s JOs board meeting, I presented a BC recruiting and development plan developed by a small group of experienced national BC staff, complete with timelines for developing training materials and workshops, a BC website, and lots of other useful goodies. We’ve not made much progress with it, though—far less than we’d expected to have completed by now. (Other areas within USFA have the same problem.) Why? Because the people with the knowledge and experience to do the work are the same people who work national events (and regional events and serve as division officers and regional tournament organizers and/or officials), and we’ve also got jobs and families and for some peculiar reason even take non-fencing vacation days now and then. If we could train more people, we ‘d have the time and energy to train more people.

Which brings me to tournament restructuring. The USFA is at the stage of its growth where we’ve got too many competitive members for our current tournament structure—too many entries to fit into our traditional number of national tournament days. What we need is a structure that we can grow with, so we won’t need to keep inventing a new structure every 15 or 20 years as the old one becomes too unwieldy. Some ideas I’d like to see us considering:

  • A permanent national top level. This could be championships only or include a series of national tournaments like the current NACs. Either way, entry would be determined by points and limited to a predetermined number of competitors, ideally 160, which with an 80% promotion rate would result in a DE table of 128. This would make the schedule, staffing levels, and equipment needs predictable and consistent, and allow us to return to a whole range of venues we can no longer currently use because they are too small. This would also allow more effective promotion and showcasing of our top-level competitions, eventually even paying spectators eager to see our increasingly popular sport. As the sport grows, this top level would remain stable and adjustments to the tournament structure would be made at the intermediate and lower levels without necessitating a complete overhaul.
  • True regionalization. Eventually, I think we’ll need to go to a true regional structure, similar to the way divisions and sections used to work. The current disparity in size and competitiveness of divisions (as well as the old sections) requires realignment with our current demographics, though. Given the size of the United States and the longer distances between fencing centers in many parts of the country, there will never be geographic parity throughout the country, but we can certainly do better than we do now at achieving some sort of competitive parity. Several sports use regional affiliate associations to create their structure—we need to investigate how other sport NGBs have negotiated this stage of growth.
  • Tournament operations spun off from the national office? We should consider which tasks are best-suited for the national association to perform and which can be delegated to other entities. Both the ROCs and the SYCs are beginning to show that large NAC-size tournaments, with the proper standards and support, can be effectively organized independently. Eventually, we could bid out all national events to independent organizers and let the national organization concentrate on developing materials and resources to support the overall infrastructure of fencing—coaching development, club development, regional affiliate support (finances, website development, etc.). With the national organization providing guidance and resources, the divisions (or whatever lower level we have) could and should play a much larger role in identifying and developing new coaches and officials.

If we go to smaller national events, license tournaments to independent organizers as ROCs and SYCs are, or both, we’ll have to make up the revenue lost from tournaments fees, with an entry head tax, a percentage of tournament revenue, sponsorships and grants, or—more likely—some combination of all of these. Again, we should look to see how other NGBs generate their revenue.

Last in the series: “We versus Them

1 Comment

Filed under Fencing

Fencing Wish List: Governance

This is the second of four posts in which I’m expanding on the four areas I listed on my candidate info sheet, which I think are crucial for USA Fencing  to address:

These are not so much separate items, though, as different aspects of one gigantic puzzle. With the exception of the fourth item, which may well happen on its own as the other three are addressed (though I think there is much we can do deliberately in that direction as well), you make any major changes in one area and the others will be drastically affected.

So while I’m tackling each of these areas in separate posts, there will inevitably be some redundancy among them, because so much is so interrelated and interdependent.

Create and manage an appropriate and effective governance structure.

I hardly know where to start about USFA governance. The most frustrating aspect for me is the committee structure. As the current chair of the Tournament & Tournament Services (formerly just Tournament) Committee, an “additional principal committee” of the board, I’ve had a difficult time determining what my job is. There is no current written description of the Tournament Committee and its responsibilities. My predecessors in the position had served on the TC before they were appointed as chair, so they at least had some experience with the way the committee worked. I came in cold, knowing nothing except what I’d heard in random BC discussions at national tournaments while waiting for pools to come in. After I was appointed, I asked—clearly something I should have done before I accepted the appointment—what the TC’s top priorities should be. I was told that I would figure it out, just as my predecessors had.

So the past two-and-a-half years have been something of an adventure. I’d already known that the TC had far less to do with tournament site evaluation and selection than it used to, to the point that I know as little about which cities we’ll be going to next season as any other USFA member. (And believe me, I’ve asked—the TC still believes it can offer useful site selection advice, at the very least.) I’d known also that the TC worked with the High Performance Committee to create the event combinations for national tournaments based on the HPC’s determination of competitive development needs. But by the time I became TC chair, the HPC was long gone, and its eventual replacement, the National Team Oversight Committee (NTOC), was not functioning at the same level. It’s now gone entirely, and a Sports Performance and Development Task Force is at work on recommendations for replacing it.

Committee chairs have recently been asked to write charters for their committees for the board to review, but the committee problem is not simply the lack of written descriptions of committee functions. We are also missing guidance for the interaction among committees and between committees and the national office. To take just one example, there is no established process for creating the national tournament calendar for next season—nothing that says whose responsibility it is, who should be consulted, when it should be done, who needs to approve it, etc. The TC was asked to propose event combinations (the dates and cities are currently considered the responsibility of national events staff in the national office), but deadlocked after nearly six months of discussion. What’s so hard? Partly, it’s a matter of numbers—some events are too large to be combined with the same events we used to be able to combine them with, so we simply can’t fit all the events we used to fit into the 28 days of (non-SN) competition we have to work with. Partly, it’s the lack of guidance as to whose needs should take priority. Do the scheduling issues for international fencers in Division I trump the developmental needs of those who will become our international fencers in the next couple of quads or those vying for Veteran teams? How much should the needs of NCAA and other collegiate fencers be considered? What about combinations that are difficult to hire appropriate referees for, like Division I/Youth—how much weight should that be given? In the end, after seemingly endless but always civil discussion—none of us failed to see the legitimacy of any of the others’ views, we simply split on how all these various needs (among others) should be prioritized. (The 2013-2014 event combination puzzle has now been taken up by a board task force.)

I’ve thought for several years now that our current committee structure, created for what was essentially still an amateur organization, is outmoded. To stick with the tournament issues with which I am most familiar, tournament governance is fragmented among several committees: the TC for BC hiring/development and national tournaments (plus for handling eligibility and format issues with local and regional events); the ROC Committee for its regional events; the Youth Development Committee for SYCS, RYCs, and general youth policy; the Veterans Committee for the interests of 40-and-up fencers; the FOC for referee hiring and development, and rules; and the Tournament Oversight Committee, created originally to coordinate the ROC and Youth regional calendars, as well as other duties which are unclear (at least to me).

In recent years, this fragmentation has only become worse—when a problem arises, it’s much easier to create a short-lived task force to address that specific problem than to figure out where it should fit into the governance structure and whose ultimate responsibility it should be. What tends to happen is that the task force studies its assigned problem and issues a report back to the board, which may or may not act on its findings. When such action is taken, the odds are good that within a few months it will cause some other problem that will need to be solved—with yet another task force, perhaps.

Many of our problems cannot be solved by any one committee—half a dozen or more committees and several departments within the national office would need to coordinate data, needs, goals, and finances to develop a viable new tournament structure based on the competitive membership we have now instead of our demographics of 15 years ago. Since I’ve been its chair, the TC has introduced what are admittedly imperfect and incomplete proposals for restructuring our tournaments at all levels in hopes of sparking the serious discussion needed to develop that necessary new structure, but have barely drawn attention to the problems that need consideration within our whole association in order to solve.

But I forget—there’s now a Tournament Structure Task Force at work on the problem.

At least it’s a start.

Coming up: Rethinking our tournament structure.

1 Comment

Filed under Fencing