Issues with New Election Procedures, Why Richmond Twice?, How the President has No Vote and More
Ranked Preferential Voting
We are hearing that most people voting in this May Board election intend to rank only their top 2 choices and no one else. As such, it seems that the purpose of introducing Ranked Preferential Voting has been undermined. Organizations use ranked preferential voting when they intend that the 1st past the post with the greatest number of votes is not necessarily the winner. Since so many US Fencing voters intend to select only their top 2 choices, these voters clearly have not bought into the idea that someone other than the person with the most votes can win.
On March 8, 2021, Fencing Parents wrote to US Fencing asking about the rules for Ranked Preferential Voting, and was told that the Election Committee is
“working on it”. We believe it is unacceptable for the rules of the game to not be solid, fixed and clear well before candidates are even announced. However, from March 8 until the evening of May 5, we were all in the dark about what those rules are and the reasons why there needed to be such a big change to US Fencing election procedures. As it turns out, the plan was not ranked choice voting at all, but rather, a weighted average tabulation. On the reasons for the change we continue in the dark.
Who is accountable for this lack of transparency? It must be the Board of Directors of US Fencing. The Election Committee is appointed by the Board, and is accountable to the Board. The Board, in turn, is accountable to the membership. Clearly, the Board dropped this ball.
The rules laid out by US Fencing clearly allow for a compromise candidate to win. We wonder if that is US Fencing’s intention? Here is an illustration of how US Fencing’s ranked weighting works where points are awarded in descending order with 8 points to 1st choice down to 1 point for 8th choice.
The hypothetical scenario above demonstrates that if voters rank all 8 preferences, a compromise candidate (in the illustration, it is Candidate F) who did not get the majority of 1st and 2nd rank votes wins the election, and the two candidates (Candidates A and B), both of whom received a majority of 1st and 2nd rank votes, would lose. This outcome would not reflect the will of the voters.
As a result, US Fencing voters have concluded that if they really want their candidate to win, they should select their top 2 choices and no one else.
With 8 candidates running in the current Board election, it is impossible for voters to be familiar and comfortable with more than 2 to 3 candidates. Beyond the 1st 3 candidates, it is highly likely that voters’ choices would be random which render the preferences rather meaningless. But a candidate could win based on random preferences.
US Fencing’s lack of transparency and communication on a governance issue as important as the procedures governing the Board of Director’s election is appalling. It is time the membership acts to remove the Board’s power to act unilaterally without consultation with the membership on such an important issue. The membership can act by petition to amend the bylaws to remove the Board’s power on major governance issues.
why back to back nacs in richmond?
US Fencing’s original location choices for the April (Fort Worth), May (Minneapolis) and June (Richmond) NACs in 2021 were acceptable, if not ideal. Flights to Fort Worth and Minneapolis are reasonably available from most major cities around the country, including the West Coast. Richmond, as everyone who has been there in prior years knows, is a very tough place to get to if you live in the West and made much worse by flight reductions during Covid. For a West coaster, Richmond is a tough, expensive trip.
That said, we feel it is appropriate to cut US Fencing some slack given the extreme challenges of the COVID pandemic, including constraints on locations and capacity at venues that were even open at all. They were working under difficult conditions to get a national event going.
So, why did US Fencing switch the May NAC from Minneapolis to Richmond on such short notice?
The April 1 announcement of the switch to Richmond gave no reasons. So, competitors were in the dark and left to speculate as to the reasons why. For West Coasters, this was bad news. They were now stuck with going to Richmond twice.
There is only one “red eye” non stop flight from Los Angeles to Richmond, and no nonstop flights at all from San Francisco to Richmond. Flights with connections purchased a month in advance were priced between $450 and $550. Flights are just as expensive from San Diego and Portland.
So, here we were back to the bad old days where West Coasters took it in the chin in terms of time and expense to get to NAC locations.
Yesterday, FP got an explanation from Donald Alperstein (who FP supports in this Board election. Read more HERE) as to why US Fencing switched the location from Minneapolis to Richmond. This is what he says:
“Originally, the May NAC was scheduled in Minneapolis, and then June in Richmond. But in March or early April (I can’t recall the actual date), Minneapolis was concerned about the possible reaction to the George Floyd trial verdict, which was expected to come in around May 1, and the potential for social unrest. They asked all visiting organizations - not just USA Fencing - to reconsider Minneapolis at that time. USA Fencing was also concerned about having a NAC in downtown Minneapolis, near the courthouse and other possible government “targets” in case there was rioting, particularly, if the defendant was acquitted. So Fencing looked for an option and Richmond had availability and offered good terms on short notice, but only if we finished on Sunday instead of our usual Friday - Monday schedule.
This wasn’t the plan, it was a last minute effort to avoid the possibility of riots in Minneapolis in case of social unrest following the verdict in a high profile and emotional trial”
It would have been common courtesy for US Fencing to have explained the reason for the switch from Minneapolis to Richmond. While people could have guessed at the reasons, it would have been much more respectful to tell the hundreds of fencing families involved the reasons why.
Clearly the lack of transparency and poor communication from the National Office are an on-going problem. It is not a Board member’s responsibility to explain operational decisions made by US Fencing, it is the National Office’s responsibility. But, the buck still stops with the Board. Why isn’t the Executive Director of US Fencing empowered to communicate regularly and transparently with the membership?
While it seems like we cannot read enough from Board candidates about how US Fencing wants to grow its membership in remote regions, US Fencing’s first and foremost responsibility is to treat the members it has (regular NAC going minor aged competitive fencers) and who represent their largest revenue source with respect.
Now that West Coast fencers have paid a high price for an unforeseen incident, it is fair that Summer Nationals be held on the West Coast, preferably in Anaheim. The Anaheim Convention Center is now open for business, there will be a ROC/RJCC/Vet event there from May 29 to 31. If Anaheim is not viable, how about Salt Lake City? Or Phoenix? With states opening up in the West, US Fencing has many options.
Flying to Philadelphia for Summer Nationals is again asking West Coast Fencers to take it in the chin financially. If booked today, the very rare nonstop flights from San Francisco to Philadelphia cost as much as $1,200 per person and flights from Los Angeles almost as much. While cheaper, flights with connections make the journey very long with more lost work days.
If US Fencing cannot break its contract with Philadelphia for Summer Nationals 2021, then we expect that US Fencing will act fairly and select additional West Coast venues for NACs in the 2021/2022 season. Placing Summer Nationals 2022 in Anaheim would be great. California has been US Fencing’s fastest growing state for competitive fencers and the state with the largest number of fencers of any state in the country, US Fencing should recognize this by treating fencing families from the West with more courtesy and respect.
We reproduce with permission an email sent by a West Coast parent to US Fencing about the cost and inconvenience of flying to Richmond and Philadelphia:
“I am currently in Richmond at the May NAC. We are from San Francisco, and to attend this NAC, the only one my daughter will be able to compete in this season, she had to take 4 days off from school and our family had to spend over $1k just for airfare.
There are no direct flights to Richmond from SF. This means that all fencers from our greater community needed to take an extra day off from school in order to fly in a non-direct manner to Richmond. The trip was much longer than expected because it turns out that the city of Richmond does not have enough cabs, Ubers or other forms of alternative transportation to pick up the large volume of passengers that arrive at RIC around 9pm, the time most west coast passengers arrive from diverse flights. There were families/coaches/refs that waited for over an hour to get a ride. The airport does not have an employee assigned to the task of rounding up rides and the on-site police called for some cabs to no avail. This means that some west coast fencers didn't get to their hotels until after midnight, and many had early start times the next day. On top of all that, the kids have to deal with the 3 hour time difference. In the best of times, teenagers don't wake up early and the 3am PT wakeup call the next morning is horrible. How can USFA rationalize the extreme disadvantage it is putting west coast fencers and families in? I do understand the pandemic has sown confusion into the planning process, but families have repeatedly called on USFA to rectify this problem: by scheduling 2 back-to-back NACs in Richmond, it appears you are telling us you don't care and these hardships don't matter. As has also been pointed out to you before, you are ensuring that competitive youth fencing is a sport for the financial elite.
Having Summer Nationals in Philadelphia after 2 Richmond NACs is another slap in the face to west coast fencers. A nonstop American flight from SFO to PHL during the Summer Nationals timeline is currently pricing out at $1,077 PER TICKET! Most of us would prefer to fly nonstop for obvious reasons (less work time missed; less possible Covid exposure...). For the Richmond May NAC, I checked with the Olympic desk at United to price the tickets for myself and my daughter: each ticket would have been over $1200 with the eligible discount. On top of that, there is the cost of hotel rooms, rental cars or other transportation. The same families that drove to Richmond from states like New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Kentucky and other east coast states may also be able to drive to Philadelphia.
Summer Nationals 2021 should be moved to a more equitable location. Many states are opening up and there must be availability somewhere that is less difficult to get to and less expensive for west coast fencers. The Fortune Fencing ROC & RJCC was recently moved from Rancho Cucamonga to the Anaheim Convention Center - the event takes place over busy Memorial Day Weekend.
Please let me know what steps are being done to help west coast fencers stay in the game. I have written USFA in the past, and I have never received a comprehensive reply to my concerns.”
We look forward to this West Coast parent receiving a reasonable and satisfactory reply from US Fencing.
Why Can’t the President of US Fencing Vote on Board Decisions?
Under the current bylaws, the Board is made up of 12 members. Of these 12, 4 (33.3% of the Board) are mandated by the Olympic Council to be athlete directors. The bylaws currently allow for 3 independent directors and 3 at-large directors. The remaining 2 Board positions are for the President and the Treasurer.
Only the 3 at-large directors, the President and the Treasurer are elected by the general membership of US Fencing. The athlete directors are appointed by the Athlete’s Council and the independent directors are appointed by the Board.
Under US fencing bylaws (Article VII, Section 7.19(b), the President of US Fencing cannot
vote on the Board in matters that require a simple majority. This provision effectively cuts the President off from voting on all regular Board business. The only time the President can vote is to break a tie. This provision has been part of the bylaws for sometime, we have been unable to trace the original date the restriction was implemented.
The position of the President of US Fencing is an elected one, voted on by the general membership of US Fencing. Members select the President based on his track record and what they believe he will do to serve their interests in the organization. Yet, the bylaws remove his power to vote on the Board. This circumvents the will of the membership.
There are no rules that dictate the bylaws must be set up this way. The President as a Board member has a fiduciary duty to the membership. Removing his ability to vote on the Board prevents him from exercising that fiduciary duty. According to the non profit law blog:
“Some nonprofits require that the chair not vote on matters before the board except to break a tie. While this may take into account the chair’s role as a facilitator, in order for the chair to meet his or her fiduciary duties as a director, he or she should vote on all matters before the board. In order to avoid unduly influencing a vote, the chair often votes last.”
The Board of US Fencing needs to give the President back his vote.
If the even number of Board members currently is an impediment, the Board can raise the number of Board numbers to an odd number number to avoid ties. For example, raising the number of Board members to 15 would also have the added benefit of facilitating more diversity on the Board.
With 15 Board members, the number of athlete directors increases to 5, and the number of elected at-large directors increases to 7.
Currently, the US Fencing Board is an exceptionally small Board, making it very hard to include a diversity of directors in terms of gender, race and skill sets. So many of the current group of 8 candidates would make great at-large directors for US Fencing, but because the Board is so small, US Fencing is unable to benefit from the expertise and diversity on offer from the talented candidates. Instead, US Fencing’s Board has a track record of recycling incumbents and those who have high name recognition in the community. without adding new skill sets to the Board.
The Board needs to be enlarged to meet diversity goals and enable US fencing to benefit from diverse skills and expertise of members willing to serve on the Board.
NAC events are not full, why can’t fencers on standby Compete
FP is getting a stream of feedback from the NAC in Richmond that many events have less than 126 fencers due to no-shows and cancellations. There are eligible fencers in Richmond right now who did not succeed in getting a spot in an event during the registration period due to 126 person limitation per event. These fencers are eager to join in the competition, and have asked US Fencing if they may do so now. Their requests have been rejected by US Fencing.
Can US Fencing bend the rules to accommodate these eager fencers given the exceptional circumstances that everyone is in?