what happened

Without advance notice to the membership, the US Fencing Board unceremoniously removed Peter Burchard as Chairman of the Board on October 16, 2021 without giving any formal reasons for Peter’s removal. Instead, US Fencing members in attendance at the Board’s Annual Meeting were treated to an ugly spectacle of Board members airing their personal grievances against Peter as reasons for his removal.

Note: Under the recently amended Bylaws, the Board can by a simple majority remove the Chairman and appoint a new one at any time.

The lack of professionalism in how Peter was removed was stunning, more so given that almost everyone of those Board members are professionals in their day jobs!

At the end of what seemed like a routine Annual Board Meeting, Alan Kidd, an Independent Director, took the first stab when he introduced a surprise motion (not published in the meeting agenda) to remove Peter Burchard as Chairman, and replace him with David Arias, who until the end of the Board meeting, was the elected Treasurer of US Fencing.

Despite providing no reason whatsoever for his motion to remove Peter Burchard as Chairman, Alan Kidd’s motion was readily and immediately seconded by Adam Watson, an Athlete Director and by Cliff Bayer, an Independent Director.

Note: Under the Bylaws, a director can introduce a motion not included in the formal meeting agenda during the Annual Board Meeting.

It is noteworthy that the three protagonists leading Peter Burchard’s ouster as Chairman were not elected by the general membership of US Fencing, but they led the charge to oust Peter, a popularly elected President of US Fencing (until the Board imperially changed the Bylaws just six weeks ago). Obviously, these three individuals have no respect for the membership having championed a surprise motion to remove a leader of the membership’s choice behind membership’s back.

it was clearly pre-planned

It was quite obvious that Alan Kidd’s motion to remove Peter Burchard as Chairman was pre-planned and that other Board members had full knowledge of the plan. That these Board members intended to spring a surprise on the membership was also quite obvious, else the motion to remove Peter would have been included as an agenda item for the Board meeting.

Almost immediately … within just ten minutes … after the Board meeting, US Fencing released a statement from David Arias announcing his own appointment as Chairman, and expressing reluctance to become Chairman. The statement was clearly pre-written and in the hands of US Fencing staff in anticipation of Peter’s removal.

the board disrepected the membership and acted without transparency or accountability

The Board failed to act professionally or with integrity in how they removed Peter as Chairman.

In deliberately withholding notice of their intention to remove Peter from his role as Chairman, the Board intended to deceive the membership, and remove Peter behind the membership’s back. The total disrespect and disdain for the membership is appalling, their lack of accountability is frightening.

No matter what, the membership is entitled to an objectively and reasonably laid out explanation for why Peter should be removed - the Board was a spectacular failure on this score.

This Board acts with impunity because it can. Under Section 14.2(a) of the Bylaws, the Board can change the Bylaws at anytime with a 2/3 majority vote of the Board. This power to change the Bylaws resulted in amendments that enabled Peter’s ignominious removal as Chairman on October 16.

we heard accusations and grievances being aired

Alan Kidd offered no reasons for his motion, but several Board members lined up to air their grievances.

The lack of professionalism was striking! I cannot imagine that these Board members act this way at their day jobs.

what adam watson said

Adam Watson accused Peter of “grandstanding to the public” but he failed to provide specific evidence of said grandstanding. Adam also accused Peter of being divisive and of failing to fall in line with the Board’s way of thinking. He said the Board needed to be unified to tackle a crisis, and intimated that the Board had no room for difference of opinion.

Grandstanding and differences in opinion are not legitimate reasons to remove a membership elected leader!

As Peter put it in his public statement, “I’ve been accused of going rogue. Having differing points of view isn’t going rogue. Wanting the same benefits and treatment as past Presidents isn’t going rogue either.”

what Lorrie marcil Holmes said

Even more stunning, Lorrie Marcil Holmes, called Peter Burchard “two-faced”. Lorrie accused Peter of acting one way with staff and volunteers, and differently with the membership. Lorrie Marcil should know better, name calling is strictly reserved for immature teenagers. Lorrie is a partner at a major law firm, Sidley Austin, with 20 years of professional experience. Surely, lawyers at Sidley Austin do not use name calling as part of their usual routine to solve conflicts.

As with Adam Watson’s claims of “grandstanding”, Ms Holmes comments reflect that she does not like Peter’s behavior, but these behaviors do not constitute legitimate cause for removal.

what Cliff Bayer said

Cliff Bayer, the usually silent director at Board meetings, found his voice enough to cast blame on Peter for US Fencing’s struggling relationship with the FIE. Cliff said that his desire to remove Peter as Chairman was not personal, but that Peter’s removal was for the good of US Fencing.

Cliff needs to be reminded that US Fencing Board members acting vindictively against a fellow Board member on a call with the membership in attendance cannot be good for US Fencing. As a Managing Director at the Royal Bank of Canada, surely Cliff knows better? Moreover, by tying his motivation for removing Peter so clearly to the FIE relationship, Cliff has shown the membership that he cares more about the FIE relationship than the common interests of the general US Fencing membership.

what Donald alperstein said

Donald Alperstein was the only Board member who articulated some potentially legitimate reasons (if true) for removing Peter as Chairman. He accused Peter of undermining staff morale as well as the morale of volunteers. He cast blame on Peter for throwing certain US Fencing personnel “under the bus” and held Peter responsible for the departure of certain key personnel at US Fencing. Donald felt that US Fencing was losing staff at an astonishing rate because of Peter. He felt that he had tried to help Peter, but it was not working out. Donald felt that Peter’s involving the FIE in matters relating to US Fencing’s internal governance was disruptive.

Donald drew a sports analogy and likened the US Fencing Board to a team that was malfunctioning - and when that happens, you change the coach, not the team. Which is the reason why the Board decided to remove Peter as Chairman according to Donald. Donald felt that Peter may learn to understand the role of the Chairman from the position of an at-large director on the Board.

what david arias said

David Arias tried to be the voice of reason, and claimed to have made a serious effort to work with Peter and that he considered Peter a friend. David brought up that he had discussed with Peter the selection of Vice President candidates for the Board, and the need to make sure that the candidates had the right skills to offer to the Board. He claimed to have advised Peter to learn to present information so that people can get on board with what he (Peter) wants to do but Peter ignored his guidance. David also mentioned that US Fencing staff have left due to the chaos created by Peter. Relationships with parties outside US Fencing had also been damaged.

Not having the skills to identify Vice President candidates for the Board should never be a reason for removing the Board Chairman, especially a membership elected one. Creating staff chaos and damaging external relationships may be cause for removal, if true.

how did the board vote

It is quite clear that Board members harbor a great deal of personal animosity towards Peter Burchard, and they do not like him.

Except for Abdel Salem, who opposed the motion to remove Peter as Chairman, every Board member present voted to remove Peter Burchard from his role as Chairman.

Note: Peter Burchard remains on the Board as an at-large director till the expiry of his elected term in 2024.

The Board approved David Arias as the new Chairman of the Board. David relinquished his role as Treasurer, and the Board appointed Sam Cheris as the new Treasurer of US Fencing.

the hypocrisy of david arias’ post removal announcement

transparency and the kind of communication that builds trust

In his announcement, David Arias says that “There are serious problems that demand our attention. That requires transparency and the kind of communication that builds trust.”

There is no sincerity in David’s statement given that the Board just executed a devious maneuver to remove Peter Burchard without communication to the membership, advance notice or formal reasons. By this action, the Board just further eroded an already eroded trust. David and the Board must understand that, to build trust, words must match actions.

David must surely be aware that the Board does not practice what it preaches. The US Fencing Board has consistently earned a failing grade on both transparency and communication skills.

On 2 very recent, and very important issues, the Board has demonstrated sub-par communication and transparency.

Despite substantial objections from the membership, the Board passed the Bylaw changes on 31 August 2021 … just six weeks ago … that removed a member elected President and replaced that position with a Board selected Chairman. The Board was clear at the time that it did not value the membership feedback and would ignore it. How does the Board think it can build trust when it ignored the substantial and heartfelt feedback from the membership? You can read the summary of that infamous August 31, 2021 meeting HERE.

In the face of a big outcry from the membership about sexual misconduct issues in fencing, the Board has stubbornly refused to respond while conveniently hiding behind the excuse that the SafeSport Code gives exclusive jurisdiction to the US Center for SafeSport in cases of sexual misconduct.

Section V(A) of the SafeSport Code explicitly states that:

“When the relevant organization has reason to believe that the allegations presented fall within the Center’s exclusive jurisdiction, the organization—while able to impose measures—may not investigate or resolve those allegations.”

Under the SafeSport Code, US Fencing can still “impose measures” even if it cannot adjudicate the case. US Fencing’s hands are not completely tied as the Board claims.

Nothing in law prevents US Fencing from expressing empathy for victims of sexual misconduct or from strongly messaging against sexual misconduct of all types. Corporations do it all the time to keep their environments safe, why can’t US Fencing do the same?

open dialogue

David also says that “One of our first actions will be to hold open forums at least every other month.”

The Board needs to clarify what subjects it is open to talk about. The Board’s track record for open dialogue has been awful. It ignored member feedback on the Bylaw changes and it has, so far, refused to discuss the issue of sexual misconduct in fencing in the face of a strong and clear membership outcry.

what the membership can do

curb the Board’s power to amend the bylaws

The membership can act to change Section 14.2(a) and curb the Board’s power to amend the Bylaws as it pleases. It is this ability to change the Bylaws at will that enables the Board to act with impunity. Members can petition to change the Bylaws so that in future, members will have a say in certain types of Bylaw amendments. Members can require that certain Bylaw changes must have the approval of 51% of the votes cast by eligible members in an election.

Section 14.3(a) of the Bylaws enable members to petition to change the Bylaws. This is what it says:

“Amendments to these Bylaws or the adoption of new bylaws may be placed before the membership for consideration of approval by the submission of a petition that sets forth any proposed change with specificity and that is subscribed to by not less than five percent of the voting members in good standing whose identity and intent are not reasonably subject to doubt and who have among them named no fewer than fifty separate officially recognized clubs as their primary affiliation.”

While acquiring signatures from 5% of the voting membership sounds like a large number to gather, the work involved will pay off in curbing the powers of an already imperial Board. The petition to change the Bylaws must be submitted by April 1, 2022 to the Election Committee for the change to take effect by next September.

Section 14.3(a) enables members to petition to change any of the current provisions of the Bylaws, which means that it is open to members to reverse some or all of the August 31 Bylaw changes passed by the Board.

There is a way out!