Flavor of the meeting - Arrogant with a hint of authoritarian. The word “livid” does not begin to describe how I felt about the meeting. The meeting was also tangled up in procedural legalese intelligible only to the lawyers on the Board. Someone described it as a “hot mess.”

The Bylaw Changes passed with almost no debate or consideration of membership feedback

Perhaps August 31, 2021 should be remembered as the US Fencing' Board’s day of infamy given the arrogance with which the Board dismissed strong member opposition to the bylaw changes. The Board passed the proposed bylaw changes with limited debate (strongly suggesting that a decision had been pre-determined before the meeting) on a vote of 9 to 1 with one abstention.

The Board also by a vote of 8 to 2 did not approve Lauren Haynie’s motion to separate out Section 6.1(b) relating to the change from President to Chair of the Board to be voted on separately. Ms Haynie, an independent director, specifically referenced member feedback as crucial to making her motion. Sadly, her motion did not pass. Ms Haynie was also the only director to vote against the bylaw changes.

The only carve-out from the bylaw changes was for Section 7.21 which would have extended by one year the term of the director (Lorrie Marcil Holmes) elected in 2020. This section will be voted on separately at a later date. We appreciate that both Lorrie and Kat acknowledged and brought up the issue of conflict of interest in response to members’ feedback.

The issue centers around the appearance of conflict for Lorrie Marcil Holmes (the director elected in 2020) and Kat Holmes, her daughter voting on a provision that extends the mother’s term by a year without election.

Alan Kidd, independent director, proposed a motion (seconded by Adam Watson) that there was no conflict of interest as he knows Lorrie well, and he could vouch that she is a person of the highest integrity. While we have every faith that both Ms Holmes are hardworking and of the highest integrity, US Fencing is a 501(c)3 organization which must engage objective standards and avoid all appearance of conflict of interest. The structural conflict of interest here is manifest, and should not be undermined by subjective exceptions based on individual opinions and relationships.  That is a dangerous slippery slope. 

Donald Alperstein saved Mr. Kidd from himself by suggesting the carve-out to address issues of potential conflicts of interest raised by members, including FP’s editor. The Board passed Mr. Alperstein’s motion unanimously.

did any director care about membership feedback?

Despite inviting feedback from the membership, and setting up a special line for members to provide feedback, the Board made it very clear that the decision on the bylaw changes was not a plebiscite, the Board could ignore the feedback and decide what is best. While FP has articulated its view opposing the proposed by law changes, it is crucial to emphasize that our outrage here is even greater for the abject pre-emption of any meaningful discussion by the Board, and the wholesale disregard and disrespect for the membership’s collective voice. 

Note: Oxford definition of “plebiscite” - the direct vote of all the members of an electorate on an important public question such as a change in the constitution.

The Board dismissed the almost 800 signers of the petition opposing the change from President to Chairman as not relevant because “it’s so easy to click a “like” on social media.” Everyone of the signers put down their names when they signed the petition, but still the Board dismisses them. Such arrogance!

The feedback mechanism was a sham. The Board appears to have had absolutely no intention of taking any of the feedback seriously. The tone of the discussion, and quick dismissal of members’ petition, strongly suggests that they regard the feedback as more of a nuisance than a legitimate and valuable voice of the membership.

For years, many in the membership have believed US Fencing and the Board to be unresponsive to member concerns and not transparent on important issues. This Board meeting is “living proof” that members have been right all along on this front.

the Board dismisses the voice of 800 petition signers

Peter Burchard made the point to the Board that 800 signers of the petition was equivalent to more than half of the total members who voted in the recent Board elections. Kat Holmes, rather arrogantly responded that she is a medical student and understands numbers, clearly implying that the membership does not.

Moreover, Ms Holmes, even more strangely claimed, that 800 signers is insignificant given that US Fencing has a membership of 35,000 (today’s membership is closer to 24,000). We are stunned! As a Board member, Kat should know that more than 60% of the US Fencing membership is comprised of fencers under the age of 18 who cannot vote. The relevant denominator is not 35,000, the relevant denominator is the number of members who consistently engage in issues concerning the Board and vote in elections.

And that number is at most 2,500 (based on recent election participation.) More specifically, in May 2021, 1,332 members voted, representing 25% of the membership eligible to vote in elections (as per US Fencing’s results announcement). This means that the total voting membership is approximately 5,328 members.

Here are the relevant numbers:

Petition signers as a percentage of May 2021 voters = 60%

Petition signers as a percentage of members eligible to vote = 15%

These numbers are very significant, and anyone who is an elected at-large director should be seriously concerned about keeping their Board seat when they come up for re-election. But Kat Holmes, of course, is not a director elected by the general membership of US Fencing. Did she just burn the elected directors?

Kat Holmes also intimated in an exchange with Peter Burchard that many of the people giving feedback and signing the petition may be supporters of Peter Burchard. This is both presumptuous and rude. It is insulting to the membership to dismiss them as Burchard supporters and that, therefore, their petition and feedback is not to be taken seriously. And even if many of them are Peter Burchard’s supporters, so what, Kat? They are members of US Fencing just like your supporters. Does one group count as legitimate voices and the other not?

safesport and Sexual Abuse

Kris Ekeren, CEO and Suzie Riewald, US Fencing SafeSport co-ordinator gave a very dry presentation on the procedures and training available under SafeSport.

The Board refused to support Peter Burchard’s motion to create a task force to explore what US Fencing can do to better protect fencers and other members of the fencing community against sexual abuse. The Board was vocal, especially Alan Kidd, that the Board and US Fencing is doing well in all areas, and nothing more needs to be done in relation to the issue of sexual misconduct in the sport of fencing.

While Mr. Kidd rightly pointed out that federal law prevents an NGB like US Fencing from intervening in any SafeSport process, we are quite sure that federal law does not stop US Fencing from being more compassionate, empathetic and pre-emptively protective towards victims of sexual misconduct in fencing.

There was also a bizarre discussion about whether SafeSport training should be mandatory for minor fencers, the main thrust being that the training would be logistically hard and would discourage young fencers from joining the sport at all.

US Fencing members and the Board must live in different realities.

Members were very vocal at the meeting of August 13, 2021 that US Fencing was not doing enough to protect fencers in cases of sexual misconduct. There was a lot of anguish and fear expressed by members at that meeting. (Read the report HERE). Many members have repeatedly said that sexual misconduct is a serious and recurring issue in fencing.

Yet despite this obvious passion of the membership, the Board voted today by 6 to 2 (with 2 abstentions) that the meeting of August 13 did not happen, after having derailed that meeting on technical grounds that it was not “urgent” enough under the bylaws. So all that anguish expressed by members on August 13 was extinguished by the Board too. The Board did agree to create a document to evidence that they disappeared the August 13 meeting.

Not only have Kat Holmes efforts in Tokyo been reduced to naught. the membership just got gaslighted by a tone deaf US Fencing Board with no compassion. This is not leadership!

throw them out

We hover between disappointment and disgust at the Board’s performance on the bylaw changes and the issue of sexual abuse. The Board's votes confirm, as a group and individually for every "no" voter, that they maintain a callous disregard for the opinions of their constituents and they have failed in their fiduciary duty to the membership.

The Board has spoken and so, the membership must speak through its vote in every election from now on. The membership needs a good strategy to turn them all over.

If the Board dismisses the almost 800 signers of the petition as not relevant because “it’s so easy to click a like on social media”, then perhaps, these 800 signers can reward the dismissive Board members with protest votes in the ranked preferential voting system, rank them last and make sure they lose their Board seats. For those appointed Board members, not only has our respect for them has fallen off a cliff, we are adamant that they should not be re-appointed.