Hi, 

USA Fencing is planning to change its governance rules AGAIN. I’m reposting below an online commentary from a friend on the proposed changes to the Bylaws. 

You have until November 7th to object. Here is the link to the proposed bylaw changes: Proposed Bylaw Changes

To object you’ll need to fill out the Member Comment Form at the link above. If you don’t say something now, you can’t complain later. 

*** REPOST BELOW ***

“Why I Believe the Bylaw Changes are Bad for Members” (by a competitive adult member) 

The views expressed here are my own opinions as a member. This commentary is based on publicly available documents and proposed bylaw changes published by USA Fencing. It is intended as fair comment on governance issues. Nothing herein should be construed as a factual claim about the motives, character, or conduct of any individual.

Last year, USA Fencing tried to push through Bylaw changes. These changes seemingly eliminated any semblance of membership governance, putting power completely and eternally in the hands of a board which could handpick their own successors indefinitely with no recourse.

These new bylaw changes, in my opinion, do much the same. The proposed changes appear to create an illusion of a pathway to membership governance, but with walls so high that it’s all but impossible to achieve.

Let’s start with some math…

Petition Candidates

Proposed Signatures Necessary for a Petition Candidate

Current:
Min Member Signatures: 452
Min Regions: 2
Min Members per Region: 1
Club Signatures: 15

Proposed:
Min Member Signatures: 726
Min Regions: 6
Min Members per Region: 44
Club Signatures: 316

* Based on numbers published on the USA Fencing website

 

So… instead of needing 452 signatures from 2 regions (with the second region only requiring 1 signature), one would need 726 signatures from across all 6 regions, with a minimum of 44 signatures in each region. Worse, you’d need 316 clubs to sign off on your petition!

We’ll calculate out the time it would take you to get 316 club signatures.

Let’s assume, oh, you’d spend 20 minutes per call with each club owner, and we’ll totally ignore the time it would take just to get a club-owner on the phone (assuming they’re free, you wait for a call-back, etc.) We’ll assume 20% of the club owners reject your request.

It would take you 16 days, calling non-stop from 9am to 5pm, without lunch or breaks, to have that many calls.

Short of a large-scale organizational effort equal to running for President, we will almost certainly never see another petition candidate ever again.

4-4-4

Proposed Board Structure

Current:
At-Large (voted in by members): 5
Athlete (voted in by athlete council): 4
Independent (picked by board): 3

Proposed:
At-Large (voted in by members): 4
Athlete (voted in by athlete council): 4
Independent (picked by board): 4

On the surface, this new structure doesn’t seem all that bad. Yes, one voted-in at-large seat becomes independent but having them all be a “4” looks really fair! Right?

That is until you read the next section on “Emergency Amendments”.

Emergency Amendments

The “emergency” changes say that with a 2/3 vote (8 members) the board can reduce the membership review period (currently 45 days). What the changes don’t put in place are criteria for an “emergency” nor a minimum threshold for the reduced review in these circumstances.

And since only 8 votes are needed, the board could propose “emergency” changes for any reason (it’s Tuesday?), have a vote where zero membership voted-in board members agree, reduce the waiting period to… oh… 30 seconds, and then vote on the changes.

 

Chair of the Board

Current: At-Large Directors (voted in by membership
Proposed: Any Director

Currently any board Chair must be an at-large director (e.g. voted in by members), giving members a lot of power. With voted-in board seats being reduced to 1/3, this will mean that in most cases new board chairs will NOT be at-large directors.

 

Membership Meetings

Current: Called by 200 members across 20 clubs
Proposed: Eliminated

Once you’ve essentially eliminated petition candidates ensuring your own hand-picked candidates are the only ones on the ballot, reduced the number of voted-in board seats, and set up a structure for “emergency” changes of virtually anything with little to no membership review, I’d imagine the obvious next step is to eliminate any chance of membership gathering to discuss any of this. And here it is.

You can “listen in” on board budget and spending updates (but cannot deliberate), and that’s only as long as they don’t have an emergency meeting to close that much out.

Information flow becomes one-way (Board reporting), not interactive. It aligns with many other NGBs that no longer hold membership meetings, but it reduces transparency and removes a potential check on the Board.

 

Amendment by Petition

Current: 5% of members + 50 clubs
Proposed: Eliminated

Don’t like the emergency changes the board put in place? No problem! We can just petition to amend the bylahahahahah… no you can’t silly! Only board members can propose changes, because why give you this power when the next day the board can call an emergency session and just change everything back?

Notably this membership power was already significantly reduced last year when the thresholds were increased. I suppose that wasn’t far enough?

Director Removal

Not liking those Directors passing amendments via “emergency” sessions that you cannot review or challenge, while your amendment abilities have been eliminated? Well too bad because they’ve ALSO removed your ability to remove most directors. Are you seeing a pattern?

The proposal has Membership only able to remove At-Large directors. You know… the ones that don’t matter nearly as much now that their numbers have been reduced and they cannot stop amendments on their own anyways.

Conclusion

In my opinion, you don’t need to be a genius to realize this has been carefully crafted to reach all the same objectives: Eliminating any membership control on your own organization.

These are my personal opinions as a member, offered to encourage open discussion of governance.

** END OF REPOST **

I didn’t write the commentary above because - shocker - I’m super busy trying to navigate all of the new points, ratings & registration rules for this season…not to mention trying to decipher and plan for an unusually chaotic tournament schedule. 

But my friend wrote it. And he’s not wrong. Please say something to the Board, even if you have to click multiple links and fill out multiple forms (yay, bureaucracy!)

And tell your friends to say something. Parents need proxy voting rights for our children and we need them NOW. Until that happens we have to play the Horton Hears a Who Game and make some NOISE!!! 

And remember, reasonable disagreement is NOT “misinformation.” It’s democracy. Anybody who says otherwise has something to lose. 

Good Luck, Godspeed & See You Soon! 

xoxoxo

C