December is shaping up to have a loaded agenda, and there’s a lot our members should really take interest in! Namely, we will be voting to ratify the 2024-2028 Strategic Plan, a few low-impact administrative items, and a couple of RC-related bylaw changes. Per my promise of transparency, you can find a summary below of how I’m leaning to vote in the upcoming December 16 meeting.
With the publication of the draft agenda, you will finally be able to view the plan in draft form.
Conflicts of Interest: At the beginning of every Board meeting, the Chair asks the members of the Board if they have any material conflicts of interest that may impact their ability to vote objectively/serve personal interests. With regards to the strategic plan, I do have a conflict of interest I wish to declare. Within the strategic plan there is a goal related to “Sport Excellence.” Supporting the Men’s Epee Team from a data and analytics perspective, I felt this was a conflict worth declaring. Both the Chair and the Secretary (Christina Pachuta) have weighed in and did not think this conflict warranted recusal. Thus, I will declare it at the beginning of the meeting but plan to vote.
Another conflict to declare since I initially published: I have been named as the nominee for Board Liaison to the RC Nominating Committee. Obviously that’s one I’m going to declare and recuse myself from voting on.
Summary of How I’m Leaning for the Motions on the December Agenda:
| Motion | How I’m Leaning | Primary Impacted Stakeholder Groups |
| Amending Rule t.20.2 (my Motion) | Yes | Athletes, Bout Committee, Tournament Supervisors |
| Re-Affirming the t.109 Exception (my motion) | Yes | Coaches, Referees, Athletes |
| Authorizing Emily Bian as a Signatory on all Banks | Yes | Governance |
| Passing the 2024-2028 Strategic Plan | Yes | Literally the entire fencing community |
| Parent Membership | Yes | Fencing Parents |
| Creating a Grassroots/National Development Position for the Referees’ Commission | Yes | Referees |
| Approving the USA Fencing Foundation Bylaws | Not Yet Decided | USFF |
| To Approve the Hall of Fame Ballot | No | All Voting Members |
Damien’s Motions on the Agenda:
First Motion: An amendment to rule t.20.2 (Competition Lesson Gear Required)
In general, I think it’s important that our rulebook (and conventions) align nearly 1:1 with those within the FIE rulebook. However, from time to time, there are some provisions within the FIE rulebook that simply don’t make sense and/or aren’t compatible with the needs of USA Fencing.
One of those rules is the FIE’s requirement for competition lesson gear. In the current state, that rule requires only a mask and a glove to take a lesson at a competition. In my opinion, that is far too minimal and subjects fencers to potential injury. When in doubt, I think it’s important to err on the side of caution when it comes to protecting our athletes.
So, I’ve proposed a rule amendment to t.20.2. You can read the current state and the proposed rule below:
| Current Version of t.20.2 | Proposed Future State of t.20.2 |
| “Any fencer taking a lesson must wear at least a mask and a glove.” | “Any fencer taking a lesson must wear at least a mask, jacket, plastron, glove, and plastic chest protector (where applicable).” |
There are two things I want to note here:
- The Referees’ Commission (RC) has supported making this rule change
- The RC wished to note that referees would not be expected to enforce this. That would fall under the responsibility of both the tournament supervisor and/or bout committee
I do not think this rule change will have any demonstrable effect on international competition readiness, and it’s a common sense amendment that will better protect our athletes.
Second Motion: To re-affirm the American exception for t.109 in the USA Fencing rulebook.
The short explanation here is: I want to make sure it’s crystal clear that strip coaching will and should be allowed in the United States, so long as it does not disturb order on the strip. Procedurally, it’s necessary to put such a motion on the agenda, and let me walk you through why.
- Up until earlier this year, the USA Fencing rulebook had an exception to rule t.109 in the rulebook. That exception read: “In USA Fencing competitions, coaches and spectators are allowed to give advice to fencers…in all situations, coaches and spectators must not disturb the order of the bout.”
- Admirable in intention to “prevent bullying” and promote a healthier competition environment, the previous Board passed rule t.109 (thus waiving the exception). At the time of passage, the RC did not support removing the exception. Further, the feedback from the coaching community was overwhelmingly negative. The enactment of rule t.109 was set to have an effective date of September 1, 2023.
- The RC was asked to provide guidance on implementation, and chose to go with a literal interpretation of the rule which would have effectively banned all strip coaching from the start to finish of a bout.
- On the eve of the rule’s implementation date, the Board was like “Oh holy snacker cakes, this is going to be implemented this coming weekend and we’re hearing the feedback on this loud and clear.” So the current Board did an email vote and unanimously suspended implementation of rule t.109.
The suspension of rule t.109 without affirmation of exception leaves uncertainty as to whether or not this rule will be implemented at a future date. I am of the opinion that it should not be, and that coaches should be allowed to do their job.
I do want to call out, that even with the exception, disturbing order on the strip is explicitly called out in the exception. While small nuggets of advice to the fencer should be allowed, a constant stream of yelling and verbal puppeteering of the fencer is explicitly forbidden, and referees ought to feel empowered to request coaches provide advice in an orderly manner.
This motion simply seeks to ensure that orderly strip coaching will be allowed, and that t.109 will not be implemented here.
Third Motion: To amend article IX, section 9.10 of the bylaws so that Referees’ Commission elections will be determined by simple majority vote.
This one is simple. Article IX, Section 9.10 of our bylaws states that all elections shall be conducted via ranked choice voting. However, Referees’ Commission (RC) elections have two options. Ranked choice voting for two candidates just doesn’t make sense. So this would be an amendment to our bylaws (that’s been fully supported by the RC). Passing this does not change the bylaws immediately, and would instead open the 45-day member review period.
Motions Offered by My Colleagues:
Motion 1: To authorize Ms. Emily Bian (Lubing Bian) as an authorized signatory to all USA Fencing (legally: United States Fencing Association, Inc.) accounts held at all banks by the same, in her capacity as Treasurer of USA Fencing.
How I’m Leaning: Ms. Bian is currently the Treasurer. This is simply an administrative “yes” that the Board has to approve. So, easy “yes” for me.
Motion 2: To approve the 2024-2028 Strategic Plan.
How I’m Leaning: I wrote a blog post specifically focused on the strategic plan and what membership should know about it. But I am almost surely going to vote “yes” here. My request to you: read it! It’s a short document. In fact, my blog post is longer than the document itself. You deserve to know where we’re going in the next four years.
Motion 3: To approve the new USA Fencing/Para-Fencing Logo
How I’m Leaning: I was originally leaning towards a “yes” vote on this. I’m now leaning “no” for two reasons:
- The feedback I’ve heard from the community on the logo has been overwhelmingly negative. I personally liked it, but ultimately, this is your logo.
- After speaking to our Para rep, Lauryn DeLuca, she wanted us to hold off on doing a joint logo until she felt that both Para and able-bodied fencing was truly equal in our country. In the current state, she did not feel it was. She also brought up an excellent point that the menu costs associated with changing the logo could be large, and it would perhaps be best to use that time and resources for more pressing matters.
I’m likely changing to a “no” now.
Motion 4: To approve the creation of a dedicated parent and family membership.
How I’m Leaning: This is going to be part of our strategic plan, and I’ve cozied to the idea of adding this membership. I got assurances from the national office that a code of conduct would be signed by parents as a condition of this membership, which was my biggest concern. Now that that concern has been addressed, I can comfortably vote yes. A pedantic note for everyone: this goal simply authorizes the national office to create a roll-out plan. Per the bylaws, the Board would have to then vote on dues for that position, or delegate authority to the national office to do so.
Motion 7: Amending the Bylaws to create a domestic grassroots development and domestic national development Chair.
How I’m Leaning: We really, really need more referees. At every level, really. As you’ll see in our strategic plan, it’s a critical focus. In order to get more referees, we need to increase our pipeline, and in order to increase our pipeline, we need to certify more refs. It makes perfect sense for us to have one domestic development role focused on grassroots, and another focused exclusively on the national level development. So, this is a “yes” for me.
A note for everyone: this motion does not immediately put the RC change into effect. Because it would be a change to our bylaws, passing this motion creates a 45 day window for members to weigh in and provide feedback. The amendment to the bylaws will be placed prominently on USA Fencing’s website. It’s something that is a minor change to the bylaws, but will create a huge convenience for all referees.
Motion 8-9: To approve the US Fencing Foundation Bylaws (motion 8) and their articles of incorporation (Motion 9).
How I’m Leaning: I’ve read through the appendix and have some reservations with the content of the bylaws. For those of you who don’t know, the mission of the US Fencing Foundation (USFF) is “…supporting the pursuit of excellence for fencers at all levels. By providing funds to teams, athletes and programs, the U.S. Fencing Foundation supports USA Fencing as it works to build champions and create a legacy for future generations of fencers.”
My only concern, is that the “Application of Contributed Funds” (section 11.2) supports the mission of the USFF. I want to ensure that nothing from the USFF could be misconstrued as a slush fund of sorts. That’s important. I’ve got a few more conversations I want to have here before deciding my vote. As for the articles of incorporation, I will likely vote “yes.”
To Approve the Hall of Fame Committee Ballot:
How I’m Leaning: I’m going to almost surely vote “no” for the following reasons:
- It’s December now. Hall of Fame Elections are 7 months from now. We need to send a reminder to membership reminding them to submit candidates, perhaps by the end of January. It’s too early to simply close out members and set the ballot now. Quite frankly, if I was unaware of the fact that nominations were closed as a Board member, then I’ve got to imagine membership is unaware too.
- The ballot itself is sorely lacking in female and minority candidates. Some of the female candidates it notably excludes are Mariel Zagunis who is eligible this year (and is the undisputed American Fencing GOAT), Kelley and Courtney Hurley (arguably two of the all-time greats in American Women’s Epee), and Ben Bratton who is the only remaining member of the 2012 World Championship team that is not in the Hall.
- There is not a single female coach on the ballot this year. Jo Redmon would be an excellent candidate. She was the 2nd female in the United States certified as a Maitre D’Armes. She was the long-time coach of Long Beach State and produced multiple All-Americans and qualified at least one athlete for NCAA’s in every year she was coach. She is alive and still with us.
- I continue to have concerns about the scoring process the Hall of Fame implemented last year and prior to approval of a ballot, I’d like to see membership’s vote more equally weighted in the scoring criteria. Membership’s vote essentially now counts for <5% of the scoring that determines if a candidate will get into the Hall of Fame. Using an apples to apples scoring criteria for male and female candidates (and Black and white candidates) does not factor in the historical biases that exist in our sport. I believe the Hall of Fame belongs to our members, and they deserve a more active role in the selection system.
You must be logged in to post a comment.