After extensive preliminary discussions, the meeting was called to order at 9:33 PM by Chairman Louise Lepie at the Houston Athletic Fencing Center at 4997 West Bellfort, Houston. Other Officers present were Vice Chairman John Trojanowski and Secretary Matt Delevoryas. Treasurer Dennis Meyers was absent.

The draft minutes of the third previous (Feb. 1) meeting, as they had appeared on the Division Web site for the last month, were discussed. There was no objection to accepting the minutes.

The draft minutes of the second previous (Feb. 17) meeting, as they had appeared on the Division Web site for the last two weeks, were discussed. There was no objection to accepting the minutes.

The draft minutes of the previous (Feb. 22) meeting, as they had appeared on the Division Web site for the last week, were discussed. There was no objection to accepting the minutes.

The Chairman asked for a report from the office of Treasurer, and the immediate past Treasurer John Trojanowski spoke. He stated that there had been no activity of note since the last report to the Executive Committee, except that there existed a new $218 account payable to John Trojanowski because he had had to pay personally for the expense of the referee seminar arranged by the Division for the evening before the Space City Rendezvous.

Matt Delevoryas, as the person delegated to handle Division equipment loans, reported on the state of the equipment. He reported:

By general consent, the assembly authorized Matt Delevoryas to purchase two replacement Favero Millennium reel feet for the Division, to be paid for with money from the fund set aside for equipment maintenance.

There was some discussion of Division sponsorship of referee development opportunities. It was noted that there already existed arrangements for Gary van der Wege to give a referee seminar the evening before Divisionals with the Division paying for whatever would be necessary for the organizers of Divisionals to incur no incremental expenses due to the referee development. However, it was noted that many details had not been made firm, and that there was no provision for anyone other than the entire Executive Committee to take action to tie up loose ends. John Trojanowski moved that priority for participation in the seminar and written examinations be in the order interest is expressed to the Secretary, that the number of people allowed to be allowed to take written examinations be limited to ten, that there be no expense to people from the Gulf Coast Division, and that for people outside the Gulf Coast Division they not be allowed to express interest to the Secretary until one week before the seminar, that they be assessed $25 for participation, and that such people who take and pass written tests be required to make themselves available to be used as referees on their choice of one of the two days of Divisionals. The motion passed without objection.

There was some discussion of Division sponsorship of armoring development opportunities, in addition to the opportunities currently being offered to pay Terry Unrein to hold introductory workshops for interested clubs. It was noted that there were multiple ideas still under development, and that something might require further action before the next meeting of the Executive Committee. John Trojanowski moved that until the next meeting of the Executive Committee, authority to take actions involving holding armory seminars be delegated to the Officers acting by unanimous vote by e-mail and/or telephone. The motion passed without objection.

The assembly had noted in its January meeting that there was some lack of clarity in the resolution adopted at the December meeting concerning sufficiency of notice of tournaments to fencers of the Division. Indeed, it had amended it in January to clarify one particular section. In the meantime, it had been noted that there was some confusion about a tournament being a USFA tournament and the ability to earn classifications at a tournament. A draft revision of the resolution had been brought to the meeting, where the resolution had been rewritten to make clear that these are two different concepts. Although the draft was not intended to make the resolution any clearer to read, it appeared that that too had been achieved by accident. Louse Lepie moved that the policy on sufficiency of notice of tournaments to fencers of the Division be:

1)	If competitions ("events") are added to or dropped from a tournament which already has Division sanction, hence USFA sanction, then the tournament continues to have sanction unless there is some fundamental change to the tournament which would have caused it never to have received sanction originally.
2)	If competitions ("events") are added to a tournament, then each new competition must be publicized to the fencers in accord with the requirements herein for timeliness of notice to fencers.
3)	A tournament has Division sanction, hence USFA sanction, if the tournament appears on a published schedule of the Division, or appears in some other official communication of the Division which makes evident that the Division considers the tournament to be sanctioned. There is no requirement for timeliness to have sanction. However, requirements for a tournament having USFA sanction are not the same as required timeliness of notification to fencers for classifications to be able to be earned. It is possible for classifications to be unable to be earned even at a sanctioned tournament if there is not adequate notice to fencers.
4)	A tournament shall be deemed to have adequate notice to fencers if any of the following is satisfied:
	a) Notice of a tournament is by means of being included on a published schedule of the Division, and any of the following three situations is true: i) The means of publication is delivery to the fencers, and that delivery is initiated 15 days before the tournament by physical means like postal mail. ii) The means of publication is delivery to the fencers, and that delivery is initiated 10 days before the tournament by essentially immediate means like electronic delivery. iii) The means of publication is to make the schedule available to fencers to fetch, and publication is 30 days before the tournament. b) Notice of a tournament is by means of notification of all clubs in the Division, and either of the following two situations are true: i) Notification is initiated 15 days before the tournament by physical means like postal mail. ii) Notification is initiated 10 days before the tournament by essentially immediate means like electronic delivery. c) Notice of details of a tournament is by being listed on the internet on askFRED 30 days before the tournament. d) If notice to fencers of a tournament is by a means acceptable to the USFA but not already described herein, then the minimum time requirement will be indeterminate, but both issuers of notice and enforcers of notification requirements should consider themselves guided by an attempt to provide analogously timely notification to the minimum times for the situations specified herein.

The motion passed without objection.

The assembly noted that the tournament records from the Jan. 8-9 Salle Mauro tournament had listed a fencer to be referred to as fencer X to have taken 9^th place in the open épée event and another fencer, fencer Y, to have taken 8^th place in the open épée event. However, fencers X and Y had both reported to Matt Delevoryas that their DE bout had a result where fencer X won and fencer Y lost. Further, fencer Y was awarded a classification based on this information, a classification he asserts he does not deserve, and which he asserts he informed Mauro Hamza he could not have earned. This called into question the rest of the results from this tournament. John Trojanowski reported that he had requested the records of the tournament from Mauro Hamza more than once without a response. It was clear to the assembly that fencer Y did not deserve the classification awarded, but it was not at all clear how many other such errors might exist in the same tournament results. In the absence of any specific information, there was no desire to do anything about the other classifications granted because of that tournament, although corrections could be pursued in the future if evidence appeared. The assembly was informed that the Secretary would correspond with Colorado Springs to rescind the certification of the classification earned by fencer Y, and that John Trojanowski would continue to pursue the tournament's records. [Secretary's note: No correction was made by Colorado Springs, as fencer Y had already earned a better classification at another tournament, and fencer X not only already had a classification better than he appeared to have deserved from the tournament but had already earned a still better classification at another tournament.]

John Trojanowski moved to adjourn. The motion passed without objection. The meeting adjourned at 10:53 PM.