Mar. 8, 2006 Executive Committee Minutes

The meeting was called to order at 4:15 PM by Chairman Louise Lepie at the Houston Athletic Fencing Center at 4997 West Bellfort, Houston. Other Officers present were Vice Chairman Jerry Dunaway, Secretary Matt Delevoryas, and Treasurer Rachel El-Saleh.

It was noted that the meeting had been called by the Chairman the previous afternoon, without any member of the Executive Committee receiving 48 hours notice of the meeting. (48 hours notice had already been given for a meeting scheduled for several hours later, which was not going to occur.) All Executive Committee members were noted to have waived notice by virtue of their willing participation in the meeting.

The draft minutes of the previous (January 4) meeting, as they had appeared on the Division Web site, were accepted by general consent.

The Treasurer reported that there had been no significant financial activity since the last meeting of the Executive Committee when a report was given (January 4^th), but that she was only then taking possession of some papers which could have significant financial activity. She informed the other Officers that she would soon e-mail an up-to-date report. She did note that she was still trying to pursue the transfer of the Division's one-half of the profit from the 2005 Divisionals from Texas A&M University Fencing Club to the Division.

Matt Delevoryas, Chairman of the Equipment Committee, reported on the state of the equipment. He reported:

The two main strip scoring equipment sets are in good shape with one repair of a previously reported significant exception (item 2), seven previously reported significant exceptions (items 1, 3-8), and one old and not urgent exception (item 9).

1) The floor cords are still missing for the "red set" and still being substituted for by a better floor cord set owned by Texas A&M University Fencing Club. A previous meeting has authorized purchase of replacements for the Division cords. I have not yet exhausted the final resources in attempting to locate the lost cords, but it now seems beyond the point of diminishing returns. I anticipate replacing the cords promptly and returning the substitute cords to TAMUFC shortly. I had expected dealing with this during September, but unusual events intervened, and time since then has passed faster than expected.

2) Exactly two of the 16 rubber feet of the Favero Millennium reels had been missing from their mounting holes, both from reel #1 of the "yellow set". I have no reason any more to believe that the original feet will be found. It is not known when the feet disappeared, except that one reel was observed to be in use at the J.O. qualifiers with two feet already missing. A previous meeting authorized my purchase, and reimbursement from the reserved equipment fund, of replacements for the rubber feet, as long as I did not find it disturbingly expensive. I purchased two replacement feet during January for $3.60, and installed them. Reimbursement has yet to be requested.

3) One of the floor cords lent by Texas A&M University Fencing Club for use with the "red set" did not return intact from Oz Parsons. The cords have Prieur three-prong connectors. The plastic block which forms the body broke into two pieces, and the smaller piece, along with the prong mounted in it, is missing. The missing piece was not found at the Oz. When I received the equipment back at the end of the Oz, I inventoried everything, but my check was not so detailed as to include counting the number of prongs at all eight floor cord connectors. The January meeting authorized my purchase, and reimbursement from the reserved equipment fund, of one Prieur three-prong connector for repair of the cord.

4) Reel #1 of the "yellow set" has two spots on the cable where the outer insulation is worn through or simply broken. Both are near the connector. At this moment there is tip tape covering the flaws. I intend to evaluate the situation and decide between continuing to treat the symptom with tip tape, heat-shrink tubing, and/or flexible adhesives, and shortening the cable as necessary to eliminate the bad spots.

5) Reel #1 of the "yellow set" has a worn cable guide, so worn that the spring on the connector jams in the guide and rips free from the connector. It appears that the major source of wear to the guide is use of the reel with the hole aimed at a diagonal to the length of the strip. The January meeting authorized my purchase, and reimbursement from the reserved equipment fund, of one replacement cable guide for this reel. I purchased a replacement cable guide during January for $4.50, but have not yet installed it. Reimbursement has yet to be requested.

6) Reel #2 of the "red set" has a worn cable guide, so worn that the spring connector not only jammed in the guide and ripped free from the connector, but got swallowed up inside the reel! At the moment, the spring is safely stored at the innermost reaches of the cable. The January meeting authorized my purchase, and reimbursement from the reserved equipment fund, of one replacement cable guide for this reel. I purchased a replacement cable guide during January for $4.50, but have not yet installed it. Reimbursement has yet to be requested.

7) Reel #2 of the "red set" has one spot on the cable where the outer insulation is damaged, one of the individual wires is pulled part way out the gap, and part of its insulation has been stripped. This is almost one meter from the connector. I strongly suspect that this was caused by the pulled-free spring jammed in the cable guide, or else caused by damage on the cable guide. I intend to evaluate the situation and decide between treating the symptom with tip tape, heat-shrink tubing, and/or flexible adhesives, and shortening the cable as necessary to eliminate the bad spots.

8) One of the floor cords for the "yellow set" has a basket on one of the prongs which is nearly destroyed by use. (As an aside, it should be noted that the equipment, as purchased, did not include Favero floor cords, but some off brand. The connectors on them are poor quality, and there have been chronic problems getting good connections with those connectors. And, these off-brand cables are the evidence I have the Texas A&M University Fencing Club actually did lose the cables from the "red set", because at 2004 SWIFA #1 A&M had one such cord in their possession, could not explain how they procured it, but did not have a second like it.) The January meeting authorized my purchase, and reimbursement from the reserved equipment fund, of one good three-prong connector to replace this entire connector (and keeping the replaced connector for replacement parts for the other three of the same type).

9) One of the latches for the plastic carrying case for the scoring box for the "yellow set" is snapped off. Some time ago, this broken latch got moved there, having originally been on a carrying case for reels (which are heavier and need intact latches more). It is also not clear whether the problem happened before or after the Division bought the equipment. (There is some circumstantial evidence that the equipment was used as rental equipment before the Division bought it.) I recommend taking no action at present, and the first action being researching whether replacement latches even exist.

There is no change in the status of the Escrime Technologies SG21V1 box.

The remote control units for the scoring boxes use 9 volt batteries. These batteries eventually go dead. Sometimes, they go dead in the middle of a tournament, rather than beforehand when equipment may be routinely checked. The January meeting authorized my purchase, and reimbursement from the reserved equipment fund, of replacement 9 volt batteries when needed, including having one replacement battery available with each remote control.

Since the January 4th Executive Committee meeting (the last at which a report was presented), the two main sets of equipment have been lent to the LOC for the Rose Condon Memorial (an SSCC tournament), and to BCFA for the Gulf Coast Open (an SSCC tournament). They have been requested by the LOC for the Gold Blade Open (an SSCC tournament). They are subject to call, but have not yet been requested, for Sectionals.

Matt Delevoryas raised issues dealing with the "Gulf Coast Division Circuit" (GCDC). He explained that this had been an unofficial Division enterprise invented early in the 2003-2004 fencing year, which the Executive Committee had already decreed that the 2003-2004 "Gulf Coast Division Circuit" had reached an end at the end of that season and did not exist thereafter. But, there were still points earned by competitors in the four tournaments of the circuit which had yet to be tabulated to determine who actually won the circuit. This was due to an incomplete set of operational rules when the circuit was invented. The Executive Committee had already [Secretary's note: November 2004] delegated resolving point system ambiguities and announcing the resulting standings to a committee consisting of John Trojanowski and Matt Delevoryas. No meeting of the committee had yet occurred, and the task was still not performed. Louise Lepie moved to alter the action previously taken, specifically that Matt Delevoryas be the chairman of that committee. The motion passed.

The assembly discussed the upcoming April 2006 Divisionals, the Division qualifier tournament for the 2006 Summer Nationals. It noted that the new Bylaws specified that the fees charged to the fencers needed to be in accord with the prevailing rules concerning fees for the Division's qualifiers, or else specifically permitted by the Executive Committee. The Bylaw had existed for only seven months, and, other than specific provisions for one Junior Olympics qualifier tournament, no rules about qualifier entry fees had been adopted in the meantime, or prior to the new Bylaws. The assembly noted that time had already run short, and the local organizing committee had already announced fees of $20/fencer plus $10/event, and $30/team without additional requirements for per-fencer charges, and late fees of the base prices (i.e., if you don't pre-register, you pay double). The assembly found these fees acceptable. By general consent, it was moved that these fees be established as the upper limits for the allowable fees for the 2006 Divisionals. The motion passed by a vote of 3 to 0.

The assembly noted that the annual election would be occurring at the annual meeting, which would be the evening of Saturday, April 1^st. The Bylaws required that the Executive Committee name the second, third, and fourth members described to be members of the Election Committee. However, the Executive Committee had no concept of who would actually be present at the meeting, and who among those would be most desirable to appoint to the Election Committee. Further, the Executive Committee expected not to meet again until after the election. Matt Delevoryas moved to delegate the authority of the Executive Committee to name the occupants of the second, third, and fourth positions on the Election Committee to a committee consisting of whatever Officers are present just before the convening of the election meeting. The motion passed.

The Executive Committee had originally discussed at its September 16^th meeting the creation of checklist of requirements minimum requirements not explicitly stated in the rules of fencing, a checklist which the Executive Committee thought that it would be reasonable to ask the Division Tournament Committee's representative to take to tournaments and fill out on behalf of the Executive Committee. Any missing check mark in the column of mandatory items would result in an automatic failure to be a USFA-sanctioned divisional tournament because Division-established quality standards were violated, even if no specific rule in the rulebook were demonstrably broken. The archetypical example of a checklist item was that the rules describe how a mask must conform, and how mesh is to be capable of withstanding use of a test punch. But, nowhere the rules was it required that anybody in particular actually inspect masks at a divisional tournament. The assembly discussed possible checklist items at great length, and, eventually, Jerry Dunaway moved:

All divisional competitions of the Gulf Coast Texas Division will conform to requirements listed below. The designated representative of the Division Tournament Committee at any tournament is requested to report whether any competition failed to conform to any of the requirements. If a competition fails to conform, then it shall not be a divisional competition of the Gulf Coast Texas Division, and, as such, shall not receive USFA sanction by virtue of having been a divisional competition.

1) All masks shall be inspected for conformance with USFA rules. At a minimum, this includes a visual inspection of all masks, and a 12 kg punch test on all non-FIE masks and all FIE masks dated older than five years. FIE masks dated less than five years old need only be inspected visually if the inspector has no safety concerns. Personnel charged with inspection of masks who are not already experienced and already acquainted with the issues involving using, or declining to use, the punch are encouraged to receive instruction from a certified armorer.

2) Referees are to be expected to examine all weapons used in competition, including weight-testing of foils and épées, and shim-testing of épées. The organizers shall make appropriate arrangements for this to be possible.

3) All pistes must be adequately close to the dimensions required by the USFA rules. Given that the USFA rules allow no specific tolerance for error for most dimensions of a piste, the Division requires that markings be within specific distances from the required locations. Because multiple markings of a piste may be incorrectly placed, all efforts will be made to imagine an entire legal piste at an optimal hypothetical location which would result in none of the markings of the actual piste deviating beyond allowed limits. For example, one back marking of an otherwise perfect piste could deviate by twice the allowed numerical limit because a legal piste could be imagined where that back marking deviates by exactly the allowed limit in one direction, and all other markings deviate by the allowed limit in the opposite direction.

3A) The seven required lines across each fencing piste must be no farther than 25 cm from the required locations. This is easy to determine with a measuring tape with marking separated by 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, and 2 meters, with each mark surrounded by a band indicating 25 cm in each direction from the marks. If it is possible to move such a tape along the length of the piste until any location is found such that each of the seven lines across the piste crosses the measuring tape in the corresponding band, the positions of the seven lines are acceptable.

3B) If the seven required lines across each fencing piste are not straight or are not perpendicular to the length of the piste, every part of a line must be no more than 25 cm from the correct location. If a measuring tape marked with bands is being used, this means all portions of the seven required lines stay within the areas at right angles to the seven marked bands of the tape with the measuring tape in left in some one position with respect to motion along the length of the piste.

3C) If the sides of the piste are not straight or are not parallel, each side must curve smoothly. If marked piste sides were intended to be at a width allowed by USFA rules, deviations from straight parallel lines are allowed unless so great that there exist no pair of imaginary parallel straight lines separated by a distance allowed by USFA rules for the width of a piste such that neither marked side line deviates by more than 25 cm from the corresponding imaginary line. A piste shall not be considered nonconforming only because there exists some spot where its width is outside the width range allowed by USFA rules. However, if piste sides were clearly intended to be at a width outside the range allowed by USFA rules, the piste shall be considered nonconforming.

4) All competitions shall be advertised in advance. However, from time to time it makes sense to take one advertised competition and hold it as two competitions, or vice versa. Except in case of an act of God, no competitions may be merged or split unless this possibility was described in the publicity material for the competition(s). Ideally, this possibility should be described in all publicity material from the start. However, the notice shall be deemed adequate if it meets the same timeliness requirements established for awarding of classifications at a competition.

The motion passed by a vote of 3 to 0.

The assembly noted that Salle Mauro was holding a tournament on March 18th. This was a blackout date declared by the Division Tournament Committee (because it that's the weekend of the Gold Blade Open), so no divisional competition at all may be held on that day. However, anyone was perfectly free to hold a non-USFA tournament. Mauro Hamza had been advised that no divisional tournament could be that weekend, but, as of the meeting, his tournament information on askFRED still mentioned nothing about being non-USFA and did imply that it was a divisional tournament. The assembly had some reason to believe the tournament information might be changed in the near future, but the assembly feared that, if it did not change, there would be no meeting of the Executive Committee soon enough to reconsider the situation. By general consent it was moved that the Secretary be authorized to contact the askFRED administrator to arrange for the tournament description to be altered to reflect its actual non-USFA non-divisional status if the information on askFRED had not already soon enough for such action to be deemed necessary. After discussion, the motion passed by a vote of 3 to 0.

The assembly noted several months ago it had delegated the authority to administer "the rotation" (the allocation of the "big three" tournaments to host clubs which was adopted at the April 16th, 2004 meeting) to John Trojanowski, effective though July 31, 2006. It was also noted that three events had occurred which seemed to demand official action by the administrator, but such action had not occurred. Jerry Dunaway moved that those three events and their consequences be officially acknowledged directly by the Executive Committee, specifically that the Rice Fencing Club and the Texas A&M University Fencing Club had both been removed from the rotation for failure to renew their USFA memberships within the allowed grace period, and that the Texas A&M University Fencing Club had been added to the bottom of the current rotational order because it had in the meantime rejoined the USFA. The motion passed without objection.

The assembly had further concern over whether the rotation would be administered on a sufficiently timely basis, given an impending deadline for at least the selection of the local organizing committee for the Gulf Coast Division's Southwest Section Circuit Cup tournament. The assembly discussed what action could be taken to assure proper operation of the rotation without actually necessitating the direct involvement of the Executive Committee itself in the near future. By general consent, it was moved that within one week the administrator of the rotation notify all clubs, and the four Officers, of the date when the rotation would commence its "rotating" to determine the hosts of the "big three" tournaments for 2006-2007, including reminders about how the offers of tournaments occur under the rotation, and the time allowed during which to respond to the offers, and also that if the administrator did not do such within one week, the Secretary become the administrator of the rotation through July 31, 2006. The motion passed without objection.

Since October, the assembly had intermittently been casually discussing revising the "adequate notice" resolution (concerning what timing of notice to the fencers of the Division, by what means, shall be deemed to be the adequate notice required by the USFA for a competition to award classifications). The two changes being discussed were adjusting the wording to be more rigorous about the distinction between tournaments and competitions and that the requirements appertained to competitions, and amending the wording to include allowed timeliness in the case that notification of a competition were directed to every fencer of the Division. Changed wording had been available for months but continued to be poorly received. Rachel El-Saleh indicated that she expected to be able to offer improved wording at the next meeting of the assembly.

Rachel El-Saleh raised concerns about a very small group of willing and competent people carrying the entire workload of being representatives of the Division Tournament Committee at tournaments. She felt that some clubs were receiving considerable benefit of few representatives while no representatives from their clubs were offered for assignment to other clubs' tournaments. Perennial comments were offered questioning the relative merits of good but inadequate staffing versus adequate but not necessarily competent staffing. There were doubts about how much power existed to coerce provision of additional manpower without amending the Bylaws to make certain current privileges contingent on cooperation.

Matt Delevoryas, the Chairman of the Webmaster Committee, reported that it had recently come to his attention that there was an error on the home page. He had not corrected it. He explained that the Executive Committee had persistently declined to delegate any authority which would include being able to make the change. There had been four ways in which authority to alter the home page had been delegated: 1) changes which did not affect either the look and feel or the information content, 2) changes of the hyperlinked news headlines, 3) changes of the sometimes-present message from the Chairman, and 4) making correct any information which becomes incorrect. None of the existing permissions applied because the error was actual information content, in an area of the page without special permissions, which had been incorrect from the very start, when the Executive Committee ratified the home page at the November 2004 meeting! The home page had text saying that the e-mail address of the Secretary was "mdelevorya@aol.com". That text string had a hyperlink which caused an e-mail to be sent to a different, nonexistent, address, "mdelveoray@aol.com". As Webmaster, Matt was seeking permission to change the information content of the home page in such a way as to generate e-mail messages addressed to "MDelevorya@AOL.com" instead of to "mdelveoray@aol.com". The assembly then began debating whether there needed to exist some broader authority which would have made it unnecessary for this request for permission to be brought to the Executive Committee. The argument for the existing restrictions pertaining to just the home page was based on the idea that, of the entire Web site, it is the home page itself which is the image the Division presents to the world, and the Webmaster should not be at liberty to change the public image of the Division at his discretion. After some discussion, it was resolved by general consent that existing delegations of authority to the Webmaster concerning the home page would continue, but for all other changes hitherto prohibited, authority be delegated for the Webmaster to make changes at will provided it did not involve any significant change of editorial content.

The assembly noted that at the beginning of 2005, it had created a logo contest with submission rules and a judging by the membership at the Annual Meeting. There were no submissions by the deadline, so no logo was selected. However, the assembly found merit in adopting some logo. The assembly examined a few draft logos. By general consent, it was resolved an approximate version of a Division logo was adopted and referred to the Webmaster for further graphical refinements to improve it.

By general consent, the meeting adjourned at 6:55 PM.