test

ok, I'm going to try to interpret this in layman's terms, so let me
know if I get anything wrong???

EXHIBIT C:  Removal of Directors
According to Mr. Hazen, the current bylaws are *not* out of
compliance with compliance with Colorado state law, as the proposal
implies.  So why is this proposal being made?

Further, proposed Section 14(a), exempts elected BoD officers from
being removed by a meeting of the Governing Council.

I'm assuming that if you're elected officer (President, VP,
Treasurer, etc) you get a free pass, and can't get voted off,
according to what Mr. Hazen states.

If these bylaws were applied (and a non-officer member of the BoD
was removed), it could be legally contested in the courts of
Colorado, because of the exemption for officers.

EXHIBIT D -- Removal of Officers
The proposed revisions are superfluous, because the Colorado Revised
Nonprofit Corporation Act already provides removal guidelines, which
allow the BoD to remove *any* officer at any time with or without
cause.  The bylaws or BoD may establish provisions for the removal
of officers by another set of officers or voting members (in other
words, groups other than the BoD).

Essentially, exempting BoD officers from the possibility of getting
removed does not fly in Colorado.

EXHIBIT J -- Executive Committee as Board of Directors
Proposal to get rid of the BoD and turn the larger Executive
Committee into a new BoD.  Mr. Hazen feels this group would be too
large to hold meaningful discussions, examinations and
deliberations, and make supervisory decisions.

The proposal would mean 2/3 of the BoD would be executive officers
(under Exhibit C would be immune from getting kicked off the BoD).

Mr. Hazen notes that Executive and Supervisory functions should be
clearly separated in both governance and function.

Exhibit J sends the wrong message to banks, credit providers,
service suppliers to USFSA, etc -- that USFSA governance is
consolidating power, rather than separating it out, going against
the trend in corporate governance.


EXHIBIT L -- Audit Committee
US Congress is likely to pass legislation mandating tighter
financial and audit controls in the near future, for USFSA and
similar organizations to maintain tax-exempt status.

Banks, Credit providers, service suppliers, etc are not going to
deal with USFSA if it cannot show they have good financial
accounting in place.

Exhibition J proposes that only members of the BoD who are coaches
and athletes (according to the requirements for the positions) would
be allowed on the Audit Committee.  Mr. Hazen suggests this excludes
USFSA members (non-coaches and non-athletes) who could be better
experts on this committee.

Mr. Hazen also states that the BoD President should *not* make
appointments to the Audit Committee.  It should be totally
independent of influence from the BoD President.  The purpose of the
Audit committee is to review the financial decisions that the BoD
President helps to make.

Even the slightest hint that the BoD President is
appointing "friendly" candidates to the Audit Committee undermines
USFSA's credibility with banks, credit providers, etc.

If the proposal can be changed to allow for *election* of audit
committee members, the election should be by a USFSA body other than
the BoD or Executive Committee.  In other words, the general
membership or General Council should elect these positions.

EXHIBIT M -- Compensation Committee
This proposal does not separate paid staff from BoD when determining
salary issues.  In other words, staff members should not be on a
committee with elected officials to determine their fellow staff
members' salaries.  The BoD should seek the input of the Executive
Director, but the Executive Director should not have a vote in
determining compensation, if this function belongs to elected
officials.

The current proposal would put the Executive Director, Asst
Executive Director and Controller on this committee, and this is a
conflict of interest.

A related concern is that staff will not be entirely candid with
people who determine their financial compensation.

Personal Note:  The staff will be "shaping" their views on other
matters to a Committee member, if he/she feels it will help their
compensation chances.  eliminating the other paid staff from the
committee may not entirely eliminate this motivation.

I'm not going to touch Proposal B and the ISU violations of the
Olympic Charter.  Yeesh.

is there a reason there are no dates on messages and i;m not getting
them today

Count me in!!!!  I'll be there for sure.

Marg


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rosemary" <rocosgrove@...>
To: <SkateFans@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: [SkateFans] re: London worlds - I'm there! <G>


> I'll be joining Naomi and David in London if Worlds are awarded there.
> London is my favorite city in the whole wide world.  Rosemary
>
> David Forberg <david.forberg@...> wrote:Huriye gives us the good news:
>
>
>
> "NISA has bid to host the 2008 Worlds in partnership with an American
> Entertainment Group, the new owners of the London Dome."
>
>
>
> This makes sense since Calgary is hosting 2006 and Toyko 2007, worlds are
> due to go to Europe for 2008 and then the U.S. for 2009. London would be a
> great host. If it happens I'm there. Actually Stockholm wouldn't be a bad
> place either! Wonder if they're bidding?
>
>
>
> Any idea when the decision will be announced?
>
>
>
>
>
> David Forberg
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------~-~>
> SkateFans posts are copyright their original author and may not be quoted
> elsewhere without explicit written permission. Those who post to SkateFans
> do
> not automatically cede their copyright to any person or entity.
> ------------------------------------------_->
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rosemary Cosgrove-Aguilar
> Special Commissioner
> for Domestic Violence
> (Sounds super important, eh?)
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------~-~>
> SkateFans posts are copyright their original author and may not be quoted
> elsewhere without explicit written permission. Those who post to SkateFans
> do
> not automatically cede their copyright to any person or entity.
> ------------------------------------------_->
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

i'm not getting my mail is there a problem

-----Original Message-----
From: Don <dwynn10@...>
To: SkateFans@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:18:50 -0700
Subject: RE: [SkateFans] Re: London worlds - I'm there! <G>


Huriye wrote:
>>>But a 22,000 seater arena with an Olympic size ice pad would be a
great facility to have in the capital>>>

Not having been to England and being an Anglophile to boost, I would be
tempted to go too, if it weren't for the puny exchange rate of the
dollar.  Maybe the dollar will gain back some ground 3 yrs from now, but
with the US's twin deficit showing no sign of abating, I doubt there
will be much relief.  The size of the venue being considered, 22,000
seats, could be a drawback too, as it will be very difficult to fill
them, and the ISU may not want to deal with the embarrassment of having
a 3/4 or 1/2 empty arena for one of its premier events.

don






-----------------------------------------~-~>
SkateFans posts are copyright their original author and may not be quoted
elsewhere without explicit written permission. Those who post to SkateFans do
not automatically cede their copyright to any person or entity.
------------------------------------------_->
Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In SkateFans@yahoogroups.com, "Huriye Omer" <la_rhumbauk@y...>
wrote:
> --- In SkateFans@yahoogroups.com, "naomipaiss" <Naomi@n...> wrote:
> > Now that's enthusiasm. Personally I'd love to go to London for
> > Worlds, assuming the damn dollar is worth more there by 2008. I
bet
> > a lot of Americans would cross the pond for that one.
>
> That's good to know Naomi! :-)
>
> [Though the bad news is - London is a little expensive for
> accommodation].
>
> My enthusiasm has been slightly dashed since I discovered that both
> Gothenburg and Helsinki are rival bidders for 2008. Tough
competition.
> I hadn't expected an Olympic Games type battle, but hoped we'd sail
> through.(-:
>
> Still hopeful!
>
> Huriye

JMHO but I think we can cross Helsinki off the list as they hosted
worlds in 1983 and again in 1999.  I'm in favor of London, my excuse
to get back there after too many years away.

Meagan Liegh

--- In SkateFans@yahoogroups.com, "Don" <dwynn10@q...> wrote:
  The size of the venue being considered, 22,000
> seats, could be a drawback too, as it will be very difficult to fill
> them, and the ISU may not want to deal with the embarrassment of
having
> a 3/4 or 1/2 empty arena for one of its premier events.

I hadn't thought of that Don. Maybe the owners could be persuaded to
create a smaller temporary arena for Worlds, with an adjoining
practice rink and facilities?

They could expand it again for rock concerts etc.

Huriye

Huriye wrote:
>>>But a 22,000 seater arena with an Olympic size ice pad would be a
great facility to have in the capital>>>

Not having been to England and being an Anglophile to boost, I would be
tempted to go too, if it weren't for the puny exchange rate of the
dollar.  Maybe the dollar will gain back some ground 3 yrs from now, but
with the US's twin deficit showing no sign of abating, I doubt there
will be much relief.  The size of the venue being considered, 22,000
seats, could be a drawback too, as it will be very difficult to fill
them, and the ISU may not want to deal with the embarrassment of having
a 3/4 or 1/2 empty arena for one of its premier events.

don

--- In SkateFans@yahoogroups.com, Rosemary <rocosgrove@y...> wrote:
> I'll be joining Naomi and David in London if Worlds are awarded
there.  London is my favorite city in the whole wide world.  Rosemary

Wow! It's wonderful to have such great support from all of you! :-)

Considering GB hasn't hosted Worlds since 1995 [in Birmingham] or
Europeans since 1989 [also Birmingham] I think we do deserve it more
than the Scandinavian nations that are also bidding - accepted they
would put on a great Worlds though - as Helsinki did in 99.

But a 22,000 seater arena with an Olympic size ice pad would be a
great facility to have in the capital, and if we miss out on Worlds
this time, hopefully we can bid for a future GPF. That would
definitely make up for the disappointment, and maybe by then we'd
also have some British competitors who qualified to take part!

The future's looking better for Skating in the UK! :-)
Getting back on the international map!!

Huriye

--- In SkateFans@yahoogroups.com, "naomipaiss" <Naomi@n...> wrote:
> Now that's enthusiasm. Personally I'd love to go to London for
> Worlds, assuming the damn dollar is worth more there by 2008. I bet
> a lot of Americans would cross the pond for that one.

That's good to know Naomi! :-)

[Though the bad news is - London is a little expensive for
accommodation].

My enthusiasm has been slightly dashed since I discovered that both
Gothenburg and Helsinki are rival bidders for 2008. Tough competition.
I hadn't expected an Olympic Games type battle, but hoped we'd sail
through.(-:

Still hopeful!

Huriye

The SkateFAIR blog, Countdown to the Next Figure Skating Judging
Scandal, received the following from attorney Steven Hazen of Los
Angeles. He asked us to please post it in its entirety on the SkateFans
list for the benefit of those who might not have Web access, so...here
it is.
--Trudi

Observations on Selected Proposals to Amend the USFSA Bylaws
April 28, 2005
Steven K. Hazen

I am not a judge or other official having special expertise in
technical aspects of the sport of figure skating. To be sure, I am on
record as opposing the system of judging which is currently being
utilized by the ISU. But that record should show that the bases for
such opposition are ones which require no technical expertise in the
sport. The purpose of this commentary, however, is not to address the
proposal to be considered by the Governing Council to modify the
judging system currently being used by the USFSA.

Instead, I would like to address certain issues which arise under the
general category of “corporate governance.” As a practicing attorney
and immediate past co-chair of the Corporations Committee of the State
Bar of California Business Law Section, I am not hesitant to assert
special expertise in the area of corporate governance generally and the
standards of it emerging under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOXA”)
specifically. In addition, I was invited by the Financial Accounting
Standards Board to give testimony with respect to nonprofit
corporations in connection with proposals which the FASB was
considering in the wake of the same corporate scandals which were the
catalyst for SOXA.

In that context, I urge the Delegates and Proxy Holders attending the
USFSA Governing Council meeting in Columbus next week to consider the
serious problems identified below with proposals set forth as Exhibits
C, D, J, L and M. The problems for Exhibits C and D are fatal (whether
or not so recognized at the Governing Council). The problems for
Exhibits J, L and M are ones which probably could be fixed for
submission to the 2006 Governing Council and I hope they will be as
they each have significant potential value to the Association.

EXHIBIT C -- Removal of Directors

This proposal would add a provision to the Bylaws establishing
procedures for the removal of members of the USFSA Board of Directors.
The rationale stated for this proposal is that it would “bring us into
conformance with Colorado law.” Setting aside the archaic (and
disfavored) term, the rationale leaves the impression that the Bylaws
are currently out of conformity with Colorado law. Based upon my
reading of the Colorado Revised Nonprofit Corporation Act (as reported
in the Colorado Statutes Annotated, “RSA”) and discussions with eminent
corporate practitioners in Colorado, I note with complete confidence
that such impression is not correct and is misleading. The Bylaws may
remain silent on this point without being out of conformity with the
law. If a decision is made to adopt Bylaw provisions on this topic,
however, they must be in conformity with Colorado law. Proposed new
Section 14 of Article VIII would actually bring into the Bylaws a
provision which violates the law.

RSA Section 7-128-108(c) provides that “a director may be removed only
if the number of votes cast to remove the director would be sufficient
to elect the director at a meeting to elect directors.” RSA Section
7-128-108(d) further specifies that such removal can only be made “at a
meeting called for the purpose of removing that director.” In short,
the only permissible method for removal of a director of the USFSA is
by vote of the Governing Council.

Proposed Section 14(c) does appear to be in conformity with Colorado
law. I will not comment on proposed Section 14(b) and will leave that
to the Athletes Advisory Committee or other concerned athletes.
Instead, I note that proposed Section 14(a) purports to exempt from the
removal provisions mandated by RSA Section 7-128-108 those members of
the Board of Directors who hold that position by virtue of election as
an officer. The Colorado Revised Nonprofit Corporation Act does not
permit the Bylaws to do so.

The proposal set forth in Exhibit C should be REJECTED. Whether or not
the Governing Council so votes, all Delegates and Proxies (as well as
member Clubs and Individual Members) should be aware that any attempt
to apply the provisions of proposed Section 14(a) would almost
certainly be contested by any Director who was so removed. And if that
Director did contest such removal, it is also reasonably certain that
the Colorado Attorney General (who has statutory responsibility for
supervision of nonprofit corporations) would join in contesting the
validity of that provision of the Bylaws.

EXHIBIT D -- Removal of Officers

This proposal would add a provision to the Bylaws establishing
procedures for the removal of officers of the USFSA. For the same
reasons noted above with respect to Exhibit C, the rationale stated for
this proposal is incorrect and misleading. The USFSA Bylaws do not need
to be amended to permit removal as that is already set forth in the
Colorado Revised Nonprofit Corporation Act.

RSA Section 7-128-303(4) reads in its entirety as follows: “Unless
otherwise provided in the bylaws, the board of directors may remove any
officer at any time with or without cause. The bylaws or the board of
directors may make provisions for the removal of officers by other
officers or by the voting members.”

What Exhibit D ignores (and coupled with Exhibit C apparently seeks to
obscure) is that all “officers” of the Association are (1) elected by
the Governing Council, other than as permitted to the Board of
Directors between meetings of the GC, and (2) by virtue of such
election, are members of the Board of Directors. The provision
contained in proposed new Section 7 of Article XI would work just fine
if the Bylaws provided for officers who were not by virtue of that
position also Directors. It might also work if the Bylaws contemplated
the possibility that a member of the Board of Directors who was removed
as an officer would nonetheless remain a member of the Board of
Directors. They do not.

The proposal set forth in Exhibit D should be REJECTED. Reliance on
enforceability of it would be as foolish as reliance on enforceability
of the proposal set forth in Exhibit C.

EXHIBIT J -- Executive Committee as Board of Directors

This proposal would abolish the current Board of Directors and
effectively turn a slightly enlarged Executive Committee into a new
Board of Directors. Having served one year as a non-voting member of
the Board of Directors, I can attest to the fact that the current form
of it is unwieldy and unfortunately does not even take benefit from the
talents and resources of the members who serve on it but not on the
Executive Committee. Sitting through a full day of reports (as I have
done) is not exactly deliberative, much less supervisory. For the Board
of Directors to discharge its functions and duties, it must be
deliberative and it must be supervisory. In its current form it is not,
but at least it represents the capacity to do so.

But this proposal needs to be refined substantially before it would be
appropriate. As currently written, 2/3 of the Board’s membership would
be officers or persons holding their positions through the support of
the officers and discharging what properly would be construed to be
“executive” functions. Those who follow the developments of corporate
governance in the nonprofit world are mindful of the report of the
investigation of the New York Stock Exchange which resulted in its
massive overhaul. Those with that interest who also have experience in
sports matters are mindful of the changes made to the governance
structure of the USOC. Both highlight a guiding principle which is in
conflict with this proposal: the executive and supervisory functions
should not be consolidated into a single body. Yet that is exactly what
this would do.

The proposal could potentially be saved (but probably not for this
Governing Council as Bylaw amendments require specificity of notice) if
the four group coordinators were supplanted by four directors elected
by the Governing Council who otherwise had no executive
responsibilities or authority with the Association. That could easily
be accomplished by having one non-executive director elected from each
of the Sections and one elected at large, or the top vote-getter from
each Section in a vote of all Delegates and Proxies plus the next
highest vote-getter not otherwise elected.

If this proposal comes to a vote in its current form, Exhibit J should
be REJECTED. It sends exactly the wrong message to vendors, credit
providers, etc.: that the Association is moving against the grain in
corporate governance matters.

EXHIBIT L -- Audit Committee

This is one of two proposals set forward by the current Treasurer and
both recite as their rationale the likelihood that principles growing
out of SOXA will be applied to nonprofit corporations such as the
Association. That might or might not be justification for adoption of
this proposal, but any Delegate or Proxy who thinks those principles
are not applicable to nonprofit corporations is badly misinformed. At
least one state has already adopted legislation which essentially
applies SOXA-like provisions to nonprofit corporations. My state has
adopted a mini-SOXA for nonprofits which meet a certain size. It is
quite likely that the US Congress will consider legislation this year
which would mandate SOXA-like controls in order to maintain tax-exempt
status.

But those would not be the reasons for adopting this proposal. The
simple fact is that credit providers (and many vendors dependent on the
credit strength of the customer) are unwilling to enter into financing
or similar transactions with nonprofits which cannot demonstrate that
they have (and observe) the internal controls of the sort which result
from SOXA compliance.

In that context, I heartily commend the Treasurer for the wisdom of
this proposal. I would suggest, however, that it collides with the
proposal of Exhibit J as, by definition, the only members of the Board
of Directors who might meet the membership requirements for service on
the Audit Committee would be coaches and athletes -- none of whom would
be elected to the re-constituted Board of Directors on the basis of
expertise in the areas required for effective service on an Audit
Committee.

In no event, however, should the members of the Audit Committee be
appointed by the President. The whole point of having an audit
committee is to provide independence from the executive functions. Even
a slight pall of doubt by credit providers or the like as to the
authenticity of an Audit Committee completely undermines the benefit
which the proposal would otherwise secure.

If the proposal can be amended from the floor without running up
against the notice requirements for Bylaw amendments, and if the
proposal is amended to provide for election of the Audit Committee by
some body where non-executive roles predominate (e.g., the Governing
Council), the proposal should be approved. If not, it should be
rejected or withdrawn for presentation to the 2006 Governing Council in
a form which would achieve the desired result: demonstrating that the
Association is aware of “best practices” in corporate governance of a
nonprofit and that it is adhering to them.

EXHIBIT M -- Compensation Committee

The shortcomings of this proposal are a bit more subtle and, perhaps,
less problematic. Among other things, the credibility of the
Association will be much less impacted by any miscues in this proposal
than it would be in that set forth in Exhibit L.

But it has an enduring truth in it which should not be missed. Paid
staff who should otherwise be a fundamental source of input to the
Board of Directors may not always call a spade a spade if the person or
persons who determine compensation believe it to be a rake.

Again, however, the thrust of this proposal runs counter to the
proposal set forth in Exhibit J. It also runs counter to the findings
in the NYSE situation: compensation issues must at the end of the day
be the responsibility of the Board of Directors or persons duly acting
under the umbrella of its authority. This proposal does not quite reach
that goal. It violates a fundamental precept that members of the staff
should not be on a committee which makes recommendations as to
compensation of staff. While it is entirely appropriate to solicit the
input of the Executive Director, having that person formally share the
authority of that committee is a conflict which cannot be surmounted
even if only a conflict of human dynamics. Adding the Assistant
Executive Director and the Controller (both paid staff) seriously
undermines the credibility of the endeavor.

The proposal is, however, based on very sound concerns and the concept
of it should be implemented not later than the 2006 Governing Council
in order to minimize problems that occur when paid staff think they may
need to “shape” their advice to the views or even pre-determined
positions of those officials who set their compensation.

+ + + + +

As a matter of completeness, I note that I specifically have not
addressed the proposal set forth as Exhibit B as it opens a remarkable
can of worms. I will only note that the rationale provided for it is
both remarkably accurate and remarkably misleading: that making the
change “brings us into compliance with the International Olympic
Committee.” In point of fact, it arises out of a need to address the
problem that the IOC has itself (hold on tight) violated Chapter 4
Section 28 paragraph 1 and Chapter 4 Section 31 paragraph 1 of the
Olympic Charter. It would also not surprise me if one or more Members
of the ISU has taken exception to approval of a Provisional Member
(potentially a voting member at the 2006 Congress, no doubt beholden to
incumbent management) unless the USFSA specifically disclaims
jurisdiction. But, as I say, that is a can of worms.

I am aware that there is an active campaign for elective office going
on which may well preempt the attention of Delegates and Proxies. I
hope each of them will give serious examination to the proposals set
forth, as some of them could have even greater significance to the
Association than the election. In any event, I hope that all readers
will recognize that the observations and concerns expressed in this
commentary are not intended to be (and may not be characterized as)
supportive of any particular candidate. I will not even offer the
traditional “may the best man win,” as that is customarily understood
in this context to mean the “better” man. That might imply that the one
who does not win is the “lesser” man, and I do not believe that would
be true regardless of who wins.

Respectfully submitted,
Steven K. Hazen
(licensed to practice law in the State of California, not licensed to
practice law in the State of Colorado, and not rendering legal advice
with this commentary under the laws of any state)

I'll be joining Naomi and David in London if Worlds are awarded there.  London
is my favorite city in the whole wide world.  Rosemary

David Forberg <david.forberg@...> wrote:Huriye gives us the good news:



"NISA has bid to host the 2008 Worlds in partnership with an American
Entertainment Group, the new owners of the London Dome."



This makes sense since Calgary is hosting 2006 and Toyko 2007, worlds are
due to go to Europe for 2008 and then the U.S. for 2009. London would be a
great host. If it happens I'm there. Actually Stockholm wouldn't be a bad
place either! Wonder if they're bidding?



Any idea when the decision will be announced?





David Forberg



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



-----------------------------------------~-~>
SkateFans posts are copyright their original author and may not be quoted
elsewhere without explicit written permission. Those who post to SkateFans do
not automatically cede their copyright to any person or entity.
------------------------------------------_->
Yahoo! Groups Links










Rosemary Cosgrove-Aguilar
Special Commissioner
for Domestic Violence
(Sounds super important, eh?)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Another nice article about Rudy in the San Jose Mercury news by Ann Killion:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/11520980.htm

Killion wrote articles about Rudy and Kristi in the late 1980's and added some
wonderful accounts of his 1996 Nationals and Worlds successes. When COI came
back to San Jose after Rudy's HIV diagnosis, her feature was one of the best
done on him.

Amanda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In SkateFans@yahoogroups.com, "Fred Goss" <ghgang@n...> wrote:
>
>
> Tell me if I'm wrong but my assumption is that the regional VPs and others
> will be at GC with more than enough proxies from the little clubs that dont
> attend that election of Hershberger will be a mere formality...even though
> there are many who feel differently.
>
> Fred


I think you are wrong.

A few year's ago, the VP's held lots of proxies, but in the past two
years, the numbers have gone down dramatically.

Proxy votes must be assigned and it seems that clubs are getting them
to members of other clubs that they trust.

Cooling off: Figure skating has slipped from mid-'90s height of popularity
As the Champions on Ice tour hits Sacramento, the sport tries to reinvigorate
its appeal.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/12801175p-13651618c.html

Lois

Huriye gives us the good news:



"NISA has bid to host the 2008 Worlds in partnership with an American
Entertainment Group, the new owners of the London Dome."



This makes sense since Calgary is hosting 2006 and Toyko 2007, worlds are
due to go to Europe for 2008 and then the U.S. for 2009. London would be a
great host. If it happens I'm there. Actually Stockholm wouldn't be a bad
place either! Wonder if they're bidding?



Any idea when the decision will be announced?





David Forberg



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>
> "NISA has bid to host the 2008 Worlds in partnership with an
American
> Entertainment Group, the new owners of the London Dome."
>
> [I presume that's the Millenium Dome in Greenwich on the banks of
the
> Thames].
>
> "The event will be held in the Dome, where a permanent 22,000
seater
> Olympic ice arena is planned."
>
> Updates in the next issue.......
>
> OMG!!!!!
>
> PLEEEEEEEAAAAASSSSEEEE God it comes off!!!!!!!!
>
Now that's enthusiasm. Personally I'd love to go to London for
Worlds, assuming the damn dollar is worth more there by 2008. I bet
a lot of Americans would cross the pond for that one.

Naomi

http://www.usfsa.org/Story.asp?id=29695&type=news

As more details are provided, it amazes me even more how she was able
to keep training and competing through US Nationals.

Beth

Just had a quick look at my latest copy of Ice Link [the UK
Association paper] Issue #59, and there's a banner headline at the
bottom!!!!!! - I'm in shock!

It says......

"NISA has bid to host the 2008 Worlds in partnership with an American
Entertainment Group, the new owners of the London Dome."

[I presume that's the Millenium Dome in Greenwich on the banks of the
Thames].

"The event will be held in the Dome, where a permanent 22,000 seater
Olympic ice arena is planned."

Updates in the next issue.......

OMG!!!!!

PLEEEEEEEAAAAASSSSEEEE God it comes off!!!!!!!!

an extremely hopeful Huriye, in London!

Mao Asada cancellation. Lambier, Sato and
others will perform as planned. Apparently
there was some difficulty in regard to young Mao
Asada leaving Japan and traveling alone to the
U.S. Not sure how much was legal logistics
and how much was family concern.
http://www.scboston.org/icechips2005/web/IceChips2005.htm
Tracy

> Quite honestly, I think US Figure Skating is in a difficult
> position.  On one hand, I doubt that most are happy with the status
> quo.  But on the other hand, I think there is a significant risk to
> backing Pfenning because of his current status as persona non grata
> with Cinquanta.

This makes me shutter, because it leads to the concept that someone
should vote for Hershberger BECAUSE he is in good with the ISU!
Common folks the whole problem with figure skating is the ISU. Yet the
opinion seems to be that it is better to vote for someone that stands
mute in the face of that body's tyranny then step out of line and vote
for someone who has the guts to rock the boat!
What is the friggin' point? Why even have an ISU president? Why not
just call Speedy and ask what HE wants to USFSA to do next?


I am sure that Mr. Hershberger has helped individual athletes
(including his own daughters) within the confines of the USFSA but that
is a far cry from recognzing the corruption that plagues the ISU and
the sport and standing up to be counted with those who ache to do
something, ANYTHING to move the sport out of the oblivion quagmire it
is currently sinking into!

>I'm amazed when I see lower income families funding their kid's
>skating.  I couldn't imagine raising a kid on anything less than
>$200k/year income, let alone throwing skating into the picture.  Kudos
>for those that somehow manage it.  --Liam
>
Most Americans manage it, I think.   I know very few families with
incomes of $200,000 or more a year.  But then, I grew up in a lower
middle class family and I work in academia.  Not a lot of of spare cash
floating around in my social and professional circles.  That's probably
why I don't know any competitive skaters, even lower level ones.

Candace

--- In SkateFans@yahoogroups.com, david.forberg@c... wrote:
> One of the reasons I strongly endorse Ron Pfenning for the next
USFSA president is that he has already exhibited one of the important
qualities that is necessary to be strong president during these
turbulent times in skating. If US skating is to be successful in the
ISU then "rounding up the troops" and getting other countries to buy
into your proposals is pivotal in being successful. US skating can't
get it done on its own. Pfenning was very successful doing this in
his formation of the WSF. Look how many representatives he had
supporting the WSF that came from different countries. You had Italy,
Australia, Britain, Hungary, Japan, Sweden, Canada, etc. Its this
type of work that needs to be done in preparation for an ISU
Congress.

[snip]

Everyone in the ISU already knows Pfenning. A phone call from
Pfenning will carry much more weight than a call from Hershberger.
>
I appreciate your argument, but I'm still not entirely convinced for
the primary reason that WSF ultimately failed.  Sure, Pfenning and
others were able to gain buy in from various ISU members, but
apparently not those critical to actually being successful in WSF's
initiative.  In that respect, I'm not sure that his track record is
any different from that of the past presidents that you cited in your
previous post.

And in terms of a phone call from Pfenning carrying more weight than
one from Hershberger - I question whether this is true given that
Pfenning is an ISU outcast.  I agree that Pfenning has greater name
recognition, but whether it's favorable or infamous is the question
mark in my mind.

Quite honestly, I think US Figure Skating is in a difficult
position.  On one hand, I doubt that most are happy with the status
quo.  But on the other hand, I think there is a significant risk to
backing Pfenning because of his current status as persona non grata
with Cinquanta.

At any rate, thanks for your thoughtful comments - you've given me
something to seriously ponder.

Local shows this weekend around the U.S. include:

April 28-30 in Wilmington, Delaware -- "Ice Dreams" directed by Calla
Urbanski (local article):
http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/sports/2005/04/28formerolymp
ianb.html
In addition to Elizabeth Manley, also scheduled to appear are
Olympic, World, & National Competitors & Coaches: Calla Urbanski-
Petka, Irina Romanova, Igor Yaroshenko, Kate Slattery & Chuen-Gun Lee
(senior dance), Jeff Czarnecki, Marcie Kierpiec, Melinda Sweezey-
Shebeco, Vadim Shebeco, Keith Tindall, David Aretz, Francesca Cheli,
Alex Clark, Blake Rosenthal & Calvin Taylor (2005 U.S. novice dance
bronze medalists & silver medalists in Estonia earlier this month).

April 29-30 in Minneapolis, Minnesota -- ISI club show in which
Rohene Ward is scheduled to skate two programs -- club site is:
http://www.paradefsc.org

April 29-30 in Orleans, Massachusetts (Cape Cod) -- "A Skater's
Dream" with guest star Shepard Clark - local article:
http://www2.townonline.com/brewster/schoolSports/view.bg?
articleid=226536

The 40th anniversary Braemar-City of Lakes Ice Show will be held at
6:30 p.m. Friday and Saturday (April 29-30) at the Braemar Ice Arena,
7501 Ikola Way, Edina, Minnesota:
http://www.mnsun.com/story.asp?city=Edina&story=156590

The Figure Skating Club of Bloomington will present its annual ice
show, with performances slated for 7 p.m. Saturday, April 30, and 2
p.m. Sunday, May 1, at the Bloomington Ice Garden, 3600 W. 98th St.
in Bloomington, Minnesota (features their own club skater/actress,
Kirsten Olson, who plays Nikki the jumping shrimp in Disney's "Ice
Princess" movie):
http://www.mnsun.com/story.asp?city=Bloomington&story=156454

April 30 in Aspen, Colorado -- "Alice Skates Through Wonderland"
featuring 2005 U.S. junior men's champ, Jeremy Abbott (2 articles):
tp://www.aspentimes.com/article/20050429/SPORTS/104290046
and
http://www.snowmassvillagesun.com/home.php?
content=article&article=1618

April 30 in Bolton, Connecticut (to benefit March of Dimes) -- the
following info was posted elsewhere online:
The Bolton FSC annual show will be held this year on Saturday April
30 at 1 pm and 6 pm. Appearing will be 2002 World Jr. silver medalist
Emilie Nussear, International TOI pewter medal winners Bolton Theater
on Ice, and skaters from the Bolton FSC. A portion of the proceeds
will benefit the March of Dimes. Tickets are $10 at the door and the
rink is located on Route 6 in Bolton, CT, just outside of Hartford.
Info 860-533-9482.

"Broadway on Ice," sponsored by Greater Grand Rapids Figure Skating
Club, 3 p.m. Saturday, April 30 and Sunday, May 1 at 5:00 PM.,
Standard Federal Ice Center, 2550 Patterson Ave. SE, Grand Rapids,
Michigan.

April 30-May 1 in Boston, Mass. -- Ice Chips Show of Champions "City
Lights": http://www.scboston.org/icechips2005/web/IceChips2005.htm

Reports would be welcomed!

--Sylvia

--- In SkateFans@yahoogroups.com, "Fred Goss" <ghgang@n...> wrote:

The ship is sinking. TV revenues are dropping out of the sky like an
early flight short program combo.

That status and prestige of the sport are at stake in this election as
much as how a continued loss of prestige would hurt the thousands of
small clubs and their learn-to-skate programs. Those programs depend on
TV broadcasts inspiring scores and scores of 8 year old girls to ask
for skating lessons.

In a hundred years no one has hurt figure skating more than Ottavio
Cinquanta. Someone needs to blunt him before we can ultimately stop him.

That person is Ron Pfenning.

Ben Currie

http://www.bookcloseouts.com/default.asp?
N=3289&promo=Inventory+Reduction+Sale

Searched under skating and a number of items came up, many geared
towards children but several of interest to adults and at a good price.

Meagan Leigh

--- In SkateFans@yahoogroups.com, "Sandra Loosemore" <sandra@f...>
wrote:
>  I also spoke earlier this week with
> one of the athlete delegates who was still undecided -- and since the
> athletes carry 20% of the vote, their vote could swing things either
way.
>
> -Sandra the cynic

Lets hope the athletes develop some backbone and get involved and not
just quote the "I really like the new judging system," line.  I'm
cynical that they would dare step out of line and vote for Pfennig
because they are fearful of retribution if things remain status quo.

I've seen many former and eligible skaters appointed to committees in
the last 20 years and yet nothing has changed.  It's like sororities
and fraternities.  Pledges go through hazing and vow to change things
and once they get in they go along with the rest of the group.

Meagan Leigh

Fred Goss said:

> Tell me if I'm wrong but my assumption is that the regional VPs and others
> will be at GC with more than enough proxies from the little clubs that
> dont
> attend that election of Hershberger will be a mere formality...even though
> there are many who feel differently.

I dunno; I've heard that some of those "little clubs" have decided to give
their proxies to Pfenning instead.  I also spoke earlier this week with
one of the athlete delegates who was still undecided -- and since the
athletes carry 20% of the vote, their vote could swing things either way.

-Sandra the cynic

Tell me if I'm wrong but my assumption is that the regional VPs and others
will be at GC with more than enough proxies from the little clubs that dont
attend that election of Hershberger will be a mere formality...even though
there are many who feel differently.

Fred

One of the reasons I strongly endorse Ron Pfenning for the next USFSA president
is that he has already exhibited one of the important qualities that is
necessary to be strong president during these turbulent times in skating. If US
skating is to be successful in the ISU then "rounding up the troops" and getting
other countries to buy into your proposals is pivotal in being successful. US
skating can't get it done on its own. Pfenning was very successful doing this in
his formation of the WSF. Look how many representatives he had supporting the
WSF that came from different countries. You had Italy, Australia, Britain,
Hungary, Japan, Sweden, Canada, etc. Its this type of work that needs to be done
in preparation for an ISU Congress. Pfenning has been around skating for a long
time both at the national and international level. Trying to start the WSF he
then became known to everyone in skating. How many people outside of the US even
know who Ron Hershberger is? He was neither a skater nor a judge so he really
isn't known at all in international circles. When US skating goes out to "round
up the troops" in order to try and get their proposals passed at an ISU Congress
this type of thing will be much more difficult for Ron Hershberger to succeed at
than Ron Pfenning. Everyone in the ISU already knows Pfenning. A phone call from
Pfenning will carry much more weight than a call from Hershberger.


David Forberg

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]