DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Simply TKD (Taekwondo)
HTML https://simplytkd.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Taekwondo in General
*****************************************************
#Post#: 442--------------------------------------------------
2014 Annual Congress
By: Ladytkd Date: November 4, 2014, 9:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I really wanted to give good marks to the Annual Congress. I
wanted to see signs that things are truly changing. I really
want this as much as I wanted it to end earlier than it did as I
had a fundraiser for the Drew Pet Foundation to attend.
They started off badly - no 30 day notice. Dumping an event on a
calendar is not notice. If I have to explain this to them, what
is the point? Meeting was set for an inconvenient time for
members and not blasted out so that members could change plans
to attend. Just like so many things, Aspire Camp funds come to
mind, poor execution.
They promised an agenda and copies of the questions would be
posted 10/30/14. Never happened. Probably never intended to do
it.
The management report was a rehash of a bunch of old ideas
dusted off with the latest jargon. Really? Tag Team event in
the fall? Where have we heard this? Oh yeah, Rocky Mountain
Open - had to cancel Tag Team because only 2 teams registered.
Didn't work then, but it might work now? Let's do some math on
the number of schools that can put together a team and work from
there.
Membership dues are not going up - until 2016 because the dues
have never gone up in 40 years. Really. Guess I am dreaming that
dues were once $25 and $15 and they were raised to $35 and $20?
BTW Askinas raised club dues from $100 to $135 and that was no
dream.
I really love the answer to Ron Marlow's question. Ron had filed
an ethics complaint against the BOD Chair. They negotiated an
out of court settlement that said the BOD and Staff would have
to take a special Ethics Training by July 2014, with a special
emphasis on conflicts of interest.
The answer was that in January, months prior to the complaint
the board had done a class on ethics and would do so again in
January 2015 as part of their onboarding of new members.
Really? Since the offense took place after the BOD had a
training class which I gather was not much of a class and the
deal was Mr. Marlow was to be involved in designing this class -
how can the requirements of the agreement have been met?
This was cheesy all around. When you give your word and you
don't follow through, again another reason not to trust the
USAT.
The deal was a class that Mr. Marlow and the Ethics Chair would
help put together and it would have a strong emphasis on
conflict of interest. It did not happen, just like the Aspire
camp accounting, and a host of other things - then to wave it
off as done because a class which obviously didn't take had been
taken before the offense occurred.......
Disappointing to say the least. Shows again there was no real
attempt to give honest answers to real questions.
Statements were made that were easily debunked. One member was
told she could not have a membership list because of privacy
issues, yet Section 17.7 2 (b) clearly delineates how one might
obtain said list.
Supposedly State Presidents have all received a copy of a
template bylaw from USAT, but then I get notes from state
presidents who say they have asked for same and didn't get it,
despite repeated requests.
One member asked about the voting requirements for clubs. The
answer was those are set by the states. That is all well and
good for state elections, but let's look at sections 5 and 7 of
the USAT BYlaws, there are different requirements to vote for
the Club Director. This is defined by the states? Really? I'd
say I am surprised but I know they don't read the bylaws and
that is even after they wrote them. Still misspelled the USAT
name in Section 3 and no one caught it. No, they don't read
those pesky bylaws.
It was stated emphatically that BOD Directors did not have a
requirement to make a financial contribution to the USAT.
Really? Read the USAT website - oh yeah, one of the notices is
buried - read ladytkd.com, it has the quote stating that all
candidates have to make a financial contribution. In that it is
anonymous and can be any amount - just give .50 and do it.
Ridiculous.
Athletes are going to take it on the chin - must have USAT
branded uniforms and gear. Kaching. Hopefully what you have
meets that criteria already and hope they don't change vendors.
Athletes must have a physical to set baselines for their health.
Hope the insurance covers this. Kaching if not.
They are going to build membership - have tiered memberships.
Yawn, another Askinas program. Been there, done that.
The AAC is going to work on those policies and procedures that
were supposed to be on the website already. I listened to a lot
of rhetoric on how the AAC has come so far. Really? How? Two
years into their term, 1 meeting this year maybe, no minutes, no
policies, no procedures, BOD members who miss most of the
meetings. Their gains are the USOC AAC Rep gets to be part of
the High Performance Team. I hope there are at least emails
sharing the information from there because there aren't
quarterly meetings. The USOC AAC Rep gets to be involved in a
lot of things. They are enforcing 20% AAC representation because
I remember the attorney telling the BOD they had to have it, not
because the AAC stood up and demanded it. AAC needs to quit
talking and start doing. Enough said. Don't tell what you are
going to do, been hearing about those policies and procedures
since 2006 and they are still not done.
I did like hearing that communication sucks (I am paraphrasing)
and that the lack of institutional knowledge is hurting them.
That sounded positive until it was clarified they meant only
what they have been doing since 2013. SMH.
The Governance Committee is trying to figure out how to arrange
terms. Not like that conversation hasn't happened before. AAC
and USOC AAC have terms set by the USOC. Period. End of Story.
Want to fix this, change the terms of the Poomsae AAC so that
they stagger because those are the only ones who can change.
This isn't rocket science. It has already been discussed by so
many different groups and every time it comes up, let's reinvent
the wheel.
What else? Really there was no substance to the meeting. Thanks
to Ron Southwick who stood up and gave the correct medal counts
on the Poomsae Team - 4 GOLD, 5 Silver and 11 Bronze. The
Poomsae contingent numbered 90 with 52 athletes. Are these
numbers on USAT website - of course not. Thanks Ron. The Poomsae
group does an incredible job on their own.
Big Priority, treating VIP's better at the US Open.
People want to do something with high schools. Yawn. Randy
Waitman did that how many years ago? 10? 20? It has been in
USTU and USAT magazines over the last 15 years. He still has the
information, and fortunately is not tired of dusting it off
again to show how it can be done. Great idea. Why has it never
been pushed all the previous times it was put out there.
All lawsuits against USAT have been settled or died off. A year
ago there were 12-18. I suspect sometime in the next year there
will be a filing on the girls they ignored and allowed a
suspended coach to attend USAT sanctioned events. But it hasn't
been filed - yet.
They're going to maximize social media. Start with the website.
More referee training.
They have to adopt the WTF National Medical Committee.
USOC wants $30K for implementation of Safe Sport. So in January
when USAT makes their last payment to the USOC for the old loans
and repayments, they can start shelling out for Safe Sport.
Looking to dump hangastar. Most people can get around that one.
The USAT paid that $39K in legal fees to get off probation.
House attorney is cheap, just attended all meetings. He
reviewed bylaws and then had them returned by USOC Hearing Panel
twice and the new board had to review and revise and they still
can't spell USAT.
Reading between the lines, based on Management reports - Staff
doesn't get along too well with audit committee but is going to
develop trust. Trust issues between CEO and BOD. Trust issues
between membership and BOD and CEO. WTF relations good, KKW
relations great, PATU relations are horrible. USOC needs to
"buy-in" to the National Coach model. (My interpretation. If
anyone goes to the Olympics, USOC wants Jean and Juan to be the
coaches. My personal opinion only and a lot of chatter from USOC
sources.)
Once again we heard they will increase communication. Hear that
and transparency every speech and it still doesn't translate to
action. They now have an action board to track communication and
response times. But they ask that you give staff leeway as the
whole staff has turned over but Penny Warren.
One USAT Athlete has qualified for the Final Grand Prix -
congrats to Stephen Lambdin!!!!
All in all my final observation, heard it all before. As I tell
my daughter and have told her since she was small, "Don't tell
me what you are going to do - JUST DO IT!!!"
#Post#: 443--------------------------------------------------
Re: 2014 Annual Congress
By: Ladytkd Date: November 4, 2014, 1:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
BTW the answer last night to the voting requirements of the
clubs was just plain wrong, except as far as being able to vote
in a state election. Perhaps a review of the bylaws would be a
good thing. From today's page
Anyone on the call remember when the CEO said that the states
determine the voting requirements for clubs. Someone should
read Section 5.1 "BTW section 5.1 quoted above contradicts
the statement by the CEO on voting requirements for clubs.
"Club members. Club members are those Taekwondo clubs that
register as clubs, and agree to conduct their programs in
accordance with and agree to be bound by the rules and
regulations of USAT, and comprise a group of individual USAT
members with a workout or training location distinct from any
other Club member. Club members with at least 35 individual USAT
members shall be entitled to vote as Club members, and Club
members with fewer than 35 individual USAT members shall not be
entitled to vote."
7.6.e
e. Club Member Director. The USAT shall solicit open
nominations for Club Member Director from those USAT registered
Club Members who have been Club Members for the two years
preceding the election year and in the election year and who
have registered at least 35 USAT Members in those years. The
Record Date for determining individual membership numbers is
sixty days before the first date of the start of the elections.
Each Club Member shall have one (1) vote in such election, and
the individual receiving the highest number of votes shall be
elected the Club Member Director.
Notice that 7.6e says nothing about having 35 members as defined
in 5.1.
Notice 5.1 says there needs to be a distinct location.
#Post#: 444--------------------------------------------------
Re: 2014 Annual Congress
By: Ladytkd Date: November 4, 2014, 1:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Let's get back to the main idea behind having to wear USAT
branded gear at USAT events. The thought was to expand the
brand and put it out there. BUT.... if someone is at a USAT
National event where they have to wear USAT branded gear, how
does this spread the brand? These are the people who are
already members and you would not be expanding the brand because
they are already members and already are giving you money. All
it is going to do is to make a couple vendors happy.
#Post#: 447--------------------------------------------------
Re: 2014 Annual Congress
By: Bagehot Date: November 6, 2014, 11:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]It was stated emphatically that BOD Directors did not
have a requirement to make a financial contribution to the USAT.
Really? Read the USAT website - oh yeah, one of the notices is
buried - read ladytkd.com, it has the quote stating that all
candidates have to make a financial contribution. In that it is
anonymous and can be any amount - just give .50 and do it.
Ridiculous.[/quote]
I suspect that this is suggestive of the relative inexperience
of these Board members. Which is troubling in the case of the
"independents" because they are supposed to be there precisely
to bring outside and worldly experience to this Board including
accepted standards of non-profit Director behaviors.
From the Journal of Philanthropy, October 29, 2014:
[quote]Nonprofit leaders gave their boards an average grade of B
minus, according to a study, and trustees were judged to be
better at technical tasks like financial oversight than they
were at setting strategy or reaching out to the community.
As in years past, fundraising was cited as a significant
concern; 60 percent of chief executives said it was the area
their boards most needed to improve.
The study was conducted by BoardSource, a nonprofit group that
works to improve governance.
In 1994, chief executives said that 60 percent of their board
members gave money to the organization, a figure that grew to 85
percent in this year’s survey. But giving by 100 percent of all
board members—the gold standard espoused by BoardSource and
other nonprofit experts—was reported by only 60 percent of the
respondents in this year’s survey.
Many nonprofit organizations set minimum donations expected by
trustees and encourage them to contribute at least that amount
and ask others to follow their example. But trustees remain
challenged when it comes to asking family members, friends, and
colleagues for donations; 43 percent of board members in this
year’s survey, about the same as in previous years, said they
are uncomfortable asking for money.[/quote]
Then resign from the Board.
HTML http://philanthropy.com/article/Nonprofit-CEOs-Say-Board/149695/
-- Bagehot
#Post#: 448--------------------------------------------------
Re: 2014 Annual Congress
By: Ladytkd Date: November 6, 2014, 11:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Bagehot link=topic=112.msg447#msg447
date=1415294655]
I suspect that this is suggestive of the relative inexperience
of these Board members. Which is troubling in the case of the
"independents" because they are supposed to be there precisely
to bring outside and worldly experience to this Board including
accepted standards of non-profit Director behaviors.
From the Journal of Philanthropy, October 29, 2014:
Then resign from the Board.
HTML http://philanthropy.com/article/Nonprofit-CEOs-Say-Board/149695/
-- Bagehot
[/quote]
I was told that it was not a requirement, no one saw that
document or any of the others and maybe at some point in time
they can consider working toward it.
I know my sister is/has been on several non-profit boards. She
usually has to kick in $2500 for each one as part of being
selected to be on that board.
#Post#: 449--------------------------------------------------
Re: 2014 Annual Congress
By: Bagehot Date: November 6, 2014, 11:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]I was told that it was not a requirement, no one saw that
document or any of the others and maybe at some point in time
they can consider working toward it.[/quote]
There's an easy solution. Non-constituency directors should be
obligated to donate $2,500 each, annually. A constituency
director should make a motion that this be a requirement. Then
the "Independent" directors can be on record as to whether they
support this organization or not.
*****************************************************