Motions
Motions
Board of Directors Meeting
Colorado Springs, CO
November 11-12, 2005
(Colorado
Springs, Nov. 11-12, 2005)
Board Members Present: Sheri Pittman (SP), Tong Lee (TL), Tim Boggan (TB), Robert Blackwell (RB), Barney D. Reed (BR), Dell Sweeris (DS), Willy Leparulo (WL), and Khoa Nguyen (KN).
Board Members Absent: Jiing Wang, George Brathwaite, Lily Yip, Ashu Jain, and Whitney Ping.
Also Present: USATT Executive Director Doru Gheorghe; USATT Administrative Coordinator Joyce Grooms; USTTA Tournament & Equipment Coordinator Felisa Huggins; USTTA Accounting Advisor Deborah Gray; USATT General Counsel Dennis Taylor; USA Table Tennis Editor, League and Club Programs Director Larry Hodges.
Friday,
Nov. 11
President Pittman began the Meeting by welcoming back Deborah Gray, now (with the departure of Carolyn Van Der Wege) our part-time Accountant.
Sheri then presented her President’s Report—opened by giving the Board an overview of the weekend’s Agenda.
Among the Goals to be met were:
Discussion and approval of the 2006 Budget.
An acceptance of “workability” guidelines that would address current “workability” problems. With 1-2-3-4-5 Board members absent despite nearly four months’ advance meeting notice, some strictures need to be put in place to foster attendance or better explain absences. Because 9 Yes votes (two-thirds of the total number of Board members, present or not) are needed to effect a By-law change, and since only 8 Board members were present, the scheduled subject of proposed By-law changes, urged by the USOC for its NGBs, could not be discussed to any conclusion. Resolutions as to By-law changes must be thought about and decided on by next Meeting in time for implementation. Affecting “workability” were the serious Board/staff interactions that hadn’t been properly taken up. Also having an adverse effect was other negative Board behavior. Some members persisted in antagonistic critical remarks, and, worse, grievances have been filed—practices that must be avoided in the future.
In addressing the issue of the delay in approving the Sept. 25, 2005 Minutes, Sheri stated that Board Meeting Minutes are generally meant to capture summary not verbatim discussions. The Sept., 2005 Minutes weren’t approved largely because of disputes over what was specifically said or not said.
For better “workability” Sheri urged a positive outlook for the future; in doing so, she acknowledged the helpful work of Doru, Tim, Tong, Dennis, and Larry.
Given that the previous Board Meeting had taken place just a month and a half before, the President had no formal USTTA ship-of-state speeches or reports on representations to make, but she did have some informal discussions: with Mitch Seidenfeld regarding state associations and the new By-laws needed to start setting them up; with Ross Brown on new By-laws; and with Wendell Dillon on Referee requirements.
Board members were to take their turn at this Meeting applying principles from Good To Great, the Jim Collins book. Each Board member had been asked to come ready to share what they were willing to contribute as a Board member and what steps they would like to see taken to move USATT from a negative past to a positive future.
Highlights since the Sept., 2005 Meeting included:
The Release Agreement signed by USATT and Killerspin.
The Association’s attention to Elite Youth Development as well as Elite Collegiate play (as reflected in the heavy attention Larry gave college competition in his most recent issue of the magazine).
The record-breaking entry in the National’s that will give the Association a net income far surpassing the Budget figure.
The designation of the USATT’s first Regional Training Center was now ready for Board consideration.
The USATT’s proposed League contract with North American Table Tennis, and NATT’s proposal to provide National Association customized Software/Database that would automate services and so help the USATT and its state associations to grow was also ready for Board consideration.
Efforts to get a correct interpretation of the World Junior citizenship rule were underway with the ITTF.
The Board’s willingness to welcome at our next Meeting an address by a representative of the ITTF’s TMS Marketing arm. It’s hoped he might help us to better understand and achieve our own marketing objectives.
After Sheri came Tong with his Treasurer’s Report. Mindful that Robert had filed a complaint against him with the Ethics Committee for an alleged misrepresentation of USATT financial information at the previous Board meeting, misrepresentation said to be done for the purpose of creating a false impression of the organization’s true financial situation, Tong took time to detail the expenses of the 2005 U.S. Open/Pro Tour. At the previous Board Meeting, Tong had presented the expenses of the U.S. Open/Pro Tour and simply said without further comment that the figures therein replaced the corresponding figures in the then current figures in the January-August 2005 financial statements. Now Tong presented the latest January-September 2005 financial statements that included the expenses of the 2005 U.S. Open/Pro Tour, including the $100,000 prize money for the Pro Tour, and then he painstakingly pointed out all the associated changes in the Profit and Loss vs. Budget-Detail, Profit and Loss vs. Budget-Summary, and the Balance Sheet that resulted from the recognition of the $100,000 in Pro Tour prize money.
From Profit and Loss vs. Budget sheets distributed covering the period from January through September, 2005, I note a few of the many items. Membership revenue seemed on the button—$240,327.08 (budgeted at $320,800). The subject of increasing concern for the Board, Fundraising (budgeted at $68,000 for the year) was bringing in at least as much as was expected—with $57,110.61 (and a 4th installment to come). Also, since there were more tournaments this season than last, sanction fees brought in more money, thus helping to raise the 9-month accumulation almost $2,000 over the budgeted 12-month total.
U.S. Open revenue was $229,960.49 (budgeted at $219,730); however, U.S. Open
expenses were $259,975.41 (budgeted at $196,000). Under the since abrogated Licensing and Sponsorship Agreement (LSA) with Killerspin, the $49,472 the USATT paid for Television of the Open had been Killerspin’s responsibility and so wasn’t included in the Budget. In addition, on the reverse side, USATT did not collect the sponsorship fee specified in the LSA. Taking a toll on Member Services was the $28,667.63 (representing more than $100/club) already paid out in Insurance-Club Liability…prompting one Board member to suggest raising the USATT Membership fee $1.
Regarding the legal expenses the USATT paid in their defense against Killerspin (their Agreement for Release allows referencing in these Minutes), Robert reminded the Board that the 2004 audited financial statements show, in addition to the nearly $91,000 incurred in 2005, there was also $24,000 incurred in 2004. Of that total Dennis’s law firm received $79,000. Robert wanted to know what paperwork had been submitted to the USATT’s insurance company for reimbursement—wanted to know if a claim had been filed by Dennis for the whole $115,000. This needed looking into. At the moment, it was impossible to say just how much the Association would be reimbursed…one could only speculate. Perhaps by tomorrow morning Deborah would have some helpful information for us.
Sheri pointed out that the Association’s operating revenues were producing surpluses; Dennis questioned the Paralympic revenue, and noted that the USATT’s graphic logo trademark had to be re-registered at a cost of perhaps $750; and Robert, noticing there was a lot of seasonality in our Budget, thought that perhaps a shorter-interval-than-quarterly breakdown would be advisable, but Deborah didn’t agree.
Next up was Doru with his Report. Important items included:
A change for Table Tennis in the Beijing Olympic Games: a Team event was going to replace the Doubles. Doru wasn’t sure if this would also happen in the 2007 Pan Am Games.
Before the Nov. German and Swedish Opens, Gao Jun was ranked #6 in the Pro Tour standings. Top 16 qualify for the Pro Tour Final.
Our U.S. Boys/Girls participated in the World Cadet Matches in Santo Domingo.
We’re about to have a record-breaking National’s (750-780 entries expected). Doru is surprised at how many players are willing to pay the Late Entry fee of $75.
The question of Jeff Lin Huang and Atha Fong’s eligibility to represent the U.S. in the upcoming National Team Trials has to be decided on.
Two additions to Headquarters Staff: as Programs Coordinator, Dana Schnell; as Bookkeeper, Jeanene Helfrich.
The U.S. Team to the 2006 Bremen World’s need consist of 3 men/3 women (funded)—with a 4th needed in reserve. A 5th may go, but would have to be self-funded. The system of play for the Bremen Team’s is available for study.
Changes in the High Performance Plan (HPP): more camps, less tournaments for juniors/cadets.
Regional Training Center assigned: New York International Center. Christian Lillieroos has a proposal for next year’s to-be-decided-on
National Training Center.
USATT/NATT 10-year League contract—Doru seeks Board approval.
2006 U.S. Open site/date being pursued.
State Associations have to be established.
Contract executed between USATT and (in connection with a Hall of Fame site) a National Sports Museum in New York City.
Larry’s Report consisted of two parts. With regard to the Magazine: 2005 ad
revenue was up $77,400—an increase of more than $10,000 over last year. The Nov.-Dec. issue became the 8th straight issue with at least $12,000 in ads. The magazine’s of course a membership service—but if we had 11,000 members, said Larry, we could break even on it. “Maybe we should go to 4 issues?” said Robert. As for the Web Page, Larry says he’s over-extended and so has turned over the job of Webmaster to Roy SeGuine. League stats of interest: 239 have been set up, 150 of them active within the past six months. In just over two years, 58,022 league matches have been played; active players number 4,749.
Prior to Adjournment for the evening, all Board members were asked to apply how they see themselves as Board members in terms of principles discussed in Good To Great. The prevailing metaphor of the book: no matter what improvements are needed, believe they can happen IF you get the right bus, the right people on it and in the right seats, especially the driver. “Face the brutal facts” the book advocated—and so, courageously, did Sheri—then move forward from there.
Tim opened with, “I’m looking out the bus window—landscape’s the same—soon I go to sleep.” Actually he was kidding, sort of. Much to his surprise in such a corporate book he saw himself, particularly as the Editor/President of the Association he was, obsessive/compulsive/perhaps delusional, perhaps not, but always one with a mission, to move toward greatness.
Robert, obviously aspiring to the highest level of leadership, was very critical of the Board he himself was part of. “We measure nothing,” he said. “Did we say we were going to do that? Why didn’t we?” Robert felt that we weren’t a performance-based organization. “There’s no penalty for non-performance,” he said. “We don’t act professionally, don’t have standards to adhere to.” The bus just drives around in the parking lot is pretty much his assessment—we don’t know where we’re going.
Willy didn’t like the way staff had been treated, and continually said so. Like Robert, he thought the Board had no vision, no real plan to get medals.
Khoa as the National Athlete Representative always tried to do his duty, be responsible to the players; he didn’t like the infighting, but he seemed to be in the right seat.
Barney felt we were missing a common goal, can’t buy into anything. We’re not developing athletes, not getting the full-time Training Center we need. He thought we lacked transparency, thought there was a lack of communication that amounted to a conspiracy among top-level Board members.
Despite having to listen to continued squabbles, especially between Tong and Robert, Dell, low-key like Khoa, wasn’t ready to try to move off the bus; his guard up, he’d await developments.
Tong said he was “devoted” to being on the bus. “I put USATT’s business above my self-interest,” he said. He and Sheri work successfully in tandem to assist Doru with directives—the bus can’t go on auto-pilot. Tong emphasized he was committed to excellence, to the highest ethical standards. The USATT needs money. We have to have a Marketing Director, he said; otherwise we’re not going anywhere. “Lily Yip makes more money at a tournament than we do at our U.S. Open.”
Larry said that the USOC, with its medal preoccupations, “forces Elitism on us.” “We have to grow the Sport. There’s so much negativism on the Board. We need to spend our time profitably.”
Dennis said he respects everyone in the room. He felt there was a misconception about the bus. It has to be understood there’s one bus driver who knows where he/she is going. At one time Dennis thought he’d like to be President of the Association. He wouldn’t want to be now.
Sheri was the President, felt she was exercising her duties in a conscientious, competent manner. She did not want to be a back-seat driver. Doru was the driver.
As the driver, Doru needed a rest stop, wanted to digest what he’d heard, sleep on it. He’d have upfront things to say tomorrow.
Saturday,
Nov. 12
Board Members Present: (the same as yesterday) SP, TL, TB, RB, BR, DS, WL, and KN.
Also Present: Doru, Dennis, Larry, Deborah, and Christian Lillieroos.
President Pittman opened the Meeting by calling for an Executive Session.
Robert, Dennis, Larry, and Christian left the room; Deborah remains.
After the Executive Session, our attention turned to Doru. More brutal facts. Where was he on the bus?
He wasn’t sure if the Board thought he should be on the bus…in the driver’s seat. He had mixed feelings about his position. The in-group skirmishes, the grievances, were undermining him. He’s lost enthusiasm, lost confidence. He can’t quit—it’s not his nature to do that. He can fight if he has reason to. But he’s becoming burned out. Who provides directions for the bus? Has to be the Board, not him—he follows through on the directives. In suffering the tension, the hassles between Board members, he feels that at the moment there’s no pleasure in the job. He wants the Board to take a vote of confidence in him.
Robert asks him, “How would you like to be judged?”
The answer in general: Willy-nilly, on the multiple tasks that I’m faced with. “Everything comes to me! We’ve got to have lots of people involved in the work.”
Robert wants to know if Doru can produce winners, medals—if he can commit to this goal.
Reply: Show me the money. He hasn’t got the young players now to challenge for medals. We have to quickly take advantage of our best prospects, our Elite Youth.
We need a visionary leader, says Dell. Need to regain our “workability.” Barney says Doru isn’t transparent enough, doesn’t communicate with the Board enough, particularly with regard to our High Performance Plan. More components need to be in place for our Elite Athletes.
The persistent question: Can Doru promise results?
But how? There’s some disagreement among Board members as to whether the establishment of Regional Centers are the answer. One needed component is a National Training Center…and Dr. Hal Jeffcoat, Texas Wesleyan University President, is committed to helping us establish one. Another needed component: a full-time Center abroad?
Doru leaves. The Board, preparing to take a vote of confidence in him, goes into Executive Session.
On coming out of Executive Session, the Board makes its first Motion of the day:
MOTION 1: Move that the Board express a Vote of Confidence in Doru Gheorghe as USATT Executive Director.
Proposed by: TL; seconded by TB.
Passed: 5-2-1.
Opposed: BR, WL.
Abstained: RB. (Note: Robert wants it made clear that, though he doesn’t think Doru’s right for the position of E.D., he does have confidence in his ability to successfully develop elite athletes.)
Tong suggests that Doru speak to the two Board members who voted against him about their concerns.
Discussion on the way to balancing the 2006 Budget:
Tong took us over the terrain of 13 spreadsheets.
As there was no Pro Tour this year, Tong went back to the 2003 season where there wasn’t any Pro Tour and budgeted the $127,000 actual amount there.
How much of the budgeted Foundation Grant’s $40,000 could we expect? Dell’s answer: 90% of the USATT’s request, or $37,800.
We know we’re going to get less funding from the USOC in 2006. Our estimate: $150,000.
Christian Lillieroos addressed us regarding the World University Championships. He argued that the U.S. should surely be represented there, and were we to win a medal it would give us worldwide recognition. Such a U.S. University Team ought to be considered as another National Team connected with Elite Athlete Development. Questions were raised as to how the Elite players would feel about this great expense. But as the USOC was not funding this Program, and the NCTTA was not asking for any other funds this year, if cuts could be made, how much, at a minimum, need be allotted for travel, and room and board for players and coaches to these Games?…Budgeted: $14,750.
Another significant decision, after some pro and con debate, was to allot the $50,000 requested by Doru for a staff position in Marketing.
Finally, to balance the Budget—which Dennis referred to as “a compilation of requests”—we needed to address the question of our Reserve Fund. Though we should have $500,000 in it, it was felt that $350,000 was sufficient, especially due to the Foundation’s purpose in providing annual funding to USATT.
MOTION 2: Move that the Board approve the 2006 Budget.
Proposed by: TL; seconded by TB.
Passed: 7-0-1.
Abstained: RB.
Although Sherri had planned to have a thorough discussion of the proposed By-law changes urged on us by the USOC, these were scarcely touched upon due to absences that would prevent the possibility of passing any By-laws at this meeting. Robert did ask about a Board position going to an Independent. Who or what was an Independent? That and other items among the By-law changes needed explaining. Dell wanted to see the Foundation continue to be represented on the Board.
Prior to adjournment Sheri Pittman addressed the Board and said that Willy’s term as Community Based Programs Representative would be officially ending within days after the Meeting. She said that it was her intention to nominate someone from the National Collegiate Table Tennis Association (NCTTA). If NCTTA could expeditiously hold an internal election to choose someone, then it would be her intention to nominate that individual to serve on the USATT Board. Sheri mentioned that the person could even be Willy. Sheri proposed to make an easy transition to the new USOC By-laws which state that an Affiliated Organization’s Representative can sit on the USATT Board. She went on to say that NCTTA has been the only organization of that nature to make this request and therefore she wanted NCTTA to conduct their own internal election and notify her of the results to further the concept of NCTTA making an easy transition into the new USOC bylaws for an affiliated organization representative.
The USATT/NATT League Services Agreement drew the Board’s attention—particularly the 10-year length of it. Suggestions were:
We should be very careful about giving this property away. So much is now in NTTA’s hands. Certainly the Board should review the contract before we sign it.
Perhaps there should be a termination clause, a buy-back clause? But Larry emphasized that in the beginning the NATT would lose a fortune, so obviously would not consider such a clause.
It was agreed that inquiries would quickly be made regarding the citizenship eligibility rules as they affected Jeff Lin Huang and Atha Fong, and definitive conclusions reached.
As the Meeting drew to a close, Motions came to the floor:
MOTION 3: Move that the Board accept the New Referee Requirements: “Effective January 2007 all referees for USATT tournaments must be qualified as a Certified Referee, National Referee or International Referee. Specific level requirements will be covered in the Tournament Guide.”
Proposed by: TB; seconded by KN.
Passed: 6-1 (RB out of the room).
MOTION 4: Move that the New York International Table Tennis Training Center be designated the first USATT Regional Training Center.
Proposed by: TB; seconded by: TL
Passed: 6-1 (RB out of the room).
MOTION 5: Move that in the Retirement section of the Human Resources Policy Manual the Benefits be changed
from:
“All full-time employees shall be eligible to participate in USA Table Tennis’ Tax Sheltered Annuity (TSA) program. After one year of employment, USA Table Tennis will contribute a 50% match equal to the employee’s Monthly TSA contribution. Employer match contribution amounts are subject to annual review during the budgeting process.”
to:
“All full-time employees shall be eligible to participate in USA Table Tennis’ SIMPLE IRA program. After one year of employment, USA Table Tennis will contribute a dollar-for-dollar match equal to the employee’s monthly SIMPLE IRA contribution, subject to an annual maximum of 2% of the employee’s earned compensation. Employer match contribution amounts are subject to annual review during the budgeting process.”
Proposed by: TL; seconded by RB.
Passed: 7-0-1.
Abstained: WL.
Adjournment.
Submitted by USATT Secretary Tim
Boggan (Feb. 19, 2006)
| |
| USA Table Tennis - Serving the Table Tennis Community |
| |