TaekwondoDad
Yellow Belt
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=htt...QEJcZVcAQGCbKnTQnxCned4k_4snIvartVJ5Nec_rPGGg
Here you go. Red meat for lunch. Enjoy
Here you go. Red meat for lunch. Enjoy
USOC Slaps Down USAT- Link to Ruling
- Thread starter TaekwondoDad
- Start date
The USOC has always been part of the problem. I do not know why I expected more. Our coach said it was to good to be true and she was right. When are we going to be allowed to have real leadership in Sport TKD. Cronyism does not stop at the USAT it has a home at the USOC.
The USOC leadership today is different from the leadership from 2004. One thing the hearing panel said was that they do not want a repeat of what happened in 2004, when things were changed abruptly that should not have been changed. Consequently, the USOC Hearing Panel, and the USOC is taking a measured, thoughtful, long term, big picture approach, in one way by NOT reacting or responding to illogical irrational hysteria or heckling, like last time. I give the USOC credit for this approach. They want to do the right thing, and is taking the time to do it right.
I went back and read the ruling just to see if I missed something. They praised the illegal hiring of the interim CEO as positive step. He is part of the problem and has to go. If anyone who was involved in this bad organization is left it will continue to go down hill. As far as 2004 as I have some idea of what went on I am not as poorly connected as you might think.
I understand some feel that Mr. Parthen's hiring was "illegal". In fact, his hiring was suggested and paid for by the USOC, which I believe at least some of the complaintants consented to. I do not believe that USAT had a real option of refusal on the matter. I also think that the reason why the USOC Hearing Panel praised the hiring of "an interim CEO" (not specifically Mr. Parthen) was because it was a suggestion from the USOC, and they wished to praise all efforts by USAT to comply with the USOC's wishes and suggestions. They were not praising Mr. Parthen specifically, but rather they were praising the act of hiring an interim CEO to "address certain management issues".
Mr. Parthen also said that if and when a new board is seated, he will leave it up to them whether he is to be retained or not, and that he would not be filing an application for the position. So the likelihood that he will remain if and when a new board is put in place is highly doubtful. I will say that Mr. Parthen's chances of retention would have been much greater had he not taken such a proactive role in the complaint process that he had. If it were me in his shoes, as interim CEO I would have stayed out of the proceedings completely, the justification being that the complaints deal with policy making issues, and not the day to day operations which is his charge as CEO.
PS: I never said that you were "poorly connected". That is your phrase, not mine.
grassroots = state associations. As for the coaching committee, there is at least one plan for that already worked out, designed to, among other things, improve the quality and quantity of athletes and coaches nationwide. Can't say much about it at the moment, "always in motion is the future", but I will say that those who participate the most will be rewarded and further encouraged for their contributions.
I have no doubt that Parthen's hiring was facilitated and paid for by USOC. I am sure that after a few weeks of dealing with Kevin Padilla directly and realizing how incompetent he is, they would have accepted anyone. I am sure they made a condition of some kind. However, I am also sure that the USOC wrongly assumed that Padilla would go back to the BOD and get them to legalize the hiring as Padilla can't hire a USAT CEO. The USOC can't hire a USAT CEO unless they have assumed control of the organization as they did in 2004. Fact is that Dr. Jason Han testified that he found out about the hiring when he read it. He did not vote. No AAC involvement here. This leaves the "illegal" cloud over Parthen as the faux BOD Chair can't hire a CEO no matter who tells them to do it. I think they gave him too much credit for brains he does not have and assumed he would legitimize the hiring by having a vote - but he did just what Mark WIlliams did to get elected to the BOD, he never took the vote. As of the hearing, there still hadn't been one putting all actions by Parthens under some kind of cloud. All the d*ps*** had to do was take a vote and post the minutes. This could have been part of why the ruling states they are out of compliance on management competency and effectiveness. If some of the complaintants agreed, not all did and the AAC representative, that 20% required by the Ted Stevens Act were not given the opportunity. Lack of transparency causing more problems.
Last edited:
And if that were done, then the argument would have been there is no quorum and therefore the vote was "illegal". So what does it really matter?
Actually I was referring to Mark Williams and NASTO. Mark wanted to add states that had applied for a 501c3 but had not received it. He polled legit states and asked if they would support. Pretty much all agreed they would, many to get Mark out of their face. So Mark took that as permission but never actually called the vote.
As far as the other one, the quorum issue is very valid as is the lack of 20% athlete representation. Eric Laurin was not given due process and during the period where he recused himself, the BOD did not contact the USOC Alternate AAC Rep although the bylaws specifically stated that the next highest voter getter of the opposite sex would be the alternate. in that the BOD did not contact Ms. Kunkel, the athletes were denied full athlete representation since last June.
Giving whomever in the USOC came up with Mr. Parthen, who was unemployed since last Feb and sitting in COS, they benefit of the doubt perhaps they did not realize that there were issues with the quorum and the 20% AAC representation or they would not have set USAT on yet another path to more legal action. Or that Mr. Padilla had violated Section 8 of the bylaws by not holding a chair election the first meeting of the odd year and then illegally continuing to hold that position.
The lack of transparency (also noted by the USOC Hearing Panel in their ruling) tends to create an atmosphere of suspicion of anyone involved with USAT leadership at this moment. All they would have had to do would be to disclose the meeting minutes (none posted since 8/19/11) and those attending and voting. The refusal to disclose the actions of this board in the last year gives the membership in general the feeling they are violating laws and bylaws. Perhaps that is why it is one of the key findings against USAT.
And if you asked Mark about all of this, like I did, he would tell you that if ANYONE else, including Kim, wanted to step up and do the job, he would have gladly let them.
So what is the point, that no matter what USAT did, it would have been wrong?
Then perhaps you should go complain to the USOC about that.
That might all be true. However, I think you are missing the point, which is the membership doesn't want to hear about all the ways that USAT has screwed up anymore. they know already, and they know that the USOC knows. What they want is for things to get better. And in my opinion, I think that we will accomplish that much quicker by listening to the USOC and complying with their wishes, which includes the hiring of an interim CEO. I do not think that the USOC believes that Mr. Parthen is the long term solution. Do you?
Actually I did communicate with Mark. And considering sometimes the story changes, I got it all from him in writing. Mr. Williams has been known to forget sometimes. I have the email exchanges where Kim did offer to do it, where he offered to assist with the 501c3 and all that and was told to f* off by Mr. Williams and crew. There is quite an exchange. Mr. Williams refused assistance and refused to do what was required of him. Mr. Williams has admitted in writing there was no vote, making the majority of votes in that election invalid. BTW the voter list was given USAT by candidate Mark Williams. Ask Mr. Sol, he has even more documents from Mr. Williams trying to cut him and Mr. Chambliss out of the organization. BTW where is the $5600 that was in the NASTO treasury?
No the point is that group of people currently sitting are incapable of following a bylaw as they don't know them and feel they are above them, as evidenced by their actions. They didn't even try to stay legal. I think the message to the membership is that these people need to go away where they can do no more damage.
I would venture a guess you know it was all part of the Section 10 exhibits. I did love the Kim Sol deposition the best, no need for me to re-word when like minded person who writes so beautifully already had. I believe this is where the Hearing Panel decided that the USAT BOD was out of compliance in competence and managerial abilities.
On one thing we agree, Mr. Parthen is short term, in spite of his desire to be long term. Many people don't care if USAT gets better,t hey have had a enough. Those who look for improvement have a severe mistrust of USAT and Mr. Parthen and the USOC who allowed all this to spiral out of control. in that the USAT is not making even the simpliest of actions to mitigate issues - for example, posting the minutes of meetings held by the BOD, as required by the bylaws, no annual meeting, no announcement of the 4th qtr meeting and then all those revelations in the last few weeks like finding out the BOD knew about the allegations against David and took no action while taking it very seriously, or that they knew the membership numbers were faked. Post the minutes, admit the actions, move forward. Members don't trust anyone at this point.
Last edited:
Don't know. Don't care.
It wasn't a deposition, but I and others agree that you and Kim are like minded.
.
Wow, what a sad place to be. I must hang out with a different crowd than you because that is not the sense I get. People do care. People do want things to get better. They want to believe. They are tired of AAU and other organizations and the issues which arise from being a part of those other organizations. The USTU is their roots, that is where they grew up. That is the organization that gave them a lot of the good things in their lives, they anxiously await its return, and are ready and willing to help make it so, ready and willing to help make amends. There is an army amassing in the tall grass, patiently waiting for the right time and the right conditions to spring into action.
But you are consistent, which is a good thing.
I would love to go back to USAT or USTU or whatever name they may call it. I first want an equal and fair playing field for all mebers, second I would like toknow that we can have access to books, paperwork and fair elections. My biggest concern would be if paperwork that got lost or so they say and those people that it effected would be reinstated by the new org back to where they was before the break up. I know Puunui and Rhonda have there differences and so do so many but I would love to see people putting a side those prity things and work for the betterment of TKD in America..
If that happened, would you come back?
What do you mean paperwork that got lost? What paperwork?
I just got back from OTC. We need to put aside old rivaries. The current CEO is not the answer to much baggage with HP. He starts to stammer when ever someone brings up getting Herb out of the org. The old USTU is not the answer. TKD leadership needs to put aside selfish motives and put together an NGB that operates for the sport and the athletes. The current group had it's chance get out. You have done enough damage. Maybe the USTU was a good org at one time but in the end it became corrupt and killed itself. I have heard some good ideas about how the organization can run but I am afraid that selfish interests will not allow the to happen.
That about sums it up.
