USARFU board facing restive congress

USARFU's board of directors, facing an increasingly restless congress, appears to be condescending to the supervisory group.

An otherwise terse report of the 9-member board's May meeting pointedly asserts that members of congress are ignoring good news because they are having a hard time changing from a decision making to an oversight role. 'The expressions of frustration by some very well may emanate from the reduced role of accepted [sic] after the new structure was effected,' reads the report, which goes on to chastise congress for 'ambush calls' that are 'a self-fulfilling prophecy of complaints.'

'If it is not clear, the [board] meeting was fairly dominated by the discussion over congress, its roles, the manner of further engaging its members, and how to satisfy the negative vocal commentators who then reflect poorly on the governance of the sport,' reads a coda.

Earlier last month, in response to complaints about scarce information regarding board and staff developments, chief executive Nigel Melville delivered a note instructing the congress to refer to the union's by-laws.

The dissatisfaction comes as the directors prepare to present the union's next strategic plan to September's once-a-year congress meeting, set for Dallas.

The 27-person body, charged to 'debate the strategic direction of the sport and review how the board is functioning', is perforce to evaluate the forthcoming blueprint based on its understanding of what has happened over the past four years. But some feel that limited financial information makes it hard to assess the board's performance.

'The [board] discussed the financial requirements to achieve the desired levels of growth. Revenue targets for the next 3 years would be a graduating amount in excess of $10 [million]. The chairman [Kevin Roberts] and CEO will discuss and finalize the [strategic] plan for discussion with congress at the 9/12/09 congress meeting in Dallas TX,' the report says of ongoing planning work.

Backed by the International Rugby Board (IRB), the Roberts-led board has bet heavily that international improvement is the key to domestic growth. But neither the congress nor anyone else has had little real insight into 'high performance' (HP) operations, which go beyond consequences of the sidelined professionalization strategy or three Eagles coaches in three years to encompass the sources of income that cover HP expenses: IRB grants, commercial sponsorship, dues (Club and Individual Participation Program, or CIPP), and event income.

Some members of congress remain uneasy with the 2005 vote to allow member dues to support the Eagles, and wonder how the board will reconcile slippage in the world rankings with the international focus.

For example, during the present two-month assembly, the men's Eagles are said to be spending tens of thousands each week. What are the amounts and percentages of revenue that go into the national team budget? There are also questions surrounding the effects of Boulder office staff pressed into event-management duty during the Churchill Cup, as turnover in the marketing and events group has been continuous.

Meanwhile, although the report to congress trumpets the revenues which have grown to $8.9 million in 2009 from $4.3 million in 2006, it turns out that college and high school rugby have not increased any faster than in the years beforehand. Compound annual growth, as measured in player registrations, shows high school rugby gained at the exact same rate of 15 percent per annum from 2006-09 as it did from 2002-05, while college registrations actually grew faster in the prior period, 11 percent to 8 percent.

Many congress members would be considered 'grassroots activists' with strong interest in youth segments. Notwithstanding, assessing the opportunity cost of the international strategy necessarily implies comparison with the projected outcomes from investing more heavily in other areas of the game.

Specifically written for the congress, the report suggests that the board does a poor job of communicating positive outcomes, and goes on to spell out chairman Kevin Roberts' vision of the congress. Key functions include:

• Support the board unconditionally on every aspect of the strategic plan
• Support the USA Rugby staff on their execution of the strategy
• Serve as communications partner between the BOD and membership

Financial oversight is not mentioned. The 2006 strategic plan outlines a different view, including 'to receive the accounts for the preceding ended financial year'.

Related:
Melville: USARFU pro strategy scaled back
Johnson resignation reopens past chapters
On the high performance era: The execution

Comments

[wow]

For crying out loud, in their own words no less.

If these punks spent as much time working on the problems as they spent trying to "market" the Congress and membership maybe we could get somewhere.

This administration has a four year track record of failure. Their plan has been exclusively Eagles/elite driven and not only has it not worked for the Eagles, it has resulted in US rugby going backwards in the important areas such as HS, college and our domestic game in general.

I'm surprised to hear that some Congress members have been standing up to the foreign invasion. I had come to understand from this blog they had all rolled over and were playing dead. Good on the Congress members who are standing up to this administration.

The truth will set us free.

[Average Joe]

Oh man, can I attend these meetings ?

What a load of bullsh*t Roberts his board, and Melville have gotten away with.

Does anyone know if a CIPP paying member(s) can attend ?

[Vitamin G]

Spending 10,00 per week?
I hope this is for steroids, because 1 yard and a cloud of dust offense gets tiresome.

[sideline eye]

From what I hear directly from a Congress Representative following every board meeting they hold is quote "nothing to report". I can't understand how a large group of people gather on "our CIPP dime" every year to discuss nothing or better yet, get nothing accomplished! At every Socal AGM meeting the same response is given to the members, my impression is not only does the BOD not have our best interests neither does the Congress, for the Congress cannot achieve anything while their capabilities are restricted to providing ideas for the BOD to consider. Is it time to recall??

[Old Board]

I heard from a Congress member the BOD report came from Mullett who is the Congress rep on the Board.

His letter which accompanied the report was highly insulting to Congress. Coupled with Melville's "go check the bi-laws" line and Roberts demand for "unconditional" support it feels like USAR has been hijacked by a few newbies.

Where does this Board and CEO get off telling any of us how to contribute to our rugby union. We might not have made great progress every year prior to the takeover, but we made progress. From our beginnings as a rugby union in 1975 until the takeover in 2005 we made mostly steady progress.

Take away an 18 month period where Arnot and Latham tried to BK the union and we did damn well in fact.

Since 2005 we have been in decline even though USAR has received unprecedented support from the IRB.

For this administration to point to the bi-laws and tell us to shove off, or demand unconditional support after their disastrous performance is unacceptable.

Roberts et al, bring it on.

[might be a good idea]

I would like to better understand the plan to split the union between elite and club.

As best as we can tell the high schools and colleges provide 70% of the CIPP dues while receiving nothing other than third party insurance.

It's also clear only a 30% of the National Guard sponsorship is spent on the high school and college membership.

USAR overhead is way out of line the scale of the organization. USAR is way too small of an organization to be paying a CEO $275,000 and a Eagles coach a reported $250,000.

But, and this is a big but. If the club side of the game could keep it's dues and sponsorship money, while streamlining it's expenses to a scale more in tune with the status quo, then this might be a really good idea.

The big question is how trustworthy is this Board and CEO when it comes to dividing up the assets and expenses. Thus far they have proven to be unaccountable and greedy in their quest to win at the international level at all cost.

[good call]

Soooo sick of these foreign boys and their shtick, lets talk about something else.

Kurt you were the only site that didn't carry the UCSB Kevin Battle story about his academy summer plans. Well it turns out your instincts where correct, it's been canceled for lack of interest.

[Board Squating]

You can't trust any organization that does not allow transparency.

We all know this appeasement is some kind of mitigating, name change bullshit. It is another smokescreen and the gullible congress will play right into it.

This re-shuffling of deck chairs, allows the "Board Squatters" opportunity to change Charter verbage, create a unique brand which will allow the sale of the Eagles to the Chinese in 2012.

It would not surprise me to find out later down the road that these "Board Squaters" have mixed up the terms annuity and endowment.

[How did we get here]

Is it possible that even half of what is posted here about Chairman Roberts and the Board accurate ? If so, how was this allowed to happen ?

How has the Congress, made up of the very same people that used to challenge each other when they were the Board, now gone silent ?

The people that where on the Board (now Congress) when I was heavily involved in my LAU and somewhat involved in my TU would not take crap from anyone.

Seems like times have really changed.

I cannot figure it out ? What am I missing ? How did we get here ?

[Joke]

You can't trust any organization that does not allow transparency.

How transparent was it when Clark ran it???

[Expat Pat]

Well under Jack Clark's leadership we had cash rolling in via this great thing called sponsorship. The Eagles were self sufficient hell the mens national team even gave $$$ to the WNT.
Im sure nobody would complain about transparency if there was real sponsorship money rolling in and our budget was not exclusively CIPP dues.

[Been there]

If either current Congress members or posters (here) who were on the "old" Board are complaining about what's going on, then they have themselves to blame (except for one or two individuals). Like sheep, the vast majority voted for the restructuring with zero comprehension of what might take place. Sometimes, I wonder if most of the old Board even bothered to read the then-proposed by-laws.

They voted away their authority and they are being revisionist if they say otherwise.

Melville can point to the by-laws because the Congress is (in fact) powerless, with the exception of CIPP increases and by-law changes (both of which ALSO must be done in concert with the Board). Therefore, nothing can get done about the current setup (via the by-laws) unless the Board and Congress both agree to it.

Pretty sad stuff.

[Talk about being a Joke]

Hey "Joke"

Clark did not run the union, what he did do was he raised money for and coached the team. His sponsorship money paid for the entire national team operation including team events, travel, uniforms, meals etc.

During the period of time he was involved, the national team didn't cost high school and college players (or anyone else) a dime of their CIPP dues, and we didn't have to beg the IRB for $$ .

He certainly wasn't on the 250K that the current coach is being paid.

[Rubber stamp?]

Looking at the last three bullets, particularly "unconditionally" - does the Board expect Congress to rubberstamp everything they do? I'm certain that is NOT what any Congress expects.

[curious on-looker]

A quick scan of the USARFU by-laws indicates any and all board members can be removed by the congress article 5.7. If you dont like it get intouch with congress menbers and have them remove the board. This includes the CEO.

[quick fact check]

Joke...its on you mate.

Ian Nixon, Gene Roberts, Anne Barry and Neal Brendel ran USAR when Jack was the coach and then GM of the Eagles.

They all did a pretty fair job of running the Union as well. Barry might have said in best in the recent Rugby Magazine story on USAR, something to the effect that every program made progress under her watch. Something the foreign boys won't be able to say when they haul-ass blaming the mess on us.

As Kurt's article points out, the CIPP funds were restricted to domestic rugby. What Kurt doesn't mention is not only did the Eagles fund themselves, which they did well, they were also required to contribute to the general account of USAR. This is the model used world over, the national team helps pay for the kids, not the kids paying for the internationals the way USAR is run.

The Eagles paid for themselves, performed better, and they kicked in over a million dollars to domestic rugby over a period of years.

Now compare that to the current plan. The Eagles are performing worse and costing the budget of USAR more, far more.

Now what's wrong with how the Old Board had things organized again?

[Weak Congress]

I don't know about your TU, but ours elects rugby volunteer lifers that have achieved little, gadflies and rugby geeks to represent us on the congress. Not until there is real money in the game you will have weak people in the congress.

[Been there]

curious onlooker is quite correct. The Congress does have the power to remove on or more of the Board. Do they have the will? No, IMNSHO. There would be arguments about lawsuits (due to "character", etc.).

Section 5.7 Removal of Directors. The entire Board of Directors or any individual Director with the exception of the Athlete Representative Directors may be removed from office for cause upon the petition of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the Congress in office and the subsequent vote of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the Congress in office. For purposes of this Section 6.7, “cause” shall mean the failure by the Director to carry out his/her duties or responsibilities as a Director or any action or inaction which, in the discretion of the Congress, materially and adversely affects or may affect the Corporation.

[David C]

I live in Dallas and trying to find out where they are having it here. Many of us need to crash this meeting, peacefully of course. Time to overthrow this puppet regime or get some media to cover the waste of American money by a foreign led BOD.

[David C]

Been there, I posted that same info you did a few months ago about how to get rid of the board AND the email addresses of all the congress members. The funny thing was, a high ranking member at Boulder was the one who told me where to find it. I was told back then that the Congress were being controlled by the board and they were too chicken sh#t to do anything to oust them.
Surprised by Kurts article that the Congress actually did anything.
Bottom line was that I was told to get a hold of my local congress rep to voice my concerns for change. They're all listed on USAR's website.

[dallas location]

The meeting is being held at the law offices where Bob Latham works in Dallas.

This will be a wine and dine special aimed at rolling out the red carpet for the Congress in an attempt to win them over and keep them compliant in the unions business performance cover up.

Latham, as past chairman, was Doug Arnot's cover man and he has continued in this role as Roberts cover man. Roberts though he died and went to heaven when Latham fell into his lap as cover boy. Latham uses his old Congress ties to keep all the members on the reservation. Really sad or worse.

Latham wants to be in rugby so bad he has sold out US rugby for the pass to the USAR press box.

[David C]

Is this the guy?? http://www.jw.com/site/jsp/attyinfo.jsp?id=165

[yep]

That's your boy. Serial rugby administrator, who never gets his hands (or rugby boots) dirty. Never played the game much, bit of 3rd team stuff for the Quinns. Which didn't keep him from proclaiming he played rep rugby in his bio.

Not altogether a bad guy, he just wants to be in KR's club soooo so bad.

The foreign posse needs an American and Latham is their guy.

He was the Congress rep on the BOD, when his term was up last year KR puts the knife in the back of Vic H., an American he didn't like, and low and behold Latham slides into Vic's seat. It was an election move that would have made Iran's Supreme Leader blush.

[bpf]

can anyone tell me who ever decided that the way to grow a domestic sport was to put foreigners in charge?

[Foreigners]

The IRB decided it.

[full story in brief]

Not altogether true. The USAR administration of Doug Arnot, CEO and Bob Latham, Chairman of the BOD, went to Dublin and requested emergency assistance.

Latham and Arnot poured through millions in sponsorships, depleted the USAR reserve funds, without raising any funds through sponsorship or donations. It only took them about 2 1/2 years to BK the union.

This is when Tom Billups resigned, wanting no part of the mess.

The duo travel to Dublin and begged for the takeover and got it. The US couldn't completely fall apart in the IRB's plans.

The IRB then placed a temp group in charge and the temp group brought in the disaster that is known as the current administration.

[emerald1970]

MESSAGE