Is American rugby adaptive?

Is USARFU's revised approach to governing American rugby adaptive? Tomorrow's congressional meeting in Dallas could be revealing.

Fundraising and growth are among the 'professional' board's intended strengths that haven't proven out over the past three years. But the more important matter is whether and how the union revamps plans premised on more money and better athletes.

Can the congress help the board adjust our course?

Most of Boulder's revenue growth has come from the International Rugby Board's worldwide grant program, a National Guard pact originating with a rugby dad, or a dues hike that fell heavily on students. Meanwhile, membership gains have been in line with the decade's average, and so rugby, watching lacrosse embed within the schools' varsity system, has been passed at a standstill.

Despite an avowed focus on youth development, disproportionate spending on the high-performance programs and national team events has made the priority clear enough. But the Eagles, with three handpicked coaches in four seasons, have gone 6-24 and thus failed to become a growth engine.

Though they are not 'rainmakers', many congressional representatives have 'grassroots' skills where the directors have revealed blindspots. The catch is that exploiting America's alternate resources and strengths may suggest Boulder should make something other than the Eagles its primary pursuit, at least for the time being.

Then too, much of the congress has been feeling left out. Twice this year a body that was positioned as supervisory during the union's 2006 strategic planning process has had to ask for more actionable information: P/L documents, operating metrics, etc. And recently the chair opined that congressional responsibility is to unconditionally support the board.

Based on previous congressional meetings as well as the agenda, Dallas looks to be tightly controlled in an effort to stave off 'dissent'. But several topics may signal whether the next three-year cycle portends more one-way traffic or newfound cooperation and accountability:

• Finance: Gone are the days when the union was confident enough to make its budget public. But congress recently received a set of P/L statements that better more information and transparency. Will it get a proposed 2010 budget, and will future updates be regular, so the congress can evaluate the board's objectives against results?
  
• Strategic planning: The 2006-09 plan did not fare well. Remember the declared goals of raising revenue to $20 million, salaried national team and North American 4 players, or hosting the 7s World Cup? Will the board first assess the previous plan in its entirety, or skip blithely on to the next cycle?
  
• Cooperation: Recently the names of two director candidates were distributed to congress for ratification, as per the union's constitution -- without so much as the individuals' biographies or professional qualifications. In response, one director flatly declared he would vote not to ratify. Will the board opt for a trial of strength, or have the courage to withdraw the names and restart the selection process in a more inclusive fashion?

Related:
    Board disregards congress planning requests
    USARFU losses undermine strategy

Comments

[National Governing Overhaul]

Kurt - thanks for writing this series of posts over the last few days. We know you have a day job, just like many who volunteer to advance the game at personal costs.

I have read a few posts that complain this this site is negative and a "bitch session" to which a strongly disagree.

As the dues paying members, it is our responsibility to not blindly follow. We should be able to ask for and receive in a timely fashion, accurate financial information from the union and it 's officers.

Without Kurt's continued efforts to shine a light on what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future, we would all be much worse off.

As Gainline's moto reads; Rugby in America, the way it is, and could be.

The way it is (and has been for the last four years) BAD.

The way it could be (with different people on the Board and a change of CEOs).
SOMETHING TO BE PROUD TO BE A PART OF.

[LOL]

Within a year's time, State Based Organizations for high school rugby and a new college organization will forever change this rugby union. The dues, sponsorship, events and total administrative operational control of high school and college rugby will soon, very soon, be leaving USAR.

Meanwhile on the good ship Titanic sailing through Dallas this weekend the USAR Congress and the USAR BOD along with their executive staff are rearranging the deck chairs.

Talk about some dumb-ass people. Tell the truth, hasn't the last three years been almost laughable?

USAR is presenting a high gloss 2008 annual report 14 1/2 months after the close of fiscal 2008 and 8 1/2 months after the calender year-end. Very value use of Congress marketing dollars by the Board.

[college rugby!]

is that a promise? or are u just fantasizing like the rest of us

[Norris Elliott]

It is unclear from the posting or speaking with a Congress member what the financial numbers are so it is difficult to provide comment on what is written. Yet, if I was a Congress member I would want to look at high performance/national team numbers versus grass roots/membership numbers. I would be looking to see if the national teams/high performance programs overspent their budgets and then ask (if they did) why. I would also want to see if there was enough money coming in from membership to pay for all of grassroots rugby-national championships, national office staff, etcetera. If that part of the numbers did add up then you would really want to go back and ask why high performance and national teams (and any other areas) were so far over budget. It would also be interesting to see if there is any money left in any reserve funds (if USA Rugby has any) and then I would ask what was going to be done to "repay" the reserve funds. I might also consider asking what sponsorship dollars (not IRB grant money) - hard dollars and not VIK - were coming into the organization, what was being done to get more sponsorship dollars, and finally whether the organization was applying for any US based grants to replace those funds that were coming in from the IRB.

Also, if I were looking at the monies, it might be interesting to see what expenditures were made for coaching development and referee development, and then ask whether the metrics used to determine if the programs were accomplishing their goals or alternatively whether the money being spent was not producing a justifiable result.

There are also number of posts concerning a lack of confidence in the Board of Directors. The Congress can, per the bylaws, give a no confidence vote with respect to the Board and the Chairman of the organization. However, such a vote has no teeth, i.e., it has no substantive effect on this Board.

If there is a true concern (and a lack of confidence) as to how Board members including the Chairman are performing their jobs, then the Congress needs to seek to remove the individuals “for cause”. Section 5.7 of the By-Laws of USA Rugby provides for the removal of directors. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the sitting Congress members would petition/recommend that an individual be removed and then 2/3rds of Congress must vote to remove. The bylaws do not prohibit this from occurring during a meeting. To remove for cause, it must be shown that a director failed to carry out his duties or responsibilities as a director. Included in this is any action, or inaction, that materially and adversely affects or may affect the organization.

If there is a disagreement with how the organization is being run or if there is a difference of opinion on monies are being spent, this would not be considered a basis for “cause”. Additionally, the Congress would have to be able to show how an action or inaction “materially and adversely affects” or “may affect” the organization. In other words, they would have to show that USA Rugby was harmed or injured in some manner.

Possible examples that may, or may not, be considered “cause” could include:

1. Stating that the Board and the organization would bring a sum certain amount of dollars into the organization by the end of the calendar year and then not bringing in that amount. The harm would be that the organization would then have to use reserve dollars to meet expenses.
2. Stating that the Board would raise the profile of the national championships and then showing that attendance at the championships has decreased and the costs involved in holding those championships have not been offset. The harm in this would be difficult to prove because it is difficult to distinguish how the organization is injured or made less.
3. Stating that the organization would achieve NCAA recognition of the women’s college game and this not occurring. The harm is that the women’s teams would still be underfunded on college campuses and would not have separate and distinct playing/practice facilities. The additional hard could be that by not getting NCAA recognition, the organization is still financially responsible for putting on championships which is a depletion of limited resources.
4. There has not been an improvement in the product with respect to the men’s and women’s national 15s teams. The Board, i.e., the Chairman specifically stated that the Board would be working hard to get this accomplished. The men’s ranking has not improved and they have not been successful on the pitch. The women’s ranking has remained constant but that have not been successful on the pitch. The harm is that without a successful product to sell, advertising, sponsorship, and endowment dollars are not coming into the organization. This forces monies that might be spent on other teams or activities to be spent on the teams in order to meet basic costs.
5. The goals of the strategic plan have not been achieved. A new competition model that best suits rugby in America has not been put into place. A consistent high performance system to develop men’s and women’s rugby has not occurred. There has not been a significant raise in the revenues (hard dollars and not value in kind “dollars”) that would allow for investment in all USA Rugby programs (grass roots and national teams). Rugby has not become a professional sport with full-time athletes, coaches, and administrators. With financial losses over the past two years, revenue has not been generated to secure the future. Although there has been an increase in numbers of participants, the number of referees being developed has remained constant or even stagnant, and there is a question as to whether referees are being retained. (It is noted that one of the top ranked referees in the country recently quit due, in part, to his frustration with the administrative structure of the organization.) An effective insurance program has not been established to meet the needs of members including national team players.

These are all areas that could be looked at to see whether there is sufficient cause to remove any of the Board members.

It should be further noted that based on the By-Laws, if the Congress would vote out the Board in its entirety, there is nothing in place that could step in and take its place in the short term. New Board members would need to be recruited and approved by the Congress and this process could take a number of months. This is not to say that Board members should not be removed; however, if there is a removal, then a replacement for that person needs to occur and this would not happen overnight. If this did occur, the remaining Congress could probably go and ask the US Olympic Committee for assistance in setting up a provisional governing body until the Board could be properly voted in.

There is one other thing that has not been discussed- that is the “nuclear” option. If there are enough members (and this does not have to be members of Congress) who are dissatisfied, they could petition the US Olympic Committee and seek to have the national organization decertified. This is a huge step and there has to be serious problems for this to occur. Again mere disagreement, without negative evidence, of how the organization is being run would not be enough to have the organization decertified and a new organization put into place.

By the way, although there is a claim that the organization does not provide financial information, a lot of the information can be obtained via the IRS.

[college rugby!]

Im going to throw up.
Watching Spike TV right now. Rugby League is on. strike one.
Announcers getting angry about a clothesline being called a foul. strike two
An advertisement popping up about how I, the viewer, can find out more about WHERE TO FIND RUGBY LEAGUE IN THE US.

If this administration somehow lets friggin brain dead rugby league come out of nowhere and destroy rugby in the us im going to paddle nigel back to england on my kayak

[college rugby!]

oh yea. strike 3

[clear path forward]

Here's the short list on what needs to happen at the Board/Congress meeting.

1) Full review and evaluation of the last three years. This exam will lead to the following changes.

2) A new direction for all spending and union initiatives. Compensations and national team spending will need to come more in line with the scope of our organization.

3) Nigel Melville will need to be relieved of his CEO/President of Rugby duties. The position of President of Rugby, needs to be seen as redundant to that of the CEO of a rugby organization.

4) A new CEO will need to be found. This person will be offered a compensation package more inline with the $8m small business that is USAR, $150-175k.

5) Kevin Roberts will need to step down as USAR Chairman. Bill Middleton will not be confirmed. The Board will need to be far more engaged. Clear expectation will need to be conveyed as to Board member participation. For example as opposed to spending $200,000 in Board expenses under Roberts, they will need to raise sponsorship and donation.

6) Congress will need to except a role in administrating the game. From committee work to oversight and most importantly representing their constituency.

[beginning of the end]

ERN reported that the movement for change failed. Same people, same Eagles centric direction. This approach has produced USARs worst ever results (Eagles match results as well as union business results) and it looks like more of the same going forward.

Knowing the Board tightly controlled the agenda, its easy to be understanding how Congress failed in its attempt to make changes. However, why would they vote to confirm Bill Middleton for another Board term? He hasn't produced any donations or sponsorships. His rugby CV is very thin, never a ref, coach or administrator. Not even a mover and shaker biz type. His main claim to frame is being a kiwi buddy of Roberts. They follow the All Blacks together as fans. The fact Congress didn't have the guts to look elsewhere for some fresh blood speaks volumes about their leadership abilities. As a group Congress has officially become part of the problem.

The good news is the high school State Based Organization model is starting to take shape. This will pull the high schools away from USAR one day. USAR sold out the LAUs and TUs allowing the SBOs to be direct members of USAR as long as they keep paying USAR dues. This of course is ass backwards. Its USAR which does nothing for HS rugby, why would they continue to deserve dues money? If the HS's are to pay dues to something other than the SBO, they should be local dues to help the local community they are part of.

All is well, because this is the first step in independence for HS rugby. Once the SBOs are up and running, the first question will be why are we paying USAR dues for doing nothing?

Next the colleges will pull away, and USAR will reach its likely natural death. It will take a few more years, but it will happen. By then the Eagles will be about 10-75 having wasted about $15m over a six year period. The Eagles centric Board, CEO and Congress can all ride off together into the sunset as losers. What a welcomed sight it will be.

[Suwoop]

Screw Union I'm going to league...

enough of these foreign eagles plus they suck on top of that

[Anon]

As soon as someone finds a vendor for 3rd party insurance that INCLUDES catastrophic injury for less than 20.00 USAR is going to be in a little trouble...

[USA small r]

how about as soon as the 300 college that don't need the 3rd party insurance stop paying for something they don't need and the price goes up.

[Norris Elliott]

It is interesting that the organization now has a Board Member who is employed by Goldman Sachs. Because of the huge ill will against "Wall Street", the bailout, the financial situation, etcetera, that permeates this country, you would think that the organization would have taken a flier on this person, regardless of how great his resume may be, and chosen an individual who was not involved in the financial markets.

[Oh smell that smell]

Norris,

By all accounts this new Board member is a step in the right direction. He's strong enough to stand up to Roberts and his bullying ways.

What is remarkable, is Bill Middleton getting reelected. This guy has done nothing other than completely screw up the high school eligibility.

The word coming out is Frank Merrill who heads up the nominations committee did a side deal with Chairman Kevin Roberts who wanted his Kiwi buddy back on the Board. The politics are so bad the whole room stinks.

Who knows maybe the GS guy can make a stand.

[RICO Attorney]

Is Frank Merrill corrupt?