Here is another problem Devin and attorney made the decision that there had to be another hearing. I ran the scenario past a high ranking USOC person who said, BS - there was no need. This is a problem, as the same misinterpretations plagued the Task Force efforts. Devin and the attorney were determined that there was not going to be a governance study and a governance report, and repeatedly refused to acknowledge every single order of the USOC that said it was expecting such a study and such a report. It created a very problematic project and scenario. When those two talk, something strange happens to ordinary logic and reason. One structural problem is that the attorney -- in a generic sense -- represents the corporation, not the Board. Our Board Chair however, uses the attorney for Board purposes and treats him more like the Board Chairs personal attorney. The corporate attorney cannot be advising the Board as the Boards attorney. If a Board needs advice, it needs its own attorney because of the conflict of interest with corporate counsel representing the organization, and the necessity of advice being from the standpoint of the duty of loyalty to the organization, not to the Board. In the formal structure of corporate governance, he works for Bruce Harris, not Devin Johnson. It is a well-understood point of corporate law, and the misunderstanding of that between Askinas, Collins, and Padilla caused untold trouble for the USAT, nearly leading to its decertification. Thats just how serious that misunderstanding can be. The solution, as has been repeatedly urged, is to get people in here experienced on such matters. These guys arent. Its amateur hour. It is a board packed with people who do not, in fact, have general corporate governance experience, but rather mid-level corporate management types trying to pad their resumes for promotional purposes back-home. Theyre not here to work hard, nor do they bring useful specialized experience to the table. However, they can wake up and realize that they do have an important job to do, and that can be best accomplished by finding the right people to do it, and authorize or encourage the creation of the appropriate committee structures to do it. For SafeSport, create a clear-cut set of procedures, and, as outlined above on this thread, formulate a clear-cut letter from the Board to the CEO as to the terms and limitations of any such suspension, so there is a record and a procedure, that everyone, including the accused, understands. As has also been urged, create a Risk and Safe Sport Committee on the Management side whose sole function is to educate itself on the best practices of risk management and safe sport, and design appropriate procedures for the Board and CEO to implement, and monitor ongoing implementation. That recommendation was made six months ago, and had it been followed, this fiasco likely would not have occurred. But, this organization is apparently impervious to what, in the rest of the world, are routine organizational structures and efforts to facilitate the mission. -- Bagehot
Posted on: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 18:23:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015