Jump to content

Alberta Soccer Dispute Continues ON


oc64

Recommended Posts

Fairthought-you are anything but.

show me where in the bylaws you can vote to suspend someone without allowing them to come to the meeting? If they are on the board then they should be allowed to be heard and then people can make informed decisions and the person can be heard. This was not done. Maybe the allegations would have come forward and Chris could have spoken to them and some people could be swayed one way or another-interesting that Danny Bowie and Chris werent invited to the meeting. I guess it is easier to get consensus if you exclude people who may disagree. At least 3 of the people on the Board were new and all the allegations were from prior to the new board coming in-how would these new board members know what to think? Plus what you call a meeting was done ad hoc with Colin and Mario buttonholing individual members and getting them to sign a sheet of paper-some have said since they didnt know any details and were told that everyone else has signed it so you should too. Your argument on the 9 of 10 is very weak. Do you have Board meetings without inviting Board members? Where is that legal? If Mario wanted to be the president he should run for election as President-again-not stage south american coup de tetes. People will not stand for it in this country.

The rest of your allegations are such crap and vague that they arent worth addressing but i will take a shot at one." Chris is a terrible guy who terrorized all". Ok-so why did Mario have to fire over half the staff because they were supporting him after Chris was summarily booted out? Why would they put their careers on the line to resist Mario? You would think they would welcome his benevolence and non-bullying ways. Try answering that. Why are they now in the process of having to threaten everyone to follow them? These guys are the last of the porkbarrellers and you are one of their stooges-if not one of them.

Your kind are on your way out. Enjoy your perks while you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Bear with me - this will take a while.

FT99: Billings was suspended by the board. 9 of 10 voted for the suspension and the other board member abstained. Which is legal under the bylaws of the association. Regardless of what you think, it is allowed.

Not so. There is no provision in the bylaws that allows this. The only reason for suspension is a conflict of interest. The board has never produced a notice of motion, motion or written decision from a duly constituted board meeting that documents this vote. Only a majority of the members (the districts) at a properly convened meeting can remove a director for cause.

FT99: 2. Billings believes he is above the law and that rules and regulations do not apply to him. if he is so right then why does he just not go through the proper steps as outlined by the bylaws and rules and regulations? because he believes that he is above the law or that he will lose. there is no other explanation.

No Billings believes he is WITHIN the law to not recognise the so called suspension, because due process was not followed. He called an SGM as per the bylaws. If the Districts were so convinced of the allegations, they could have tossed him out then. Instead, they threw out the old board.

FT99: 3. Why would 9 of 10 people who most of the time do not really get along agree that Billings needed to go? could it be that maybe just maybe he did some shady borderline illegal acts, or was totally out of control?

No investigation, no due process, allegations never proven in a properly constituted disciplinary hearing.

FT99: 4. Billings is the front man, and actually a puppet of those who wish to once again control Alberta Soccer like they did 10 years ago, doing what they liked with no opposition and no need to follow the rules. So the old boys club is really trying to come back into power. Troke, Turner, Thome, Bowie.

I can't respond to this. This is your supposition, your conclusion, based on zero evidence or proven fact. If that is the case, then deal with it at the AGM. Do not go after the kids, their provincials, their medals and their pride.

FT99:5. If any of you spent money or treated people the way Billings has treated volunteers, staff and board members, i am sure you would be out on your ears. So why is this different for Chris?

Again, unproven allegations put out without an audit, investigation, proper hearing etc. If this is the case, investigate, put it to the membership at an SGM or AGM, and let the chips fall where they may. I say again, do not take it out on the kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Fairthought

Funny how you’ve never addressed how the “directors” were elected in the first place.

Personally, I don't think any law firm worth $.02 would oversee any such meeting unless everything was above board.

If there’s really nothing to hide, it will be settled in court. Bring your fairy tales with you, you’ll probably need them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is funny how the supporters of Mario always assume that people who are against Mario or for another are somehow in some clandestine conspiracy with alterior motives-they always assume others must have something to gain. This is how Mario governs-stick and carrot. They can never fathom that people may just want the ASA office to run in a professional manner-for their leaders not to be constantly involved in costly disputes and suspensions and for the ASA to be run fairly like other non-profit organizations where proper governance is the key issue. This cynicism really speaks to their own motivations and hang ups and exposes where they are coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fairthought99 - The word embarrassment does not quite cover the types such as you....the caricatures such as yourself are a disgrace across Canada. Did you happen to notice that all of the participants in this forum actually have a clue as to what they are talking about??? You are nothing but a delusional bobble head and the real issue is that people such as you have always been a part of the problem.

If the membership wants to be complacent and act irresponsible when it comes time to elect the ASA Board, then as far as I am concerned the membership is getting exactly what they deserve. If they want conmen representing them...then they need to reap it when the s%$# hits the fan. Just in case you were unconscious when all this was transpiring, the membership is no longer interested in the old boys club!

What we need on the Board are actual business people whose primary concern is not whether they can get a jacket, get their name on a plaque or how many trips they can get to the Nationals...but business people who know how to represent the membership in good faith and are there to GET THE JOB DONE. Mario and the lot of you, the Board must answer to the membership not the other way around!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little reminder to all:

What would be interesting is to have someone join this forum to advocate for the Charpentier / Innes / Kern group. If their actions are ethical, defensible, justifiable and in the best interests of soccer in Alberta, then surely somebody enter the fray.

It was never easy to find someone to stand up for that bunch, it's become wellnigh impossible now. Perhaps one of their CSA friends could step up anonymously.

At this point, I don't know how ANYONE, regardless of friendships with these clowns, could write a positive piece about the Mario Crowd.

Someone has now come forward, I think we should tone down the name calling and use this as an opportunity for some dialog. For those I quoted above not singling you out only using the quotes to illustrate a point.

@FairThought99

From where I sit the mistake that the Mario board made was the method they used to remove the President.

As YEG51 states there is no way to suspend an ASA director outside of Article 31 (Conflict of Interest) (g) of the Bylaws (http://www.albertasoccer.com/clientuploads/ASAByLaws.Rules.06/ASA%20By-Laws.pdf).

Which are as follows:

Any Director who, by personal or business conduct violates any part of Article 31 may be suspended from the Board of Directors by a two-third (2/3) majority vote of the entire Board of the Association concerned after an investigation has been made at which the Director concerned has been given a proper hearing with a full opportunity to explain his/her action. When such a hearing is being initiated, notice of such hearing shall be given to all concerned, in writing, not less than seven (7) days before such hearing. Such suspension will remain in effect until ratified by the membership of the Association concerned at its next General Meeting. (emphasis is mine)

- you do not call a hearing AFTER you announce a suspension. The hearing is to determine if a suspension is warranted.

Article 19 (Vacancies) 1 iii)

If she/he be removed by resolution of the Association for good and sufficient cause. (emphasis is mine)

- This would be the members - the districts; the board of directors is NOT the Association.

Maybe the accusations brought against Chris are true; maybe not. However, from what I have read and how things have unfolded it is now a moot point. Unless you can point to some other place in the Bylaws that give the Board the authority to remove the President. If so please share.

To me and everyone else the appearance is now that the Mario Board tried to oust the President, and failed. I understand that you feel that what you did is legal, once again please point me to something in the Bylaws to support this.

The Billings Board was formed at a valid SGM and motions were made/passed to remove directors. Done under the authority of Article 8 sections 2, 3 and 4. Can you share with us your reasons for not accepting the SGM as valid?

Any support or statements you bring forward at this point from the CSA are also moot. You are no longer the board after the SGM. Appealing to the authority of the CSA will not work, the CSA is wrong. Some people will hear you say the 'CSA" supports us and think that your case is valid; maybe you even believe it. But they are wrong.

BUT: the actions that have aroused such anger in the soccer community are the actions taken by the Mario Board the week prior to the Rural Provincials. Even given the assumption that you still were a valid board - which as per the SGM you were not.

- you knew well in advance that some districts paid fees to a special account - this was common knowledge

Article 27 (Monies Owing) (B):

Penalties for late payments or non-payment of monies due shall be as established by the Board. (emphasis mine)

- you chose to make the penalty 'Bad Standing' AND then coupled that with the false assertion that insurance would not be in effect. Insurance was/is in place. You forgot about the kids in your desire to punish the 'trouble makers'. This action alone is what has so infuriated your members and their constituents.

Personally, I do not think you can get their trust back. I know you have lost mine.

I am not sure what you think is going to happen next. I can not see how you survive the next AGM. For those of you who are outside of Edmonton I am not sure how you can maintain your standing in your own district. How valuable do you think you will be to the remainder of the Mario Board once you lose your ability to deliver your district's votes?

I look forward to your responses to my questions above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad fairthoughts can on to at least voice a differing opinion. I hope the Billings group ends up in control but the reality of the situation is that I think there is a lot of fault on both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OC64-do share-where is the fault in the Billings group? Do you think he should have gone to a bogus hearing? Should an SGM not have been held? Should they have gone to the "exclusive" Mario SGM? I am curious. My personal opinion is that they should have gone to the Courts sooner and got the validity of the suspension and the the validity of the SGM decided earlier so the empoyees would have been spared all this. But hindsight is 20-20.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OC64-do share-where is the fault in the Billings group? Do you think he should have gone to a bogus hearing? Should an SGM not have been held? Should they have gone to the "exclusive" Mario SGM? I am curious. My personal opinion is that they should have gone to the Courts sooner and got the validity of the suspension and the the validity of the SGM decided earlier so the empoyees would have been spared all this. But hindsight is 20-20.

That is what I believe too. My person opinion (opinion only) is that if Chris was ultimately as concerned about the employees as he claims to be this issue would have been resolved weeks or months ago. You are quite correct that that is hindsight. I can't imagine the mental stress it must cause Chris and their group to realize that employees have been terminated due to their actions or inactions. Only time will tell what will happen to the employees and whether or not they will be looked after properly (returned to work, fair severance, etc - In my opinon at this point it should be the employees choice which option to accept. )

My point was only this. Chris is like all of the rest of us and sometimes ego clouds our judgement. I think it is obvious that I support Chris and his group but that does not mean I believe they have acted perfectly or are without any responsibility for this fiasco.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the Billings group and the hosting associations ensured those events went ahead as planned, the Charpentier group withheld medals and trophies from the winners and runners-up. Replacement medals were bought and new trophies were fashioned out of old ones by local soccer officials and parents for teams in Edson, St. Albert and Stettler, but no arrangements could be made in time in Three Hills. A Charpentier group member arrived in Three Hills, declared the tournament unsanctioned and would not release medals and trophies to deserving winners from Fort St. John and runners-up from Hinton and Three Hills.

Wow.

We have some severe problems at all levels in terms of quality people involved in the game in Canada. If you ever run into a good coach, referee, administrator or representative - please let them know you appreciate their dedication and commitment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad fairthoughts can on to at least voice a differing opinion. I hope the Billings group ends up in control but the reality of the situation is that I think there is a lot of fault on both sides.

I think the fault that lays on the side of the new board and those of us who support them is that there should have been a better plan to protect the staff. Perhaps as 1867 says, court action should have probably started earlier, then it's possible that the staff members could have been protectd from the ridiculous abuse they suffered from Mario, Colin and Christine. The old board has to hang it's collective head in shame for this - there simply is no excuse to treat your fellow human beings like that, you will never live that down.

On another point, fairthought's comments were a literal point-by-point copy of the standard response from the old Board anytime their actions have been questioned which leads one to believe that fairthought is actually a member of that Board. If that is indeed the case, then perhaps fairthought would be able to enlighten us as to the mysterious "binder of evidence" that was going to be used to provide irrefutable proof of all "allegations" against Chris Billings. I would like to know, when Colin Innes compiled this "binder of evidence" and submitted an expense claim, how he was allowed to claim $120 for "labour" in getting the binder printed. This is a direct contravention of Bylaw Article 31 e) and the old Board should have suspended him for charging for his time above and beyond out-of-pocket expenses. Also I would like to know if there is a letter from Colin in the possession of ASA informing the Association of his potential conflict of interest regarding his Skilstorm website for which ASA paid him a handsome fee under contract. He would have been required under the Bylaws to do so. I'm also interested in what Mr. Innes's financial qualifications were that made him eligible to run for the Financial Director position. The Bylaws state the Director should have "suitable" qualifications. Does a career of jumping from company to company and running a website constitute "qualifications", or is Mr. Innes a certified professional. My understanding is that he is not. Does anyone else know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

K52 never mind the obvious conflict of interest that these guys are always involved in to their benefit-hiring sons-giving yourself contracts-what amazes me is that Colins skilstorm never has actually delivered anything that I have seen to ASA. So $80000 untendered contract to a financial director of a non-profit and he never delivered anything to the membership. Who would put up with that? Why isnt ASA audited? Could this be why the old guard refuses to go away? Anyway-i had heard that skilstorm was to be an interactive website where kids or coaches could get on and get soccer tips. Where is it Colin? Isnt this a reason for a person to resign or be run out? Well I guess it isnt as heinous as ordering heaters in cold weather emergencies or not letting Fred stay in Nova Scotia for an extra week after his official business is over.

If anyone knows more about Skilstorm please enlighten us. Fairthought...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope that the new members who have joined this forum specifically because of this dispute also take the time to look over threads in the other categories. You won't find another forum dealing with soccer in Canada on the web that has anything like this. I've been reading it for years and there is no better place to get information on the game in Canada and absolutely nowhere to find stronger supporters of our national teams and professional clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@FairThought99

From where I sit the mistake that the Mario board made was the method they used to remove the President.

As YEG51 states there is no way to suspend an ASA director outside of Article 31 (Conflict of Interest) (g) of the Bylaws (http://www.albertasoccer.com/clientu...%20By-Laws.pdf).

Which are as follows:

Any Director who, by personal or business conduct violates any part of Article 31 may be suspended from the Board of Directors by a two-third (2/3) majority vote of the entire Board of the Association concerned after an investigation has been made at which the Director concerned has been given a proper hearing with a full opportunity to explain his/her action. When such a hearing is being initiated, notice of such hearing shall be given to all concerned, in writing, not less than seven (7) days before such hearing. Such suspension will remain in effect until ratified by the membership of the Association concerned at its next General Meeting. (emphasis is mine)

- you do not call a hearing AFTER you announce a suspension. The hearing is to determine if a suspension is warranted.

Article 19 (Vacancies) 1 iii)

If she/he be removed by resolution of the Association for good and sufficient cause. (emphasis is mine)

- This would be the members - the districts; the board of directors is NOT the Association.

Maybe the accusations brought against Chris are true; maybe not. However, from what I have read and how things have unfolded it is now a moot point. Unless you can point to some other place in the Bylaws that give the Board the authority to remove the President. If so please share.

To me and everyone else the appearance is now that the Mario Board tried to oust the President, and failed. I understand that you feel that what you did is legal, once again please point me to something in the Bylaws to support this.

First it should be noted that the President was suspended, not removed. Therefore, Article 19 doesn’t come into play. Also, it was my understanding that the ASA (Mario) Board used Article 30 – Code of Conduct – and Article 18 – as their justification for suspending the President. Specifically, Article 18 (3) which reads:

“The Board shall have power to make rules, regulations and arrangements as to all matters of business, duties, management, regulations or otherwise, so far as it is not already herein expressly provided for. In keeping with their duty to enforce all the laws all the time, and without waiting for an official protest, or appeal, the Board shall immediately inquire into the circumstances of any alleged irregularity which may be brought to their attention by a duly responsible officer of any Member and take appropriate action without delay. This in no way shall enable the complainant to gain anything personally therefrom”.

While this, arguably, gives the ASA Board the right to impose an immediate suspension, there are at least two problems that immediately come to mind.

• The original decision to suspend the President was not made at a properly called Board meeting and, therefore, can be of no effect. (Although ratified at a later Board meeting, this should also be challenged as the President was not informed of the meeting).

• In any event, the “immediate suspension” clearly violates CSA Rules which the ASA must comply with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the fault that lays on the side of the new board and those of us who support them is that there should have been a better plan to protect the staff. Perhaps as 1867 says, court action should have probably started earlier, then it's possible that the staff members could have been protectd from the ridiculous abuse they suffered from Mario, Colin and Christine. The old board has to hang it's collective head in shame for this - there simply is no excuse to treat your fellow human beings like that, you will never live that down.

On another point, fairthought's comments were a literal point-by-point copy of the standard response from the old Board anytime their actions have been questioned which leads one to believe that fairthought is actually a member of that Board. If that is indeed the case, then perhaps fairthought would be able to enlighten us as to the mysterious "binder of evidence" that was going to be used to provide irrefutable proof of all "allegations" against Chris Billings. I would like to know, when Colin Innes compiled this "binder of evidence" and submitted an expense claim, how he was allowed to claim $120 for "labour" in getting the binder printed. This is a direct contravention of Bylaw Article 31 e) and the old Board should have suspended him for charging for his time above and beyond out-of-pocket expenses. Also I would like to know if there is a letter from Colin in the possession of ASA informing the Association of his potential conflict of interest regarding his Skilstorm website for which ASA paid him a handsome fee under contract. He would have been required under the Bylaws to do so. I'm also interested in what Mr. Innes's financial qualifications were that made him eligible to run for the Financial Director position. The Bylaws state the Director should have "suitable" qualifications. Does a career of jumping from company to company and running a website constitute "qualifications", or is Mr. Innes a certified professional. My understanding is that he is not. Does anyone else know?

I agree KJ. I think Chris and his group simply underestimated what lengths Mario and Colin would go to in order to win this dispute. That has been their biggest error.

Re: Colin's profession qualifications. Rumor has it he occasionally tells people he has a Certified Management Accounting designation but let it lapse. Something about that doesn't ring true to me. People that go through the effort to earn a professional accounting designation rarely just let it go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Bill-we have heard every different version you can imagine from Mario-when they were first taken to task on the suspension they didnt seem to know what bylaw may apply then it was article 31 and when questions started mounting the off the cuff damage control by Mario revealed to all that Mario had no idea what bylaws might apply-this was alarming and got Districts thinking that what had occurred was very wrong. Now they are saying Article 30 but this was never mentioned then. What we saw was Mario was treating ASA like his home district at EMSA wherein there is no due process or right to a fair hearing and people get put on suspension all the time. See Mcneely story. You are quite correct that his lack of an actual board meeting with invited directors puts the lie to any version of what occurred and a Justice will see through any justification given. For Mario it is a constant state of martial law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope that the new members who have joined this forum specifically because of this dispute also take the time to look over threads in the other categories. You won't find another forum dealing with soccer in Canada on the web that has anything like this. I've been reading it for years and there is no better place to get information on the game in Canada and absolutely nowhere to find stronger supporters of our national teams and professional clubs.

I joined this board due to the discussion around the ASA dispute, but I have found lots of interesting information about soccer in Canada. As a relative newbie to soccer it has been a great resource.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First it should be noted that the President was suspended, not removed. Therefore, Article 19 doesn’t come into play. Also, it was my understanding that the ASA (Mario) Board used Article 30 – Code of Conduct – and Article 18 – as their justification for suspending the President. Specifically, Article 18 (3) which reads:

“The Board shall have power to make rules, regulations and arrangements as to all matters of business, duties, management, regulations or otherwise, so far as it is not already herein expressly provided for. In keeping with their duty to enforce all the laws all the time, and without waiting for an official protest, or appeal, the Board shall immediately inquire into the circumstances of any alleged irregularity which may be brought to their attention by a duly responsible officer of any Member and take appropriate action without delay. This in no way shall enable the complainant to gain anything personally therefrom”.

While this, arguably, gives the ASA Board the right to impose an immediate suspension, there are at least two problems that immediately come to mind.

• The original decision to suspend the President was not made at a properly called Board meeting and, therefore, can be of no effect. (Although ratified at a later Board meeting, this should also be challenged as the President was not informed of the meeting).

• In any event, the “immediate suspension” clearly violates CSA Rules which the ASA must comply with.

An additional problem with that is that by their own information releases they (Mario et. al) did wait and did not act without delay. The offenses allegedly took place over a 9 month period in 2009 yet no action was taken until Feb 2010. To me, that then makes acting under that article null and void. They had plenty of time to do it properly yet they chose not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet another article from the Edmonton Journal!

Interesting read. I found it curious that Mario is quoted as saying the provincial cancellations were not about the money but about process. I could have sworn I saw Colin on CBC just last week saying it was absolutely about the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine the straegy meetings between these guys-90% of their job is damage control from marios off the cuff statements which all involve threats and obvious non-truths that they have to explain away. With friends like that....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine the straegy meetings between these guys-90% of their job is damage control from marios off the cuff statements which all involve threats and obvious non-truths that they have to explain away. With friends like that....

If we didn't need a definitive resolution to this mess, I would love to just sit back and watch Mario and Colin try and work together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...