Alberta Soccer Dispute Continues ON

[Norma Rae]

Norma Rae - Thanks for posting the amendments. (Only now getting a chance to review them). Most of the proposed amendments are logical. I do worry about the proposed amendment to Article 16. This will be a point that EMSA and CMSA will dig their heels in about and, quite frankly, it would also disadvantage EDSA, CUSA and CWSA. Plus, I think there will be a fairly strong argument against this amendment given that fees paid to ASA are based on size. I believe at one point a nation was born based on the concept of no taxation without representation. i.e. If the bigger members (no adolescent humour on that please... no cross references to Presidents of big members either...) paying more of the fees then they should be having a greater say. If you were a shareholder of a publicly traded company you would want your number of shares to represent your input to the board... same thing here. Personally, I don't like the amendment. It disadvantages the larger member units and gives too much power to the members with very low numbers. It is unfortunate it is listed first because the battle over Article 16 could taint the mood and discussion regarding the rest of the proposed amendments which are, hopefully, far less contentious. Perhaps when the meeting starts and the agenda is put forward for approval someone could suggest that the proposed amendment to Article 16 be raised last amongst the EIYSA proposals? I would hate for the other, more sensible, proposals be lost in the ensuing emotion.

Your analogy to taxation is exactly why I believe this amendment is needed. Voting on one's elected representative should not be weighted according to how wealthy you are. Voting on financial matters arguably makes more sense. Hence the reason for the amendment only dealing with voting of elected reps, nothing else. We do agree on one thing-- it is fundamental to what your views are about the rights of members of a society to determine who is to govern them.

The thought that it is appropriate for any one organization to have control over the ASA becuase they are wealthier than others by virtue of their geogrpahic district should, after this past 14 months, be roundly acknowledged as being a thing of the past. In my view, everyone in the Association needs to be able to vote on who they best think will represent the ASA (not their particular faction) and to be equal in having those votes count. I happen to like the EIYSA proposal on this point.

[kj52]

The problems in the ASA over the last year are a direct result of the present voting structure. Why should the fact that a massive pile of players under the age of 8 that play in EMSA, most of whom will drop out of soccer eventually, give EMSA the right to dominate (and mess up) the ASA? Why do you think the U.S. balances rep by pop with the elected 2 senators per state senate?

[tmcmurph]

Ben Knight has a new article up

http://www.canadiansoccernews.com/showthread.php?42038-Article-FC-Edmonton-threatened-by-Alberta-reforms&p=378162#post378162

So now the CSA is threatening to take down ALL of Canadian soccer (TFC, Whitecaps, FCE, Impact, Gold Cup, WWC). Why? Well Alberta is about to pass an amendment that allows members their rights to legal recourse. Several other provinces that currently don't forbid it will have to change their bylaws to forbid it.

So will the CSA BoD ever get a pair and stop their execs from destroying soccer in Canada? After all that has been done to Alberta by the CSA execs I don't see Alberta backing down and it will go to court and the CSA is NOT above the law.

So will the rest of the CSA BoD FINALLY DO SOMETHING? You can blame Alberta all you want for this but frankly Albertans don't care. We have thick skins and we are in the right. Back down? Yea right. The CSA execs are such a joke and if the BoD doesn't do something now then it is obvious that they are too.

[Richard]

Richard,

You are a true gent and I thank you for your support. However, They still wont let me vote yet.

Crazily enough all the English Born and Educated migrants, who carry UK national passports have to now complete the IELTS test which has completley P#$%#D of the wife, so whether we stay here long term or go back to Oz is open to debate.

Rules is rules as they say, just do the test and put it behind you. I wish more immigrants were required to have minimum English or French proficiency before being allowed in. If you are a landed immigrant you can become a citizen after three years and vote in all elections, it is easy enough to do. I hope your decision to stay or go will be determined by more enduring considerations than short term voting rights or trivial language proficiency test irritations ;-)

And BTW, I too landed as an immigrant 30+ years ago - where do the years go - and back then one had to have English or French to be accepted.

[alberta white]

Rules is rules as they say, just do the test and put it behind you. I wish more immigrants were required to have minimum English or French proficiency before being allowed in. If you are a landed immigrant you can become a citizen after three years and vote in all elections, it is easy enough to do. I hope your decision to stay or go will be determined by more enduring considerations than short term voting rights or trivial language proficiency test irritations ;-)

And BTW, I too landed as an immigrant 30+ years ago - where do the years go - and back then one had to have English or French to be accepted.

I know we're way off topic so i'll make this the last entry on this.

I understand where your comming from Richard, but the Language rules have been changed arbitrarily by the Minister at large and not by an Act of Parliment.

I would hazard a Guess that 30 years ago your Birth Certificate, UK Passport and School Qualifications were taken as your determination as to your ability to speak English.

Currently the Act Of Parliment states that;

1. you must take an IELT to determine you English Language skills, or

2. Provide Documentary evidence of your ability to speak English. (Birth Certificates Educational Documentation etc)

So the Act of Parliment has not Changed, but the Minister believes his office has the authority to overule an Act of Parliment, and has instructed the Immigration Department to insist everyone take the IELT tests before they can even apply for PR, whether they have established themselves in Canada or not.

As we all we (Should) know is voted for in Parliment and signed into Law by the the Governer General on behalf of the Sovereign. So the Minister thinks he's a Higher Authority than the Queen.

Its crazy because the only people it truly effects are UK Nationals, The Irish, ANZACs, White South Africans and Americans, All of whom speak English as a first Language anyway; Except perhaps, for the occasional Afrikaaner or Maori.

I truly believe its a revenue raiser, but as the IELTS is not a government body, I struggle to think who its actually raising revenue for? (I have my suspicions but it would probably be liabelous if I aired them)

Anyway a young female Harvard Lawyer who lives with her Husband and kids in toronto is challenging the Minister in court on this issue so we'll see what turns up.

[yeg51]

Not to deflect from the current thread, (I too went through the process so can relate), but I am intrigued by the current impasse at the CSA level. I say impasse because truly, no matter what CSA does they are hooped.

If they ban ASA the outcome is a domino effect on national leagues etc, but to my mind the first thing that will happen is a lead taken from the Court of Appeals, and CSA and/or it's president facing obstruction of justice charges, particularly if the recourse for Alberta is to be forced to write what is an unCanadian section into the bylaws. EDSA, Sunny south, and CASA will press for that, I am sure.

If they don't ban ASA, then FIFA suspends them.

I am sure marioinnes will ride in to the fray and save the day - they have been awfully quiet lately. I think the lesser of two evils for CSA is to ban ASA and let the chips fall where they may. Another summer of rancorous debate is upon us, because I have this sinking feeling that EMSA/CMSA already have the "new" ASA framework in the making, which will be to CSA's liking, and of course will exclude all opposition.

[1867]

Has anyone heard anything about Mario Charpentier appealing his removal at the sgm to CSA? Will his friends come to his rescue now or are they pretty much done with him?

[oc64]

Has anyone heard anything about Mario Charpentier appealing his removal at the sgm to CSA? Will his friends come to his rescue now or are they pretty much done with him?

I saw the letter from the Santini firm (on the reform website) where the CSA appeals committee and the CSA bod declined to hear Mario's appeal. They told him additional recourse may be available from SDRCC.

I would have loved to see a copy of Mario's letter to CSA outlining why he was appealing the SGM results.

[The Kid]

I saw the letter from the Santini firm (on the reform website) where the CSA appeals committee and the CSA bod declined to hear Mario's appeal. They told him additional recourse may be available from SDRCC.

I would have loved to see a copy of Mario's letter to CSA outlining why he was appealing the SGM results.

It would have been priceless to see the look of "hurt" in Mario's face after he realized that there is no such thing as "honor among thieves", and that after all the promises made to him, he was simply just a useful CSA "pawn".

Oh well, I am sure that you can start fresh with the soccer community in Alberta MC. Too bad buddy, you had to know at some point that job required you to use your own brain. Queue "the blame game"

We will see what cards Innes has up his sleeve this weekend, after he "smugly" said I will see you at the AGM in Jan.

http://www.globaltvedmonton.com/Soccer+board+members+booted/4147259/story.html?releasePID=L3i3QGnAqxNtC9UVEO4dedyjynQE E38j

[ThiKu]

I wonder if the question has been asked/answered "Why does Mario even want this job so badly when it's obvious he isn't wanted"?? Or have I misread this situation?

Issues, aside, why does a person who is not wanted want to be there?

[1867]

I wonder if the question has been asked/answered "Why does Mario even want this job so badly when it's obvious he isn't wanted"?? Or have I misread this situation?

Issues, aside, why does a person who is not wanted want to be there?

Perks-prestige-bullying people he doesnt like-influencing those who may be able to help him. Blind belief that without him soccer wouldnt be as good despite all evidence to the contrary. How one man's petty battles can cost and association and affiliated members 2 to 3 million in useless expenses for lawyers, severence, appeals, sgms and lost sponsors over 3 to 4 years is a sad indictment of him and those who facilitate this man's ruinous actions, not to mention the black eye that soccer has recieved across the country in these disputes started by him. Maybe he is at the end of the line but I doubt it-he is nothing if not persistent.

[kj52]

I wonder if the question has been asked/answered "Why does Mario even want this job so badly when it's obvious he isn't wanted"?? Or have I misread this situation?

Issues, aside, why does a person who is not wanted want to be there?

There is no way to fully answer this unless you have met Mr. Charpentier. He is one of the most "unusual" people I have ever met and virtually defies description. Words like autocratic, despotic, vindictive, egotistical are part of his makeup but don't convey the whole picture. I've talked to people who maintain casual relationships with him and they say as long as you stick to topics like family and other non-political subjects, he can be very personable and easy going - just stay away from anything to do with the subject of soccer. He seems to honestly believe that he has some kind of divine ability to run soccer and people should understand that they can trust him and his decisions to be in the best interests of the sport regardless of how unpleasant that may be for any particular individual, group or association. As far as being not wanted, if he can find one person to agree with him, he considers himself "wanted".

[tmcmurph]

I wonder if the question has been asked/answered "Why does Mario even want this job so badly when it's obvious he isn't wanted"?? Or have I misread this situation?

Issues, aside, why does a person who is not wanted want to be there?

2 words ...

" Forensic Audit ".

Yes a real FA will be done to our FA and there is FA Mario can do to stop it if he isn't in power.

[CoachRich]

1st biggest problem the CSA has with what FIFA is asking has already been said no to at both the Alberta Court of the Queens Bench as well as the Alberta Court of Appeals. This involves the courts of Alberta

2nd biggest problem the CSA has with what FIFA is asking is that it's against the CCRF and Sports Canada's SFAF. This involves the Feds

How does all of this shake out for us, 2 words, quick reform.

We should be asking Sports Canada to put the CSA under a court appointed caretaker and to be put on probation until they clean up their organization.

I wrote an article on the letters and my take this morning here -http://tinyurl.com/3scbduh

[James]

Another strong article from Steve Sandor

the11.ca

Ben Knight has a new article up

http://www.canadiansoccernews.com/showthread.php?42038-Article-FC-Edmonton-threatened-by-Alberta-reforms&p=378162#post378162

So now the CSA is threatening to take down ALL of Canadian soccer (TFC, Whitecaps, FCE, Impact, Gold Cup, WWC). Why? Well Alberta is about to pass an amendment that allows members their rights to legal recourse. Several other provinces that currently don't forbid it will have to change their bylaws to forbid it.

So will the CSA BoD ever get a pair and stop their execs from destroying soccer in Canada? After all that has been done to Alberta by the CSA execs I don't see Alberta backing down and it will go to court and the CSA is NOT above the law.

So will the rest of the CSA BoD FINALLY DO SOMETHING? You can blame Alberta all you want for this but frankly Albertans don't care. We have thick skins and we are in the right. Back down? Yea right. The CSA execs are such a joke and if the BoD doesn't do something now then it is obvious that they are too.

[YYC]

I saw the letter from the Santini firm (on the reform website) where the CSA appeals committee and the CSA bod declined to hear Mario's appeal. They told him additional recourse may be available from SDRCC.

I would have loved to see a copy of Mario's letter to CSA outlining why he was appealing the SGM results.

Guys, Mario has a good case - remember the SGM delegates failed "to consult every single member of their respective associations" before turfing him!

[1867]

Guys, Mario has a good case - remember the SGM delegates failed "to consult every single member of their respective associations" before turfing him!

Yes-others have to consult every single member of their district but Mario just has to talk to Traficante. Seems fair.

[tmcmurph]

http://www.reformalbertasoccer.com/Timeline-2010/change-log/eiysawithdrawsitsproposedresolutiontodeletearticle32oftheasabylaws

So over to you CSA. Lets see your dispute resolution proposal and it had better acknowledge the fact that the courts can be accessed when all internal mechanisms are exhausted. Oh yea we want to see it soon, not in 4 years. No more stalling. The courts have ruled and you exist under those laws. You have until your next AGM. That is plenty of time for any competent organization.

----------------------------------------------------------------

The EIYSA has informed the ASA that they are withdrawing their proposed resolution to delete Article 32 of the ASA bylaws.

EIYSA indicates that it is fully supportive of reforms that will result in the adoption of a clear and unambiguous dispute resolution clause.

"In view of Mr Montopoli's commitment that the CSA is developing a standard form dispute resolution clause for consideration by the members, EIYSA is willing to await the results of the CSA's efforts."

Further stating:

"EIYSA looks forward to working with the ASA to reform how disputes are adjudicated. The current system has failed to provide an effective mechanism for adjudicating disputes at both the ASA level and CSA level. If there is truly a fair, independent and impartial dispute resolution mechanism, the need to seek recourse to the courts is reduced."

[kj52]

http://www.reformalbertasoccer.com/Timeline-2010/change-log/eiysawithdrawsitsproposedresolutiontodeletearticle32oftheasabylaws

So over to you CSA. Lets see your dispute resolution proposal and it had better acknowledge the fact that the courts can be accessed when all internal mechanisms are exhausted. Oh yea we want to see it soon, not in 4 years. No more stalling. The courts have ruled and you exist under those laws. You have until your next AGM. That is plenty of time for any competent organization.

----------------------------------------------------------------

The EIYSA has informed the ASA that they are withdrawing their proposed resolution to delete Article 32 of the ASA bylaws.

EIYSA indicates that it is fully supportive of reforms that will result in the adoption of a clear and unambiguous dispute resolution clause.

"In view of Mr Montopoli's commitment that the CSA is developing a standard form dispute resolution clause for consideration by the members, EIYSA is willing to await the results of the CSA's efforts."

Further stating:

"EIYSA looks forward to working with the ASA to reform how disputes are adjudicated. The current system has failed to provide an effective mechanism for adjudicating disputes at both the ASA level and CSA level. If there is truly a fair, independent and impartial dispute resolution mechanism, the need to seek recourse to the courts is reduced."

This is a good move by EIYSA just as it was a good move to introduce the proposed amendment in the first place. There are people (such as Coachrich) who have been advocating strongly for a proper dispute resolution process and the proposed amendment was a very effective catalyst for getting the attention of the normally somnolent CSA.

[tmcmurph]

This is a good move by EIYSA just as it was a good move to introduce the proposed amendment in the first place. There are people (such as Coachrich) who have been advocating strongly for a proper dispute resolution process and the proposed amendment was a very effective catalyst for getting the attention of the normally somnolent CSA.

Yes without someone forcing the issue down the throats of the CSA nothing will ever get done. Now the question is how long will it take? If the CSA drags its feet as per usual behavior then by the next AGM the ASA will have theirs ready and proceed without the CSA's blessing. We need to get things done and in a timely fashion.

[shield69]

1st biggest problem the CSA has with what FIFA is asking has already been said no to at both the Alberta Court of the Queens Bench as well as the Alberta Court of Appeals. This involves the courts of Alberta

2nd biggest problem the CSA has with what FIFA is asking is that it's against the CCRF and Sports Canada's SFAF. This involves the Feds

How does all of this shake out for us, 2 words, quick reform.

We should be asking Sports Canada to put the CSA under a court appointed caretaker and to be put on probation until they clean up their organization.

I wrote an article on the letters and my take this morning here -http://tinyurl.com/3scbduh

Nice article Coach:

I've spent some time considering the whole FIFA "stay away from the courts" thingy and more importantly, how CSA can comply with it AND maintain the rights of Canadians to access the courts. Here's the rub, as I see it. CSA, ASA et al. are not obligated to be members of FIFA. i.e. FIFA has rules that they have created and if you wish to join you must live by their rules. Soccer can be played without FIFA. What can't happen without FIFA though is competing for their trophies. And FIFA, quite rightly, is not obligated to run their organization according to Canadian Law. Why not? Because then they would be obligated to work within British Law, German Law, Russian Law, Chinese Law, Saudi Law... and the whole thing would become untenable given the diversity of government structures and legal systems that they would have to try to conform to. Think about it. If FIFA says "yes, go to your courts to resolve disputes" then they are implicitly stating they believe the Chinese courts and the Canadian courts and the Saudi courts and so on are all based on the same principles of justice, which they aren't. So FIFA has the rule, you cannot go to court. My guess is this rule was put in place to avoid trying to manage the Federation within the context of 200+ legal systems. Over the years this rule has been abused to force compliance etc etc, but the intent was probably something far more noble in the beginning. My point is this, FIFA IS above the laws of any one country (or else they simply could not function). But CSA is not. CSA is bound by Canadian Law. Therefore, the question becomes how important is it for Canadians to have access to FIFA trophies? We can run the CSA independent of FIFA and continue to develop soccer talent, and play the game etc. But... we wouldn't be able to send teams to FIFA sanctioned events (World Cup, Olympics, CONCACAF) and presumably, the professional teams would also be out of bounds. So as long as Canadians aspire to compete for FIFA trophies we have to live by their rules and they are not obligated to change their rules to meet our laws.

What might work to appease FIFA while maintaining the rights of Canadians to access the courts is a proper dispute resolution procedure within CSA that then culminates with access to Canada's sport dispute resolution committee (or whatever it is called). This body is not part of the common courts and so would not violate FIFA's rule, but would be an impartial adjudicator. This sort of dispute resolution process is what I believe is meant in the letter from the CSA GS when he states that the courts will generally accept a society's dispute resolution process. In other words, the courts will likely not even hear such a case if there is confidence that a fair resolution can be obtained from the internal process. It would be hard to convince a court that someone was not afforded a fair outcome in this scenario. In other words, let's put in writing a clear process whereby disputes can proceed through a series of steps and culminating with an impartial body providing the final say.

Clearly, the current dispute resolution process is severely flawed and clearly, MC and the Dom attempted to abuse the FIFA rule to force their will. This needs to get cleaned up. But it needs to be done in a way that doesn't undermine FIFA's ability to manage within a global environment. (I am not implying that FIFA knows best and they are saints in their governance of the international game, just pointing out that FIFA has massive pressures that is must contend with or it cannot function at all.)

[kj52]

I'm pretty sure no one enjoys having to use the court system to fight internal organizational battles. The problems over the past few years in Alberta would have been so much less trouble if there were a dispute resolution process in place. Whether FIFA had a rule in place or not, most democratic countries that have rule of law societies would likely operate that way anyway. The FIFA rule exists because of the large number of countries saddled with corrupt governments and justice systems. Unfortunately for Canadians we have been ruled by a national organization that has more in common with those more odious nations than with what should be our model. It's truly an embarrassment for the sport in Canada that something so basic and simple should not be implemented ASAP. Obviously the fact that it fits very well as is with a few corrupt individuals and their desire for power and perks has been the millstone around our collective necks. As per the examples that have been posted both on this site and CSN, it isn't too difficult to satisfy FIFA's requirements and those of your own legal system. It only requires people of good faith to write it and implement it. Hopefully that is what we will end up with both at the national and provincial levels eventually.

[1867]

Nice article Coach:

I've spent some time considering the whole FIFA "stay away from the courts" thingy and more importantly, how CSA can comply with it AND maintain the rights of Canadians to access the courts. Here's the rub, as I see it. CSA, ASA et al. are not obligated to be members of FIFA. i.e. FIFA has rules that they have created and if you wish to join you must live by their rules. Soccer can be played without FIFA. What can't happen without FIFA though is competing for their trophies. And FIFA, quite rightly, is not obligated to run their organization according to Canadian Law. Why not? Because then they would be obligated to work within British Law, German Law, Russian Law, Chinese Law, Saudi Law... and the whole thing would become untenable given the diversity of government structures and legal systems that they would have to try to conform to. Think about it. If FIFA says "yes, go to your courts to resolve disputes" then they are implicitly stating they believe the Chinese courts and the Canadian courts and the Saudi courts and so on are all based on the same principles of justice, which they aren't. So FIFA has the rule, you cannot go to court. My guess is this rule was put in place to avoid trying to manage the Federation within the context of 200+ legal systems. Over the years this rule has been abused to force compliance etc etc, but the intent was probably something far more noble in the beginning. My point is this, FIFA IS above the laws of any one country (or else they simply could not function). But CSA is not. CSA is bound by Canadian Law. Therefore, the question becomes how important is it for Canadians to have access to FIFA trophies? We can run the CSA independent of FIFA and continue to develop soccer talent, and play the game etc. But... we wouldn't be able to send teams to FIFA sanctioned events (World Cup, Olympics, CONCACAF) and presumably, the professional teams would also be out of bounds. So as long as Canadians aspire to compete for FIFA trophies we have to live by their rules and they are not obligated to change their rules to meet our laws.

What might work to appease FIFA while maintaining the rights of Canadians to access the courts is a proper dispute resolution procedure within CSA that then culminates with access to Canada's sport dispute resolution committee (or whatever it is called). This body is not part of the common courts and so would not violate FIFA's rule, but would be an impartial adjudicator. This sort of dispute resolution process is what I believe is meant in the letter from the CSA GS when he states that the courts will generally accept a society's dispute resolution process. In other words, the courts will likely not even hear such a case if there is confidence that a fair resolution can be obtained from the internal process. It would be hard to convince a court that someone was not afforded a fair outcome in this scenario. In other words, let's put in writing a clear process whereby disputes can proceed through a series of steps and culminating with an impartial body providing the final say.

Clearly, the current dispute resolution process is severely flawed and clearly, MC and the Dom attempted to abuse the FIFA rule to force their will. This needs to get cleaned up. But it needs to be done in a way that doesn't undermine FIFA's ability to manage within a global environment. (I am not implying that FIFA knows best and they are saints in their governance of the international game, just pointing out that FIFA has massive pressures that is must contend with or it cannot function at all.)

Great post Shield-what sounds so simple somehow gets buggered up by the Current system and the people in it who cant seem to reach the same well reasoned conclusion as you. Even Montopoli seems to miss the point in his letter to ASA as he sees the problem merely in the "provinces rules" rather then the glaring fact that one cant seem to appeal provincial issues up the chain to an independant body via CSA. This is what is missing. This is the elephant in the room that the CSA execs ignore. At the end of the day many provincial executives have not wanted CSA to oversee their actions and as such the CSAs appeal committee was neutered in 2007.

[1867]

good luck to all reformers this weekend at the asa agm-dont lose your eye on the goal.

[tmcmurph]

Any news on the AGM? Who got elected, what was passed, etc?

Hopefully the first order of business for the new board is to unsuspend Billings and tell those who charged him to show their evidence or withdraw the charges. Second a forensic audit. Third a committee to draft a "new and improved" dispute resolution process and bylaw (hopefully within a month) to replace the illegal #32.