Alberta Soccer Dispute Continues ON

[paul-collins]

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

Charges dismissed.

[CoachRich]

Thanks PC

[oc64]

Great News. Its about time.

It was interesting to read the decision. I was happy to note that the committee did not dismiss the charges against Billings without a real investigation. Although the charges were dropped the committee did note that Billings at times could be very difficult to work with.

[Norma Rae]

I think the decision shows it was a well thought and detailed decision. I think the comments about Billings demeanor will sadly be the focus for those who want to avoid the real lessons. For all he did "wrong", he was really taken on by the group of seven because of his desire to make things at the board level more transparent. One need simply ask what could possibly motivate the group of accusers to make up these allegations. Anyone in Alberta will know that it was not simply to address Billings behaviour but to seize control and keep things going the old way. Sigh... enough has been debated on this sorry topic though.

I suggest the real lessons are:

1. there is not one "scintilla of evidence" for most if not all of the charges that were levied against Billings.. they were made up or exaggerated or... something

2. the then board was completely and utterly wrong for suspending Billings on the basis of these false accusations and would still have been wrong if based upon any of the other things that were going on

3. the membership was quite correct in calling the Charpentier/Innes board to explain and later to account for this

4. 18 months of turmoil was caused by the majority members of a board who within a few short weeks of having suspended Billings could not see their way clear to correct their mistake, and in fact, had the conviction to use ASA and other association resources to support their mistake

Now many say let bygones be bygones and move on which I personally can live with as long as the lessons are learned and steps put in place to prevent this from happening.

a. a poll does not and will not ever constitute a resolution of the board

b. no one person on the board should ever be able to retain and instruct board counsel unless they for some reason do so at their own expense and for some non ASA business

c. the board should have a code of conduct and mechanism for resolving internal conflicts

d. independent investigations and discipline does not mean just anyone who is not currently directly associated with the board or the issue.

e. the mechanism for calling a special general meeting when requested by the membership should not be left to the board so that when cases like this occur again, heaven forbid, the task is left to someone who will actually do it or to some prescribed procedure

I commend the current ASA board who has taken several of these steps but I to hear from them about what other steps they are going to take from this whole debacle.

[oc64]

Great Analysis Norma Rae. I couldn't agree more.

I found some parts of the decision very interesting.

1. The committee's analysis of the meeting used to suspend Billings

There is no doubt that the members of the 2010 Board failed to follow the fundamental principle of governance – not only as mandated by the ASA By-Laws, but of organizations generally – that decisions must be made according to the rules. One of those rules is that a meeting occurs when people come together at the same time and place (whether in person or electronically) to make decisions.

Significantly, there was an understanding by at least two of those who participated in the conference call that no such decisions could be made. They had made the same point, that a meeting occurs when people come together at the same time and place whether in person or electronically for the purpose of making decisions, only months earlier when they took issue with Billings talking to other members of the EFC one on one and then claiming that the EFC had a consensus on how to deal with a credit card issue. In an email to those on the EFC on December 19, Kern wrote "consensus by talking individually with EFC members is not appropriate . . . ." In an email on December 20 to the EFC members du Berg wrote "we have not agreed as efc [sic] and discussing individually with members does not constitute any agreement or follow any parliamentary procedure or robert's rules [sic]." Notwithstanding their complaints about how Billings acted improperly only two months earlier, two of those who participated in his suspension conducted themselves in exactly the same way.

The nine Directors (if there actually were nine) who agreed in the conference call to remove Billings might well say that there was an overwhelming majority of Directors who wanted to proceed this way. However that contention ignores the possibility that one of the minority, whether an ally of Billings or Billings himself, might, with the benefit of open, reasoned and considered discussion, have persuaded a majority to take a different course than was actually taken in the end. It is hardly unheard of that a minority of one can become a consensus, even a unanimous consensus (and even of as many as eleven others as exemplified by our jury system) with discussion, review, reflection and goodwill. Any suggestion to the contrary simply sanctions behind the scenes one on one leverage, manipulation and division. That is not how directors should carry out the business of governance.

2. The committee's analysis of the Gowlings legal opinion that was often used to justify the suspensino

it is very important to note that the legal assistance and advice sought is not with respect to whether Billings could be removed, let alone whether he should be removed, it was with respect to how best to remove him. It is implicit that the decision had been made and there is not a hint that what is being sought is an alternative avenue of dispute resolution. That is supported as well by the remaining contents of the email

We note the irony that both the email itself and the resulting procedures recommended by Gowlings contemplate the ultimate appearance by Billings before the Board itself should he not to capitulate by resigning. It would seem that very point escaped Gowlings. The simple answer Gowlings could have provided was that perhaps the Board ought to consider simply dealing with the complaints themselves in the first place. Had that occurred, it is not inconceivable that the resulting rupture in the operations and activities of the ASA and the consequential litigation and the expenses relating thereto, would all have been avoided.

However, in fairness to Gowlings, it was asked for an opinion on how best to proceed on the allegations which had already led to a Board decision to remove Billings. Further, while Gowlings was provided with the allegations against Billings, it was not provided the evidence or history behind the complaints other than the Chater email of February 4 alleging harassment.

[CoachRich]

Is the Billings decision posted anywhere or can it be posted here?

What did the new ASA BOD decide to do with the outstanding legal fees?

[oc64]

Is the Billings decision posted anywhere or can it be posted here?

What did the new ASA BOD decide to do with the outstanding legal fees?

https://c36555df-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/reformalbertasoccer/library/2012.06.04-Reasons%20for%20Decision.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7cqEJ0QLqdX3bIvMukZkGxjOdPaUJek5nowWqFp6ZsbC604aY85ZqaETKZtMVD8n4hYNB73DHweC4eYWTYrGfTOTpEQfhCZlOY19L9yPTJYj_y0mU3Js8qwThZkkW98DT413heLVvIp1h3nLf2czLtdMaVreJdNw0FXGb0WlAMLLXuniq6qUGqvDPZvYqUzGsdtl-WkMFc6iITsBFDO2Vl6GDaUmstmJ0xHdlYj3sGgRf5d89Kh3kNGDKDZ7G18a04bmns7-&attredirects=0

[CoachRich]

Many thanks

I was glad I was sitting down when I got to this part -

Item 4 page 65- They themselves have never been asked to contribute a penny out of their own pocket to pay counsel for the legal advice they sought, in the name of the ASA Board, expediting the suspension and removal of Billings, prosecuting the legal proceedings they instituted and answering the legal proceedings they defended. The related legal expenses we have been advised have all been covered by the ASA while they were Board members in an amount apparently in excess of $800,000.

[tmcmurph]

Oh this thread is back to life. We'll make 300 pages and a new Voyageurs forum record!

68 pages to read over the weekend. I skipped to the last few pages to see the final verdict:

The Coles Notes version "For all of the above reasons all the complaints made concerning Billings are dismissed."

and the longer version:

"In our view the nine pre-February allegations are utterly without merit and reflect nothing more than

the frustration of some of the 2009 Board members, who carried over to the 2010 Board, in their

interface with Billings."

"In our view the manner in which the 2010 Board as a whole treated Billings was egregiously unfair and

significantly disproportionate to the pre-February allegations, from the moment some of its members

decided to initiate the actions which led to his purported suspension through to the scheduled Discipline

Hearings. The responsibility for that we are sure varies from member to member; only they will know

the extent of their individual responsibility. We find particularly offensive the correspondence sent by

one or more of those Directors from time to time, not just to each other but to outsiders as well,

describing Billings as having "misappropriated" ASA funds. That word has a connotation of dishonesty,

yet there never was a hint or evidence of same. However aggrieved they may have considered

themselves to be by Billings' behaviour towards them, none of it justified the manner in which some of

the 2010 Directors treated Billings."

"The loudest voices of criticism will no doubt be heard from those members of the 2010 Board who

vigourously and aggressively forced the removal of Billings from that Board because of those same

unfounded allegations."

"Finally, Billings was a member of the Board of Directors who is now found to be not guilty of the

complaints made against him, and as such should be indemnified, at least in part, for defending himself

against those complaints."

[oc64]

Oh this thread is back to life. We'll make 300 pages and a new Voyageurs forum record!

68 pages to read over the weekend. I skipped to the last few pages to see the final verdict:

The Coles Notes version "For all of the above reasons all the complaints made concerning Billings are dismissed."

and the longer version:

"In our view the nine pre-February allegations are utterly without merit and reflect nothing more than

the frustration of some of the 2009 Board members, who carried over to the 2010 Board, in their

interface with Billings."

"In our view the manner in which the 2010 Board as a whole treated Billings was egregiously unfair and

significantly disproportionate to the pre-February allegations, from the moment some of its members

decided to initiate the actions which led to his purported suspension through to the scheduled Discipline

Hearings. The responsibility for that we are sure varies from member to member; only they will know

the extent of their individual responsibility. We find particularly offensive the correspondence sent by

one or more of those Directors from time to time, not just to each other but to outsiders as well,

describing Billings as having "misappropriated" ASA funds. That word has a connotation of dishonesty,

yet there never was a hint or evidence of same. However aggrieved they may have considered

themselves to be by Billings' behaviour towards them, none of it justified the manner in which some of

the 2010 Directors treated Billings."

"The loudest voices of criticism will no doubt be heard from those members of the 2010 Board who

vigourously and aggressively forced the removal of Billings from that Board because of those same

unfounded allegations."

"Finally, Billings was a member of the Board of Directors who is now found to be not guilty of the

complaints made against him, and as such should be indemnified, at least in part, for defending himself

against those complaints."

The report was extremely thorough and at times pretty disturbing. I found it interesting that Mario and Colin left early as they didn't like the direction it was going in. I wonder if they have any regrets?

Will Billings still need to go through a CSA hearing?

[Norma Rae]

My expectation of the CSA is to deal with this expeditiously and without the necessity of a hearing. My recommendation to Mr. Billings would be to send a copy of this decision along with the decision of the CSA appeals committee on Aab, Bowie, Hodges and Troke to:

1. CSA board of directors seeking reinstatement (to unsuspend),

2. CSA appeals committee to summarily dismiss any and all charges against Billings.

There is this provision in the Bylaws which suggests that the Board can lift a suspension:

16.3 The Board of Directors may suspend a Member that seriously or repeatedly

violates its obligations as a Member with immediate effect. The suspension of the Member shall

last until the next general meeting, unless the Board of Directors has lifted it, where the suspension shall be confirmed by 75% of the Members in attendance at that general meeting.

16.4 The suspension will be lifted once the requirement imposed by the Membership has been

fulfilled.

If I recall correctly, there was another provision that I can't locate right now that permitted a 3 person review of a suspension after one year had elapsed.. If anyone else can locate what I am thinking of that would be appreciated.

[CoachRich]

oc64 - Well stated as my guts got in knots during some of the read as what happened to Billings had nothing to do with the kids.

Norma Rae - With Justice Tilleman's ruling, I'm not sure that the CSA has any standing at all in Alberta to discipline Billings.