Minnesota SRC Update

That statement is amusing but before I comment, can anybody point me to the place on the MYSA website that actually points to that page? The only way I can ever find it is to return to this thread, of all places, to use the link posted here (finally bookmarked it now so I don't have to do that anymore)...

OK, let's review some of the "points" they made in that undated, unsigned letter that is not on MYSA letterhead...

1) Financial oversight: the SRC has never questioned MYSA or MSA's ability to oversee SRC finances. This is Paula's fourth year as SRA. Each year she submits a financials summary to the bodies along with a copy of our upcoming year budget. Until this year, MYSA never had a problem with it. This year they started pestering her for details about things in the 2012-13 report. Many of these were questions they were entitled to ask.

Full disclosure... in August 2012 Paula emailed the financials summary to the SRC members and accidentally forgot to include MYSA and MSA's presidents in the "To:" line. She didn't realize she had done this. Neither association ever asked her, at any point, why they had not received the reports, but in October 2013 MYSA began pointing out that she hadn't submitted a 2012 report and therefore was hiding something.

MYSA's concerns over the lack of reporting were justified. It's also fair to ask why neither association president asked for the 2012 financials when they didn't show up, or why the MYSA reps on the SRC (the MYSA rep and the SYRA) never shared the report with their president.

Here's the other part of this that will cause all of you to raise some eyebrows. I'm going to tell it straight and I certainly allow anybody to judge for themselves.

I am compensated for the work I do on the MNSRC website. The SRC voted- with me in abstention and refraining from participation in discussion over the determination of that amount- to compensate me in the 2012 budget meeting. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the amount determined, including "for" votes by both the MYSA rep and SYRA. This was renewed in 2013.

The amount I am compensated was determined by evaluating the cost of consulting work to have a service provider code the site for the SRC. In fact, it is very much in line with how much MYSA's web provider, NGIN, would charge for similar work if it provided a similar website for MYSA, based on NGIN's fee structure.

MYSA wanted to show that I was using my position on the SRC to profit from the SRC. The exact financial information requested by the MYSA president included the amount I was being compensated for web work. He also wanted to know how much I had made for instruction in 2013 and how it compared to other instructors.

Sadly, this information was provided in the 2013 financial summary provided by Paula. It was right there on the report. Furthermore, the MYSA president could have simply asked his reps for the information seeing as they voted in favor it! Instead, he kept badgering Paula for her to answer the question. She kept telling him it was on the report and that his reps could fill him in... because, you know, that's their job! He ignored her and kept badgering her.

In mid-October, Paula set up an open meeting with the SRC accountant on October 31 and invited both organizations to attend. She gave 2 weeks' notice of the meeting. Ben O'Brien (MSA president) attended. Both Bob Poretti (MYSA president) and Urule Igbavboa (SYRA) were invited to represent MYSA but declined to attend. Paula and the accountant opened the books and allowed Ben to ask any question he wanted. Again, MYSA was given two weeks' notice of the meeting and declined to attend.

There were a few reporting problems that were adjusted within 48 hours, then Paula resubmitted the reports to both organizations. Within 24 hours of re-submission, MYSA executive director Candace Daley emailed Paula, thanked her for making the effort to clarify the financials, and said that MYSA was satisfied with the outcome.

Two weeks later, Bob Poretti demanded the same information he had been requesting for two months. Even though he had declined the opportunity to review the open books on October 31, and even though his executive director had already expressed satisfaction with the adjusted reports.

Paula answered him directly this time, giving him the amount of my compensation as web coder and also explaining that out of 20 instructors in 2013, I made the 9th most in instructor royalties (therefore showing that I was not abusing my position to excessively assign myself to clinics and turn a personal profit from my status). What's more, of the six clinics I taught in 2013, three were in Duluth, where I live, a two-hour drive from the Twin Cities. So by assigning myself to teach in Duluth, I actually saved the SRC money by eliminating travel costs for a Twin Cities instructor to drive to Duluth and stay in a hotel.

2) Paula also asked for nothing more than a letter of confidence in her ability to perform the SRA position. MYSA, in their post yesterday, said that providing that letter of confidence would be "bowing to [a] tactic."

To be honest, I have no idea what that means. Paula was asking for a private letter and a simple statement of confidence in her ability to do her job as SRA. She was not asking for a guarantee of reappointment in 2015 or a public letter to be posted on any websites or otherwise. I simply do not understand why an expression of confidence in a volunteer's ability to do her job was such a horrible thing to ask of MYSA.

3) I'm not going to rehash the resignation stuff. I'm not going to argue that I submitted a letter of resignation. I find it amusing that MYSA continues to tell everybody that I resigned- to which I have never debated- but has done nothing to fill the SDI position or tell people that the curriculum I created and am using should therefore be considered invalid.

What's more amusing, MYSA keeps telling people that Jim Engelking, the SAC, resigned as well. Last week MYSA's competitive committee chair, Roberta Kruse, contacted Jim for help in getting certified as an assignor for 2014. Now, if MYSA does not recognize Jim as the SAC, then why are MYSA board members contacting him with questions on how to get certified as an assignor?

4) Obviously MYSA seems to consider its Tuesday, January 28 meeting with MSA in a much different light than MSA does. I can't really comment on that because I wasn't there. Ben O'Brien has clearly indicated that MYSA's reporting of what happened in that meeting was not accurate. At this point, Ben O'Brien is the only person who has been willing to discuss details of this process with anybody. So, take that for what it's worth.

5) MYSA keeps saying it remains "committed to a just and speedy resolution to the dispute- consistent with its obligations as a member of USSF..." Yet, after being asked by its clubs to meet with the three SRC members in question and reinstate them, asked in person on February 1 and then by letter from dozens of clubs on February 7, it has not attempted to contact any of us.

Furthermore, even though MYSA states it wants to be consistent with its obligations as a member of USSF, it continues to ignore USSF's statement that Paula is recognized as the SRA.

So, I guess all of you have to consider all of these things and once again decide if MYSA is giving you the whole story...

 

Ah... there was no graphic next to it so I kept overlooking it. Thanks.

 

At this point, this is exactly what needs to be done. But, as I've pointed out several times during this saga, referees have zero say in the election of MYSA board members. It is up to the MYSA clubs to decide if their leadership is representing them appropriately, and if not, then it's up to those clubs to hold them accountable.

It is one of the sad truths about the soccer referee system in the US that the actual referees have very little say in who trains them.

As for placating, that would involve stepping away. I can't tell you how many times I have questioned the need to keep dealing with this, that this entire fight and constant assault against my character (and that of my colleagues) is not worth it.

I dunno, I guess I'm just the type of person who is easily guilted into doing what he is asked by people that are trying to accomplish something noble (meaning all of the referees I help out). 65% of MN referees are kids under 18, and I know that I would not have taken 13 years off between 16 and 29 years old if I had somebody who had put some effort into helping me get better, protecting me from verbal abuse, and helping me realize all of the life skills that being a good official would have helped with.

Just because some crackpot is running MYSA doesn't mean all of those kids don't deserve an advocate.

 

Yes, well, the association's board hires the ED, therefore she answers to MYSA's board. And when the president is the only person on the board who actually makes any decisions and the rest of the board follows like lemmings... I can assure you that the MYSA ED does what the president tells her to do.

I can assure you that nothing about our actions have been passive. There is work being done. We are providing information to people, and those people are acting.

We are also holding certain cards in our sleeve at this time. We don't want to look petty, and we want to continue to take the high road and simply do our jobs to the best of our abilities. But I can assure you that there is some pretty not-so-great stuff out there that is documented, and if it looks like we have to use it, we will.

Right now, we have clubs who recognize the job we are doing and respect us, the MSA supports us, we even have MYSA board members asking us for help in getting certified as assignors, referees, etc. (yes, the same people who keep saying we resigned). Returning and new referees are using our training. People are basically ignoring the MYSA president. The more he blusters about how Paula is not the SRA or I am not the SDI or Jim is not the SAC, while everybody else just lets us do our jobs, the stupider he will look.

When April rolls around and the first referee, certified by Paula, having used my training and assigned by an assignor that used Jim's training, steps on the field to officiate an MYSA match, MYSA's argument immolates. If they recognize that the referee is legitimate, then by default they accept we had the authority to certify that referee. Game over.

I had one non-MN referee contact me today asking how he could help. I'm telling you guys, referees can't help, whether they are from MN or not, with MYSA. Any referee that contacts MYSA, MYSA just thinks we're asking people to support us and it gets ignored. We've been seeing this for the past 4 months.

But you want to know what should be done? Think about this... if a DA club decided it was going to start playing games 5 days a week or participating in weekend tournaments where the team played 3-5 games in three days, what do you think USSF would do to that club? The clubs actions run in direct opposition to what the DA and USSF are trying to accomplish in youth development and would therefore be damaging the national team pool. That club would get kicked out of the DA.

Well, when a state association starts shredding its referee program, irreparably damaging it and causing it to completely dry up as a source of referees for the national development program, how should USSF respond? No more MN referees moving forward as national candidates, small national candidate pool, less competition, less motivation to act professional or improve... sub-standard USSF referees. To create a survival of the fittest situation, you have to create a need to survive.

So USSF should be "encouraged" by referees to change its policies and bylaws so that it can step in when a state association is not acting in the best interest of referee development. If you guys want to help out, what you should do is ask your SRA to contact members of the NRC, or go ahead and write them directly if you know them, and point out what a problem this is. This could happen in ANY state with the wrong guy in charge (I'm pretty sure MN isn't the first).

We don't need USSF to tinker with each one of the 55 state bodies, but if USSF wants quality referees (in addition to quality players), then it needs to have the ability to keep somebody like the current MYSA president from acting in the manner he has. If that means removing appointment power from the YSAs, so be it, but it could be something as simple as an appeal process that can come from the referee community to protect its best interests.

An interesting thought, but this is a guy who was told to contact the three of us by his clubs two weeks ago, refused to do so, and then came back and told six club reps at the last board meeting that we had resigned, etc., etc. It's hard to offer any kind of olive branch when he will not talk to you.

There are wheels in motion on this topic already, I can assure you. Technically, the board can remove somebody with a 75% vote, but that means 12 of 15 board members need to vote for suspension or removal, and these are people who have been signing off on the president's actions for 6 months. They don't have the courage to do it.

The clubs can also remove somebody with a 75% vote. That's harder to pull off... the votes are delegated by the number of players each club has, with up to 10 votes per club, so it would take a massive organizational movement to pull it off (basically 500 out of a possible 660 votes). Possible, because this action is not the only thing this guy has done to p--s off the clubs in recent years. But obviously more difficult, because you have to convince 130 clubs and 500 votes instead of 12 individuals.

What should happen is that the clubs should go to the individual board members and ask for a simple censure vote. They would need 8 votes. There are 6 district reps, and assuming the clubs would order their reps to act, this means they would have to find 2 additional votes on the board to order the president to cease his hostility towards the SRC. If the reps refuse to do as they are supposed to, then in November they all get voted out and replaced with somebody who will.

 

Exactly the point we have reached.

Do understand, we had to go through this "crisis" to reach this point. Before the clubs and the soccer community had any idea what was happening, we had MYSA (or at least their president unchecked by a do-nothing board) trying to kick us out. And as long as the only interested parties were MYSA, MSA, and the members of the committee, it was an equal tug-of-war. It became necessary to take this public within the soccer community to make it clear to MYSA that if they try to go through with this, they will be in trouble.