TargetTalk

If you go back to the webpage, the Motion to Dismiss or Stay is new on the page. It was filed yesterday in Colorado.

Ed and Mary are in Chicago today in mediation.

jhmartin wrote:If you go back to the webpage, the Motion to Dismiss or Stay is new on the page. It was filed yesterday in Colorado.
Ed and Mary are in Chicago today in mediation.

1.)
The primary motion for dismissal (secondary prayer: for stay of proceedings; tertiary is the cost order requested) is written in a technical and legalese way. If some non-jurists might find it quaint or cumbersome to understand, be assured by me that it is NOT your fault, but Janette Ferguson's. Dixi et salvavi animam meam. ;-)

However, all important aspects are at least duly covered in it. I think the chances are good now. The central issue of that motion can be dogmatically conceptualized either as a lacking claim for relief ratione materiae or as a lack of jurisdiction ratione fori. I would have preferred the latter (also because it is much closer to the legislatory intent of the Ted Stevens Act that Williams has amply referred to), but the choice of Ferguson to frame this as a yet still missing claim is at least tenable and arguable (though weaker).

The requested dismissal in limine is politically nicer and will boost the athletes' much cause better than a stay (PR !), so the New York sports lawyer might find an additional brief of supporting argument appropriate, such as to bolster this his Colorado-based commercial litigation colleague's issue a bit more.

2.)
The mediation before USOC is of course what will address the core of the many structural grievances, whereas the declaratory judgement that USAS tried to foist upon the athletes, only pertains to elections and to incumbency of two office-holders.
Williams's noble and far-sighted intent goes far beyond that initial issue, and impresses me. It is an old vision for which he has worked tirelessly in the last 40 years, and where he has already had amazing successes, and now wishes to still augment his legacy, to the benefit of the sport and of all sportspersons as a whole. Great job.

Alexander

From the USA Shooting Website - 10/23/2015

Memorandum of Understanding Adopted, Blue Ribbon Panel Formed to Resolve USA Shooting’s Grievances

On Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2015, representatives of USA Shooting’s leadership met with representatives of athletes and other members of USA Shooting to mediate a Complaint filed with the United States Olympic Committee. The meeting was facilitated by United States Olympic Committee-appointed mediator Paul E. George and resulted in the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the parties that resolves the USOC Complaint, as well as several other pending grievances within USA Shooting. The MOU provides for the appointment of a “Blue Ribbon” working group to conduct an extensive review of USA Shooting’s Bylaws and relevant policies, ensuring the sport’s governance meets or exceeds universally agreed-upon best practices and enables USA Shooting to support its mission of preparing elite athletes for success and of growing the sport.

“USA Shooting is extremely pleased to bring these controversial issues toward resolution thus allowing all to return complete focus to our mission of preparing athletes for success in competition,” said USA Shooting Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer Robert Mitchell. “We’re anxious to make this organization better now and for our future.”

The “Blue Ribbon” working group will include seven members: two representatives from USA Shooting, one of whom will be Robert Mitchell; two athlete representatives, one of whom will be Mary Weeks, USA Shooting’s athlete representative to the USOC’s Athletes’ Advisory Council; and three independent representatives appointed by the USOC. The USOC will also appoint a chair of the working group, who will be one of the independent members.

“I am honored to help represent our athletes on this working group,” said Mary Weeks. “And I’m confident that this group, along with the experience and support of the USOC, will help USA Shooting become an NGB that will set the standard for good governance, transparency and athlete support in the future.”

In addition to reviewing USA Shooting’s Bylaws and relevant policies, the working group has jurisdiction to address topics that it deems relevant including, but not limited to: board structure, election procedures, grievance and dispute resolution procedures, number and composition of committees, athlete development, and athlete selection procedures. It is intended that the review and any subsequent updates of USA Shooting’s Bylaws and relevant policies will be completed for action at USA Shooting’s March 12, 2016 board meeting.

jhmartin wrote:From the USA Shooting Website - 10/23/2015

Memorandum of Understanding Adopted, Blue Ribbon Panel Formed to Resolve USA Shooting’s Grievances

On Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2015, representatives of USA Shooting’s leadership met with representatives of athletes and other members of USA Shooting to mediate a Complaint filed with the United States Olympic Committee. The meeting was facilitated by United States Olympic Committee-appointed mediator Paul E. George and resulted in the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the parties that resolves the USOC Complaint, as well as several other pending grievances within USA Shooting. The MOU provides for the appointment of a “Blue Ribbon” working group to conduct an extensive review of USA Shooting’s Bylaws and relevant policies, ensuring the sport’s governance meets or exceeds universally agreed-upon best practices and enables USA Shooting to support its mission of preparing elite athletes for success and of growing the sport.

“USA Shooting is extremely pleased to bring these controversial issues toward resolution thus allowing all to return complete focus to our mission of preparing athletes for success in competition,” said USA Shooting Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer Robert Mitchell. “We’re anxious to make this organization better now and for our future.”

The “Blue Ribbon” working group will include seven members: two representatives from USA Shooting, one of whom will be Robert Mitchell; two athlete representatives, one of whom will be Mary Weeks, USA Shooting’s athlete representative to the USOC’s Athletes’ Advisory Council; and three independent representatives appointed by the USOC. The USOC will also appoint a chair of the working group, who will be one of the independent members.

“I am honored to help represent our athletes on this working group,” said Mary Weeks. “And I’m confident that this group, along with the experience and support of the USOC, will help USA Shooting become an NGB that will set the standard for good governance, transparency and athlete support in the future.”

In addition to reviewing USA Shooting’s Bylaws and relevant policies, the working group has jurisdiction to address topics that it deems relevant including, but not limited to: board structure, election procedures, grievance and dispute resolution procedures, number and composition of committees, athlete development, and athlete selection procedures. It is intended that the review and any subsequent updates of USA Shooting’s Bylaws and relevant policies will be completed for action at USA Shooting’s March 12, 2016 board meeting.

I will be more impressed when the lawsuit is dismissed/withdrawn and the three board members who initiated the law suit, without a board vote, agree to personally pay all attorney's fees and court costs.

if the allegations in this case are true, their actions could rise to the level of RICO charges.

So, have the legal actions by all parties involved ended? Does the election of the board chairman still need to be resolved? Does Gary Anderson's position on the board also still need to be resolved?

Paul,

That seems to be the $64,000 question.

Sounds like they are trying to put a good face on, I see a change in the leadership in their future. Best move for them is to "retire" before being removed, this may save USA Shooting a lot of embarrassment and the potential loss of sponsorship dollars.

PaulB wrote:So, have the legal actions by all parties involved ended? Does the election of the board chairman still need to be resolved? Does Gary Anderson's position on the board also still need to be resolved?

The optimist in me sees this as a necessary step in the right direction. I think your questions are valid, and I hope (and believe) they will be addressed by this panel.

I don't think this is a whitewashing. Time will tell. I think this is a de-escalation in hostilities, and a move towards USAS becoming compliant with USOC and Amateur Sports Act requirements.

(Posted from fone; excuse tipos)

It's only a deescalation if the case is dropped. At least that is my simple non lawyerly opinion. Otherwise the mediation is a,ay for time until they can get a judge's decision.

So in a nutshell, the issue is Board not adhering to the By Laws, or?

Don't have time to wade this but need to know before/if I write my annual donation.

Thanks in advance.

Jim E wrote:So in a nutshell, the issue is Board not adhering to the By Laws, or?

Don't have time to wade this but need to know before/if I write my annual donation.

Thanks in advance.

Not only are some members of the board, unwilling to follow the By laws, or the law as it applies to non profits like this, the people in control found it necessary to call the commander of the AMU and threaten him, if he didn't vote their way.
Then they tried to have him removed from command, and afterwards followed it up by suing the members of the board who wouldn't go along with the program.


You can do as you like, but I am not sending them one dime, or shooting any of their events until at least three people are gone off that board.

Kate & Jim E, (& others who feel the same way)

If you have those dollars burning a hole in your pocket, we could still take some gofundme contributions to pay for the legal expenses. While USOC chipped in 10K, I think we still need a bit more. If we get extra than what we need, when all is worked out, those funds will go to USAS.

Joel

jhmartin wrote:Kate & Jim E, (& others who feel the same way)

If you have those dollars burning a hole in your pocket, we could still take some gofundme contributions to pay for the legal expenses. While USOC chipped in 10K, I think we still need a bit more. If we get extra than what we need, when all is worked out, those funds will go to USAS.

Joel

Does this mean that the USOC is helping to pay for athletes to defend themselves from allegations by the organization meant to represent them internationally? That is a truly sad state of affairs. USAS should drop its case immediately and cover any costs associated from its athlete board members having to defend themselves from other members of the board and the organization. To do otherwise is an absurdity.

Marcus has posted a very good update on the GoFundMe page.
This answers most of the questions that folks are asking since last Tuesday

https://www.gofundme.com/a4usascompliance

Isabel1130 wrote:

Jim E wrote:So in a nutshell, the issue is Board not adhering to the By Laws, or?

Don't have time to wade this but need to know before/if I write my annual donation.

Thanks in advance.

Not only are some members of the board, unwilling to follow the By laws, or the law as it applies to non profits like this, the people in control found it necessary to call the commander of the AMU and threaten him, if he didn't vote their way.
Then they tried to have him removed from command, and afterwards followed it up by suing the members of the board who wouldn't go along with the program.

Unfortunate but not unheard of in both for-profit and non-for-profit institutions where some form of nepotism trumps strategic re-evaluations.

Thanks very much for the concise reply.

Once again I am getting in the middle of this when I am not really current, but I can tell you this:

I always figured that ANY orginization or business like USA Shooting needs some continual change in management to get fresh ideas and keep things advancing. It also seems like the Shooting sports have been languishing or diminishing for decades now..

I can also tell you that Bob Mitchell was in some position of power/management when I was in a Masters Smallbore Camp at the OTC in Colorado Springs in 1989. Yes, 1989. I have photos. I assume he has been there continually since at least 1989? That means Mitchell has been at the helm in some capacity for nearly 30 years??

This lawsuit stuff is totally unacceptable, and all of the management needs to go, updated bylaws need to be written to prevent this again, and new blood needs to be implemented.

Do we really need professional politicians running USAS, running from one post to the next, to stay employed? I am assuming the USAS positions are full time paid positions? Do we need people at USAS who are worried about losing their job/paycheck that will do things like this to protect it?

Would I be correct in assuming that our donation money in some part is being used to fund the lawsuit?

Jeff

After the meeting with the USOC, a "Blue Ribbon Working Group" (BRWG) was formed with 3 USOC members, 2 from USAS and 2 from the Grievants group. Ont of the stipulations of forming this group was that USAS would drop the lawsuit.

The BRWG is under a 120 window to review/re-write/update the USAS bylaws to bring it into conformance with the Ted Stevens Act.
see https://www.gofundme.com/a4usascompliance

There are multiple sources to pay off the lawyers and consultants. USOC, USAS, & the GoFundMe account.

UPDATE 11/11/2015
USOC memo on the formulation of the working group
http://www.vc4hss.com/__USAS_Sec10_Complaint/index.htm

Ok I'm confused.

Apparently Gary Anderson has been serving on the board for a continuous 20 year period - in breach of the bylaws.

But here in June 2013 the USA shooting website states:

http://www.usashooting.org/news/2013/6/ ... ng-meeting

"Previously serving on the USA Shooting Board as President from 2005-08, Lally takes the seat held previously by two-time Olympic gold medalist and International Shooting Sport Federation (ISSF) Vice-President Gary Anderson, who served as President from 2009-2013.USA Shooting Bylaws state that officers can serve two, two-year terms after which they must take a break of at least two years before they can be returned to the same office."

Then in December 2014 I see this:

http://www.usashooting.org/news/2014/12 ... -elections

"Under re-elected President Olegario Vazquez Raña (MEX), two-time Olympic champion and current USA Shooting Board of Director (BOD) member Gary Anderson will serve as one of four Vice Presidents."

So I guess my confusion is, if Dr Lally was elected in June 2013 to the Board of Directors, to take over Gary Andersons position, how is it possible that Gary Anderson was still a Board member in 2014?

Or is it a case where you cannot hold a specific position such as President for more than 4 years without taking a break, but can continue to be a board member?

Ok, found the bit in the bylaws about term limits:

W. Term Limits. No member of the Board may serve more than eight years without a two (2) consecutive year
interruption of service on the Board with the following exceptions:

Was there no list of current board members provided to the board members on a regular basis? Clearly the executive commitee knew about the term limits on officer positions based on their actions in June 2013, seems to beggar belief that they didn't know about the term limits on board members.