I am sure that most of you have not idea why I posted these 10 year old financial documents, other than that history has been lost and they aren't on the USAT site where you can see them (they are there, just can't see them). I have two reasons:

1. Because they are not there and I have them. And I have a lot more than these. Someone should start putting them into a historical context so they don't get lost forever because the USAT webmaster didn't link them into the new website when they upgraded.

2. Because I am sick and tired of the nostalgia for the old USTU and how much better it was. USAT has major issues and major financial problems. However, so did USTU. USTU was farther in debt than USAT, had more financial issues etc..  I am beyond sick and tired of everytime I read a post from you know who that there were 32,000 (that figure was right one year btw), 35,000 and now the most recent outrageous 40,000!  Truth is that the tax returns state approximately 30,000 for the biggest years being the early 2000's, including 2004 when USOC took over.

There were never 6000 competitors at JO's.

And all these comparisons posted on TKD-Net forget all the reasons the USOC audited and what they found. They also forget about the money in the investment fund that just plain vanished.

Let's quit glamorizing the past and fix the problems of today. Obviously with the debt of USTU, it hadn't solved its problems, so going back there now won't fix them now. The economy has changed. People have changed. The whole world climate has changed. So let's get out of the past, remember it to learn and not make the same mistakes, but let's just ditch this whole USTU was perfect. In case no one has noticed, there is a definite attempt by some to recreate the whole USTU of yesterday. Well, USTU evolved to USAT and it is time to move on and do something good for the athletes and the members.

Here is another nice report done by Bob Gambardella and Tom back in the day.

GU has made this big deal over comparing USTU and USAT with his end result being USTU did better. USAT has done crap, but USTU was nearly decertified over the financials.  Here is a nice OFFICIAL, not made up from numbers GU thinks he remembers.

Let's see how this one came out - can't wait for the website to be back up and running properly. Formatting on here is not fun.

Let's have more fun with numbers - [bracketed comments are mine] Let's also not forget that there was vendor money which topped a quarter of a million dollars and other incomes besides membership for both USTU and USAT. He really just needs to read the financials - I did. And when he talks about that $300,000 from USOC, that varies by year - and does not include performance pool, and the $180K per year USOC marketing agreement. And anyone notice that when USTU became USOC - rather when USOC took over the USTU the USOC investment account which had over $340K in it was GONE GONE GONE - anyone know where that went as it just vanished into thin air:

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 13:52:47 -1000
From: "glenn" < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >
To: "taekwondo net mailing list" < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >
Subject: Re: [tkd-net] Running some numbers
Message-ID: <24C87974B0B14A48BBF973870AA579BF@D32K5JC1>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original

Let's run some numbers to get a comparison between USTU and USAT.

During the USTU era, the budget was about $2.5 million, $300,000 of which came from USOC, and we had about 40,000 members. Taking out the grant money leaves us with $2.2 of self generated revenues, which when we divide by 40,000, comes out to $55.00 per member. $35 of that is the membership fee, meaning each member pays an additional $20 to support USTU, over membership
fee. Twenty bucks.

[Me}{ We have already determined that :
According to the USTU tax returns:

2000 - around 30,000
2001 - around 30,000
2002 - around 30,000
2003 - around 30,000
2004 - around 30,000

There is a huge difference between 30,000 and 40,000. At $35 a member, that is about $350,000 less in membership revenue.

In 2000 - USTU had $2.5M in revenue
In 2001 - USTU had $2.8 M in revenue and $2.5 M in expenses.
In 2002 - USTU had $3.1M in revenue and $3.5M in expenses
In 2003 - USTU had $3.3M in revenue and $3.5M in expenses
in 2004 - USTU had $2.5M in revenue and $2.3 M in expenses
In 2005 - USTU had $2.7M in revenue and $2.7M in expenses.

So 2000 was the only year there was a $2.5 million dollar budget.

Do I need to go on? His numbers are meaningless.]

Contrast to USAT, which is a $3 million organization with 14,500 in
membership. Taking grant money out ($300,000) leaves us with $2.7 million in self generated revenues, or $186.20 per member, meaning each member now pays an additional $151.20 to support USAT.

[See above – USTU had a $3M+ budget in 2002 and 2003. Again not taking into account the other revenue streams, such as vendors, events etc...]

$151.20 represents a 756% increase in cost to each member of USAT, over a less than ten year period.

[Meaningless calculation]

Traditionally, USAT has compensated for a loss of membership by increasing fees. But we may have maxed out on that avenue. 756% is a lot. By the way, all of that happened when Ronda Sweet was on the USAT Board of Directors. I guess their focus when "brainstorming" was to figure out new and creative
ways to increase fees paid by USAT members.

[Membership fees increased only for Clubs, not individuals during USAT years. The club increase was done by David Askinas without permission of the BOD. Competition fees increased, again without BOD permission from the dearly departed David Askinas. However, keep in mind, every other org increased their competition fees also.]

We presently owe $220,000 to USOC, mainly for usage fees associated with OTC (sports center, dorms, etc.). USOC wants us to pay this back, which means we have to increase revenues this year in order to absorb this debt that remains unpaid. Problem is that our revenues are stagnant due to stagnant membership numbers, and we have that "going concern" opinion from the CPA, meaing that we cannot meet our present financial obligations, much less take
on more debt.

[Read the reports, there is a good chunk of money owed the USOC for lost receipts on USOC funded trips, although not as much as the USTU was to repay for the same. Not all of it is OTC related. ]

There are two choices, one is to increase membership. The other is to raise prices once again. Since no one is focusing on increasing membership, the cheap and easy solution will be to raise prices. This leads to short term gains, but long term, it causes membership to shrink.

[lower membership also means lower expenses and when one is not paying board members and officiers - 2001 had $108K on that line - $15,000 of that to Steven Silz for the history book - you can also increase profits.]

If membership drops to 12,500, then in order to maintain the same revenue, each member will have to pay $181 over their $35 membership fee, which is 20% more than they pay now.

[Again, meaningless numbers. Don't think math is his long suit here – a $146 increase would be way more than 20%.]

At 10,000, that amount goes up to $235.

Let's assume membership increases. At 20,000 members, cost per member is $100 over membership dues. At 30,000 members, that amount drops to $55.

[Increase membership, which would be nice, also means increased expenses, so again, his numbers are flawed.]

We are talking about big differences. So really the key is increased
membership. That is where the action should be for the Board, not all this negative "kill our perceived enemies" crap.

Also, back in the USTU days, when we had 6000 competitors at JOs, we would clear a profit of about $500,000, which would tide us over for the rest of the year. I haven't looked at the numbers for USAT nationals, but would seriously doubt that we clear $500,000 with 2000 or so competitors. That is where we end up losing money, after July during the dead time for the organization, when tournament season is over and nothing is coming in. That
is when we will be taking the hits, during those months, not now, when state championships monies have come in, including but not limited to those membership renewals. No one is renewing their membership in November or December.

[Where he gets these profit and participation numbers, I don't know but again, they do not add up. USTU always claimed 5000 at Jo's but that was counting each and every person in each event - so if you did both sparring and forms you counted as 2 people. Truer numbers were less than 3000.

In 2000 - USTU had $2.5M in revenue
In 2001 - USTU had $2.8 M in revenue and $2.5 M in expenses.
In 2002 - USTU had $3.1M in revenue and $3.5M in expenses
In 2003 - USTU had $3.3M in revenue and $3.5M in expenses
in 2004 - USTU had $2.5M in revenue and $2.3 M in expenses
In 2005 - USTU had $2.7M in revenue and $2.7M in expenses.

2002 & 2003 look like losses to me. Big losses. Where is that $500,000 profit?]

Interesting, they were to load the new version but obviously it is not showing. Still working on it.

Interesting also, a couple of articles have dropped off. Working....

I don't have all the insider details on this deal, but I am not sure I want them. I know enough about how it ended here and I know the final result and I think it is beyond stupid. I suspect it has been in the works longer than Bruce has been CEO, so I am not blaming anyone currently in office but someone explain this to me.

OK - we have the USOC paying to send 16 athletes to compete and to take a camp all at USOC expense. We have 5 athletes not competing and possibly 4 athletes not taking the camp (probably since I am sure it will not meet Jean's standards and according to the rumor mill, Jean says he will pull them if it is not up to his standards.) Then we have a coach going who is not going to coach because he pulled his athletes from the competition.

SO someone PLEASE TELL ME - WHY ARE THEY GOING IN THE FIRST PLACE???  Why are spots being wasted on people who are not going for the purpose intended?  Why can't someone else who wanted a chance to go take those 4 spots (not counting AC)?  Why couldn't B team members go in their place and let these 4 train with their coach at home? Why was money from the USOC, when they aren't happy with USAT in the first place?

I have no doubt that someone was screaming lawsuit and once again let's play placate. I hear the HP Director has been showing the same bias that saw Juan file a complaint against her after the Olympics. Well, this gets old. If you are going to compete - compete. If you are going along for the ride, stay home and let someone else who has the drive to take the spot. All this paying people not to compete sure makes no sense.

So someone explain to me how all this gets USAT off probation and back in good graces with USOC? Someone tell me how this improves the USAT athlete pipeline? I am sure USOC likes the idea of sending people to

How about this new rule - if you aren't competing at an event where the USAT is sending you, unless you are a coach or a paid staff person absolutely necessary to the trip - you pay your own way?

USAT has amended the March 13th meeting minutes.

10. During the Executive Session the Board considered whether to continue pursuing an action against Jean Lopez based on newly discovered information. A motion send the question to the full Ethics board was made. The motion passed with one nay vote.

11. After Board discussion, A motion was made to offer Interim USAT CEO, Mr. Bruce
Harris a comprehensive contract running through December, 31, 2013.

USAT BOD MEETING MINUTES
22 APRIL 2013
PRESENT: NOT PRESENT:
John HOLLOWAY – Board Chair Luciano MEDINA – Coach Director
Seth WILSON – Club Director Jeff WALTERS – Independent Director
Sang CHA – Club Director Dae Sung LEE – Independent Director
Sammy PEJO – Club Director
Russell AHN – Affiliated Director
Lynda LAURIN – USOC AAC Rep
Terrence JENNINGS – AAC Rep
Ron SOUTHWICK – AAC Rep
Devin JOHNSON – Independent Director
Board Chair John Holloway called meeting to order at 5:10 p.m.
Roll Call was conducted and a quorum was established: Nine Board members were present.
Chair Holloway began by addressing the Bylaws update and noted that attorney Stephen Hess was still working on the bylaws and that they are nearing completion.
Chair Holloway nominated the following persons to the Nominating and Governance Task Force:
- Devin JOHNSON – Chair
- Lynda LAURIN – Athlete Rep
- Seth WILSON
- Kim SOL
- Marco MACK

Ron Southwick moved that the appointees be approved as nominated. Motion was seconded by Coach Cha. Motion carried unanimously.
Interim CEO Bruce Harris reviewed the status update of each of the USOC Hearing Panel concerns item-by-item. There were no questions at that time. After another agenda item was discussed there was a question regarding whether the USOC AA Rep should be involved with the item expressed in paragraph 45 of the Hearing Panel Report. Mr. Southwick made a motion to include USOC AAC Rep Lynda Laurin in the High Performance Plan discussions and planning. Motion was properly seconded and passed unanimously.
Mr. Devin Johnson and Ms. Lynda Laurin presented the Independent Director Update. They explained the search procedure and discussed the candidates that made their final list. The candidate recommended by the Independent Director Search Committee was Ms. Sanyin Siang of Duke University. Motion was made to accept the recommendation from the committee, properly seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Board Chair Holloway will notify Ms. Sanyin Siang once he receives her contact information from Ms. Lynda Laurin.
USAT Membership was given by Interim CEO Harris. Discussion followed regarding membership goals for the year. It was recommended that the Strategic Plan might include quarterly membership forecasts as well as an annual membership forecast.
Interim CEO Harris presented the USAT Cash Flow update. He noted that August is the month that bears the most concern as it relates to cash flow issues. Discussion included ways to trigger financial influx during that time of year. Interim CEO Harris mentioned a possible increase in revenues in November due to a planned USA Taekwondo Convention. He also expressed hopes of an increase in participation in the upcoming USAT National Championships.
Chair Holloway asked for any other items of discussion from any Board member. Chair Holloway notified the Board of his intent that the Board will meet bi-weekly by telephone conference through the Probation period, then quarterly thereafter. All Board members approved of this plan. It was announced that the next USAT Board meeting will take place on May 6, 2013, at 5 p.m. MDT. Interim CEO Harris noted that he might not be able to attend due to his participation with the USAT National Team at the Spanish Open during that time period.
Interim CEO Harris noted that he intends to post the names of the entourage that will travel to the Spanish Open. This should be done by Wednesday, April 24, 2013.
Devin Johnson answered a question regarding the Board being able to use Googlegroups for its group communications.
Chair Holloway said that he intends to accept nominations for the Ethics Committee and the Judicial Committee so that those committees may be populated as soon as possible. A few names were discussed to be added for their consideration for those committees. There was a question of how athlete reps are selected to serve on committees. Further clarification will be sought from attorney Stephen Hess.
Following a question of who has the final authority to decide the Coaching staff, the meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m. MDT.

I asked around and I went through the USAT website looking for a notification that the suspension on Jean Lopez had been lifted. Needless to say, I found nothing. However, via phone calls and email, I discovered there was a Board Action Without Meeting that has yet to be posted on the USAT website, maybe webmaster didn't realize that consitutes minutes just like a meeting.  So yes, he was suspended and then after further consideration, this suspension was lifted and the matter in question referred to the Ethics Committee.

by Bagehot » Tue Apr 23, 2013 2:12 pm

Bagehot

Posts: 605

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:50 pm

Has thanked: 0 time

Have thanks: 43 time

This is getting crazy. I am now told that in spite of the fact the minutes read

"c. After much discussion, the BOD voted 7-1 to suspend Coach Jean Lopez’ membership for not less than 2 years." 

The transitional board passed the issue to the new board? It didn't happen? Makes no sense.

Maybe posting this all over will force a clear answer which explains why the minutes read the way they do and that supposedly it is not true. Someone have an answer? Seemed pretty clear to me when I read it.

From the 2/6/13 minutes:

"Mr. Parthen also notified the Board that staff is working with the USOC Audit Department to recoup some of $69,000 owed to USOC from the 2011 audit. To date, staff was able to
produce documentation for approximately $20,000 of previously unsupported expenses which will reduce USAT’s liability to the USOC by a corresponding amount."

Now someone explain to me how money that they know had to be accounted for from obviously trips that a USAT staffer goes along on to track the expenses and keep the receipts loses documentation for $50,000 (according to Bagehot)!!!!  How does this happen? And is that employee still with USAT? And if he or she is - WHY?????????? 

USAT cannot afford, nor should this ever be an issue, to repay $50,000 because someone didn't keep bills and receipts.  Why didn't heads roll?  Oh yeah, David's did, rather belatedly. But who was in charge? Staff accompanies all teams - but poomsae.