- Published on Friday, 15 February 2013 17:04
- Written by Administrator
If the WTF goes through with this idea, the USAT had better plan on changing its game plan for 2016.
not the greatest translation but you get the idea:
This option shows the intention of the World Taekwondo Federation to make increasingly valuable WTF World Ranking and thus generate, that ranked in the top rank of classified directly for the Olympics.
If realized this project would eliminate what we now know as "WTF World Taekwondo Qualification Tournament", and possibly would be the continental qualifiers to complete the remaining places.
The news came to light when the Secretary General was speaking on "Taekwondo Grand Prix Series" and stated: "... If all goes well and so far, we plan to make the first Grand Prix later this 2013, we confident that this event will contribute to the advancement and improvement of the ranking of the athletes, and if accepted by our members, we will use the ranking to rank the Olympics, so we could say that the ranking could replace the World Championship Qualifier. '
Thus, although competitors have a privileged place in the ranking have been unable to reach the London 2012 Olympic Games not rated in the top three places in highly competitive continents such as Asia and Europe, as was the case Rukiye Yildirim of Turkey, No. 4 in the world rankings, medalist at the World Absolute University, University Games and European Champion, or who was the No. 3 of the World and World Champion, Rosanna Simon of Spain, to name but two cases, that of posed system exist Jean-Marie Ayer, had not been deprived of competing in the Olympics.
If more powers begin to exist rankeables in different regions of the world, it is very likely that the classification by Ranking is the most coherent way to recruit the best in the world for just as the Olympics, where only supposed to be the best of time.
Claudio Aranda, Exclusive masTaekwondo.com
- Published on Friday, 15 February 2013 00:05
- Written by Administrator
The BOD has had a large amount of work to do in a short period of time. I personally advocated for a year period for a group to review and revise the governance. When working in haste, it is easy, especially as many of the current BOD are not exactly experts on bylaws and governance issues.
Couple more comments on the election call for candidates:
From the FAQ
e. Club Director. The USAT shall solicit nominations from those USAT registered club owners who have been club owners for the two years preceding the election year and who have registered at least 25 USAT Members in those years. For the purpose of the upcoming 2013 elections ONLY, a Club Representative candidate may meet the 25-member club registration requirement by the record date for this election. The Record Date is 3-days before the first date of the start of the elections. It is highly encouraged that at least one (1) of the Club Representatives is a current USAT State President at the time of his/her election as a Club Representative on the USAT Board of Directors.
b. Athlete Directors. The three (3) athlete Board directors shall be elected by athletes. The Athletes’ Advisory Council shall elect from among its members, by majority vote, pursuant to Section 11.7. of these Bylaws, two individuals who shall be athlete directors. The other athlete director shall be USAT’s representative to the USOC Athletes’ Advisory Council, elected pursuant to Section 12.3 of these Bylaws. If possible, one of the USAT AAC Representatives should be a Poomsae athlete who meets the AAC eligibility criteria. Athlete representation on the Board of Directors shall consist of at least 50% of Sparring athletes, consistent with the USOC Bylaws requirement that the majority of athlete representation on a Board of Directors is from the Olympic discipline. Poomsae is not, at this time, an Olympic discipline.
While the bylaws as approved appear to have defined who votes in the case of coach and referee, but do not define who votes for the Club Directors or the AAC BOD Reps.
FYI - Coach and Referee define that each registered coach and referee (which leaves open someone who just registered and never took the classes) shall have one vote.
Who votes for the athletes? The AAC? Those eligible to vote for the AAC? The BOD?
Who votes for the clubs? Any club owner? Only club owners with 25 members?
Additionally the time line has nothing about the Affiliated election.
- Published on Thursday, 14 February 2013 22:47
- Written by Administrator
The BOD has done a good job in the time allotted for decisions. I personally thought a year at a minimum as there are too many unintended consequences for something as important as a complete goverance overhaul to be handled in just a couple months. Remember there was not a full BOD until sometime in December.
The plans appear to say that there will be 3 AAC BOD members. Good. One of them gets a full 2 year term and 2 of them will be on only for two years. AAC is different as AAC is elected for a 4 year quad, specific to the year after the Summer Olympics until 12/31 of the year of the Summer Olympics. They have an eligibility period and all kinds of specific rules.
There is no problem with the 4 year AAC. It follows the quad and will be ok. The problem comes with the 2 AAC elected, or re-elected in two years. At that point they will be 2 years into their AAC term. So when they are elected or re-elected in two years, whomever they are, if they are not re-elected in 2016, you have a possibility of a BOD member representing the AAC who is not eligible to be an AAC - either from timing out or not being on the AAC.
This is why in 2006 both AAC members had full 4 year terms when half the board had a one year term. You just can't split the AAC. All 3 AAC BOD members need to get a full 4 year term from now and every 4 year election from now on or you risk having the conundrum of an AAC BOD member who for 2 years either isn't on the AAC or might be ineligible to be on the AAC.