Why USA Team Handball should slow down on its plans for residency programs

USA Team Handball is in the midst of ironing out a final agreement with Auburn University to establish Residency Programs for both its Men’s and Women’s National Teams.  Going ahead and signing on the dotted line for this agreement which would last through the 2020 Olympics is one of the biggest decisions USA Team Handball has made in years.  Arguably, it’s the biggest decision the Federation has made… ever.

I could certainly argue the merits of Residency Programs, but I’ve already done that extensively.  I’m somewhat of a skeptic based on my own experiences and the changing times.  I also have some doubts as to the timing and most certainly disagree with the total lack of strategic planning to underpin why this is the way forward for USA Team Handball.

No, this time around I will simply make the case that if USA Team Handball is going to start a Residency Program it would be better to take it’s time, do it right and get the full approval of a Board of Directors.

Here are 3 reasons why:

Reason #1)  All options should be explored:  USA Team Handball has not put out a solicitation notice of any kind and has not discussed the possibility of a Residency Program with any other University or city.  That USA Team Handball is willing to go sole source without even a precursory exploration of other options is pretty much unfathomable to me.  This is not to say that sole source isn’t justified in certain circumstances.  Sometimes it’s clear that there’s only one viable option, but in this case USA Team Handball hasn’t even floated the possibility to others.  Heck, even Auburn only became a possibility as a result of unrelated phone call.  And sometimes time is of the essence.  A formal competition and a weighing of proposals takes time.  Which leads to reason #2.

Reason #2)  There’s no rush:  While there were bold pronouncements that the Residency Programs would make the U.S. difficult to handle in as little as 18 months there’s little illusion that it’s a long shot prospect at best for the U.S. to qualify for Rio.  Both CEO Van Houten (in my office visit) and Coach Garcia Cuesta (on the Argentine podcast) made that abundantly clear: The real and realistic focus is 2020.  If 2016 was a realistic goal you could make a good case that a Residency Program was an immediate need.  Heck, you could have made that case 2 years ago- Which is the point; it’s too late for Rio.  And, if we’re talking about 2020, the difference between starting a full up program in the fall of 2013 or the fall of 2014 is pretty marginal.  Yes, it would help some but not enough to warrant rushing forward.  Why, it could even be argued that waiting to the fall of 2014 would give more time to fully define all aspects of the program and have it clicking on all cylinders on day 1.

Reason #3)  Common Sense:  The Federation By-Laws detail the roles and responsibilities of the Board or Directors and Section 6.2 E) identifies “review and approve significant corporate actions” as a specific responsibility of the Board.  If signing on for a 7 year National Team Residency Program doesn’t fall under the definition of a significant corporate action then nothing does.  Why even bother to have a Board of Directors?

Board of Directors Status

Which points to the problem that USA Team Handball doesn’t currently have a fully constituted Board of Directors.  On January 1st of this year, the Board had only 5 members.  With President Jeff Utz’s departure in April that further dropped to 4.  The Board has not met in months and wouldn’t have a quorum even if it did meet.  Yes, for all practical purposes there is no Board of Directors currently providing policy, guidance and strategic direction.  Steps are being taken, however, to rectify this glaring problem.  An election for 2 “General Membership” Board Directors will conclude on 6 September and a Nominating & Governance Committee is hopefully in the final stages of identifying 3 “Independent” Board Directors.  Seemingly, a nine member accountable Board is just weeks away.

And at that time the Board should review plans for Residency Programs and provide guidance and strategic direction.  Perhaps that would be approval of the Auburn Residency Program.  Perhaps it would be a decision to slow down a bit and explore other Residency Program options.  Maybe it could even be a decision to develop a Strategic Plan that identifies organization goals and objectives first, before jumping into solutions.  Regardless, there’s no significant harm in waiting for a Board to make decisions that a Board should make.

CEO Matt Van Houten at his office in Colorado Springs

Yesterday, I sat down with USA Team Handball CEO, Matt Van Houten to discuss the agreement with Auburn University to start a National Team Residency Program.  We covered several topics, but mostly focused on the process related questions that I had posed in a previous posting.  Here’s a summary of what we discussed.

Board of Director involvement with the decision

The two Athletes Advisory Council Board Members, Tomuke Ebuwei and David Thompson have been engaged and are supportive of the decision to proceed with a residency program at Auburn.  The other two current Board Members, David Palmer and Tom Zelenovic, have been less engaged and he is uncertain as to where they might stand.  Van Houten also indicated that while he would prefer to have a fully constituted Board or Directors in place to review and approve the Residency Program agreement with Auburn that he had no plans to wait for this to happen.  As CEO he indicated that he will sign the agreement and made it clear that he is confident that this is the right decision for USA Team Handball.

Consideration of other potential candidates

When asked about whether any other universities or potential Olympic host cities had been contacted he indicated that none had and that there were no plans for an open solicitation to determine whether there might be other interested parties.  In short, it was his assessment that the Auburn deal was a good one and unlikely to be matched by another university.  He also indicated that while there were benefits to a potential arrangement with a USA candidate host city for the Olympics that this was still at least a year away and that he did not want to wait for this hypothetical possibility.

7 Year Commitment

Van Houten indicated that a 7 year commitment from both Auburn and USATH was necessary to give the Residency Programs a chance to flourish.  He noted that it was his assessment that qualifying for the 2016 Olympics would be challenging, but that the program would lay the groundwork for more realistic chances for 2020.  He also anticipates that the formal agreement will have “out clauses” for either side to withdraw from their commitment, but doing so would have penalties.

Documentation of Residency Program plans

In terms of documentation supporting the decision to proceed with a Residency Program he cited the High Performance Plan (HPP) which was developed last year although he is not certain as to whether it had been formally approved by the Board.  The HPP is not posted on the Federation website, but this is consistent with the practice followed by other National Governing Bodies such as USA Swimming, USA Volleyball, etc.  (Note:  I requested and have received a copy of the HPP.) In terms of documentation detailing specific requirements for a Residency Program he indicated that some top level internal documentation had been developed, but that there was no formal evaluation criteria that was used to grade a proposal from Auburn.  Instead the development of the Auburn Residency Program plan has been developed through bi-lateral communication between USATH and Auburn.

The High Performance Team and perceptions of bias

Van Houten indicated that the possibility of perceptions of bias exists, but noted that I am the only individual who has expressed any concern.  From his perspective he is certain that there is no actual bias that would cloud the judgment of the High Performance Team (High Performance Director, Dave Gascon, Technical Director, Mariusz Wartalowicz, Men’s coach, Javier Garcia Cuesta and Women’s Coach Christian Latulippe.  He further noted that the National Team coaches had been signed to 3 year contracts and would continue to be paid regardless of whether there was a Residency Program or not.  He also has full confidence in this team and does not see any need for additional involvement from the Board or others in the day to day development of the Residency Programs.

My overall impression

As you might expect, I strongly disagree with the decision to start a 7 year Residency Program without conducting a wider search and getting approval from the Board of Directors.  I also continue to be dissatisfied with the development of an HPP without review and comment from the committees that were stood up at the 2011 Strategic Planning Conference.  I appreciated, however, the opportunity to express my opinions candidly even if my arguments didn’t sway CEO Van Houten’s opinion.