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.

USA Team Handball and Auburn University agree to a seven year National Team Residency Program. Did USA Team Handball have a structured and transparent process for reaching this decision?

Yesterday, USA Team Handball formally announced an agreement in principle between USA Team Handball and Auburn University to create a long-term residency program for both the Men’s and Women’s National Teams.  The posting trumpeted the genesis of how the deal came to fruition and how USA National Teams will improve and become formidable opponents in as little as 18 months.  I certainly don’t doubt that U.S. teams will soon show improvement.  Results have been pretty dismal lately and a structured training program can’t help but produce better results.  It’s debatable as to how long it will take till the U.S. can improve to the point that it can qualify for an Olympics or even a World Championship, but undoubtedly we’re going to get better.

Of course, there are other ways of improving national team performance even if they don’t offer a quick solution.  It’s no secret that I have been very skeptical as to the implementation of Residency Programs.  In a series of commentaries I identified some problems with the basic concept and questioned whether it was the right time to start such a program.  Setting aside skepticism in the last essay I highlighted how  USA Team Handball’s strategic planning had become flawed and made a plea to right the ship, by developing a true strategic plan for USA Team Handball with clearly articulated goals/objectives and input from the Board, Committees and the USA Team Handball community

From the looks of the recent Federation announcement that plea has fallen on deaf ears as it appears that the Federation has decided to move out and move quickly.  From the outside looking in, it appears that USA Team Handball has selected to cast its lot with Auburn without fully considering other options.  Moreover, it appears that there has been little Board involvement and that the team involved in this selection could be perceived as biased toward starting a program as soon as possible.  (Note, the emphasis on the word, perceived.)  Perhaps, however, I’m jumping the gun a bit.  Below are some questions that I’ve sent USA Team Handball CEO, Matt Van Houten.  I’ll post the answers when I get them.

– Previous discussion (23:30 in the podcast) and email traffic with you indicated that you would involve the BoD with a strategic decision like establishing a Residency Program.  How has each of the 4 current board members been involved with the decision to engage Auburn?

– Was there any though to delaying the start of a search process until a fully constituted 9 member Board of Directors was is place?

– The announcement indicates that there has been an “agreement in principle” with a formal agreement soon to be completed.  When do you anticipate the agreement going final?

– Will the formal agreement be made only after a fully constituted board is in place?

– Are you concerned that you may be putting the Board in the position of immediately approving a fait accompli?  In other words, shouldn’t the new members who will be responsible for this decision have played a greater role in its conception?

– Where is the Board decision to immediately pursue a Residency Program documented?

– What requirements were identified for the Residency Program?

– What evaluation criteria were identified for the Residency Program?

– There doesn’t appear to have been any public announcement soliciting or requesting input from potential candidates.  Why wasn’t this done?

– Were any other colleges or universities contacted regarding the establishment of a Residency Program?

– The USOC is in the process of selecting a USA candidate host city for the 2024 Olympic Games with that city being selected next year.  Has there been any discussion with candidate cities regarding the establishment of a Residency Program?

– Establishing a Residency Program in the U.S. city that is selected could have significant benefits.  Was there any consideration to delaying a Residency Program search to fully engage the U.S. city that is selected?

– The Director of the High Performance, Dave Gascon, has a daughter who is a veteran member of the U.S. Women’s National Team.  Are you concerned that some could perceive him as somewhat biased in favor of quickly establishing a Residency Program?

– The Men’s and Women’s coaches obviously are very interested in establishing a Residency Program to improve near term National Team performance.  Are you concerned that they may also be perceived as biased towards quickly establishing a Residency Program?

– Was there any thought to establishing an independent committee consisting of Board Members and other select individuals to oversee engagement with Auburn to remove any perceptions of bias?

– Have there been any other individuals evaluating the Auburn proposal and advising the High Performance Team?  If so, has there been any thought to publicly identifying and formalizing their role in the process.

– The announcement indicates a 7 year commitment to Auburn.  How was it determined that a 7 year commitment was in the best interest of USATH?

– Establishing a Residency Program will consume significant manpower and resources.  Are you concerned that other USATH efforts such as grass roots programs will be significantly impacted?