Commentary: A Brazen Disregard for Transparency… or Information that Just Couldn’t be Shared?

Posted on December 3, 2024 by John Ryan

Has the lack of information provided regarding a wild sequence of events been a brazen disregard of transparency or has it simply been the justifiable limits of information sharing?

The 85-10-5 Rule of Thumb

When you write about handball in the United States for nearly 20 years you learn a few things about where the sport is situated relative to all the other sports in this country. In terms of pecking order, team handball is very near the very bottom. Aside from our quadrennial increase in awareness due to the Olympics very few Americans care or even give a second thought about handball.

And, then, even within our very small community of handball devotees, the people who really care about the governance and handball politics of our sport is an even smaller number of people. Based on experience/observation, I would assess that of the 1,000 or so people who care about handball in this country around 85% could care less about who’s running the sport. They just want to play, coach, ref or watch. Their only question is typically, “Just tell me where to send my money.” Another 10%, if pushed, will engage some. Typically, this is a coach or team leader, that recognizes that the top level organization of the sport impacts what they are doing. They don’t like getting involved, but they understand that somebody on their team has to, to some extent. Essentially, they dip a toe in the water and then get out of that water as quickly as they can.

And, then there is the 5% that genuinely care about the politics and governance of the sport. They care about who is in charge of what and they care about what is planned in terms of grass roots development, national team performance, marketing efforts and other organizational matters. As to why they care, that answer varies. Sometimes it’s simply personal… they want to be in charge of something. Sometimes it’s out of frustration… they don’t like how things have been done and want to see changes. And, almost always… it’s because they are truly very passionate about the sport of handball.

So the 85-10-5 Rule of Thumb is:

85% don’t care about governance and politics at all and are very unlikely to to get involved.
10% care somewhat about governance and politics and they will get involved if they need to,
5% genuinely care about governance and politics and they get involved as much as they can.

So we could quibble about the percentages. Maybe it’s 80-10-10 or 90-8-2 or some other variation, but if you’ve been around awhile… you’re probably thinking that it’s a pretty accurate binning of our small community.

Can the 5% be Ignored?

If there are around 1,000 people who care about handball in the U.S. this means that only around 50 people are fully engaged in political/governance matters. Or to put it another way only around 50 people would really be interested in finding out more about something like the “sequence of events” sooner and in greater detail. Heck, I’ve even been told before that this number is even smaller and that I (John Ryan) am literally the only person that cares. I don’t think that’s quite true, but the number is small enough that a brazen total disregard for basic transparency has at times been a very effective strategy for USA Team Handball. Yes, if USA Team Handball wants to do something shady/unorthodox/questionable and not tell anyone about it… there’s a solid chance that no one will be the wiser. But… just because that’s an effective strategy… doesn’t make it right!

Outside Entities: Also Left in the Dark?

Beyond the small USA Handball Community there are also other players that probably have been left in the dark. The USOPC has been informed via grievances, but one wonders if the IHF and USA Team Handball’s largest sponsor, Verizon would also liked to have been fully informed as to what had been taking place. Certainly, one can speculate as to whether any lower level concern that those entities might have had regarding disputes between the Handball Union and USA Team Handball would have been easily trumped by higher concerns regarding an unorthodox “sequence of events” that was unfolding.

The Lack of Transparency

Here’s a chronicling… of some significant events that either have never been mentioned or were reported only long after they happened as a news items on the USA Team Handball website:

No mention whatsover regarding the multiple actions related to Board Member, Ebiye Udo-Udoma
- His removal by the Athlete’s Advisory Council (AAC) and, in turn, his removal from the Board of Directors
- The determination by the Judicial Committee that his removal was improper and his reinstatement to the Board
- The determination by the Judicial Committe that decisions made in his absence were still valid
- Somewhat bizarrely the only oblique reference has been a notice for an election for his replacement that ended up never taking place due to his reinstatement
No mention whatsoever regarding the “sort of” merger between USA Team Handball and the US Handball Union? Or dissolution of the Union? (I’m still not sure what that was all about)
No mention whatsoever of Martin Branick’s removal from the CEO position and subsequent departure from the organization.
No announcement of Mike King’s appointment to the CEO position until 24 October (almost 2 months after the 27 August meeting)
No mention whatsoever of Camille Nichol’s and Lawrence Taylor’s resignations from the Board of Directors
No mention whatsover of David Buckman’s resignation from the chair of the Nominating & Governance Committee

A Personal Breaking Point

As a pseudo-journalist and the de facto, unofficial lead for the “5 Percent” I’ll have to admit to some complacency in regards to all this. I had heard some rumors and had been told that it was a little messy, but I was somewhat resigned to the Board’s decisions.

And, then someone sent me Camille Nichol’s and David Buckman’s resignation letters. I don’t know either very well, but we’re all retired military and service academy graduates. Do not try and tell me that a retired 2 Star General and Colonel don’t know how to play in the sand box. That’s just silly and isn’t going to fly with me.

So, I reluctantly put on my investigative journalist hat and the more I found out, the more I was troubled by all that had happened and pretty upset with the secretive nature of it’s implementation.

Board Meeting Minutes (A Window of Transparency)

Board Meeting Minutes are often frustrating in that they usually tell only part of the story, but nevertheless they are typically the only source of official information as to what is taking place in terms of USA Team Handball matters. They’ve always been tucked away in a corner on the website and are typically quietly posted with no mention on the website or social media. Because of this I’ve gotten in the habit of periodically checking the USA website to see if any new minutes have been posted.

You might be “shocked” to learn that after former Board President Michael Wall’s resignation that Board Minutes were not posted for several months. And, that the availaiblity of video for the open portion of board meetings also quietly disappeared. As rumors that things were starting to get a “little messy” began popping up, I started to check the USA website more regularly and on 23 October I discovered that some Board Meeting Minutes had finally been posted. And, when they were later taken down I decided that it was time for a little sunshine so I posted them on the Team Handball News website. This then resulted in a request from the new CEO, Michael King to take some of them down due to their publishing via illegal behavior.

The Missing Minutes (What Changed?)

Here’s a table summarizing the Meeting Minutes in question:

There was no issue with 4 of the meeting minutes and these were left up on the Team Handball News website and posted on the USA Team Handball website (I’m not sure of the date, but I think it was in early November).

The minutes from the 10 July 2024 meeting have not been posted again by USA Team Handball. The stated purpose of the meeting was to afford US Handball Union leadership an opportunity to present its current situation and vision to members of the USATH board. They look like Meeting Minutes, but include this disclaimer on the bottom of each page: “Meeting minutes taken for the purpose of follow-up conversation – not intended for publication” I’m not sure why this is the case, but here’s one little interesting tidbit. The new, recently appointed USA Team Handball Independent Director, Andre Carter is listed in these minutes as part of the US Handball Union Leadership. That would seem to really stretch the definition of “independent” but, at this point why would anyone be surprised anymore.

The remaining 3 Meeting Minutes were eventually posted on the USA Team Handball website on 15 November, but not after undergoing some editing. This is concerning as it relates to the 8 August meeting minutes since they were formally approved by a Board motion at the 27 August meeting.

The nature of the changes fit broadly in to two categories:

Contractual dispute: Both the old and the new minutes discuss an ongoing contractual dispute. The old minutes mention the name of the company and provide more details. The new minutes omit the name of the company and are less specific in nature.
Naming of Board Members: The old minutes often used the first names of board members and indicated how board members voted on certain motions. The new minutes use last names and the record of how each board member voted has been replaced with a simple tally of the vote result.

In general, I’m fine with the changes that were made. In regards to the contractual dispute, the old minutes provided more detail than was necessary. Meeting minutes should also refer to people by their last names. For key votes of consequence it would certainly be preferable to know how Board Members voted, but I guess if there are privacy requirements that need to be followed it should be anonymous. I’m not sure what the requirments are exactly, but maybe a change to the bylaws is warranted to consider the possibility of making key votes public. I could be wrong, but it wouldn’t surprise me if most Board Members are totally comfortable with that. Finally, it goes without saying… don’t formally approve minutes and then change your mind. It’s bad form even if the reasons for changing said minutes are valid.

Red Herrings to Keep Info on the Down Low

I think most people are familiar with the concept of red herrings, which are intended to distract from what’s actually relevant. Contractual disputes and how people vote are of some interest, but they are pale in comparison to the wild “sequence of events” that had been taking place. A sequence of events that in it’s entirety could at best be described as unorthodox. And, at it’s worst described as Mickey Mouse dysfunctionality.

Maybe it’s possible to rationalize this “means” as absolutely necessary to getting to the desired “ends.” It seems like a real stretch, though, and it’s certainly a tough proposition to sell. So, if one can hide behind red herrings to keep the real story on the down low… well, that is very, very convenient. And, of course, that’s just for the Meeting Minutes. There was nothing preventing USA Team Handball from reporting more (actually anything) as to what had been going on. To deal with the uncomfortable explaining that comes with transparency.

But, doing so could very well have resulted in an early crash out of the sequence of events. Certainly, it would have made things very uncomfortable. Yes, for all intents and purposes secrecy seems to have become the chosen course of action. Because if all you care about is the end state, here’s the standard Machiavellian playbook to follow:

Keep all the bad information secret as long as possible. The fewer people that find out anything the better… because those people start asking questions and taking action
Minimize the amount of bad information that seeps out. If you can’t keep everything secret dribs and drabs of information are better than a total release. (Such a strategy didn’t work for Nixon, but it can work if the 80-15-5 rule applies.) If some people just know some of the story the notion of things being just a “little messy” is still sellable
Delay information release as long as possible. The more time that passes the better. This is especially true if everything can be normalized as quickly as possibly. Ideally it becomes a fait acompli where people might say, “WTF! That was really crazy, but everything seems OK now. I guess there’s no sense in rocking the boat.”

Is this what happened? Is what is still happening? Well, outward signs in terms of how information was mostly not shared the past few months mimics this playbook very closely. And, as the old saying goes if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… It’s probably a duck.

Commentary: Independent Directors: Uninvested, “My Way or the Highway” Roadblocks… or Canaries in the Coal Mine?

Posted on November 25, 2024 by John Ryan

(The USA Team Handball By-Laws introductory paragraph on Independent Directors and the four Independent Directors that resigned from the Board)

A Little History Lesson

When I wrapped up the “Sequence of Events Video” I remarked how for oldtimers the current situation might feel a lot like the events of 2005-2006 that led to the U.S. Olympic Committee’s decision to decertify the U.S. Team Handball Federation (USTHF). So, I decided to do a little review of what happened way back when by digging into the Team Handball News archives. In doing so I re-remembered that the very first post on this website on January 2, 2006 and many of the posts in that timeframe covered the Board of Director divisions, the USOC investigation and ultimate decertification.

First of all, can I just highlight that that was almost 19 years ago. 19 years! There have been over 2,300 posts on this website since then. I’ve been writing and commenting about handball in this country a long time. And, it’s funny, but while some of the names have changed or moved on we’re still talking about many of the same issues and challenges. As, I said to Bjoern Brembs as we discussed the decertification in a very early podcast, “I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.” And, again, that was 19 years ago…

However, there are a few things that have indeed changed for the better and one of those changes was an Olympic Committee requirement for National Governing Bodies (NGB) to have “Independent Directors” on their Boards of Directors. Because back in 2006 there was no such requirement. In fact, everyone on our Board was a handball person duly elected by the membership. Not just two members like today’s 9 member board… but all 24 members. (And, of course, that total number of board members was also silly and cumbersome, even if there also was a smaller Executive Committee that functioned more like the Board does today.)

As part of that first ever post I also had the two very first handball podcasts as I had interviewed representatives of the two board factions, Board President Mike Hurdle and Athlete’s Advisory Council Representative, Matt Van Houten. In both of the interviews the topic of independent directors was brought up, but we mostly focused on how these new independent directors would help in the all important (and still important) topic of fundraising.

But, another important role of these independent directors as the name, of course, implies is simply their independence. In theory, they can participate in board matters without the bias that comes simply from having been directly involved with the often fractured politics that is handball in the U.S.

Looking back at the situation in the 2005-2006 I’m pretty sure that if the Board had been composed of 44% Independent Directors (44% is 4/9 of our current board structure) that things would have not turned out the way they did with eventual decertification. That an impasse would have been resolved. I’m not sure exactly how it would have played out, but it would have been different.

Independent Directors (Sometimes in Name Only)

With the selection of the Dieter Esch group to become the new NGB for handball in 2008 the U.S. a new board structure with nine board members was adopted. From my notes at the 2008 summit there were to be nine board members with seven board members with business backgrounds contributing $50,000 each. Thanks, surely in part to the Great Recession, I don’t think this ever materialized and eventually the board structure adopted our current stucture with just four independent members.

I’d like to say that over time the Independent Directors have raised tons of money, but this clearly hasn’t been the case. Additionally, in some cases our Independent Directors weren’t very independent. They might have fit the definition outlined in Section 6.6 (B) of our By-Laws, but in practice some Independent Directors were actually very partisan in their views. In the 2018-19 timeframe board infighting eventually led to some direct engagement from the USOPC with the end result being the hiring of CEO Barry Siff and the selection of a new, very clearly Independent Director, Michael Wall to become the Board President.

2019 – 2024 The Most Independent Board Ever?

Arguably, the Michael Wall era Board of Directors may well have been the most independent Board USA Team Handball has ever seen. Independent in that “handball people,” for better or worse faded largely into the background. The Board had some handball people, but was signficantly less partisan than it had been. By and large it seems that decisions were being made with less bias from deeply held handball convictions. Notably, the Board also hired two CEOs (Barry Siff and Ryan Johnson) with no handball background whatsoever to make the day to day decisions.

From my persepective (and many others) this composition of Board and Administrative staff had some pros and cons. On the one hand it was a pleasant change from the historically, fractious nature of board politics. We were actually functioning like a normal organization! I realize that’s a ridiculously low bar… but historically it’s one that we’ve often struggled to clear.

But, on to other hand, I think there was a lack of direction and a tendency to avoid major decisions. For organizations with abundant resources and a clear mission it’s possible to float along comfortably at a slow pace. For organizations with very limited resources and many challenges/choices to make floating along can be very frustrating to the people that really care and are heavily invested in the sport. And, eventually it becomes more than a source of frustration as problems mount and opportunities are lost.

The Revenge of the Handball People (Actually Just Some of the Handball People)

I think the concept of Independent Directors was envisioned, in part, for those Independent Directors to serve as arbitrators between competing factions. To provide a big picture, good governance perspective on a topic rather than a partisan, passionately held viewpoint. When a board has two opinions being hotly debated by the handball people the independent members can help steer the discussion towards conclusion with their independence and often their experience with other boards of directors being taken into consideration.

But, what happens if there aren’t competing handball factions on a Board of Directors? Either because, all the handball people are in agreement… or one faction has a new, temporary majority? (i.e., A 4-3 majority due to a vacant independent board seat and the temporary removal (improperly as it turns out) of one pesky board member.)

Well… you have what just unfolded the past few months with USA Team Handball. Yes, a small group decided to seize the moment and take action with a very unorthodox sequence of events. To essentially tell the Independent Directors, we know best and we don’t really have to listen to you anymore. Or, to put it in a more positive light. It was time to quit just being frustrated and to take action to remove the uninvested roadblocks standing in the way of progress.

If you are part of this handball faction you probably see this whole sequence as a little messy, but something that just had to be done. Regrettable, but justifiable.

Or… Canaries in the Coal Mine?

However, if you are not part of this handball faction, you likely have a different perspective. And, for sure, if you not a part of any handball faction. If you are “independent” with no handball bias, you will undoubtedly see this whole sequence as very dysfunctional. Or as one Olympic Movement person said recently, “Handball just doing what they always do.”

The four Independent Directors who have resigned all saw this sequence of events as very messy and dysfunctional. Something that most definitely didn’t have to be done… but something that a small group wanted to be done. Their resignation letters all address the lack of process and poor governance.

I guess it’s possible that over time these uninvested, non-handball people gradually turned into highly invested partisan roadblocks. But, it seems rather unlikely that 4 independent directors would consciously form a new faction focused on getting their way for their new handball passion. Indeed, when push came to shove they all effectively said we just don’t want to be a party to this anymore. In that vein, the Independent Directors are canaries in the coal mine warning us that there are major problems with this current Board.

Which is it?

Well, to some extent, I’m still formulating my opinion. Gathering information, which continues to seep out. I’m actually to a certain extent sympathetic to both viewpoints. I follow handball pretty closely in this country and I’ve been been frustrated with the lack of action and leadership. That said, I’m also very much a process oriented person. That boards should strive for compromise and and consensus. Even if it takes longer and is frustrating.

It’s the age old question, “Does the end, justify the means?” I’ll have more to say on this later, but right now the more I’ve learned about the means… the more inclined I’m to say: No, not in this case.