At my first (unofficial) Board meeting in Nov. ’04, I was welcomed by some of the iconic personalities in table tennis – there were a lot of new faces on the Board too. The great Tim Boggan believed this was one of the most talented and capable Boards in recent history. There was much anticipation, and the first meeting everyone seemed to take genuine interest in brainstorming, conceiving the different ways to help our sport grow.

Unfortunately, as time went on, development of athletes, increasing membership, reducing attrition, and talks of the sport itself became less integral.  It seemed like intra-board issues always consumed everyone’s energy. There were so many individually talented people on the board, but without general consensus or members willing to compromise with each other, the board was ultimately ineffectual. In my opinion the USATT greatly lacked true leadership, one that could unite the individuals rather than be a part of the daily squabble. Along with an outdated system for governance, the USATT was unable to perform well as an organization.

The US Olympic Committee was keenly aware of the problems plaguing USATT. This bickering had been going on longer than they wanted, and it was time: Time for USATT to reform, "or else". Table Tennis isn’t the only sport the USOC pressured to reform; nearly half of the NGB’s under the US Olympic Committee have either already restructured, are in the process of it, or have been decertified.  The USOC created a new set of bylaws for the different NGBs to adopt; since there is no one-fits-all document, it was recommended a small committee be created to study these bylaws and amend as needed by the sport. With their approval, of course.

However, the problems in the Board continued and reorganization never materialized, despite multiple attempts. As a result, USOC cut the entire general funding to the USATT for 2007. In early 2007 USOC further stressed the need for our organization to completely dissolve. A new Board was needed, with a new set of bylaws that would give good governance principles. The ultimatum came down and if we did not accept, we risked decertification.

At the April 2007 USOC AAC meeting (New Orleans, LA) I sat down with Chris Vadala (Sports Partnerships, USOC), and we discussed the best way for us to be able to initiate and complete this reform by end of the year.   In this conversation, I asked him why the extreme pressure from the USOC suddenly.  However the pressure wasn’t sudden; talks of reform have been going on for almost a decade.  Year after year, and still the USATT had no systems, no "pipeline" to create internationally competitive athletes. USOC had been sponsoring the USATT with over quarter million dollars per year and there were little or no returns. Worse, this money was often used to run the organization, rather than its intent – to support the athletes.

By the Board meeting at the US Open (July), we had figured out a road map to restructuring. Since we only physically met twice a year, we had to take this opportunity to take action. By this time, the Board knew there was no point resisting the reform, and a series of motions were successfully made.

A Governance Reform Committee was formed: Robert Blackwell, Sheri Pittman, George Braithwaite, Dr. Jing Wang, and myself (as the chair of the committee.) The following goals were set:

• By September 1st, the GRC would thoroughly study USOC’s recommended bylaws, modify as necessary to fit our sport, and propose the bylaws to the Board.
• The Board would have until September 30th to modify and accept these bylaws.
• By December 17th (immediately after Junior World Cup) the current Board would dissolve. New bylaws would be adopted, and a new board would take office.

The committee convened shortly after the July Board meeting and we took a few weeks to study the bylaws and come up with ideas and proposals. About 2 years ago another committee made suggestions, however most recommendations no longer applied. We had to search more comprehensively. Not only did we have to seriously consider USOC principles, we had to ask ourselves, "Will this help table tennis?"

The first and foremost change to our organization was the number of Board of Directors, their representation, and how they will be selected or elected.  The GRC members came to agreement on a board size of 9, keeping in mind, according to the Ted Stevens Act, at least 20% of the Directors must be Elite Athletes (essentially National Team members within the previous 10 years), and at least 1 seat must be open to National Organization Director (currently no such organization is recognized. An organization would qualify as such if it can produce athletes of National Team caliber.) Currently all Board of Directors are elected by the membership. The USOC model asked for an extremely powerful Nominating Committee (NGC) that would select all of the Directors. Personally I felt strongly against this extreme and proposed the addition of two (2) "generally elected" Directors. The GRC recognized the importance of membership input and favored this position.

We followed USOC’s recommendation and named 3 Independent Directors (ones who have little or no ties or conflicts within table tennis and come with marketing and financial expertise), to absolutely minimize any conflicts on the board. For the rest of Directors, USOC gave flexibility, but by example named a Coach Director, Referee/Umpire Director, and State of Association Director.  Since State of Associations is more quixotic than pragmatic, we created a Clubs Director position instead that would come from all the local clubs from around the nation. So, from a board size of 9, there are 3 Independents, 2 Athletes, 1 Clubs, and 2 At Large Directors. The 9th seat will be vacant until a National Organization is recognized.

Many GRC members passionately discussed the ideologies of good governance, keeping their minds open to change, with the future of our sport as the guiding measure for decision-making. "Let’s leave a great platform for the next Board", Robert Blackwell quoted.

Another contested issue was whether any of the current Board of Directors should carry over to the new Board. USOC had recommended the Primary Athlete Rep. be the only to carry over, due to the representation on USOC AAC. However, due to the short tenure and financial expertise of certain newly elected Directors, the GRC contemplated extending their terms as well.  This was an extremely sensitive topic, where the GRC had a split view. As the chair of the committee, I decided not to finalize this topic until we have USOC and Board input. 

The position of an "Industry Representative" was also proposed – a representative to vendors or manufacturers that would directly be affected by the success or failure of the sport. A huge possible conflict of interest, but also a huge advantage to gain such individual’s insight. With further discussion, it was decided to appoint a "liaison to Industry" – a Board member, who has no direct affiliation to the industry, but would bring forth the suggestions and input from the manufacturers and vendors of table tennis supplies, without having the conflict of interest.

Consequently All GRC developments were discussed with Eric Parthen (Sports Partnerships, USOC – in charge of overseeing our governance reform). Due to the nature of these controversial topics, it was imperative for us to receive USOC approval. Eric recognized the importance of a generally elected position (he actually recommended the name change to At Large), along with the liaison to Industry. In fact, several of the other NGBs have adopted such positions. He supported just about all of the principles suggested by the GRC, except the automatic carry-over of any Directors.

The Board seems to have a positive feedback on the Bylaws, and seldom have any principles contained within been disputed.  Even as I write, we are still in the process of finalizing the bylaws; they are undergoing a final review by the USOC and we expect to hear from them any day. By the time this magazine comes out we should have a new Nominating and Governance Committee formed per USOC recommendation, however we may not have the Board members selected.

Comparison of GRC developments and USOC recommendations:

Recommended by USOC	Proposed by GRC
Board size of between 7 and 12	9 Board of Directors
All Directors selected by NGC (except for athletes). Must have at least 20% "Independent" and Athlete Directors	4 Directors selected by NGC (3 Independents, 1 Clubs) 2 Directors selected by Athletes 2 Directors elected by USATT members
No Popularly elected positions	2 seats elected by the general membership
Reduce number and size of committees	Accepted. In USOC’s proposal certain committees’ roles overlapped. We combined those committees.
All committees terminate and new ones are formed	All committees will continue to exist until the new board reviews/modifies them.
Only Athlete Rep carries over	Accepted
No Treasurer/Secretary positions (Staff)	Accepted
No president – only Chair	Accepted
Chair to be selected by BOD	Accepted
Initial staggered terms for continuity	Accepted: initial terms will be 3 and 5 years.

From hereon forward, the primary area of concentration is finalization of these bylaws and formation of the new Nominating and Governance Committee. Time is of the essence and we will need all members’ help in nominating qualified individuals for the new board.

On a personal note, I look forward to carrying over, and continue to help our sport. Hopefully, the administrations can focus on development of athletes and promoting our sport. I would like to add that the USOC has helped us in finding an interim Executive Director/CEO. Mike Cavanaugh, previously the ED for team handball is highly recommended by the USOC. We greatly appreciate his willingness to help our sport at this time.   The Personnel Committee (led by co chair Dennis Davis) is simultaneously searching for the next potential full time CEO. The new BOD, however will make that final decision.

I encourage the members of USATT to provide input. I can be reached at ajain17@aol.com at any time. Thank you for being a valued USATT member. I am optimistic and anticipate a bright future for the USATT.

Yours truly,

Ashu Jain

2001 and 2002 USA Men’s National Team member

Director, USATT

USA Table Tennis Representative on USOC Athlete Advisory Council