Author’s note: Chris Billings was president of the Alberta Soccer Association until he was ousted in a boardroom uprising last spring.
Yesterday, he answered six questions Canadian Soccer News asked in an open letter on December 13. Today, he responds to two very specific follow-up questions posed by a CSN reader in the open letter's comments section.
All cited documents are linked.
[PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]
---
How do you respond to allegations that you harassed ASA staff?
To date, I am not aware of any allegations that I harassed ASA staff. I believe that I have treated the ASA staff appropriately at all times. Many of the staff members that have been employed with ASA while I have been involved will attest to that and have provided letters of reference.
As to allegations that I am aware of, the attached document <Suspension Ltr II> was received by me from Colin Innes just after midnight on Sunday evening, Feb 21st <see e-mail attachment>. The first time that I had been told that I had done anything wrong was Saturday afternoon on Feb 20th when Mr. Charpentier & Mr. Magdee advised me that I had 24 hours to resign, or else be suspended. When I asked him as to what it was I did that would warrant such action, he simply replied that ‘if I didn’t resign, I would find out.’ Prior to this meeting with Charpentier & Magdee, I had not been made aware of any wrongdoings. And to date, this document is the only thing I have in writing as to what I have alleged to have done.
If you have seen additional allegations that I am not aware of, please forward them to me, as I have a great desire to clear my name in all of this.
As to these charges of misconduct, my response is attached as <ASA President's Preliminary Response to Allegations>. Also for your consideration are two attachments in response to the initial action by the Charpentier group: <Response to Board on Suspension>, <ASA President`s Disclosure to the Members>. These documents were sent publicly to the membership. Note that #6 is the only allegation that even mentions staff, and the harassment complaint was made not against me, but by one staff member against another. I was not a party to this complaint. The misconduct that I am falsely charged with, (as it is untrue), has to do with the follow up to this complaint between the staff members. The actual allegation against me is that I failed to follow the recommendation of the Executive Finance Committee when I appointed a board member to review the complaint, which the EFC alleges was too inexperienced for the task and the reason for the complaint allegedly remaining unresolved.
Note that allegations of harassment against staff should not be confused with allegation #9 by Christine Chater, Robert Hayne and Colin Innes. My response is first, to whatever actions that they are referring, I have never harassed them, although I have had considerable differences of opinion with them, in particular Mr. Innes. At no point did any of these individuals indicate to me that I had acted in a manner that was harassing, or would warrant, as they have put it in other correspondence, a ‘Human Rights Violation’. As you can see from their communications over the past year, they themselves can be particularly hostile and personal. Second, these allegations are made by the same board members who decided to suspend me, (then appoint a committee to discipline me), and who had exhibited conduct that a President should hold them accountable for which they did not like.
Under your suspension, why did you not follow the ASA/CSA appeals apparatus as suggested by Mr. Justice Tilleman instead of proceeding directly to court?
First off, I have indicated since day one that I would attend before any properly constituted panel to address the allegations made against me but I will not appear before a panel that is not properly constituted or clearly biased. Mr. Charpentier and company seem to think that I am obliged to defend myself first simply because they have made allegations against me. Amongst the many other principles of Due Process that I have not been afforded, I feel strongly that I have the right to be considered to be innocent until proven guilty. It is this fundamental schism in beliefs that have allowed the character assassinations of many people before me by various other ASA boards that have been under the control of Charpentier, Kern, Innes and Traficante over the last 8 years.
Second, I have explained my reasons for not attending the so called discipline hearing set up for me to the members of the Association. See the attached <Principles of Fairness> from April 16th. The initial suspension letter I received said there would be "an investigation and an opportunity to review the allegations and respond to them in advance". In my view, the investigation had been held prior to my knowing, and the discipline issued on February 21st. When the board members appointed the panel on March 6th, it soon thereafter seemed to me impossible to conclude that the hearing would be unbiased or procedurally fair. When I tested this by asking the panel chair, Mr. Leighton, to disclose the evidence that supported the allegations against me and was rebuked by him, my suspicions were confirmed. The fact that certain board members had copies of some kind of materials they called evidence and were showing it to certain ASA members, rather than me, also helped solidify my conclusion that the hearing they set up was a sham and a railroading.
To clarify: IF the allegations made against me by my fellow board members been disclosed to me first, and discussed, or then disclosed at the 2010 AGM and IF the members still felt there was a need for an investigation, I would have attended any hearing the members directed.
IF the board had suspended me after following the process set out in the bylaws for doing so, I would have followed the rest of the process.
Third, I think it is important to say that I don't believe Justice Tilleman suggested I proceed through the ASA/CSA appeals process per se in order to comment upon the validity or integrity of what those processes would have been but he did indicate that he could not review my suspension until that was done because of the law regarding his jurisdiction. He did not comment upon the merits of the suspension nor did he comment upon the merits of the ASA/CSA appeals process.
Last, in response to the specific wording of the question, I did not proceed directly to court. Myself and several members sought answers from the board, sought several legal opinions on the validity of the suspension in effort to resolve this. I turn this around, why didn't the board review and reconsider their position in the face of this? When it became clear that the board would not reverse itself, I supported the request of several members of the ASA to resolve some aspects of the dispute internally through an SGM. Court action was not taken until the ASA Board suspended districts, cancelled provincials and froze the ASA bank accounts.
---
Canadian Soccer News invites the Alberta Soccer Association to respond. We advise that any response will be considered to be on the record, and will be published on this site, in full.
Onward!
Related:
An open letter to Mario Charpentier
An open letter to Chris Billings
An open letter to Mike Traficante