Budget Fail ?

CHLOROFORMED INTO SUBMISSION 

By Pierre Filion  pierrefilion@bell.net

The adoption of an annual budget, by any association, is an important moment as it gives a clear view of the Association’s endeavors, establishes its priorities and informs the members where and how their money will be spent. Let’s see how this process was carried out at Lacrosse Canada.

Lacrosse Canada held its 2024 annual meeting on November 15th and 16th. Three new Board members were elected (Leblanc, Currier and Lockhart) and joined the six other members who were there last year.

In the days after the annual meeting the new Board members probably did a lot of reading and studying to better appreciate the Association they were now in charge of. They probably read the association’s bylaws, the Operations Manual, surveyed the reports of past Board meetings and semi-annual meetings while also looking at past financial statements, sector committees and provincial reports, audits and drafts of the upcoming (2025-2028) strategic plan They probably asked a lot of questions and hopefully received many answers in order to come prepared for their first Board meeting on December 8th 2024.

The meeting was in fact held on December 8th with the purpose of adopting the 2025-26 budget. The minutes of the meeting appeared, for a short while, on the Association’s website. Then they were deleted. Gone. Three Board members were absent from the important meeting; six Board members and the Executive Director were in attendance. The proposed budget was a balanced budget of 2Million dollars and the meeting lasted 17 minutes. It started at 20.06h and ended at 20.23h. You got it right: 17 minutes. Some will think that the Board members were well prepared. I have a different opinion.

The Board members were chloroformed into submission; they failed to act as Board members and to engage in elementary governance concerning the budget. The 6 Board members who were in attendance did not ask one single question; did not make any changes to the budget; did not propose any alternative investments or even a single modification to the budget. Bang, approved. Carried. Wow! what a tiresome job that of being a Board member!

Now any reasonable volunteer acting as a credible Board member legally in charge of the Association would have had a different behavior. Hey, if we are going to invest 2 million dollars here let’s make sure we ask questions and mostly get answer so we can turn around and be accountable to the membership!

A Board member concerned by the democratic process within Lacrosse Canada could have asked why the budget, presented by the Executive Director, was not in fact presented to the Board by a treasurer elected by the members and in charge of the handling of the members’ money. Every association, were it local or national, has an elected treasurer. Lacrosse Canada does not and allows the staff to control the members’ money. Have we not learned anything from Hockey Canada’s zig zag handling of their money? ‘’We need an elected treasurer’’.

A Board member concerned with the development of the game and with the increase in the number of registered players in Canada might have suggested that we review every expense line by line by asking ‘’is this expense more important than putting money aside and investing it in a national development plan to increase the number of lacrosse players’’? Such a question would have required a meeting longer than 17 minutes but might just have been the right question to ask. Every expense should be justified.

A Board member concerned with tax payers’ dollars might have asked why Lacrosse Canada’s grants had grown to the stage where they are now: 1,094,090.00 $. Was it because of the number of registered players? Was it because of our international ranking? The number of national championships held annually? Because of our Aboriginal history? or just because of our newly acquired Olympic status? What did Lacrosse Canada do to deserve such high grants for such a marginal sport? And will those grants carry on if lacrosse was not to be part of the 2032 Olympic Games?

An experienced Board member who has been with the Board for the last years might have indicated that the revenues under sponsorships (100,000$) might not be very realistic in view of the fact that Lacrosse Canada has zero tradition in sponsorship and that the last revenues in this domain did not exceed 1000$ annually. ‘’Is this 100,000$ figure realistic?  What is our director of sponsorship working on these days? Do we have a plan B in case we don’t collect the 100,000$ expected from sponsorships? Are we being fed a reasonable budget here or are we asked to approve someone’s dreams and hopes?’’

A Board member concerned with the importance of evaluating the Association’s performance could have asked the Executive Director to outline the criteria that could be used to asses performance and to confirm the achievement of goals. He could have asked what the Association’s priorities are; which of the four pillars (goals?) is priority number one; which is priority number four? Does the fact that we want to spend 50% of our expenses on National Teams indicate that the National Teams are priority number one? How can it be otherwise.?

And, finally, a Board member concerned with respect for the Board might have stepped up and indicated his total frustration at being toyed with when he sees that the expenses for the National Teams are of 1,078,085$ on a 2-million-dollar budget and presented in one single line item without any details whatsoever. ‘’This is an insult to our intelligence; we are asked to approve an expense of 1 million dollars and have no detail nor information pertaining to this expense. Nothing at all. Are you trying to put us to sleep?’’

Because that is exactly what is being done. The Executive Director is domesticating its Board members and is involved in a smooth takeover of the Association. The Board members are in awe of the new ‘’big boy’’ running the show; it’s the ‘’big boy syndrome’’, one of awe and admiration and of pathetic helplessness; the Board members wish to be part of the team and do not want to appear as being negative. So, they acquiesce and rubber stamp what is presented to them. They seem to want to be recognized as useful consultants rather than as ‘’the employers’’ in charge of governance. They want to be in the boat but not run it. They want to be close to the action but not to lead. As Board members they are failing. That was the first Board meeting; what will the future hold?

A 17-minute meeting without any questions or discussion approving a 2-million-dollar budget. ‘’Here Big Boy, go out and have fun; do your thing; we won’t bother you with accountability, transparency or even decent governance. We won’t even ask you a single question about ‘’our’’ budget’’.