Chicago Barn to Wire BRIS
Home | News | Bloggers | Forums | Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Contact Us | Search


September 16, 2014, 06:34:16 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you don't remember your password, email me.

New  registration procedures -- Some ISPs have been bouncing the verification emails.  Please email me to be activated or if you have any problems.  Click Contact Us above.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: ITHA continues its spin  (Read 2586 times)
Jim C
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1403




Ignore
« on: February 10, 2006, 10:47:19 AM »

After reading the latest spin coming from the ITHA trailer I thought it would be a good time to make a few observations on just what they had to say.

The ITHA Board of Directors on February 6, 2006 received formal certification from its independent corporate auditor, Beth Tabek (of Ulbrich & Associates) that a kitchen meeting on December 17, 2005 of a few disgruntled members, did not constitute an election of the ITHA. Subsequently, any claims as to the appointment of a new Board of Directors and President are invalid. The ITHA Board of Directors, on advice of its Election Committee, unanimously approved a resolution which confirms the findings of the independent corporate auditor declaring that there was no election held by the ITHA in the year 2005.

Once again a meeting that had more attendees them a majority of the regular ITHA meetings is labled as "a few disgruntled members" proving once more that the Executive Director has no idea of the enormity of those who are truly disgruntled. He seems to be just as out of touch with things as the rest of the board is which is why there are so many questions they have yet to answer. We still have not received a majority of the records we have asked for and its now February! As far as recognizing the election that was held, what else would you expect anyone from the board or who works for the board to say or do? There was no chance they were going to the election that was held and the results that removed them from office.

The Election Committee also reviewed the survey results concerning when the ITHA membership would like the 2006 election held. Based on the membership input, the following schedule was approved by the Board of Directors;

September 8, 2006 Nomination Meeting (Arlington Park)
October 7, 2006 General Membership Meeting (Hawthorne)
(Candidate Presentations)
November 1, 2006 Ballots mailed to General Membership
December 1, 2006 Ballots due back to Independent Corporate Auditor
December 8, 2006 Ballots counted by Independent Corporate Auditor
December 15, 2006 Election winners take office

This is also an interesting claim, first what were the results of the "poll" taken by the board? Second most of the people we have spoken with complained that the choices on the return card were not clear. For example, the first choice was to keep the elections as they were in the past. Now if this is the choice that won, does that mean have an election now (at least at the time the ballots were sent out) or does it mean have them every two years as was done in the past? Or does it mean have an election in the Fall? The point is the way the question was worded it can mean all of the above.
 
Ms. Tabek also assured the Board of Directors that her audits have not indicated any improprieties and Ms. Tabek feels confident that the audits and the ITHA income tax returns will be accepted by the Internal Revenue Service as filed as has been the case each and every year.

This is VERY interesting. If this is the case and she is so confident will Ms. Tabek CERTIFY the audit? Standing by the results of the gathering of information she is given and certifying the audit are vastly different things. Again what else would she say? I am not so sure about the audits we have done for you? Oh, sorry, the work we have done for the last 10 years or so has been wrong? The fact is that Ms. Tabek can only analyze the information she is given. If items are misidentified or not reported to her correctly there would be no way for her to know. All she can do is report on the information she is given. In other words junk in junk out. This is the case with any audit unless it is certified.

Ms. Tabek and Ulbrich & Associates has been the independent corporate auditor of the ITHA since January of 1992. Ulbrich & Associates were retained by the ITHA under Christine Janks as President. Ms. Tabek has worked in this capacity during the terms of (5) administrations. Ms. Tabek
is now conducting the 2005 audit.

Someone needs to explain to the Executive Director what INDEPENDENT means. The accounting firm is employed BY THE ITHA and therefore is hardly independent. They are paid by the ITHA and their work is relied on by the ITHA and therefore anything that is incorrect or done wrong is a reflection of the quality of their work. It is in their best interests to agree and support the findings they have presented. An INDEPENDENT auditor would have no interest in the outcome of what is or is not found, this is not the case with Ms. Tabek or her firm, she has everything to gain or lose in the outcome of any audit.

One other note, there have only been 2 presidents over those 5 administrations so it is not as if 5 different presidents had kept this firm on as auditor. Besides under Christine Janks terms there were NO expenses or costs approved that were anywhere near the expenses or costs the ITHA is now taking and she was not being paid 40 thousand dollars a year either.

 

 

 

Report to moderator   Logged
oracle80
Newbie
*
Posts: 30




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2006, 11:01:50 AM »

After reading the latest spin coming from the ITHA trailer I thought it would be a good time to make a few observations on just what they had to say.

The ITHA Board of Directors on February 6, 2006 received formal certification from its independent corporate auditor, Beth Tabek (of Ulbrich & Associates) that a kitchen meeting on December 17, 2005 of a few disgruntled members, did not constitute an election of the ITHA. Subsequently, any claims as to the appointment of a new Board of Directors and President are invalid. The ITHA Board of Directors, on advice of its Election Committee, unanimously approved a resolution which confirms the findings of the independent corporate auditor declaring that there was no election held by the ITHA in the year 2005.

Once again a meeting that had more attendees them a majority of the regular ITHA meetings is labled as "a few disgruntled members" proving once more that the Executive Director has no idea of the enormity of those who are truly disgruntled. He seems to be just as out of touch with things as the rest of the board is which is why there are so many questions they have yet to answer. We still have not received a majority of the records we have asked for and its now February! As far as recognizing the election that was held, what else would you expect anyone from the board or who works for the board to say or do? There was no chance they were going to the election that was held and the results that removed them from office.

The Election Committee also reviewed the survey results concerning when the ITHA membership would like the 2006 election held. Based on the membership input, the following schedule was approved by the Board of Directors;

September 8, 2006 Nomination Meeting (Arlington Park)
October 7, 2006 General Membership Meeting (Hawthorne)
(Candidate Presentations)
November 1, 2006 Ballots mailed to General Membership
December 1, 2006 Ballots due back to Independent Corporate Auditor
December 8, 2006 Ballots counted by Independent Corporate Auditor
December 15, 2006 Election winners take office

This is also an interesting claim, first what were the results of the "poll" taken by the board? Second most of the people we have spoken with complained that the choices on the return card were not clear. For example, the first choice was to keep the elections as they were in the past. Now if this is the choice that won, does that mean have an election now (at least at the time the ballots were sent out) or does it mean have them every two years as was done in the past? Or does it mean have an election in the Fall? The point is the way the question was worded it can mean all of the above.
 
Ms. Tabek also assured the Board of Directors that her audits have not indicated any improprieties and Ms. Tabek feels confident that the audits and the ITHA income tax returns will be accepted by the Internal Revenue Service as filed as has been the case each and every year.

This is VERY interesting. If this is the case and she is so confident will Ms. Tabek CERTIFY the audit? Standing by the results of the gathering of information she is given and certifying the audit are vastly different things. Again what else would she say? I am not so sure about the audits we have done for you? Oh, sorry, the work we have done for the last 10 years or so has been wrong? The fact is that Ms. Tabek can only analyze the information she is given. If items are misidentified or not reported to her correctly there would be no way for her to know. All she can do is report on the information she is given. In other words junk in junk out. This is the case with any audit unless it is certified.

Ms. Tabek and Ulbrich & Associates has been the independent corporate auditor of the ITHA since January of 1992. Ulbrich & Associates were retained by the ITHA under Christine Janks as President. Ms. Tabek has worked in this capacity during the terms of (5) administrations. Ms. Tabek
is now conducting the 2005 audit.

Someone needs to explain to the Executive Director what INDEPENDENT means. The accounting firm is employed BY THE ITHA and therefore is hardly independent. They are paid by the ITHA and their work is relied on by the ITHA and therefore anything that is incorrect or done wrong is a reflection of the quality of their work. It is in their best interests to agree and support the findings they have presented. An INDEPENDENT auditor would have no interest in the outcome of what is or is not found, this is not the case with Ms. Tabek or her firm, she has everything to gain or lose in the outcome of any audit.

One other note, there have only been 2 presidents over those 5 administrations so it is not as if 5 different presidents had kept this firm on as auditor. Besides under Christine Janks terms there were NO expenses or costs approved that were anywhere near the expenses or costs the ITHA is now taking and she was not being paid 40 thousand dollars a year either.
Sounds like NY isnt the only racing jurisdiction that has its legal problems.  This sounds like an interesting situation brewing in Illinois.
 

 

 


Report to moderator   Logged
big wally
Guest

« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2006, 11:21:42 AM »

Quick questions to Jim C:

a. What is the ITHA budget?
b. How much are the alleged Misappropriations?
c. Are there any creditors and/or loans outstanding? If so, how many creditors and what is the amount debts on books?  Have these creditors been contacted?
d. What are the annual payments to the auditors?
e.Other than trying to keep their fee. Why do think the auditor is on the present management side?

If I have time tonight I will ask more questions.
Report to moderator   Logged
David
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 863




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: February 10, 2006, 01:08:01 PM »

You may be getting caught in linquistics there Jim C., the accounting world is a tricky mumbo jumbo of thier own.

At least in my line of work we hire "an independent auditor" but they are like I said hired by us, they look over everything and submit documentation to our banks and bonding companies etc. etc. that we are on the level and all seems to be in line. They are CPA's so they stand by thier findings - if you end up with CPA's who fuzz the lines - you end up like Arther Anderson getting whacked for Enron etc. etc. so there is great incentive for them to be on the level. They do walk a fine line as you have pointed out to be on the level and pleasing the people paying them so point taken.

Sometimes in cases of alledged wrong-doing someone might call in an "outside" independent auditor - in which case, generally, whomever was doing the alledging would be paying them - so that might not be that independent either. It can get trickier from there as well
Report to moderator   Logged
big wally
Guest

« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2006, 01:27:52 PM »

My guess is the auditor asked about these expenses, then was lied to about their legitimacy and just accepted the explanation.... Or Missed the expenses altogether. I can not believe she knew the expenses were illegitimate and let it go, if that is the case there is a whole more to the story.
Report to moderator   Logged
User1015
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 260




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2006, 01:33:09 PM »

Its imperative for a CPA to maintain integrity or risk an Arthur Anderson type of situation. However, it may be wise for the ITHA to submit to a managment audit. They would be responsible for paying for it of course, but a firm could be selected based on reputation and one not ever having done business with the ITHA in the past.
Report to moderator   Logged
edwarren
Guest

« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2006, 01:40:44 PM »

I read somewhere AA was later, somehow, let off the hook, pardoned, if you will. It's been years and no one remembers or cares anymore despite the Ken Lay/skillings trial.

Anyone hear too about this? Like maybe you, David?

Also:
Tom De Lay called on to investigate Jack Abramoff (no doubt in time for April fool's day.)

I don't know though even what the ITHA does. Who are they? Do they count for anything?
Report to moderator   Logged
David
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 863




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: February 10, 2006, 01:46:37 PM »

The firm itself was indicted, and those charges were later dropped but not till the damage was done and the firm wrecked. It was a little more complicated than this ITHA issue, as that involved a dual role of accounting and management consultant.
Report to moderator   Logged
edwarren
Guest

« Reply #8 on: February 10, 2006, 01:57:34 PM »

The firm itself was indicted, and those charges were later dropped but not till the damage was done and the firm wrecked. It was a little more complicated than this ITHA issue, as that involved a dual role of accounting and management consultant.

Right, fell on their sword, like Colin Powell and Scooter Libby. You know Powell was a colonel and, I think off the top of my head, Operations Officer(?) of Americal Division in Nam. They were My Lai. His report...well...not too good.
Report to moderator   Logged
big wally
Guest

« Reply #9 on: February 10, 2006, 02:19:07 PM »

Way too costly to hire another firm to re-audit your books. If someone thinks there are misappropraitions on executives or board members in a non-for-profit a member should call the IRS and turn them in. There audit should not cost the ITHA anything unless there is more wrong doing.
Report to moderator   Logged
BeauNarro
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2800

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.....


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #10 on: February 11, 2006, 01:06:19 AM »

I think it's more politics than anything. I'll hold judgement until something is actually proved..or disproved. From what I've heard is that the people who have been "voted" from the Hawthorne kitchen meeting in December are mostly Dick Duchossois supporters.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jim C
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1403




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: February 11, 2006, 04:14:29 AM »

Funny no matter what happens anywhere in racing around here someone always finds a way to bring in Mr. D......Look there were close to 100 people at the meeting at Hawthorne and I have a video that was taken to prove it as well. This has NOTHING to do with AP or Mr D. In fact if you go by what Chris Block said at the last ITHA meeting Mr. D likes dealing with Joe. So PLEASE can we leave the usual BS about AP and its management and Hawthorne and its management out of this situation. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TRACKS!

Please do reserve any and all judgment on what you have heard but that goes both ways. However it does seem interesting to me that if as the ITHA states that all is on the up and up, why were they so interested in forming a committee to look into the matters we have raised? If things were so unfounded why bother? According to the Executive Director we are "just a few disgruntled individuals".... so again why waste time with any questions we raise?

Wally,
a. What is the ITHA budget?

 We are still trying to get those numbers but we do know that the salaries for just 5 people is now just under 300k a year no including expenses they get reimbursed for.

b. How much are the alleged Misappropriations?

Again we are still waiting for all the records and back up. All we can do at this point is raise questions on charges that look strange, like flights to cities that seem to be unusual destinations, numerous charges for personal items and supplies, many restaurants, gas bills, Satellite Dish at Joe's home, and the like. With no hard back up detailing what these expenses are for or how they are business related its difficult to know just how much money in question we are dealing with. I do know the charges are huge compared to what was spent when Christine Janks was in office.

c. Are there any creditors and/or loans outstanding? If so, how many creditors and what is the amount debts on books?  Have these creditors been contacted?

 We have no records showing any loans or creditors. We also have no records of investments or savings or how much money was given to the ITHA from the tracks and when or where it was deposited and for what amount. I also know the dollar amount of investments they show on the statement published last year was significantly lower then when I was there. This may not mean much but there is no record or back up as to where the money is or how it was lost, or if not lost how it was spent.
d. What are the annual payments to the auditors? I'd have to look this figure up but if I recall correctly it was in the area of 10-15k a year, but don't hold me to that, its late and I do not have the records here in front of me.

e.Other than trying to keep their fee. Why do think the auditor is on the present management side?

Well my first thought would be that it is after all their work that is being questioned. It is the audit they compiled that is in question. If we could see that there are some out of line expenses that are being taken or costs that are too high why wouldn't they see the same thing and question those numbers? We have our own audit people looking at the same papers and they see red flags all over the place at least enough to ASK questions about.

Hope these answers helped a bit. This could get very messy and really there is no reason for it to get that way. All they had to do is hold the election when it was supposed to be held and stop running the ITHA like their own private country club. Instead they got greedy and voted themselves longer terms at our expense with no input from the members. How much more self serving can you get? The vote they cast was a question on their OWN TERMS IN OFFICE. How is that not a conflict of interest? Of course they are going to vote to extend their own terms especially if they had a fear they might not win an election. And then on top of that they go right ahead and vote themselves a pay increase!

All I know is that where there is smoke there is fire and things are VERY smoky right now.



Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #12 on: February 11, 2006, 08:52:00 AM »

The ITHA Board of Directors on February 6, 2006 received formal certification from its independent corporate auditor, Beth Tabek (of Ulbrich & Associates) that a kitchen meeting on December 17, 2005 of a few disgruntled members, did not constitute an election of the ITHA. Subsequently, any claims as to the appointment of a new Board of Directors and President are invalid. The ITHA Board of Directors, on advice of its Election Committee, unanimously approved a resolution which confirms the findings of the independent corporate auditor declaring that there was no election held by the ITHA in the year 2005.

How can an auditor make that determination? Isn't that a legal question?
Report to moderator   Logged
User1015
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 260




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: February 11, 2006, 06:15:46 PM »

Who got pay increases Jim C?
Report to moderator   Logged
ggenie
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 304




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: February 11, 2006, 08:30:14 PM »

Just a few examples of what may be questionable accounting.  On Joe's credit card the past few years there have been:

44 visits to the Pit Rib House in Hickory Hills. (Joe lives in Palos).  Some charges as little as $17.00.  They are expensed out as meetings, and get this - travel meals.  That must have been carry-out.

22 charages at the OTB.  Most for $15.00 - $20.00.  Again called meetings.   

Motel bills from Palatine.  Travel.

We wonder how close the accountant really looked at this stuff.  My guess is she took it at face value and never questioned them.  They might be legit as hell, but we haven't seen any receipts or expense reports, and forgive me for being cynical, a $15.00 charge at the OTB sounds more like a sandwich and a couple of beers than a meeting.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #15 on: February 11, 2006, 08:43:50 PM »

I don't know though even what the ITHA does. Who are they? Do they count for anything?

No one answered this yet. I'll try, but I'm sure someone more involved could do better.

ITHA is the official thoroughbred horseman's organization. It's recognized as the negotiating body with the tracks, and to some extent the State, though the State in the form of the IRB mostly ignores it. But the ITHA gets involved in political things like new legislation. It's also the "official" owner of the Illinois simulcast signal under the Federal law. It's supposed to represent all horsemen, including owners, but in practice it's mostly a trainer organization. Besides those political type things it runs, or at least funds, backside benevolence programs which I'm ashamed to say I don't know too much about, like English language programs, and insurance for the help, and I don't know what all.

It's funded, I believe, by a percentage of each purse, which means it ultimately comes out of owners' pockets, not trainers, unless the trainer is the owner. Which, when you think about it, makes this whole affair rather irritating to owners, giving up a portion of their purse money to ostensibly fund backside benevolence programs and then finding out some trainer has been using it as his personal piggy bank, like they don't loot owners enough as it is. Maybe Illinois owners should set up a separate owner organization to take care of their interests, independent from the trainers, like Californians did, but I don't know if that many owners care enough.     
Report to moderator   Logged
David
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 863




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: February 11, 2006, 09:48:03 PM »

Those types of charges can never really be proven as being inappropriate, they are certainly questionable by looks alone - but you run the risk of a comeback along the lines  of I've been busting my butt - you can tell by the 44 trips I had to drag myself away from my family and home and attend to ITHA business, thank god people were willing to meet me near my house or I can't go to an otb without having to host and work on ITHA business.

We all might agree most of these charges seem to be  b.s., but I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to cover tracks and have someone vouch for the legitimacy of the "meetings". The Palatine motel bill would be interesting as well as the gas to and from work - as both of those don't allow too much wiggle room - those are probably your strongest examples, also I still wonder what the hell someone was buying for 30 bucks almost every day for weeks at the White Hen in Oak Brook.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jim C
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1403




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: February 12, 2006, 12:58:45 AM »

Terry,
There is a lot to what you bring up as far as an Owners Group. The problem here is that most of our owners are not yet retired or semi retired as they seem to be in Ca. so those here do not have as much time to be involved here. But the idea of a new group is a good one, especially since there is very little we get back as far as support being a part of either the THA or HPBA. That is money that would be better spent here then sending to those national groups as dues. In any event, if we can get a clean slate of people in at the ITHA I would hope we can make some changes to put a bit more input for the owners and vastly improve communication with the membership. One quick way to do this would be to have regularly scheduled meetings every 6 to 8 weeks with some of them in the evenings away from the track at times that are more suited for the owners. The ITHA must find a way to make its members feel like members of a group. I'd love to hear suggestions from other owners as to how this can be accomplished as well.

As far as funding goes, the last contract I saw was some time ago, in fact it was the summer AP had closed. At that time 3.25% of the handle was given to the ITHA to fund it. This is why it doesn't matter if you want to be a member or not, if you run a horse here you are a member period since funding comes from the handle. It would seem to me that there should be a minimum number of starts you should have before you are considered a member, this would cut down significantly the number of so-called owners from the inflated 3500 or so to much less. This would have also been a way to cut costs which was the reasoning behind the term extentions. Cutting the official membership list to a more realistic number of names would cut mailing and ballot fees, ballots which by the way almost never get returned.

While it is true that some "lunch costs" can be explained away as "meetings" its hard to do if you have no record of WHO the meeting was with. If you do not the IRS will not allow it at all. Especially if these so called meetings are at strange times or times when there is no racing. And as I said you need to provide names of who you met and they better be willing to back you up too.The same goes for all the gas expense. I can see a tank of gas here and there but when you see 2 or 3 times a week EVERY week it gets to be a bit suspicious. Look, everyone takes liberties with the expense account to a small degree, but what we have seen is nothing short of gross abuse and greed. And what the real pimp is, is that they have been crying poor for years now.

On the pay increases, from what I have heard but again there has been no supply of payroll records, but according to the minutes at least everyone got a pay raise except Joe who was not due for one yet. It should be noted however, one of the big reasons a salary was given to the president was that the Executive Directors pay was split between the president and the Ex Dir. then Joe and the Ex Dir started to complain that he was underpaid in comparison to other Ex. Directors in other areas. Of course he was...they just split it in half! So now he got a 25% increase which pretty much defeated the idea of splitting the salary between the president and the ex. director.

Its this kind of stuff that gets people mad and disrespects the members. As I have said before this is not going away and they do have a lot of explaining to do and it may not be just to the membership either.
Report to moderator   Logged
BeauNarro
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2800

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.....


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #18 on: February 12, 2006, 01:57:04 AM »

Jim,

I agree with about all that you said, however I'm still concerned with the recent vote in December. I'm not saying I totally disapprove, but if there were only about 100 members there who voted and thats only a very small percentage of the total membership, then I don't beleive that it should have been a valid election. I don't even know WHO was voted in(only Kristine Janks as intermin president) nor did my wife or I even know this was going to the vote.
By the way - our stable had 51 starts at Arlington and Hawthorne in 2005, and we had 1 start (a win!) on January 1st of this year at Hawthorne so I beleive my wife and I qualify to be members Lips Sealed
We also own several yearlings, new sucklings, and 10 broodmares so we are very interested in the ITHA, but we are also new as of 2005 after a 15 year histus from ownership.
I had mentioned in a previous post that I had heard that the newly voted in folks were Dick D's people. You took offense to that. I said it not in a derogatory manner. I said that only as a fact. I know Kristine is not crazy about Hawthorne.
I'm not against Arlington by any means. There are things I like about both Arlington and Hawthorne. Conversly, there are things I really dislike about each organization. My real preferance is Hawthorne because of the conveniance to our home, and genereally higher purses. I beleive that when Hawthorne cut purses last fall that it was the first time in at least 15 years that they had done that during a race meet(a sad testament to Hawthornes' problems recently).
My wife and I received the vote card you had spoke of. We both filled them out and returned them. We both voted for the elections to remain the same as they had been in the past. We beleived that that ment December of 2005 there would be a new vote for a new membership. However, now from an earlier post it seems as though it may have been construed to be any of a number of things.
I think the president and directors should be paid, but it's not a full time job by any means. At best it's a part part time job. I rarely if ever was able to reach anyone other than the answering machine past 2pm on any given live race day. Therefore, it's my opinion that they should receive payment based on that.
I really want to know when the meetings are, and in advance so that we can attend. Every member should be at least given the opportunity to make that decision on their own.
Report to moderator   Logged
User1015
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 260




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: February 12, 2006, 02:45:05 AM »

So is this correct JimC, the Executive Director, was there for less than a year and was voted a 25% increase? Sign me up please!
Report to moderator   Logged
Jim C
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1403




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: February 12, 2006, 03:06:06 AM »

BEAU,
Its nice to hear from someone who is interested in the organization and wants to be involved. While I agree that 100 people do not constitute a full compliment of members the thing you have to understand is that those who were voted in this past Dec. where only voted in for a temporary term until a full election would take place which would be in the next 60 to 90 days. This voting action was only to replace those whose terms were officially up in Dec per the by-laws and as I stated would be only on an interim basis and with NO PAY. The election in Dec was in no means an election for anything more than an emergency situation, which we feel it is. Otherwise this action would be just as bad as the current board extending their own terms and thus overruling the memberships rights.

And user 1015 YES less then a year and a 25% raise.
Report to moderator   Logged
BeauNarro
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2800

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.....


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #21 on: February 12, 2006, 10:01:31 AM »

I heard that Joe makes 40k (which seems fair), but also that Justin makes 70k (which is way to much for a part time position). was his 25% increases on top of the 70k??

Also, is Justin still working in the racing office?
Report to moderator   Logged
User1015
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 260




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: February 12, 2006, 12:00:54 PM »

I believe Justin's position is full time, the salary that had been allotted for the ED was split to accommodate paying the President. I believe that the decision to pay the President was contingent on reducing the EDs salary. Thats the part that seems so manipulative, less than a year later the ED's salary is increased by 25%.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jim C
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1403




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: February 12, 2006, 07:11:43 PM »

The job that is really a part time position is that of president. The ED job is a full time job, in fact one that really could (and in my opinion should)  be split into 2 jobs one for the day to day race track dealings and one for the political dealings. Given how things are these days it is almost impossible to do a good job in both areas as there just isn't enough time to be here and in Springfield to make sure all bases are covered.

The president's job really is one of overseeing things, this is why the ED has always been a paying job and the president has not. It is also the reason 99% of all the other similar type organizations are set up the same way with only the ED being paid.

The argument that was raised, that being the ED was underpaid was true, but that was by their choice when they decided to pay the president. 70k a year for the ED job is on the low side compared to other organizations. 80k to 90k would be more in the ballpark however for that kind of money you should be getting top notch people who know how to run an organization.
Report to moderator   Logged
User1015
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 260




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: February 12, 2006, 07:16:17 PM »

Well said JimC
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.213 seconds with 16 queries.

Home
Upcoming events
Arlington Million
Horse slaughter in IL
Racing TV schedule
News Updates
Legislation

Galloping Out

Previous stories

Arlington
Balmoral
Hawthorne
Maywood
Chicago Sun-Times
Chicago Tribune
Blood-Horse
Daily Racing Form
Thoroughbred Times
Harness Link
Illinois Racing Board

 

2014

Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2013

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2012

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

More ebay items

 

Home | News Updates | Bloggers | Forums | Search
Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Advertising | Contact Us

Copyright © 2000-2014 Chicago Barn to Wire. All rights reserved.
Privacy policy