All-Star Iep Release Statement

[NJ Coach]

Someone just said that Cheer Ltd. who presented these findings to the board joined the Varsity Family Plan on 3/2, breaking ties with the IEP. Hmm....

They joined the Varsity Family plan in 2010-2011 season, according to the press release

 

[ntlgnt1]

I mis-posted the list. Left our Steve from Vars....I mean USASF-

Jim Chadwick - Chairman (Varsity)
Justin Carrier - NCA (Varsity)
Catherine Morris - UDA (Varsity)
John Newby - UCA (Varsity)
Lance Wagers - ACA (Varsity)
Mike Burgess - USA (Varsity)
Steve Peterson - USASF (Varsity)
Jeff Fowlkes - Cheersport
Dan Kessler - Jamfest
Colleen Little - Cheer America (IEP)
Elaine Pascal - World Cup
Happy Hooper - ACE Cheer Company
Jody Melton - Cheer Athletics
Mack Hirshberg - Mac's All-Stars

I was also told there were 15 people on this board and 8 were Varsity... so I think I am missing another Varsity person...

So, 6 of the 7 Varsity reps are male and in all 8 of the board members that voted are male! Hmmm, so they are uncomfortable w/seeing males be extravagant! Sounds like someone needs to check thier insecurities! This is worse then politics!

 

[lakerfantlc]

I looked up the Board of Directors on the USASF page - so I am assuming the following people know about it:

Jim Chadwick - Chairman
Justin Carrier - NCA (Varsity)
Catherine Morris - UDA (Varsity)
John Newby - UCA (Varsity)
Lance Wagers - ACA (Varsity)
Mike Burgess - USA (Varsity)
Jeff Fowlkes - Cheersport
Dan Kessler - Jamfest
Colleen Little - Cheer America (IEP)
Elaine Pascal - World Cup
Happy Hooper - ACE Cheer Company
Jody Melton - Cheer Athletics
Mack Hirshberg - Mac's All-Stars

SO...is this to mean that HALF of USASF (a non profit) board members are employed by Varsity?

 

[yojaehs]

SO...is this to mean that HALF of USASF (a non profit) board members are employed by Varsity?

Correct.

 

[Just-a-Mom]

So, 6 of the 7 Varsity reps are male and in all 8 of the board members that voted are male! Hmmm, so they are uncomfortable w/seeing males be extravagant! Sounds like someone needs to check thier insecurities! This is worse then politics!

Just to clarify...I don't think that the statement that males should not be theatrical (or whatever it said...) was a rule. So it wasn't "voted on". It was listed on the page with the guidelines, which was probably just drawn up quickly by a few people with just a quickly put together list of "things we'd like to see".

I wish everyone on here would have READ all the documents as they were, not how everyone saw on Facebook and here that they THOUGHT they were. The pages with the Do's and Don't's were just guidelines, NOT RULES. There is a difference between "Do arrive competition ready, Don't wear fashionable boots" and "No participant shall arrive to the venue without being competition ready and in full competition apparel." There is also a HUGE difference in the 2 documents. One was clearly labeled "New rules for 2012-2013" (official rules that all gyms have to follow) and one was just a silly looking chart of Do's and Don'ts that were very clearly (to me) suggestions (silly guidelines to post somewhere reminding everyone what is supposedly "appropriate".



***This is in no way suggesting that I think the statement regarding males was anything other than bigoted, sexist, and disgusting. Just saying they weren't saying it was a rule and that teams would receive deductions for it.

 

[ntlgnt1]

Just to clarify...I don't think that the statement that males should not be theatrical (or whatever it said...) was a rule. So it wasn't "voted on". It was listed on the page with the guidelines, which was probably just drawn up quickly by a few people with just a quickly put together list of "things we'd like to see".

I wish everyone on here would have READ all the documents as they were, not how everyone saw on Facebook and here that they THOUGHT they were. The pages with the Do's and Don't's were just guidelines, NOT RULES. There is a difference between "Do arrive competition ready, Don't wear fashionable boots" and "No participant shall arrive to the venue without being competition ready and in full competition apparel." There is also a HUGE difference in the 2 documents. One was clearly labeled "New rules for 2012-2013" (official rules that all gyms have to follow) and one was just a silly looking chart of Do's and Don'ts that were very clearly (to me) suggestions (silly guidelines to post somewhere reminding everyone what is supposedly "appropriate".



***This is in no way suggesting that I think the statement regarding males was anything other than bigoted, sexist, and disgusting. Just saying they weren't saying it was a rule and that teams would receive deductions for it.

it still doesn't change the fact that the rules, suggestions, release, information(whatever you want to call it) was put together by a majority of MALES and it has created a major uproar!

 

[Rudags]

Just to clarify...I don't think that the statement that males should not be theatrical (or whatever it said...) was a rule. So it wasn't "voted on". It was listed on the page with the guidelines, which was probably just drawn up quickly by a few people with just a quickly put together list of "things we'd like to see".

I wish everyone on here would have READ all the documents as they were, not how everyone saw on Facebook and here that they THOUGHT they were. The pages with the Do's and Don't's were just guidelines, NOT RULES. There is a difference between "Do arrive competition ready, Don't wear fashionable boots" and "No participant shall arrive to the venue without being competition ready and in full competition apparel." There is also a HUGE difference in the 2 documents. One was clearly labeled "New rules for 2012-2013" (official rules that all gyms have to follow) and one was just a silly looking chart of Do's and Don'ts that were very clearly (to me) suggestions (silly guidelines to post somewhere reminding everyone what is supposedly "appropriate".



***This is in no way suggesting that I think the statement regarding males was anything other than bigoted, sexist, and disgusting. Just saying they weren't saying it was a rule and that teams would receive deductions for it.

Correct. It is not a 'rule' - its a guideline, Yes. Some of the pictures, etc I think are just for fun. However, releasing rules AND guidelines at the same time - I think was a bad decision - it had a lot of people confused (myself at first as well). However, as you said.... it came across bigoted, sexist and disgusting.

 

[Just-a-Mom]

it still doesn't change the fact that the rules, suggestions, release, information(whatever you want to call it) was put together by a majority of MALES and it has created a major uproar!

Correct. It is not a 'rule' - its a guideline, Yes. Some of the pictures, etc I think are just for fun. However, releasing rules AND guidelines at the same time - I think was a bad decision - it had a lot of people confused (myself at first as well). However, as you said.... it came across bigoted, sexist and disgusting.

Yes, I reposted this in another thread and made myself more clear (and I also clarified that putting out both things at the same time was horrible timing and stupid). I DO think an apology is in order (and I mean a HUGE apology, including owning up to it being a disgusting show of bad judgment, sexism, discrimination and whatever other vile word comes to mind. I just think a lot of people are confused and think it's an actual rule.

 

[cheerKT]

WOOOOOWWW.

 

[Deleted member 15]

Interesting info on non profit rules....someone help me with this....does this apply to our sport????

If an organization is to qualify for tax exempt status, the organization's (a) charter — if a not-for-profit corporation — or (b) trust instrument — if a trust — or (c) articles of association — if an association — must specify that no part of its assets shall benefit any of persons who are members, directors, officers or agents (its principals). As well the organization must have a legal, charitable purpose, i.e. the organization must be created to support educational, religious, or charitable activities. These elements do not mean that the organization cannot pay employees or contractors for work or services they render to the organization. This limitation means that as long as the organization operates within its exempt purposes and it maintains an endowment or uses any excess revenue to further develop its activities it will not be taxed by the Internal Revenue Service.
Such a surplus — that is, whatever part of its income is left after its operating expenses are paid — which might be considered similar to "profit" — must be spent on the charitable or public purpose(s) for which it was organized, not paid as a dividend or benefit to anyone associated with running or organizing it.

No

 

[debbie]

No

can you explain more....

 

[Deleted member 15]

can you explain more....

I'm guessing you want more than a "Yes"

USASF is not an 501c3 so it doesn't need to follow the IRS rules mentioned above. The USASF is a Tennessee Non Profit.

 

[lakerfantlc]

I'm guessing you want more than a "Yes"

USASF is not an 501c3 so it doesn't need to follow the IRS rules mentioned above. The USASF is a Tennessee Non Profit.

By definition:
A mutual benefit nonprofit corporation is formed solely for the benefit of its members. An example of a mutual benefit nonprofit corporation is a golf club. Individuals pay to join the club, memberships may be bought and sold, and any property owned by the club is distributed to its members if the club dissolves. The club can decide, in its corporate bylaws, how many members to have, and who can be a member. Generally, while it is a nonprofit corporation, a mutual benefit corporation is not a charity. Because it is not a charity, a mutual benefit nonprofit corporation cannot obtain 501(c)(3) status. If there is a dispute as to how a mutual benefit nonprofit corporation is being operated, it is up to the members to resolve the dispute since the corporation exists to solely serve the needs of its membership and not the general public.

 

[canttouchthis]

Well the theatrical comment makes a little bit of sense right now. Someone correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Happy one of the coaches in doral that commented on boys not being so flamboyant during the routines?

this is hilarious. and ridiculous.

 

[Deleted member 15]

By definition:
A mutual benefit nonprofit corporation is formed solely for the benefit of its members. An example of a mutual benefit nonprofit corporation is a golf club. Individuals pay to join the club, memberships may be bought and sold, and any property owned by the club is distributed to its members if the club dissolves. The club can decide, in its corporate bylaws, how many members to have, and who can be a member. Generally, while it is a nonprofit corporation, a mutual benefit corporation is not a charity. Because it is not a charity, a mutual benefit nonprofit corporation cannot obtain 501(c)(3) status. If there is a dispute as to how a mutual benefit nonprofit corporation is being operated, it is up to the members to resolve the dispute since the corporation exists to solely serve the needs of its membership and not the general public.

Who does the USASF consider the members?