VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF

KWAN JANG NIM H. C. HWANG’S PRESENTATION

JUNE 25, 2009

NOTE

This is a verbatim transcript of an mp3 and tape recording of Kwan Jang Nim H.C. Hwang's presentation at the June 25, 2009 Board of Director’s meeting. No efforts were made to correct grammar or syntax in order to prepare the most exact and literal transcription. Blank lines and numbers in parentheses indicate words could not be understood or transcribed.  Numbers were taken from the Windows Media Player digital counter when words could not be understood or transcribed.

Chairman Call Meeting to Order

Chairman conducts roll call

ROLL CALL: PERSONS IN ATTENDANCE/ABSENT

Kwan Jang Nim, H. C. Hwang

Senior Advisory Committee

·         Lawrence Seiberlich, Sa Bom Nim (absent)

·         Russ Hanke, Sa Bom Nim

·         Victor Martinov, Sa Bom Nim

Charter Members

·         Kwan Jang Nim, H. C. Hwang

·         Lawrence Seiberlich, Sa Bom Nim (absent)

·         Russ Hanke, Sa Bom Nim

·         Victor Martinov, Sa Bom Nim

·         Ben Cortese, Sa Bom Nim

·         Frank Bonsignore, Sa Bom Nim

·         Arthur Pryor, Sa Bom Nim (absent)

Hu Kyun In

·         Frank Bonsignore, Sa Bom Nim

·         Ted Mason, Sa Bom Nim

·         Wilton Bennett, Sa Bom Nim

Technical Advisory Committee

·         Dae Kyu Jang, Sa Bom Nim

·         Bill Nelson, Sa Bom Nim

·         Chris Poole, Sa Bom Nim

·         Ken Trevellyn, Sa Bom Nim

·         Cash Cooper, Sa Bom Nim

·         Dae Kyu Jang, Sa Bom Nim

·         Phillip Bartolacci, Sa Bom Nim

·         Daymon Kenyon, Sa Bom Nim

·         Steve Diaz, Sa Bom Nim (absent)

·         Jeff Griggs, Sa Bom Nim (absent)

Board of Directors

·         John Maihos,Sa Bom Nim

·         Frank Bonsignore,Sa Bom Nim

·         Cort Stinehour, Sa Bom Nim

·         Mary Ann Walsh, Sa Bom Nim (absent)

·         Keith Wildonger, Kyo Sa Nim

·         David Kingman, Kyo Sa Nim

·         Philip Bartolacci, Sa Bom Nim

·         Rich Grogan, Sa Bom Nim

·         Ed Horni, Kyo Sa Nim

·         Bob Diehl, Sa Bom Nim

·         Greg Bryan, Sa Bom Nm

·         Daymon Kenyon, Sa Bom Nim

·         John Johnson, Sa Bom Nim

·         Ian McDuffie, Sa Bom Nim

·         Charles Smith, Sa Bom Nim

Chairman suspends Roberts Rules of Order

Chairman invokes teleconference protocol

Chairman reads Federation’s “Concept of Unity”

Chairman reviews agenda

Chairman:  Are there other things that people wanted to have on the agenda that didn’t show up for us to give some consideration to if we have time?

Director Bryan:  I could give a brief report at the end regarding what the status of the IT committee?

Chairman:  OK. If you want we could go ahead and put that into the Preservation Executive Committee Report___.  OK. Thank you. I’ll make a note of that. OK. Thank you.

Chairman:  Kwan Jang Nim, the floor is yours. Any way you’d like to present yourself.

Kwan Jang Nim H. C. Hwang: Thank you Chairman. Good evening everybody. We have the Charter members here, the Senior Advisory Committee Members, the Hu Kyun In members, and TAC members and also Board of Directors.

First of all I’d like to thank all the Board and Chairman to provide opportunity and accommodate us on such short notice to get all the leadership together to discuss about some of the issues on facing today. My motivation for this gathering, because as you know, we have issues about disharmony and some of the work habit issues it has been addressed by the letter and some of the discussion. But some of the disharmony issues do not seem to be getting better.

My intent is that no matter how our Moo Do is good and a valuable thing, if you do not have harmony among each other, I think that value cannot go anywhere. So, this has become, to me and to all of us, become a serious issue. So, I would like to address by inviting all of our leadership and invite all of you back to 35 years ago in 1974 when the first meeting to having this national organization.

You know, before we started, I must say we must address some leadership entities, some positions and their role and etc.  Please do not take as personally because this is a necessary thing because this organization’s leadership is done by these entities, it is necessary to address. Please take in a positive fashion for the purpose of the future of the Moo Duk Kwan’s longevity.

I have…also I am here attending today, just like you are. We have one very important, simple and clear goal in mind which is preserving the Moo Do. So, I am here in my mind to supporting energy from each other throughout this meeting.

Back in 1974 November, we had the meeting for the first time. Our Founder called the meeting for the dan members in Burlington, NJ.  At that time, our real original intents of the Federation was very to see that and identifed that to make sure that the access and connection to the Founder through the certification. As you can see, looking at the Federation Charter, Article II, the Purpose of the Federation in G and K sections clearly identified how important at that time access to our Founder and getting the certification. Because you will know before 1974 there was many local Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan Federations. But they all working independently and locally and they is overpowered by some of the powerful seniors. So they were able to enjoy the connection from the Founder. I think that was really the strongest motivation and our Charter members at that time got together so they don’t want to have the same experience again.

Second important thing, is actually it has been read by the Chairman about our Federation’s Concept of Unity. It’s basically you want to build a home in Moo Duk Kwan where very comfortably we can learn and teach the Moo Duk Kwan.  So, by having a National Federation, that’s what we expected to see: the two things, connect access to the Founder and providing a good atmosphere to learning and teaching in a comfortable and enjoyable atmosphere. So, that’s actually our original intent in our meeting 35 years ago. Now with this in mind, the Charter convention we held in June 1975 after 6 months.

As you know, we didn’t have any kind of fancy tool like we have today. From scratch we made all the Charter and all the work to make sure the legal organization was founded in six months. I think that’s a pretty good lesson for us. What things we can do if we want to do it.

Now with that in mind, the Federation was established and then I would like to touch on 1970s, how it went.  I would like to go over, inviting 35 years ago go through and how we progressed from 70s, 80s and 90s and current times. And what transpired during our progress so that we can identify what is good thing with it, what is not good thing with it so that we may have a better understanding where we were at this time, so we that we may have to be really think about something, maybe change, got to change, something you have to keep, have to keep it for the betterment for the future. That’s the intent.

In the 1970S, there’s a few kind of significant things, the fact.. In the 1970s, the largest studio ownders, at that time usually was Korean instructors wants o have a lot of power by having more votes. So they have more students, they have more votes on the Board. That was a big issue but at that time, the intent of the organization, because we don’t want to overpower by some of the largest studios or some senior instructors so that it can be a danger for the connection to the Founder. So,  they think and all the Board fought against it. And that was one of the big issues in the early 1970s and early days.

And we have 30 of Board of Directors at that time. Their role, it was almost like at that time, it was like technically, everyone was like technical advisory committee or like a TAC assistant. And the business of the organization was very simple. The process in business administration at the Federation was simple also. You know, the office was placed in 222 Mountain Avenue in Springfield. I think some of you remember the small office there. At that time, they record income, expenses approved by the Board and office, and all the records give to Bernie___ who was the CPA at that time. And he provided a financial report at the Board meeting. And, at that time, Board members questioning him and get an answer from the CPA and they made the next budget prepare.  That’s how things moving on at that time.

And we time, we didn’t have at that time administrator. We called the Federation secretary. Her name was Natalie D’Alessio and she was received strict orders from the TAC and Board and executed it. That’s all she did as secretary. And provided service like registration, testing process, and newsletter and answered members inquiry service by telephone and letter. And that’s actually all they did.

Another thing, is like at the Board meeting whenever the Board will get the training because we want to make sure to have a Moo Do environment all the time. Another significant thing, a lot of clinics going on for the standardization because in 70s our standardization wasn’t as good as much as today. So, there was a lot of, almost every single weekend, clinics regionally, nationally, and locally to make standardization to accomplish what we achieve today.  And also notice at that time in the 1970s, many of the officials attended the meeting and events with kind of self-funding. This was probably on account of a low budget. That’s what I remember transpired in our Federation during the 1970s.

Going to the 1980s, we have pretty much same thing. But more members and many more Moo Do activities were organized. And we had the very high spirit during that time.  Particular Moo Do events what we had:  1982 we have Internationals in Atlantic City, NJ; 1983 the first year to the initiate Ko Dan Ja Shim Sa; 1983 to 1984 our active Chil Sung Hyung clinics and Moo Pahl Dan Kuhm start introducing; make ourself our identity at that time with these hyung; and many regional clinics by TAC and Senior members. Also very memorable camps like Phoenica Camp at Pathworks Center, NY. Many instructors are still talking about it at this time; and, in 1980s we strengthened the Nationals. Every year we tried to make it better. This is the time we have the very highest spirit and members looking forward to attending all of these events. So these Moo Do events will contribute toward our unique identity which became foundation to build for the successful 1990s.

I think the 1990s the following things has really taken place. We have enjoyed the highest peak of quality and quantity of membership. I think remember 1997, we have National in Cherry Hill, NJ, we brought well over 1000 competitors, I believe close to 1,500 competitors. That shows our accomplishment, both quality as well as quantity. That same year, 1997 we have 100 classing dan testing. In Region 2 alone, we have over 200 candidates. This shows how successful we were at that time. By mid-1990 we project new look of Federation in business administration. And I see this as a means of celebrating our success and maybe set a new goal. That’s how I see it. That the Federation project a new look of the Federation in business administration. At that time, many useful educational information were distributed in order to promote the business and administration aspect of the Federation and education and overall. And also we noticed that the increased business like conduct was presented by Board of Directors. As an example, in 1998 we had the Nationals in Cincinnati, Ohio. In 1998 National, the Board Chair and Executive Administrator they wear suit and tie and show in front of entire membership to educate the Board is different from the Moo Do.  So, they were dressed about the business aspect of supporting from the member. I don’t know, some of you might be there to at that place we had some members they become very negative, they didn’t receive very well, because it wasn’t a Moo Do friendly sight for them.

Some of the projecting the exercise and practice from the Board for the business presentation was noticed it increased during that time. However, they tried a few more years and changed it into now into dobok so that make sure that we are all Moo Do practitioners and we are in atmosphere that is Moo Do friendly. That was in 1990s about some high peaks and some of the changes about our new look.

Now year 2000 to present. I think many of you probably were part of it over here. This is where we saw the most active period of the business administration of the Federation from the Board. Along with this active business administration, we also noticed some of the following: Technical Advisory Committee’s unbalanced function. They are very good in teaching in Ko Dan Ja week, whenever they give you assignment; in teaching they do an really excellent job. So, we all know about that. Also noticed that weakening in their planning or administering at many events. As an example, of 2008 National which was last year, we had the least competitors, but we delay in finish. And we all have experience we have to hurry for the banquet and so on. I think this kind of thing, show that something (didn’t) went right. Weakening in managing, weak managing of own TAC administration, such as manual, gup and dan manual we still have issues for awhile. I think those are the way I see along with some, it seems to me, it should be better in the business administration of the Federation, but these things have transpired.

And also, during 2000 to present, we have a high cost in operation, high budget, leadership accommodated at event better than ever before. Those are the things that transpired in 2000 to current. From this I have a few observations by reviewing some of what we done through the history for 30 years. We found some difference in the request from the larger studios in 1970s and the present time. During the 70s, the larger studios, they ask for the more votes. In 2000 these day, larger studio owners (ask for) member service and simplicity of business administration process in 2000 times. That was some of the difference I kind of observed this.

Another observation is when Board of Directors role was simple with necessary thing and embraced Moo Do friendly process, art grew naturally, as you can see in 1980. When Board of Directors role was in administration and policy friendly, art begins to little get into (27:39 – 27:40) Now I spoke actually with a few days ago, speak with one of the leader members, I think he is in teleconference today, what he is mentioning is he thinks their Regional tournament, spirit is more higher than National Championship. Now that’s one simple statement I think that kind of says a lot about what has transpired that goes along with this. And they used to be looking forward to attend the Nationals but they don’t have same kind of desire like they use to have.  But that’s the sort of very interesting comment I received from one of the leaders who been with me for a long time.

Also, I observed that through the reviewing this history, the 70s to the mid-90s, operate with a reasonable budget, mid-90s to current operates with high budget. That was another observation.  And budget discipline should be, in my opinion, should be reflect the nature of the business and the reality rather than board business administration has been reflect. I think it is an internal goal rather than a policy. May missing the serving the members (29:28 – 29:29, coughing).

And understanding the Mission 2000 objectives particularly the financial stability. In financial stability, when the Founder mentioned in 1989, he means that through the active administration by the officials, we should be able to increase some funds from outside of the Federation, so that these funds can be more benefit for our art for the member. He didn’t mean that you get the financial responsibility to go into the members, increasing from the member alone. I think I believe when we have a first time we have (30:16) new administrator, we had in mind, we had intent to process that way.

And then another observation, another observation, I feel this is quite, to me, to me is important. The Board became more powerful than Moo Do itself. I think this has become the very serious issue. I wonder this doesn’t, this really doesn’t make the harm the spirit of our entire membership. (31:01 – 31:03). For example, by I think it is 2001 or 2002. The Board, they have issues of fee, of fees increase in the membership and some other fees. We have significant opposition by the studio owners. So I spoke with Founder. The Founder feels that maybe that this really intent about the financial security, it may affect the disharmony to the organization. He sent the letter to the Board to make the veto about the fee increases.  I think the Board accepted it and then later, they review by some attorney who has nothing to do about Moo Do, Moo Do understanding. He’s not even a Moo Do practitioner. Randomly choose an attorney to review what has transpired. That attorney advised that this is a business issue, is not the Moo Do issues, the Board, they overturned the veto, veto. The guidance from the Moo Do were not really closely closely observed by the administration.

When you receive, for example, when you receive the gup certification, I would rather receive the letter from our Founder, congratulations for your Moo Do making effort, and congratulation letter about their accomplishment from the Founder(33:11 coughing), I believe more meaningful more the certificate that it is, it is adding more meaning to the instructors who work hard to make the accomplish their student and also the student himself. Or rather it comes with invoice, how many certificates gets senting, how many what is senting, and balance zero. It’s almost like you’re buying a certificate, provide to the customer or client rather than like Sabom and Jeja relation for the Moo Do picture. I don’t know if this is still going on or not, that has been noted it, quite some time. And those kind of actions little by all adding to some of the feeling. I wonder the impact to the Moo Do care keeper.

And also what happened last year, we had a special meeting at the 2008 Nationals.  We have the SAC, and Charter member, Board member. We had the meeting regarding some proposal. And later we found out it was illegally done. But I didn’t know. I looked at, what I noticed about the Charter and Bylaws, when I review about it, I don’t really quite understand why it’s illegal.  When you really look at this one the big picture. I mean the picture of this organization. That is not a really fair treatment given the history of the people get together. If you can remember over here, in this, in this our discussion, the meeting we had over here, we had a three digit number, four digit number, five digit number, from 10,000 to 30,000[1]. That (35:38) of the history in one place. That’s picture, that’s really a picture of the whole Moo Do.  And those picture of the whole history of the Moo Do get together, try to do something because this is not legal. Because this not fit into some of the policy. I wonder if this policy more powerful than the Moo Do itself. That’s very questionable area (36:14 – 36:16) for our future, you know we wants to be in.

Ok. That’s another area I wants to, another issue but I don’t to go any further because of the time. And but some of the area I would like to share with you to make sure what is the really transpired. It’s always it’s good to go back to what we done, evaluated it and find the better solution for the future.

And I had a teleconference with the Charter member there last Thursday about how we founded it, you know, what we did, you know make sure that our original founding purpose and still carrying on and so on. So, there’s a lot of concerns been addressed. And I actually put it together their thought and their suggestions they sent to me. There’s a lot of, lot of area. But I don’t know how I like to present this one because its, it’s not easy for me to present all of this. So, I am going to make like a simple, simplified, to make it for the sincere consideration, sincere consideration by the Board, by all the leadership, and TAC, to make sure its going to be given a very highest priority to concerns for your future leader, leadership discussion.

First, the basic and simplistic is the very essence. Anything go back to the basic and simplistic. You shouldn’t hesitate it. Second, support the studio. This has been talking time after time. And I know you have some programs going on but we should be doing something very effective I think it’s going to be, this service can be visible service, the visible thing to the members. No matter how much you try, if it is invisible to members, that’s not service for the members’ art. And active. Not only active, effective administration for the needed area, for the really needed area. And furthermore, Charter member, they comes out there’s a new area to be considered which is 501(c), 501(c)3. And look at what, what really brought to this situation, this disharmony situation. And maybe we needed something to simplify. That’s one of their suggestions. And more Moo Do based organization. That’s their suggestions based on the reality.

And my viewpoint, my viewpoint after the sort of long thought over here, this is not a really…you know as I addressed in December. I don’t know you all remember in December 2008, I was attend Board meeting. I was addressed, this is really time not to point the finger at each other.  It’s really time to point the finger ourself. And what I, what I, the better to fix this problem. That was December 2008.

And I also talk about comfort zone. Let’s get out of comfort zone. The Board members, you know, we how we communicate with members and really you know that, that’s our role. And reflect their thought and the active management of the organization. You know that’s what, what I thought about it, share with you at that time.

So now I like to conclude my, this teleconference in my part. First, I would like to see that some immediate action, might, immediate action is on the table. We have been a lot of issues about the testing process not done in timely fashion. I think its sometimes, sometimes in cases for the office, sometimes case for the TAC Administration. And membership process.  You know I heard about some (41:36) these kind of thing need, need immediately got to fix this. How long we going to be talking about this? I been hearing this going to be quite some time. And gup and dan manual. I know its coming up to a conclusion up here but it’s got to be done as quick as possible. This is major issues. So that make sure let the members see the visible benefit, visible service, then they see it.

Second, the simplified process in all the areas concern. We need to take a look at the area. Things going to be, things going to be a simplified process. We have to not be hesitating to do that.  Of course, when you simplify, we cannot compromise our other Moo Do, other Moo Do value here. But as long as going to kept the Moo value here, we have to get simplified action. We need take a look at it, got to immediately take a look at it, make it simplified. And let the really visible benefit, visible service the member. Their concern reflect. You, you, your concerns reflect. This your organization in that area. You should be able to get into this as quickly as you can. As we, this area, I don’t believe it’s going to takes long time to fix this. By fixing this area, we need to, we cannot do a lot of thing at one time. This is the first issue. We need to take care of it as quick as possible. As you completing this process, we need to take a look at what really caused our problem. You know I our real problem is now is not because dan and gup manuals is not done in physically and not because the certificate not processed in a timely manner. You know that’s kind of a, you know that’s important but that’s not a real issue, that kind of thing. The real issue is what is really caused this kind of disharmony? What is really going to cause this kind of complexity? You know? What is really behind this kind of disharmony? We need a very hard take a look at it by reviewing 501(c)3, look at the Federation structure, so that it’s not going to happen again. Not going to discuss these things again. So that you may have to look at some of the structure change, some of the office change. You know, that kind of issue has can be discussed about it so that eliminate any more problem in the future. I am not in a position to details you what to do. This is your job to details what to do. So, I think, I mean, I am having this place, when we having some difficult time years ago, we go to our Founder. “Sir, we have some problems on some issues. Please advise us, guide us where to go.” You never asked me for the guidance but I think this might, be can, be useful for our leadership. Looking at very seriously, it’s got to be done. There’s no other way. It’s got to be done. Anyway you going to take it, it has to be done.

Thank you very much. This is my close today. And if anyone have any questions, some areas maybe I think  some of the expression you know what I, what I found sometime when I express some of the member they kind of little misunderstanding because of the, not because you couldn’t understand, because way I, way I present some of English terms it doesn’t clear. So, sometimes brings some confusion. If you have anything that area, if you can ask me I would like to answer about those questions. After that maybe some questions I would go through my, my part of the presentation. Thank you Chairman (END 46:23).

Chairman: Ok. Thank you sir. Floor’s open if anyone has questions for Kwan Jang Nim on what he presented or things they’d like some clarification on. Please go ahead and begin at this point.

Kwan Jang Nim: OK. If you don’t have any questions, then I can finish my presentation here. And thank you for the accommodating this time. Kahm Sam Ni Da.

Director Bartolacci: Thank you Kwan Jang Nim.

Kwan Jang Nim: Do you, do you want me to stay on this meeting? To listen to you or…?

Chairman: You’re certainly welcome to sir.

Director Bartolacci: Kwan Jang Nim, this is Phillip Bartolacci. I, we would love to have you on the call. I am sure if you were so inclined.

Kwan Jang Nim: Thank you. Kahm Sam Ni Da. What about other members? Like Charter members, SAC members, Hu Kyun In? TAC members? Chairman?