Dan:
No problem - happy to oblige. As to your questions, a few quick responses:
1. isn't it true that girand offered your opinion to the federation's board and interested parties by calling you simply, "a friend of the federation." that neither you nor he disclosed that you were part of "team girand" (as girand himself described it) and that you personally gathered unsealed ballots for girand and for val gattis? as one who actually participated in election procedures so many of us find quite distasteful, don't you feel it was wrong for girand to offer your legal opinion without disclosing that fact?
Yes - that is true. However, when he was asked who wrote the opinion, my name was supplied in an instant. To be honest, I didn't sign the opinion as I just didn't think it was relevent who wrote it and, in part, because if I did some who hold opposing views views as I do with regard to race transfers/refunds might simply dismiss it as "Oh, its that Race Transfer Guy again." as was attempted by a certain USAT board member (you probably saw that e-mail). As for "Team Girand" that is Mr. Girand's self-appointed title to members of various clubs who disperse his regular USAT updates to his constituents and to those who have helped him in elections. I was a part of the so called Team long before this election when I agreed to be a avenue through which Jim could notify our club members of recent USAT actions, plans and news. I bet a lot of USAT members would welcome such a regular voice from their representatives (and that is one of the reasons I voted for Jim - his constant openess and availability to his USAT constituents). Yes, I voted for Jim and yes I made public statements, here and elsewhere, in support of Jim (as I believe you did for others....does that invalidate your opinion?). No, I NEVER personally collect nor transferred ANY ballots (other than my own) to Jim Girand or any other candidtae. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. In fact, I believe in my public postings about Jim the only method I mentioned was the downloadable and self-addressed ballot available from the uSAT website. I will admit that I could be wrong and mentioned that the ballot could also be sent directly to Jim as was allowed under the procedures. I am unsure as to that fact. My so called "involvement" in the election process is the same as yours Dan - I publically endorsed some candidates and I cast a vote.
2. when you say "the board" did this and "the board" did that, let's admit that what we're talking about was a slim majority of the 11-person board, and that the board's vote fell on "party lines." the "parties" consisted of those who were in favor of more "typical" election practices, versus those who felt that it was okay to (as an example) collect unsealed votes not only for the candidate, but for the candidate's opponents. can we agree on that?
Sorry Dan - a majority is a majority. It is also a board act, whether by 1 vote or by 5 votes. That is clear. That is what the By-Laws state, that is what every case of corporate law states, that is common sense. Are you going to re-visit every past resolution passed by a small minority in the USAT history and ask that they too be invalidated? Decisions are often reached by the slimest of margins. I think that reflects a well thought out and considered approach and a mingling of opinions and insights. The simple fact was that it was the Board that passed the procedures; it was the Board that acted, and, it was the Board that corrected the minutes (5 to 2 I believe, even you must admit that is a bit more than slim).
3) you make reference to backer's legal opinion, and say that, the "opinion rendered stated (I believe) that while not actually wrong or invalid, that allowing candidates to collect ballots could be seen as unwise and could be vulnerable to abuse."
"No candidate should ever have possession of another member's signed ballot. The practice invites the opportunity for fraud and calls into question the integrity of the entire election process. The temptation for a candidate to choose not to mail a ballot that doesn't meet the candidate's approval is simply too great to ignore."
Agreed - that is what was said and, if you re-read my postings, I in essence agree. However, neither Backer nor I ever state that our non-support of the adopted procedure makes it invalid. It is one that is open to possible abuse. I think it should be reformed. But, Dan, that does not mean it was invalid or wrong. Also, it does not mean one re-writes history by retro-actively changing the rules. The candidates were well aware of the ground rules when they were campaigning. The USAT members likewise knew the procedures (it was clearly posted in the USAT Times and the website), the procedures have been used in prior USAT elections. It is only now, after the fact, that certain losing parties want to re-write history by saying that the rules need to be changed retro-actively. I disagree. I am an Oakland Raider fan and I have seen some application of NFL rules go against the Raiders (the Patriots forward pass rule for instance). In one, I recall a Raider player fell on a Seattle Seahawk fumble and his forward momentum brought him into the endzone where he was touched by a Seahawk for a safety. If it had been an interception, it would have been a touchback, but it wasn't. I thought the rule was flawed. I thought it should be changed (it was the next year). I never thought the whole freakin game should have been replayed because of the proper application of a valid rule. A bit off the thread, but hopefully you see my point.
4) we can banter about grinder's decision. there is a lot about that decision that you're leaving out, such as the details of just how val gattis' subsequent email vote was carried out, and the fact that grinder left a LOT of legal questions uninvestigated because, in the interest of time and money, he found flaws in the election right from the get-go.
The process regarding Val Gattis e-mail was not left out - and in fact was a good sized chunk of his analysis and one of the keystones for his opinion. However, it is almost irrelevant - it was the later ratification that is important. Plus, it is minutes - only draft minutes. Grinder as you know puts 90%+ of his analysis on Roberts Rules of Order (can't say I agree with this - but he did). Even under his leading authority, it is the tally of votes that renders an effective decision....not draft minutes or even final minutes. Minutes are just that - an attempt to memorialize discussion and decisions. They are not the decision. The vote is the decision and that was what the USAT correctly followed - they had no choice.
5. this election didn't pass the smell test of any election in any western country. the big picture here is that the federation is in danger of being taken to court, that two DISINTERESTED legal opinions have warned of this, that in BOTH cases these opinions were stated by lawyers who are former USAT board presidents.
True - the opinions were rendered by past USAT presidents. I don't necessarily disagree with one and I think the other, while well written, reaches the incorrect conclusion. So? Are we to allow our sport to be blindly led by an opinion merely because it was rendered by a former USAT official? And, you are wrong, the test did and does pass the test. Organizations, like the USAT, are governed by by-laws (not, for the most part, state election statutes, federal campaign laws, and the like). This election process was adopted by the board properly and was held according to that process. That is all that is really needed. Was it perfect? Hell no. Do I support the process, no - I agree candidates should not collect ballots. But does that invalidate the election or make the results invalid? No.
6) the pro athletes have scratched and scraped and gotten themselves to the point where they can just about cut the tether and rely entirely on their own funding. but while AGers can always rely on that (currently) $2.5 million in entry fees brought in, the elites are mostly dependent upon one customer, the USOC. if this customer looks into USAT's election practices and the brou-ha-ha they've brought about, and doesn't like what it sees, that funding could be GONE in it's entirety. no plane tickets, no stipends, no national or resident teams. wouldn't it be better for us to just adopt unimpeachable standards for our elections, and not risk losing all the elites' funding?
Hmmmm....plane tickets, stipends, etc. Is that an attempt to appeal to the self-interested traits to which you accused/feared pro triathletes of being bought off in your ed-op piece? I don't know how they will rule, I would hope that they consider the analysis (including all legal opinions) in their entirety and make the right decision.
7) as we've seen, one side seems always to be hiding or sneaking, or omitting (such as your own opinion, in which neither you nor girand remembered to state, up-front, the detail of your own involvement in the election). i've heard jim girand speak of the "evil" people on this board, and he's used that term several times to me. can we just ask ourselves, as 47,000 stockholders of this corporation, what is actually best for us, instead of trying to figure out who's evil? whether what's better is full disclosure, sunshine, honest and universally-accepted practices of electioneering? isn't that better than legal fight? isn't that what lawyers generally counsel? isn't that the healthier approach for our corporation?
My involvement has been detailed above. If you think my public support for Jim and the fact I cast a vote for him should have been disclosed with the opinion, my apologies. Dan, I don't know if Jim has called certain people evil or not. Certainly he has not to me. I don't believe there are evil people on the USAT board. Most are well-intentioned, some better equiped to hold their position. Some open to conflicting ideas. Some in love with the idea that USAT board dealings are of no business or concern to the general USAT membership. I think you already know that I support full open access to the board discussions and dialog. To do otherwise would be to turn a deaf ear to those that the board are meant to serve. I will always support that. But Dan, you make a leap of logic that this means the election must be tossed out. I disagree. The election was valid - plain and simple. You, me and others may not agree 100% with the procedures - but that does not lessen the effectiveness of the election (hell I hate the electrol college system in the U.S. --- I'm not throwing out all past U.S. elections as invalid).
It is sad to say, but whether the pros uphold the election or not, this would probably be heard in a court. My prediction - a court would uphold the election as valid. There isn't even the slightest evidence of, and I haven't even heard an allegation of, impropriety among the candidates. Only that it was possible. The USAT followed its by-laws and the election was held pursuant thereto. A court would uphold it and the present elected board would remain. So....really, it is an legal attempt by those who want the results dismissed that is the true threat and waste. Don't let this threat derail a proper election to the detriment of the USAT and our elected directors.
You disagree with the past election system? Me too. Let's get it changed for the next election. Let's not waste USAT money, time and effort by throwing out a valid election. To do so would fall right within the hopes of those challenging it - the threat of litigation forcing one to compromise on their convictions. That too Dan, is another attorney trick.
Alan
No problem - happy to oblige. As to your questions, a few quick responses:
1. isn't it true that girand offered your opinion to the federation's board and interested parties by calling you simply, "a friend of the federation." that neither you nor he disclosed that you were part of "team girand" (as girand himself described it) and that you personally gathered unsealed ballots for girand and for val gattis? as one who actually participated in election procedures so many of us find quite distasteful, don't you feel it was wrong for girand to offer your legal opinion without disclosing that fact?
Yes - that is true. However, when he was asked who wrote the opinion, my name was supplied in an instant. To be honest, I didn't sign the opinion as I just didn't think it was relevent who wrote it and, in part, because if I did some who hold opposing views views as I do with regard to race transfers/refunds might simply dismiss it as "Oh, its that Race Transfer Guy again." as was attempted by a certain USAT board member (you probably saw that e-mail). As for "Team Girand" that is Mr. Girand's self-appointed title to members of various clubs who disperse his regular USAT updates to his constituents and to those who have helped him in elections. I was a part of the so called Team long before this election when I agreed to be a avenue through which Jim could notify our club members of recent USAT actions, plans and news. I bet a lot of USAT members would welcome such a regular voice from their representatives (and that is one of the reasons I voted for Jim - his constant openess and availability to his USAT constituents). Yes, I voted for Jim and yes I made public statements, here and elsewhere, in support of Jim (as I believe you did for others....does that invalidate your opinion?). No, I NEVER personally collect nor transferred ANY ballots (other than my own) to Jim Girand or any other candidtae. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. In fact, I believe in my public postings about Jim the only method I mentioned was the downloadable and self-addressed ballot available from the uSAT website. I will admit that I could be wrong and mentioned that the ballot could also be sent directly to Jim as was allowed under the procedures. I am unsure as to that fact. My so called "involvement" in the election process is the same as yours Dan - I publically endorsed some candidates and I cast a vote.
2. when you say "the board" did this and "the board" did that, let's admit that what we're talking about was a slim majority of the 11-person board, and that the board's vote fell on "party lines." the "parties" consisted of those who were in favor of more "typical" election practices, versus those who felt that it was okay to (as an example) collect unsealed votes not only for the candidate, but for the candidate's opponents. can we agree on that?
Sorry Dan - a majority is a majority. It is also a board act, whether by 1 vote or by 5 votes. That is clear. That is what the By-Laws state, that is what every case of corporate law states, that is common sense. Are you going to re-visit every past resolution passed by a small minority in the USAT history and ask that they too be invalidated? Decisions are often reached by the slimest of margins. I think that reflects a well thought out and considered approach and a mingling of opinions and insights. The simple fact was that it was the Board that passed the procedures; it was the Board that acted, and, it was the Board that corrected the minutes (5 to 2 I believe, even you must admit that is a bit more than slim).
3) you make reference to backer's legal opinion, and say that, the "opinion rendered stated (I believe) that while not actually wrong or invalid, that allowing candidates to collect ballots could be seen as unwise and could be vulnerable to abuse."
"No candidate should ever have possession of another member's signed ballot. The practice invites the opportunity for fraud and calls into question the integrity of the entire election process. The temptation for a candidate to choose not to mail a ballot that doesn't meet the candidate's approval is simply too great to ignore."
Agreed - that is what was said and, if you re-read my postings, I in essence agree. However, neither Backer nor I ever state that our non-support of the adopted procedure makes it invalid. It is one that is open to possible abuse. I think it should be reformed. But, Dan, that does not mean it was invalid or wrong. Also, it does not mean one re-writes history by retro-actively changing the rules. The candidates were well aware of the ground rules when they were campaigning. The USAT members likewise knew the procedures (it was clearly posted in the USAT Times and the website), the procedures have been used in prior USAT elections. It is only now, after the fact, that certain losing parties want to re-write history by saying that the rules need to be changed retro-actively. I disagree. I am an Oakland Raider fan and I have seen some application of NFL rules go against the Raiders (the Patriots forward pass rule for instance). In one, I recall a Raider player fell on a Seattle Seahawk fumble and his forward momentum brought him into the endzone where he was touched by a Seahawk for a safety. If it had been an interception, it would have been a touchback, but it wasn't. I thought the rule was flawed. I thought it should be changed (it was the next year). I never thought the whole freakin game should have been replayed because of the proper application of a valid rule. A bit off the thread, but hopefully you see my point.
4) we can banter about grinder's decision. there is a lot about that decision that you're leaving out, such as the details of just how val gattis' subsequent email vote was carried out, and the fact that grinder left a LOT of legal questions uninvestigated because, in the interest of time and money, he found flaws in the election right from the get-go.
The process regarding Val Gattis e-mail was not left out - and in fact was a good sized chunk of his analysis and one of the keystones for his opinion. However, it is almost irrelevant - it was the later ratification that is important. Plus, it is minutes - only draft minutes. Grinder as you know puts 90%+ of his analysis on Roberts Rules of Order (can't say I agree with this - but he did). Even under his leading authority, it is the tally of votes that renders an effective decision....not draft minutes or even final minutes. Minutes are just that - an attempt to memorialize discussion and decisions. They are not the decision. The vote is the decision and that was what the USAT correctly followed - they had no choice.
5. this election didn't pass the smell test of any election in any western country. the big picture here is that the federation is in danger of being taken to court, that two DISINTERESTED legal opinions have warned of this, that in BOTH cases these opinions were stated by lawyers who are former USAT board presidents.
True - the opinions were rendered by past USAT presidents. I don't necessarily disagree with one and I think the other, while well written, reaches the incorrect conclusion. So? Are we to allow our sport to be blindly led by an opinion merely because it was rendered by a former USAT official? And, you are wrong, the test did and does pass the test. Organizations, like the USAT, are governed by by-laws (not, for the most part, state election statutes, federal campaign laws, and the like). This election process was adopted by the board properly and was held according to that process. That is all that is really needed. Was it perfect? Hell no. Do I support the process, no - I agree candidates should not collect ballots. But does that invalidate the election or make the results invalid? No.
6) the pro athletes have scratched and scraped and gotten themselves to the point where they can just about cut the tether and rely entirely on their own funding. but while AGers can always rely on that (currently) $2.5 million in entry fees brought in, the elites are mostly dependent upon one customer, the USOC. if this customer looks into USAT's election practices and the brou-ha-ha they've brought about, and doesn't like what it sees, that funding could be GONE in it's entirety. no plane tickets, no stipends, no national or resident teams. wouldn't it be better for us to just adopt unimpeachable standards for our elections, and not risk losing all the elites' funding?
Hmmmm....plane tickets, stipends, etc. Is that an attempt to appeal to the self-interested traits to which you accused/feared pro triathletes of being bought off in your ed-op piece? I don't know how they will rule, I would hope that they consider the analysis (including all legal opinions) in their entirety and make the right decision.
7) as we've seen, one side seems always to be hiding or sneaking, or omitting (such as your own opinion, in which neither you nor girand remembered to state, up-front, the detail of your own involvement in the election). i've heard jim girand speak of the "evil" people on this board, and he's used that term several times to me. can we just ask ourselves, as 47,000 stockholders of this corporation, what is actually best for us, instead of trying to figure out who's evil? whether what's better is full disclosure, sunshine, honest and universally-accepted practices of electioneering? isn't that better than legal fight? isn't that what lawyers generally counsel? isn't that the healthier approach for our corporation?
My involvement has been detailed above. If you think my public support for Jim and the fact I cast a vote for him should have been disclosed with the opinion, my apologies. Dan, I don't know if Jim has called certain people evil or not. Certainly he has not to me. I don't believe there are evil people on the USAT board. Most are well-intentioned, some better equiped to hold their position. Some open to conflicting ideas. Some in love with the idea that USAT board dealings are of no business or concern to the general USAT membership. I think you already know that I support full open access to the board discussions and dialog. To do otherwise would be to turn a deaf ear to those that the board are meant to serve. I will always support that. But Dan, you make a leap of logic that this means the election must be tossed out. I disagree. The election was valid - plain and simple. You, me and others may not agree 100% with the procedures - but that does not lessen the effectiveness of the election (hell I hate the electrol college system in the U.S. --- I'm not throwing out all past U.S. elections as invalid).
It is sad to say, but whether the pros uphold the election or not, this would probably be heard in a court. My prediction - a court would uphold the election as valid. There isn't even the slightest evidence of, and I haven't even heard an allegation of, impropriety among the candidates. Only that it was possible. The USAT followed its by-laws and the election was held pursuant thereto. A court would uphold it and the present elected board would remain. So....really, it is an legal attempt by those who want the results dismissed that is the true threat and waste. Don't let this threat derail a proper election to the detriment of the USAT and our elected directors.
You disagree with the past election system? Me too. Let's get it changed for the next election. Let's not waste USAT money, time and effort by throwing out a valid election. To do so would fall right within the hopes of those challenging it - the threat of litigation forcing one to compromise on their convictions. That too Dan, is another attorney trick.
Alan