Dan:

No apologies necessary - you are correct, except in calling me Jim Girand's attorney. I am not. I am general counsel for SF Tri Club. The opinion I was rendered was at the request of Mr. Girand - I would have done the same at the request of Mr. Locke, Mr. Weiss, or you. It is my opinion as an attorney and as a USAT member.

But, since you asked, my opinion deals not so much with the election, but with Mr. Grinder's analysis. Mr. Grinder wrote a detailed and well fashioned opinion that concluded that the election process was not in conformity with the process adopted by the USAT. It is that conclusion with which I take objection. Mr. Grinder's opinion (as seen by you) focuses on the following facts:

(1) The USAT board debated and considered various voting procedures, including allowing the ballot to be downloadable from the webiste on a certain date and allowing candidtaes to collect ballots and turn them in themselves.

(2) The board sought legal advice and the opinion rendered stated (I believe) that while not actually wrong or invalid, that allowing candidtaes to collect ballots could be seen as unwise and could be vulnerable to absue.

(3) The board considered this opinion, along with other factors such as past practice, deadlines, faith in the candidtaes' integrity, etc. and reached a majority decision as a result of a board vote to post allow both the downloads and the candidates' collection of the ballots (note - I agree that this later practice, while not illegal, wrong or invalid, is not the most clean).

(4) Based upon this vote, the USAT began to run the election as voted by the board.

(5) At about this time, the USAT secretary sent out draft (remember that word, its important) minutes to the board for review, comment and clarrification before submitting them to board at a later date for ratification.

(6) The minutes contained errors - it incorrectly reversed the result of the votes, stating that both adopted procedures had failed. This was clearly in error and caught by multiple board members including Jim Girand.

(7) Val Gattis, the president, sent an e-mail to all board members pointing out an error and asking them to vote that they agree that it wa sin error. The vote was majoritry - 5 to 2 agrred that the adopted procedures had been adopted and that the minutes were wrong.

(8) So, the election continued per the adopted procedures.

(9) At a later meeting (November I believe) the board was presented the erroneous minutes. Per accepted and proper procedure they adopted the minutes "as corrected" by the e-mail vote triggered by Val Gattis.

Now, back to Mr. Grinder's analysis. In it, he EXPRESSLY states that his opinion is not about the correctness or improperiety of the election procedures. He never got to that point. Mr. Grinder stated that the flawed and incorrect draft minutes should have been followed. He stated that Ms. Gattis' attempt to correct them via e-mail vote did not follow by-law procedure. Here is where I believe the opinion is flawed.

First, the USAT is not bound by DRAFT minutes....especially when the board knowingly is aware that they are wrong. To do so would be foolish and a violation of their duties. Second, while Mr. Grinder may be correct that Ms. Gattis' e-mail discussion did not correct and ratify the minutes....he failed to discuss or even mention the November correction and ratification. The minutes were officially corrected and the procedure used in the election and outlined by the corrected minuted were ratified by the board (not an uncommon corporate procedure).

That is my analysis. Like Mr. Grinder, my opinion does not address the actual procedure (although, my $0.02 is that they are not inherently wrong or invalid, but not the most wise or prudent method to use. That alone does not invalidate their adoption by the board). My analysis deals with the minutes and the board's adherence to the actual vote.

Below, is the text of my analysis:

THE FINDING THAT THE ELECTION PROCESS WAS FLAWED IGNORES THE LAW AND FACTS.

A The election was held pursuant to the valid act and decision

of the USA Triathlon Board of Directors.

Attorney Grinder supports his entire decision upon the fact that the election process held did not reflect an erroneous bullet-point summary of a set of draft minutes. The board of directors are not bound to follow non-binding minutes. They are, however, bound to act as the board voted. “Each corporation shall have a board of directors. The activities and affairs of a corporation shall be conducted and all corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the direction of the board.” Note: this almost universal definition of director authority does not reference draft minutes as the source of their power and instructions. Instead, the election process, an activity and affair of the corporation, was to be conducted and exercised under the direction of the board (not draft minutes – erroneous draft minutes at that). The directors were in attendance at the meeting. They knew the outcome of the vote. They knew what they, as directors, had been charged to do. It would not only have been irresponsible of them, it would have been a dereliction of their duties to ignore the binding board vote and act pursuant to knowingly erroneous and non-binding draft minutes. The USA Triathlon then conducted the election according the act and decision of the USA Triathlon Board of Directors. The draft minutes, despite Mr. Grimer’s reliance thereon, were of no authority or weight. The election process was mandated by the board – the vote of the board is the ONLY authority from which the election could flow. “An act or decision done or made by a majority of the directors present at a meeting duly held at which a quorum is present is the act of the board.” (emphasis added). This universal definition of a director action clearly shows that the decision reached by the board at its properly-called June meeting, by a vote of the majority of directors with a quorum present, is the “act of the board”….not draft minutes. Had the directors disobeyed the vote and knowingly followed draft minutes which incorrectly recorded the “act” and “decision” of the board, they would have been in breach of their fiduciary duties to the corporation and to the USA Triathlon membership.B. The Minutes were in fact correct and ratified as corrected at a subsequent regular meeting

Even assuming, arguendo, that Attorney Grinder’s misplaced reliance upon draft minutes should be afforded some weight, the election was still valid. Attorney Grinder noted that minutes can be altered pursuant to the By-Laws. Per the By-Laws, the secretary, Karen Buxton sent the proposed minutes to the board members for review. Per the by-laws, the board members reviewed the draft minutes (i.e. they had yet to be ratified) and some noted that they incorrectly reflected the discussion and decision held at the June 2003 meeting. Attorney Grinder also notes that the minutes could only be amended pursuant to a special or regular meeting. That is correct. However, they can also only be ratified at such meetings. As such, the erroneous minutes were never ratified and, as such, were not binding. They were an erroneous reflection of conversations.

Further, as a result of the errors contained in the draft minutes, certain board members instituted an e-mail attempt to clarify the minutes. President Val Gattis wrote an e-mail to all disinterested board members to see if they agreed that the minutes were incorrect. The e-mail was titled “VOTE June Board Meeting Clarification”. The responses to this e-mail indicated that the board, as a majority, did agree that the minutes incorrectly reflected the discussion and decisions of the board.

As a follow-up, Val Gattis spoke with the Secretary and Ms. Buxton agreed that the board members were correct and that her minutes were in error. Ms. Gattis then clearly e-mailed the board, explaining that she spoke with the secretary about the minutes and explained to the board that “this is not a new subject or a re-vote”. This is important – the discussion, the e-mail exchange, the show-of-hands of those who noted the error was NOT a re-vote.

Mr. Grinder concludes that, as such, the e-mail did not effectively amend the minutes.[1] Assuming that this is correct, then the draft minutes had, still, not been accepted by the board as correct nor been amended by the board as in error. Accordingly, there was no vote on the minutes. The erroneous minutes still stood and, as of yet, were not ratified or accepted by the USA Triathlon Board. Like any other non-ratified proposal or company business, they were non-binding and of no authority.

However, what Mr. Grinder fails to recognize or discuss is that a subsequent regular meeting of the board of directors was held in November. At the meeting, the minutes of the June meeting were put to a formal ratification vote. The board revisited the erroneous minutes, yet to be ratified, and the held as follows:

“2003 Election Discussion:

There was a heated discussion about how the election process will be handled this year. Karen stated that the integrity of the election process was in jeopardy by allowing candidates to hand out, collect and mail in ballots. Ray and Brad echoed this feeling. Jim Grand stated that this is the way it has been carried out in the past and we should continue to do so. Others felt that the process needed to be reviewed, but not during the current election.

It was then decided how this year’s election will be carried out:

1. The ballot can not be faxed or photocopied

2. Front of Tri Times would have a statement that states this is the election issue!!

3. Ballot will be placed as a PDF on the website that people can download and send back to us. Stamped return address will appear on the backside.

4. Cardboard ballot insert will be placed in USA Triathlon Times.

5. Only members can mail in your ballot.

6. Ken Waugh will conduct a random audit of ballots returned to confirm they completed and sent in their own ballot.

7. Will apply to this year only

In Favor 4; Opposed 2; 4 Abstained. (***This decision was later over-turned during an email vote due to a discrepancy of the notes taken during the meeting).

Meeting

Adjourned: 5:45pm”

While not the most eloquently written memorial, these minutes clearly indicate a re-visit of the June minutes, a contemplation that they were in error, an adoption of the clarification obtained via the e-mail discussion, and a ratification of the minutes as amended to correct the error.

It may be more common for past minutes to be ratified or corrected at the next subsequent meeting, it is not mandatory. Non-ratified minutes may be ratified at a later point in time. Mr. Grinder himself notes that even ratified minutes may be amended at a later date and time. Roberts, Sec. 48.

Accordingly, the minutes, as amended, were in fact ratified at a regular meeting. Thereby, even under Mr. Grinder’s analysis, the USA Triathlon election process was valid and the election results binding.

CONCLUSION

Here, the minutes were erroneous. The minutes were NEVER ratified prior to November. The minutes are not binding until ratified. The board of directors may ONLY act pursuant to the vote. The directors acted as were instructed via the board vote. The minutes were later corrected and accepted as amended. Officers are bound to act as directed by the board. The management of a corporation is controlled by a board vote. Nowhere is there authority that draft minutes trump the legal obligation of corporate officers and directors to abide by a vote passed by the board. In fact, the opposite is true.

Here, the draft minutes were in error. The errors were discussed among an e-mail discussion (fully allowable). The erroneous minutes were later corrected and adopted as corrected. The election was held pursuant to the method as VOTED by the board of directors and reflected in the ratified-as-amended minutes. Now, the valid vote, the corrected minutes and the whole lection is being attacked by a group of losing candidates who have decided that the USA Triathlon membership’s vote should be ignored and are seeking any possible means to try to overturn the election. This is sad and embarrassing. What’s next? Are there hanging chads on the USA Triathlon ballots?

---

[1] Mr. Grinder concludes that the e-mail vote does not meet the requirements of presence at a meeting. Yet, no court has yet ruled on the use of e-mails at a meeting and in fact, California Corporation Code Section 7211 specifically allows electronic attendance and communication devices. In addition, Mr. Grinder contends that no notice of this “special meeting” was supplied. However, seven board members voted – thereby evidencing their attendance. Attendance at a board meeting constitutes waiver of notice.

Dan: After we are done discussing this issue, perhaps you'd like to open up a forum thread on the position taken by some of our elected USAT directors that USAT members, such as myself, have no right to voice their opinion and that, in fact, such opinions are "not relevant" and that we are "outsider" to USAT policy-making. Gee - gives me warm and fuzzy feelings about the dues I pay each year. But that is for another day.

i have the following points to make, and before i do, may i offer my thanks for answering my query.

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?

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?

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."

what backer stated is printed on slowtwitch, here...

http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/opinion/election04.html

readers can decide for themselves whether you characterize his comments accurately. backer writes in his legal opinion, in part,

"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."

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.

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.

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?

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?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

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

"Yes - that is true. However, when he was asked who wrote the opinion, my name was supplied in an instant."

okay, but when girand was caught dead to rights on this, what else was he going to do? it's sneaky on its face, and it just adds to the notion that girand, et al, has things to hide, and subtracts from the credibility girand is already fast losing.

as an example, take backer's opinion, sought by the board. when this election challenge surfaced, i tried to get hold of backer's opinion so as to publish it. none of the board (tho several were asked) who are on the girand/gattis side would send it to me. why? backer said he didn't care if the world saw his opinion. why the secrecy? why be embarrassed by what you do as a board member?

"I agreed to be an avenue through which Jim could notify our club members of recent USAT actions, plans and news."

well, okay, except for that detail that you apparently collected and delivered 17 unsealed ballots for girand, and 13 for gattis. so you were more than just a passer-onner of recent USAT actions, plans and news.

"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."

do you want me to produce girand's own email to TEAM GIRAND members in which he boasts of your work above? how should i interpret that email? why would girand congratulate and thank you if it wasn't true? i didn't see any emails flying back from you refuting the votes you reputedly collected. so disabuse me of my error, and i'm happy to mea culpize.

"It is sad to say, but whether the pros uphold the election or not, this would probably be heard in a court."

i don't think it need go that far. there are several vehicles in the bylaws in which the membership can take matters into their own hands. be assured that this election will be re-run, one way or the other, and it won't need to wait for a california court.

but to the issue of california courts, what you way is not entirely true. no way can election processes become automatically legal because the majority of the board decides they are. you and i can both come up with all kinds of creative vote-getting techniques that a court would never allow to stand.

you are someone who is an officer in a club that came under intense USAT scrutiny. you are (at least) the moral supporter of two individuals in your area, and i believe in your club, who were successfully sued by USAT for buying/selling race transfers. and girand has -- so far -- pushed through something that you favor, which is "suggested" wording for a race registration policy, and what you, and probably girand as well, would REALLY like to do is push through a resolution for a refund/transfer mandate as a condition for sanctioning. and since girand is the man who's stood up and delivered this to you, he's getting your support, even and up to the legal opinion that you goddam well know you could argue just as positively (and perhaps more so) in the other direction.

please stipulate to that, counselor, if you don't mind ;-)

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

on that one point -- your own grasping of ballots not yours to grasp -- i thought i'd better back this up, and please let me know if i've been the butt of a great conspiracy and an email such as the one below wasn't in fact sent by jim girand. but on the assumption that it was (and i've gotten it from more than one person) below is one example of an interim report.

it is from this that i gather that you collected ballots. but, i must repent and recant. the team member girand congratulates is "Alan Geraldi & S.F. Tri Club." so maybe you personally didn't drop the Zyklon B pellets, you just either gave or took orders or something. anyway, let me know how it is i've erred in my description and i'll apoligize here and on this forum.

----------

Team Girand Champions!!

Greetings and here are the results of a very successful foray into Kona where we worked the bike check in, expo, highways and bi-ways and anywhere the Ironman athletes might congregate. I have to first state, this venue was a tough challenge. Only about 20-25% of all the athletes participating are from our Western Region. So, in effect we could only find every fifth person solicited as a constituent and potential vote. I remarked, if Germany was part of the Western Region, we could have stopped soliciting votes days before the race. Nevertheless, undaunted, ANDY BAILEY, WARREN SCOTT, and CRAIG ZELENT pursued our constituents and secured 89 validated votes. Throw in great work by PETER BOURNE working the Hawaiian Islands!! And, I observed the opponent was present but not campaigning in the hot sun the way Team Girand gets votes. All in all, our Team Members met the challenge and prevailed!! In a few words, yet more barriers obliterated, namely, the '700 vote' barrier and our record setting number of 647 votes, two years ago. Here is the new interim number of validated ballots.

The Candidate 737
Val Gattis 571

Dynamite performance............!!!!

All in all great work and results to date..........and, only five days, till October 31st, the last day when we can mail ballots to the auditor. ANDY BAILEY, CRAIG ZELENT, RIKKE JOHANSEN, VICTOR PLATA AND OTHERS have more ballots to be validated. We are finishing with great momentum.

The individual contributions are tabulated below. Observe the breadth of contributions. Remarkable. I am truly in awe of these individual as well as collective contributions by all. For those yet to hit the score board substantially there is still time to call friends and fellow multi-sport athletes, get them to fill out a ballot and help us finish this campaign strong. Every vote received extends our move into record territory.....and, as I said at the beginning of this campaign, we win the election one vote at a time....!!

Take a deep breath......the finish line is in sight.....just one last surge is all we need...dig deep, the election is in the balance!

THE CANDIDATE

Andy and Tamantha Robles, Rikke and Cindy 115
Craig Zelent - Carlsbad and S.D. Tri Club 84
Alan Geraldi & S.F. Tri Club 17
Golden Gate Tri Club 14
Wolf Hillesheim 23
Cindy McCaffrey 8
Warren Scott, Steve and Mike 38
Big Kahuna Tri - Warren and Mike 67
Andy Bailey 72
Steve Spinner 35
Carol Whipple 1
Santa Cruz Sentinel - Warren Scott 95

Kona 89
Victor Plata 23
Val Gattis 23
Pete and Shari Kain 10
Peter Bourne 8
Jack Bianchi 6
Officials 3
Tim Becker 6

Interim Total 737

VAL GATTIS

Andy and Tamantha Robles, Rikke and Cindy 105
Craig Zelent - Carlsbad and S.D. Tri Club 56
Alan Geraldi & S.F. Tri Club 13
Golden Gate Tri Club 10
Wolf Hillesheim 2
Cindy McCaffrey 8
Warren Scott, Steve and Mike 12
Big Kahuna Tri - Warren and Mike 66
Andy Bailey 71
Steve Spinner 31
Carol Whipple 1

Santa Cruz Sentinel - Warren Scott 84

Kona 54
Victor Plata 22
Val Gattis 20
Pete and Shari Kain 10
Peter Bourne 6
Jack Bianchi

Officials 2
Tim Becker 5

Interim Total 571

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Sorry Dan - I can't stipulate to that which is not true.

I actually appreciate your re-routing the discussion away from the legal analysis and the correctness of the USAT actions and instead "attack" my credibility. Ad homenin attacks simply reflect a fear of the truth or an implicit recognition that where one can't attack the message, then one attacks the messenger.

Dan - I don't know why Jim put my name next to the 17 votes. I reiterate that I have never collected any ballots for any candidate. That aside, had a club member asked me to send along one to Jim, I probably would have done so as it was allowed under the rules. But I did not. I publicly voiced my support for Jim as I believe he is a great advocate for triathletes. I personally witnessed at least a half dozen club members hand their ballots to Jim in person at a club meeting. Maybe Jim was recognizing the public support of him that I published to the members of the SF Tri Club or on your forum. I don't know - why don't you ask Jim? Or, better yet, I will throw my support 100% behind you and your position if you can produce a single credible person who can establish that I submitted any ballot other than my own.

Second, gee....why would I be so unreasonable as to afraid that by attaching my name to a legal analysis I would be branded as that "race transfer guy" again and my analysis dismissed or clouded under that issue? Certainly you would never do such a thing would you Dan? And of course, the analysis is now being cloacked by similar references within the USAT board. It never ceases to amaze me Dan that you decry people from not being more involved in USAT politics, but then take every opportunity to critique me for becoming involved, taking one of the most widely held race issues to task, and passing along nearly 1000 USAT members' concerns and requests regarding race transfers. You got on your soap box and pleaded with members to get involved in the election process - I did and now you attempt to use that activity as a means to discredit me. I grant you - you don't agree with my positions. Great - I get it. Does that mean my analysis is now to be ignored. Come on Dan - challenge the validity of analysis, not that of the analyzer.

As for your claims of my lack of full disclsoure. Funny, in your Ed Op piece and even in this string, I don't see any mention of the fact you publicly supported certain individuals. Hey - how'd they fare in the election Dan? In particular, since you seem to have no qualm about attacking the intentions and credibility of Jim Girand - how's did his opponent do against him in this process you now (after the election) denounce? Hey? Weren't you a public supporter of that individual? Would that weigh into any of your present rantings? Shouldn't you disclose that in your attacks against the election process? Hmmm....Mr. Pot, the Kettle sees a bit of dark hue around your claim for open disclosure and lack of bias.

And, again it is sad to say, there is nothing the board could do that would prevent a candidate from seeking legal redress in a court of law if such a person chose that avenue. Also, I still believe that a court would uphold the election process and results as binding. Check legal case law regarding the inner happenings of private memebrships and associations. You will see that for the most part, courts defer to the organizations adopted policies and procedures. Not all the time, as you point out, but the present facts do not arise to the eggregious conduct of which you speak. True, if the USAT were a municipality or public agency, the results may be different. But it is not, and the results won't be.

Now, as an aside, you may want to retract your statement about members of our club whom I supported being sued. Since that is entirely fictitous and without any basis in fact, it would be unwise, at best, for one to publish such a statement.

Yes, I was a supporter for certain individuals - and proud to have been. I witnessed what I believed to be inequity and I acted. Yet, once again, while with one side of your mouth you plead for USAT member involvement, with the other side you insult and attack those who so take part. You could at least be a bit more open with the full disclosure you emotionally propose by admiting that what you mean is if one agrees with your view, then they should be active. If not, then they should shut up and go away. Really - isn't that what you truly mean? Or do your words just mistakenly reflect such an ideology?

Alan

"I personally witnessed at least a half dozen club members hand their ballots to Jim in person at a club meeting."

okay, i'll take it that your name was thrown in there incorrectly, and i take back that you had ballots in your mitts. sorry about that. i'm sure, since the election practices offended your honorable sensibilities, you asked jim girand to remove your name from that list of people who were apparently out gathering ballots, and the fact that your name kept showing up in successive update emails is reflective of a breakdown in execution :-)

further to that subject, i wonder, did you read all these various emails from the girand machine? speaking of these ballots handed directly to jim, and/or to jim's workers who forwarded them to jim, here is what jim writes to everyone on his email list at one point:

'I have an Excel spreadsheet with the names and USAT numbers of people who voted for me arranged by Team Girand Champion name and will email or FAX it to you, if that background will help.'

so, i vote at a race or a club meeting and my ballot responses, with my name, my USAT#, goes on jim girand's spreadsheet. this did not bother you? you're defending this?

"Funny, in your Ed Op piece and even in this string, I don't see any mention of the fact you publicly supported certain individuals."

if you go to slowtwtich's home page, and you click the button which reads OPINION, you see my opinions. it's all published. right there. nothing to hide. i don't believe slowtwitch readers are in the dark about my opinions, inasmuch as i wrote extensively on slowtwitch and on the forum that i'm supporting lew kidder in the central region. any forum reader not know this?

i might point out that central is not a contested region. anything i'm writing now refers to PROCESS, and if contested elections are reheld, in all likelihood it won't make a darn bit of difference re lew kidder, since nobody protested the central region's election outcome. so where's the conflict again?

"you decry people from not being more involved in USAT politics, but then take every opportunity to critique me for becoming involved."

you're right. my bad. let me restate. wherever i've written "become involved" please delete that statement and replace with "become honorably involved."

"you may want to retract your statement about members of our club whom I supported being sued. Since that is entirely fictitous and without any basis in fact, it would be unwise, at best, for one to publish such a statement."

admittedly, this is from memory, but it seems to me USAT took legal action against a fella selling an entry and to one buying an entry, and the entry was to alcatraz, and these guys live(d) in or around san francisco, and your particular club, via a few of its vocal members, took up the PR gauntlet on their behalf (you being one of them). i also seem to remember that legal action washing out in favor of the federation and against those individuals.

but, it's from memory. so i now officially RETRACT what i wrote and ask if you'll please tell me what REALLY happened. as you have a much better memory on USAT recent history and practices than i do, and you were better informed than i was, and "on the scene" at the time, i'll let you set the record straight. or, if you'd prefer to let that topic drop off, i'm cool with that and we can stay on topic.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Dan:



Wow - thank you. Still unable to address the issues, more willing to attack me than my analysis. That actually supports my case. In case you forgot while you were digging through old Team Girand communications, the ISSUES are:

First, the USAT is not bound by DRAFT minutes....especially when the board knowingly is aware that they are wrong. To do so would be foolish and a violation of their duties. Second, while Mr. Grinder may be correct that Ms. Gattis' e-mail discussion did not correct and ratify the minutes....he failed to discuss or even mention the November correction and ratification. The minutes were officially corrected and the procedure used in the election and outlined by the corrected minuted were ratified by the board (not an uncommon corporate procedure).


Feel free to address these points in between throwing barbs my way.

No Dan - I did not raise any concern about the collection of ballots to Jim's or to any other candidates' attention. That was the validly adopted procedure as set forth on our governing body's homepage. Once again (we are going around in circles here) I do not support such a technique or candidates' access to ballots. I believe I have said this no less than four times already. But since all other candidates were equally allowed to do so, it quite frankly never even crossed my mind to tell Jim that he alone should not abide by the promulgated election procedures.

I see - so you can point to past, old postings as evidence of your full disclosure. But in my case, past, old posting equates to lack of candor and disclosure. Double standard? Hypocracy? Laughable? Like you, people can go to Slowtwitch and find my past postings. But that only works for you, not for me? Interesting.

I brought forth the conflict already Dan. You twice I believe urged people to vote for the individual running against Jim Girand. He lost. Now you are attacking Jim Girand with personal attacks and innuendo along with the voting process through which your candidate was unsuccessful. Conflict? Maybe. Lack of disclosure? Can't place an obligation upon me without living up to it yourself Dan.

*****You are confusing different cases. The USAT sued two individuals for selling a race entry in the Escape from Alcatraz race (the purchaser got hit and sued). I vehemently oppossed the lawsuit brought by the individual against the USAT and was quite vocal in it here and elsewhere. That individual had no relation to our club. The inidividuals who I assisted transfered entries for the San Jose International Race. Both were new to the sport and unaware of the prohibition - in fact they were very open about the transfer and this lead to their being caught. They readily admitted it when caught. They cooperated 100% in the investigation. They never denied fault nor sought not to be found guilty. They merely asked for some discretion in the mandatory 1 year ban in light of their circumstances. They did not get it. But, the rule has now been changed to allow the uSAT judges to use some discretion.


Alan

Since you went to the exhibit room, I took a stroll there also:

With regard to your statement that I took up the PR fight for the individuals sued by USAT and supported them:

http://it1.insidetri.com/news/fea/1302.0.html

With regard to your full candor and disclosure regarding your support of Girand's opponent(and possibly raising questions as to why you repeatedly attack Jim Girand and really no other winning candidate):

http://www.slowtwitch.com/...e;guest=782867#41852

http://www.slowtwitch.com/...e;guest=782867#42095

http://www.slowtwitch.com/...e;guest=782867#49395


Also, your posts are replete with endorsements of Lew Kidder (which I respect - Lew is awesome), yet another non-victorious candidate. You even posted an entire op-ed about him.

http://www.slowtwitch.com/...nion/election03.html

And now you call for an entire re-vote for the whole election. I guess I am the only one to be held to your standards of full disclosure.

Dan,

Just an FYI to clear a couple of thing up.

Alan did not collect the 17 ballots for Jim. I spoke to Jim on the phone in regards to my disaproval of candidate collecting ballots and he mentioned to me that he had collected the 17 ballots while speaking at a SF Tri CLub meeting.

"and these guys live(d) in or around san francisco, and your particular club,"

Also the SF Tri Club had absolutly nothing to to with regard to the two guys who were sued by USAT. The club, and Alan, were involved with other athletes, members and non-members of SFTC, with their petitions to USAT regarding their 1 year bans. But believe me when I tell you the Board of the SF Tri Club, which includes Alan, HAD ABSOLUTLY NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT CASE IN ANY WAY. I put that in bold since we have been connected to that case only because we are a SF based club and at the time Alan and the club had put together the petition asking for the resonable race transfers. Everyone seems to think that because of the timing and location they are connected.

By the way there is more than one club in the San Francisco Area.

As a CPA I am horrified with the controls of this election, however, it seems like at least everyone had the same opportunity to solicite and collect ballots. Due to the candidate being allowed to collect ballots it is not surprising that the more aggressive candidate would have an advantage.

One thing that does bother me, and you alluded to it in one of your posts above, is that some of the candidates had "Validated" the ballots. This to me means, and I know it to be true in one instance, that the candidate had reviewed ballots and checked to see if the voter was a member of USAT. This means they would have had to campare the members USAT member number agianst USAT database to see if the voter was a paid up member. By opening and reviewing a ballot this is where I believe the candidates steped over the line.

Willy in Pacifica, SFTC Treasurer and former Board Member

---

.
Willy in Pacifica

"Alan did not collect the 17 ballots for Jim. I spoke to Jim on the phone in regards to my disaproval of candidate collecting ballots and he mentioned to me that he had collected the 17 ballots while speaking at a SF Tri CLub meeting... Also the SF Tri Club had absolutly nothing to to with regard to the two guys who were sued by USAT."

thanks. i'm glad all that's been cleared up. my bad. and i'm glad to find out that alan didn't himself collect the ballots.

if i were alan i'd have asked jim a long time ago to clear that up, as i believe kudos for alan's 17 collected ballots was sent around the globe several times. but i guess it just slipped past everyone.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

let's see if i can bottom line this for you and every one, alan, and then i think i'll start a new thread more directly related to this election.

you wrote a legal opinion about the election. you didn't sign it. your reason for not disclosing who you are is that you didn't want people to know, for fear this would color your legal opinion.

well, alan, that's the point of disclosure.

the end.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"if i were alan i'd have asked jim a long time ago to clear that up, as i believe kudos for alan's 17 collected ballots was sent around the globe several times. but i guess it just slipped past everyone."

Around the Globe? I went back to review your previous post from Jim to Team G. since I never saw any item showing Alan as collecting 17 votes until today in this thread. It appears to me this info might have come from some internal e-mail from Jim to his "Team". It also looks like these are the results of all the ballots Jim collected and reviewed.

Not sure what Around the Globe means or how big that globe is.

Willy in Pacifca

---

.
Willy in Pacifica

"Around the Globe? I went back to review your previous post from Jim to Team G. since I never saw any item showing Alan as collecting 17 votes until today in this thread"

i sent you one by private email today that had what appears to me a compilation of several mailings sent at different times. if you check you'll see the "17 votes listed at least twice." but as we both agree, i take your, girand's, and geraldi's word on it that this was a misrepresentation of what actually happened.

as to your question of what "around the world" means or "how big the globe is," i suspect if you look at the formidable list of girand supporters and workers, it's a reasonably large globe. please also see if that globe isn't offered the information of how you voted, if such info would be of some use in the campaign. maybe i misinterpret it. i'd be interested in your interpretation.

don't misunderstand my view on this. i like jim, i like him as a person, i like him as a board member. but as i said to him on the phone day before yesteday: "jim, i like you as an elected official. i just don't like you as an election official." i'd be all for jim if he'd get himself elected the old fashioned way -- by secret ballot.

but as to the email i sent you, i think you can tell by the context of what is being written that there were three or four emails altogether, ranging from august (or before) to a couple of times in october, and then after the election. in all or most cases i believe alan gets kudos. but i think it's moot at this point, since we're all stipulating that alan didn't personally collect the signatures even though the emails suggest he did. are we in agreement on all that, or is there more explaining to be done?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Actually if you re-read my posts, I indicated that overall, I didn't sign it as I just didn't give it much thought. I sent it to Jim - I kind of assumed he was aware that I authored it. But, I also admit that I probably didn't go out of my way to attach my name as I wouldn't want the fact that I was involved in the race transfer issue to be used as a misdirection smoke and mirrors to gloss over my analysis (gee...thank goodness that hasn't happened).

As for taking your definition of disclosure, I may be more open to your definition if you exhibited a bit of it yourself. My points regarding your attacks of Jim and the process should be put in the light of disclosure that you supported the candidate who ran and lost against Jim - you have yet to even address those.

But, I will (yet again) repeat myself. If you want to boil this whole thing down to anything - you should boil it down to teh fact that Mr. Grinder issued an opinion to the USAT that the elction process was flawed due to some (in his words) questionable minutes and that, as such, the whole election should be thrown out. I realize you would love that as you have problems with the process (as do I) and you supported some who did not win in teh election. However, I analyzed the situation under applicable legal authorities and facts not covered by Mr. Grinder and ascertained that the election was in fact valid.

No one has yet to offer any point, not one sentence, not a single word that refutes anything in my analysis. Go back and look at this entire string Dan. You either attack me or you attack Jim Girand. You never once address the veracity or validity of the analysis.

That is what it all boils down to Dan.

Alan

"My points regarding your attacks of Jim and the process should be put in the light of disclosure that you supported the candidate who ran and lost against Jim - you have yet to even address those."

i need help with something. can you please give me some examples of my attacks on jim? by "attack" i suspect you mean something that is personal, spiteful, not specific to facts or demonstrative actions. i never meant to do that, please let me know of the times i've done that, so that i can make amends.

"Go back and look at this entire string Dan. You either attack me or you attack Jim Girand. You never once address the veracity or validity of the analysis."

you're right, i never addressed the validity of the analysis in this thread. i addressed it in the other thread.

again, tho, please let me know where i've unfairly attacked you on a personal level, accused you of doing something you didn't do, or have been spiteful. i'd like to apologize for every instance of that, and if you can list these instances i'll apologize for every one, for you and jim both.

as for the western region race, i backed no candidate in the west. but you're right. while i backed girand in earlier elections, and while i admired (and printed that i admired) his campaign tenacity, and while i also solicited and printed a quote from duke saying the he admired girand's campaign tenacity, and while i personally like jim and find him engaging (and have printed that during this campaign season), yes, the process issues came to overpower the advocacy issues.

i don't think i made a secret of that. did i make that a secret? hope that clears things up.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"(7) Val Gattis, the president, sent an e-mail to all board members pointing out an error and asking them to vote that they agree that it wa sin error. The vote was majoritry - 5 to 2 agrred that the adopted procedures had been adopted and that the minutes were wrong."?


Gentlemen, thanks for the enlightenment. I do, however have a few questions that I would like clarified, if possible, in regards to the above quote from Mr. Geraldi's 1st response on this thread.

1) How many voting board members are there?

2) How long has it been this way for USAT?

3) Why did 2 boardmembers not agree that the "draft" minutes were NOT correct in regards to the adopted election procedures?

Thanks for your time.

---

---

KEEP ON TRI-NG

Dan:

How do you try to hide the analysis and correctness of teh USAT's action through attacks of me and Jim? Well, referring to Jim as sneaky, engaging in questionable election tactics (although approved by the board and as utilized by every other candidate including those that you supported), about 8 or so posts that denounce me as biased (while I did support Jim, you have yet to show how that infected my legal analysis); that state that I engaged in the handling of other people's ballots (I did not), the state that assisted people sued by the USAT (I did not), that stated that I and others at my club took up a PR campaign for some who sued the USAT (I and we did not), that most insulting and f'n degrading attack that likens my alleged (and erroneous) involvement in an election to one of the saddest and most dispectable acts in human history (dropping poison pellets into a mass shower). Gee, I don't know - guess I'm just thin skinned.

After approximately 20 posts - your addressing of the validity is: "I am not addressing the validity. It has ben addressed in two prior opinions." This is part true, part false. First, it is true - you have yet to address or even discuss the validity and actual analysis. Second, it is false - the two prior opinions do not address my analysis (how could they - they pre-date it) and in fact one was on an entirely different topic.

Funny, I guess the links above by you showing support to Girand's opponent are typos. Also funny that now, you have a paragraph of good things to say about Jim and even claim to have supported him in past elections - but in one of the posts above state that you really know nothing about Jim Girand. Tough when your own words come back to bite you, uh?

Alan

[snip]

the election practices were perfectly acceptable and you're not at all biased. there, we okay now? let's take this up after the weekend.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

GatorDawg:



1) The board and the voting members are outlined at www.usatriathlon.org. Each region plus the elites.

2) I honestly do not know - you will need the input of one with a more historical perspective on the inner workings of the board.

3) They actually didn't. The e-mail that Val Gattis sent out basically informed people of the error in the minutes and asked them to show again how they voted at the meeting. Once again, they voted 5 to 2 in favor of adopting the procedures.

Alan

Dan:

Gee -thanks for the hearfelt and sincere apology. At least we know you will stand by your words and offers. You are a true man of character.

No - the election practices were not perfectly acceptable (as I have said too many times to count despite your attempts to put other words in my mouth). The practices, though imperfect were validly adopted by the board.

Alan

Gatordawg,

The USAT Board consists of 11 members, 3 Elites as required by the USOC for Olympic Sports and 8 essentially age group representatives with 2 from the Western Zone, 2 from the Central Zone, 2 from the Eastern Zone and 2 at Large. Elections are held annually for the 8 with half or 4 being elected each year. The Elites are also selected each year by the Elite athletes.

The Board has been at it's present size and configuaration since January 1997 when at that time the third elite positon was added to comply with USOC Olympic requirements.

The 2 Board members who voted against the June draft minutes were in fact members of the USAT Nominating Committee and in fact tasked to establish and enforce the nominating and election rules as defined in our By-Laws. Their recommendations were adopted by the entire committee but were overruled by the Board as a whole. This has now become the basis for the appeal/protest filed on behalf of those who thought the election process was illegal.

Thanks for your interest in the process.

Jack Weiss, Member USAT Board of Directors

Thanks Alan. There is a discrepancy here. This is from the June minutes.

2003 Election Discussion:

There was a heated discussion about how the election process will be handled this year.

Karen stated that the integrity of the election process was in jeopardy by allowing candidates to

hand out, collect and mail in ballots. Ray and Brad echoed this feeling. Jim Grand stated that this

is the way it has been carried out in the past and we should continue to do so. Others felt that the

process needed to be reviewed, but not during the current election.

It was then decided how this year’s election will be carried out:

1. The ballot can not be faxed or photocopied

2. Front of Tri Times would have a statement that states this is the election issue!!

3. Ballot will be placed as a PDF on the website that people can download and send back to

us. Stamped return address will appear on the backside.

4. Cardboard ballot insert will be placed in USA Triathlon Times.

5. Only members can mail in your ballot.

6. Ken Waugh will conduct a random audit of ballots returned to confirm they completed

and sent in their own ballot.

7. Will apply to this year only

In Favor 4; Opposed 2; 4 Abstained. (***This decision was later over-turned during an email

vote due to a discrepancy of the notes taken during the meeting).

Please note the vote was 4-2. My question here is, why would 4 members abstain on such an important issue?

---

---

KEEP ON TRI-NG

"Please note the vote was 4-2. My question here is, why would 4 members abstain on such an important issue?"

i can probably answer that. of the 8 non-elite board members, 4 are up for election every year (alternating elections). the 4 who are running must recuse themselves.

but the 4 who aren't running are hardly unbiased, as there are blocs of people who are all more/less of a mind. for example, tim becker wasn't running and so didn't recuse himself, but he was greatly aided in his race last year via girand's very effective campaigning on his behalf. becker beat out sharron ackles in that election.

otoh, ray plotecia is not at all enamored of girand, and he might be representive of what we'd consider the other side.

i only point this out to say that it would be wrong to think that the recusals removed conflicts of interest on this board.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Thanks Jack for that information. I must admit, this is very enlightening material (as are the Board minutes), and should make me more attentive about what is going on at USAT.


Jack, where can I get a copy of the bylaws? I checked the USAT websit, did a search of the site and could not find them. Thanks for any info on this matter.


Slowman, thanks for the insight into why 4 people would recuse themselves.

---

---

KEEP ON TRI-NG

"Jack, where can I get a copy of the bylaws?"

posted for your pleasure under the appropriate thread title.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I am totally confused. How can 2 members, sitting in the same meeting, think there was no error in the vote on the minutes? Two of the Board members remembered this was the correct minutes. If these two people cannot read, I don't believe they should be on the board. The minutes are either right or wrong; interpertation is not an alterative.
To me this whole thing smells to high heaven. On its surface, it appears that a faction decided there would be problems with the election and unless they fixed it, somehow, there would be reprecussions. Well, they, thier buddies, and their buddies' attorney tried to do it way after the fact and got caught.
Because of what is transpiring here, I am seriously thinking of pulling my name from the nominees to the SMW region.

Bob Sigerson

This is worse than a women's (or men's) sewing circle. I think I'm getting the flow of this exchange, though:

1. Slowman asks question.
2. SFTriGuy responds.
3. Slowman offers a condescending rebuttal based loosely around SFTriGuy's response.
4. Slowman begins new line of questioning with some new accusation(s) of SFTriGuy's ethics.
5. SFTriGuy responds.
6. Slowman offers a condescending rebuttal based loosely around SFTriGuy's response.
7. Slowman begins new line of questioning with some new accusation(s) of SFTriGuy's ethics.
8. Repeat ad nauseum.

I agree with Slowman that this forum is a great place to publicly hash out issues that affect us as a group. But goddamn, pick an issue and stay with it to conclusion. Leave out the insults, the condescending, the patronizing, and the myriad tangent arguments, all of which serve only to obscure the issue that you two are discussing. And can someone please remind me what that issue is, again? I don't know anymore if the issue is SFTriGuy's legal opinion (what I thought the issue started out as), SFTriGuy's ethics (what the issue turned to), SFTriGuy's past (what the issue turned to after that), SFTriGuy's/Slowman's personal biases (what the issue turned to after that), et cetera.

"And can someone please remind me what that issue is, again?'

one way to know: go back to the original post. everything else is, as you said, a diversion. why is it germaine? because there is a vote in a very few days to decide what happens to $2.5 million of your money, whether this becomes primarily an association devoted to triathlon or duathlon, whether the sport gets fairer, safer, and bigger, or not.

what matters is whether those in charge of all this are elected fairly or not, and my original post was made because a lot of people read this forum, several of which will be voting next week, and none of them had any idea that this last-minute, unsigned, unattributed legal opinion from an outside "friend of the federation" was really from the person it was from. that's the original reason for the post, and it could've stopped after one follow-up. "yes, i wrote it," was the only necessary answer.

the rest, as you say, is a diversion, and by your post it seems the diversion was successful.

i know all that pales in comparison to whether you ought to have carbon seatstays on your aluminum bike or not, but...

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

...ad one more thing. i'm quite adept at being an asshole from time to time. you probably didn't notice that. :-)

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"yes, i wrote it," was the only necessary answer. ....

You also asked.... "is this true? if so, what is the opinion rendered? i just published grinder's opinion, and prior to that the salient features of backer's opinion, don't we need the opinion of the dissenting justice here on the forum?"

Seems he answered both of your questions.

Thank you Dan for all the posts. As one only doing this for a couple of years(from going to overwhelmed with goals to comfortable to be apart)this is very educational. We all enjoy this website with no cost to us. What I truly appreciate is the openness. All the players are are hear by name with their beliefs.Anyone can respond.We can all read and choose,vote and ect...

My only disappointment is directed to JHENDRICK and RUNNINGMANRICK..(I agree with Tom D on a previous post).If on something like elections.Where sides are drawn. Where there is open and honest debate........Please do not be anonymous.These men are debating with all of us knowing who they are.Niether of you have entered your real name,location e-mail ect.I do not beleive this necesarry for normal posting(carbon seatposts and the like)but for arguments as weighty as this go by your name. One day you may be running for a position and when I vote would like to now who you are....ect..or are you currently part of SF Tri Club ect... Thank you.. Ken Cottrell

"Seems he answered both of your questions."

yes, you're right. i did have a second question: "are you THAT alan geraldi?"

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"are you THAT alan geraldi?"



No...I'm *much* better looking. ;)

Hey Ken, last time I checked this was a "discussion forum", not a "political forum". I come here to for information useful to me, not to be bombarded with politcal rants. Don't get me wrong. The USAT elections are of importance, but the results are out of your and my hands. Dan seems like he has to get in the last word, so be prepared for this to go on, well, .......

No longer anonymous, Rick Rosales

---

RunFAR Racing Services
http://www.Run-far.com
Team Cambridge
Hilltop Bicycle Repair

I just see it as having different ramifications than normal postings...............Thank you very much though.

As far as coming here for things that are useful,I agree.However if the person who is paying for this forum(yes I know there is advertisement here)would like to post something politic,I beleive that is his right. Consequently any answers or opinions to that kind of thread(I believe,and thats only me)should be known. I thank you for your kind reply.....Sincerly I do! Thanks Again Kenney

"Dan seems like he has to get in the last word, so be prepared for this to go on..."

depends on whether anyone posts to my post, i guess.

i think i'll add one last, final, semi-final, nowhere near final, word about alan geraldi. he did one thing that i haven't much touched on in all these posts. he...

...voted.

which is something only one in twelve of us did if we're annual members, and something one in fifty of us did if we competed in a USAT race this year.

so there's everything i've already said about alan on the one side. on the other, he voted. how many of us did? i'm proud to say that i did.

alan is also the general counsel and an officer for his local tri club, all at no charge, and i honor him for that.

as for jim girand, he serves on the board at no-charge to the federation.

so give me 50 alan geraldis and 50 jim girands on my tri club and by this time two years from now we'll have 25 races every weekend in the west and all of them will be full.

meanwhile, here's the reality. half of everyone reading this forum will be off adventure racing, or whose sport will consist solely of intermittently running, or who'll be sitting on their asses doing no sport at all, within five years of now. only half, or maybe a third, will still be doing triathlons. it's that 30-50% that i hope gets interested in how the sport runs. i hope they vote, and volunteer at races, and put races on, and become officials.

think about that the next time you put up a smart ass remark about this being a forum about "triathlon" not "politics." (when i say "you" rick i don't mean "you personally" but the other people).

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Gatordawg,

Send me an e-mail at: ironjack@ironheadrp.com and I'll e-mail them back if you still need a copy.

Jack

"I do not beleive this necesarry for normal posting (carbon seatposts and the like) but for arguments as weighty as this go by your name."

I agree with you. If you'll read my post you'll find that I'm not participating in this argument - I'm still in the attempting-to-understand-it phase.

Being private doesn't, for me, mean that I'm hiding who I am so much as I'm assuming nobody gives a shit who I am. I'm just another guy, with another opinion, and as such I figure that my personal contact information is immaterial. Even if you knew my full name (Jason Hendrickson) or my personal email address (jasonhendrickson@onebox.com) or my city of residence (Salt Lake City, UT), you still wouldn't *know* anything about me except that I'm confused as to the primary issue of this thread (which Slowman already addressed).

Now if one day I run for some triathlon-related office, and you really go back and research my posts to learn more about me, I would commend your due diligence and call you a responsible voter. But I just don't see it happening.

Dan, no offense taken. I just really want to understand what's going on. I have a bad habit-I shoot first and ask questions later.

---

RunFAR Racing Services
http://www.Run-far.com
Team Cambridge
Hilltop Bicycle Repair

I stand corrected......I erronously(forgive my spelling)origanally thought you were offering critisism.....I am wrong. Thank you though

Alan, let me see if I have your facts correct:

1. In June, the board votes 4 to 2 to approve a set of election regulations as opined by Mr. Backer.
2. Ms. Gattis sends out a "draft" copy of the minutes and says they are in error and calls for an e-mail vote where "5 "of the previous "4" people say the "minutes" were in error but by some quirk, 2 of the people seem to remember what was contained in those minutes to be correct. We're talking minutes here, I presume, not the original motion as this could only be done at a regularly scheduled or called meeting.
3. At the November meeting, for which the minutes have not been posted and after the election is effectively over, we have another vote by these same people with the same results which amended and ratified the minutes and the election procedures under which the election was run.
I will ask you again, how can you have 2 dissenting votes on whether there is an error in the minutes. The minutes are either right or wrong. It is either a duck or a goat.
If Dan isn't going to call you on this, I am and I hope you can answer some of these things to the members satifacion.

Bob Sigerson

Thanks Jack.....I do have another question though, is there anyway to get what board members cast what votes in regards to this matter?

---

---

KEEP ON TRI-NG

Gatordawg,

I don't have that info personally but as it is in the minutes and they are a matter of public record, you probably could request that info direct from USAT. I will try and find out but you might send an inquiry direct to steve@usatriathlon.org. He can is the Executive Director and could then refer you to or obtain the info you require.

Jack

I will look at the minutes again, but I don't recall seeing who voted what way, just the results of the e-mail "revote"!

---

---

KEEP ON TRI-NG

"I will look at the minutes again, but I don't recall seeing who voted what way, just the results of the e-mail "revote"!"

hey, jack, i have a question about evotes.

first, how many were there?

i know of one rather infamous evote, which took place in june or july, where the board-minus-candidates were asked to vote on whether to change election procedures to come into conformity with backer's recommendations, and the board was given only several hours to evote, and any lack of reply was taken to be a vote in favor of the rather controversial practices the majority bloc of the board wanted (correct me if i'm wrong)

there was apparently another evote in november which cleaned up the minutes ratification issue, brewing from several months before. but about this vote, my understanding of alan's argument is that this negated grinder's problem with the procedural elements of all this, that is, this vote retroactively fixed the problem with the minutes, ergo any "minutes" issue is now a non-issue.

forgetting for a moment whether alan's argument is valid, it seems to me (a non-lawyer) that there's a problem with this reasoning: an evote in november concerning a USAT election seems sort of moot, since the election was over as of the end of october.

alan's a smart guy, and i'm sure he sees this as no problem for some very good reason. but it seems odd to me. maybe i've just got my chronologies wrong.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Jack, from the June minutes:

"2003 Election Discussion:

There was a heated discussion about how the election process will be handled this year.

Karen stated that the integrity of the election process was in jeopardy by allowing candidates to

hand out, collect and mail in ballots. Ray and Brad echoed this feeling. Jim Grand stated that this

is the way it has been carried out in the past and we should continue to do so. Others felt that the

process needed to be reviewed, but not during the current election.

It was then decided how this year’s election will be carried out:

1. The ballot can not be faxed or photocopied

2. Front of Tri Times would have a statement that states this is the election issue!!

3. Ballot will be placed as a PDF on the website that people can download and send back to

us. Stamped return address will appear on the backside.

4. Cardboard ballot insert will be placed in USA Triathlon Times.

5. Only members can mail in your ballot.

6. Ken Waugh will conduct a random audit of ballots returned to confirm they completed

and sent in their own ballot.

7. Will apply to this year only

In Favor 4; Opposed 2; 4 Abstained. (***This decision was later over-turned during an email

vote due to a discrepancy of the notes taken during the meeting)."

I'm vey confused here. What was this decision overturned to? Why don't we see who voted how on this issue, when that information is recorded for other votes recorded in these minutes?

Now to muddy the waters even more, here is another excerpt from the June minutes

"Subject: USAT 2003 Board of Directors Election Ballots

Submitted by: Eric Schwartz

Presented by: Diane Travis

Now, Therefore Be It Resolved, that, USAT follows the instructions in the Call for

Nominations and adds Val Gattis to the ballot.

Approved:

5 in favor, 2 opposed. Fred abstained. Val and Karen didn’t vote on this issue.

ACTION ITEM: Tim Becker will lead the process for reviewing the rules for placing

candidates by nominating committee and rules of the election.

By-Law Change Update

Tim Becker, Valerie Gattis and Brad Davison made several recommendations to our legal

committee for changes to our by-laws. Please refer to board packet for these recommendations.

Actual changes will be recorded for official documentation and verification in the board

repository. All the recommendations will be completed before the next board meeting. Tim

Becker will spearhead this. He will also update the repository.

ACTION ITEM:

The following will handle the remaining bylaw revisions:

Article 7 Steve

Article 8 Brad

Article 9 and 10 Val

Article 13and 14 Markham and David

Article 16 Steve

Article 17 Val"

First off, is this normal procedure for adding a candidate to the ballot? Wouldn't it be nice if we knew why people recused themselves from votes or abstained? How can we fairly evaluate what the board members are doing without this information (which ties into to Dan's post that started all of this in the first place)?

Secondly, why isn't the board packets information included in the minutes? What are they hiding? Only show us the end result? Of what?

The more I read the worse things look. Also, for a board member to say something to the effect, "we've always done it this way," doesn't make it right, now does it?

---

---

KEEP ON TRI-NG

Jack, thanks for all of your help. I hope you don't mind my asking you these questions. I'm only doing it because you are providing me with answers or places to get them and I appreciate that. Altough I am looking for answers to these questions, I'm also hoping they will provoke some thought.

---

---

KEEP ON TRI-NG

Gatordawg,

You are correct in your evaluation of the situation. And no, it's not normal or proper to add an individual to the ballot. The reason I have not commented and am being a little circumspect in answering you, is I will be involved in the deliberations being conducted this next week. Since I am and I am a Board member, I don't want to be accused of reviewing this on line and anything I would say could be prejudicial to the proceedings. So at this point I can only confirm your suspicions and further encourage you to ask more questions. Once the deliberations regarding the accusations of this last election are concluded, I will certainly give you the benefit what I know. Basically i would like to tell all of you but if I do, I jeopardize the whole proceeding and positive things that can come from them. I hope you understand. I will tell you Brad davison and Ray Plotecia were the 2 Board members voting "no".

And to your very last question, that's why there has been a complaint/appeal filed in the first place. I hope that answers your question.

Jack

Gatordawg,

Not at all, we are very cool! I hope you do encourage more debate and it's my job as a Board Member to respond as best I can.

Jack

Can you elaborate on the deliberations any? Who will be there as interested parties, and neutral (hopefully unbiased) parties? Is there a time frame for these deliberations? Answer what you can Jack, I'll understand if can't go into specifics.

---

---

KEEP ON TRI-NG

TriDawg,

All I can tell you it will involve all the present Board, those going off the Board as of Dec 31, 2003 and the losing candidates that filed the complaint. More then that I am not at liberty to say. Hope you understand. Meeting will take place later this week. There are no neutral parties in this but all those directly affected by the 3 disputed elections are recused and can only listen and not vote. Those having a say are the Board members who were NOT elected this past November, the Elites now on the Board and possibly me as my election was not challenged and I had no input into the way the election was conducted. However that has not been fully determined at this point.

Thanks,

Jack

"possibly me as my election was not challenged"

as far as i can tell, nobody yet has challenged your right to vote. i can see an argument on both sides. i can even see that you could be allowed to vote in the first vote (is the protest upheld?) and in the second (the remedy in the protested regions), but not in the third, if there is a third (extend the new election to all the regions).

the one thing i REALLY hope happens, it would be exceptionally chickenshit if this were a secret vote. i hope everyone is allowed to stay on the conference call and hear the vote.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Bob:

Appears to be a simple misunderstanding. The e-mail that went out pointed out that the minutes were in error and aksed people to confirm or deny that they voted for, against or abstained for the (1) early website posting; (2) collection of ballots by the candidates. The directors responded back reiterating how they had voted, showing that what was reflected in the minutes was incorrect. Hope that explains the goose / duck distinction.

Alan

Dan,

Think about it, the Complaintants although unable to vote, will be allowed to sit in on the entire proceeding. So.....

Jack

"Think about it, the Complaintants although unable to vote, will be allowed to sit in on the entire proceeding. So..."

is that true? i hope it is. i don't know. i could just somehow see everyone in on this meeting until it comes time to vote, and then everyone being asked to hang up except those who're voting. i've seen cases before where the individual board members refuse to say what position they took in an important decision. call me paranoid of you want. but...

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Tell you what, they have us hang up and I'll scream all the way to this web site.

Jack

"Tell you what, they have us hang up and I'll scream all the way to this web site."

that's what i want to hear!

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Hi Gatordawg-

Since there has only been one Board member posting on this discussion, I wanted to post as well to offer an alternative view. While I am no longer technically a board member (my term ended Dec 31, 2003), I have been on the board for the duration of this current "problem" (unlike Jack, who was not in office last year).

Basically, USAT has elections every year, and for some reason this year the losing candidates were not happy with the way the elections were run. Also for some reason, they did not bring up their issues with the election practices until AFTER the election had already been run and the votes counted. While I may agree in part that the election is not run the best way possible, I have serious problems with the intentions of the parties who are bringing forth this petition. They knew the groundrules, and if they had such a problem with them (since they have been the same for years and years), they should have brought it up BEFORE the elections were contested. Doing it now just seems like sour grapes.

The real reason I wanted to post is because of your question about the resolution adding Valerie Gattis to the ballot. Under USAT bylaws, there is a group called the Nominating Committee that looks at all of the candidates for each region, and selects 2 based on their resumes. Others can be added to the ballot in a petition, meaning collected a certain number of signatures (I can't recall the number off the top of my head). In this past year, the Nominating Committee consisted of Ray Plotecia, Brad Davison, and Fred Sommer. For reasons unfathomable to most of us, the committee decided to place 2 other candidates on the ballot for the at-large position over our sitting USAT President (who is also on the ITU women's committee), Valerie Gattis. There is a rule that says an incument BOD member must be placed on the ballot, and that is how Karen Buxton got her at-large spot. Valerie was also an incumbent, but the committee decided that since she had represented a different region in the last election, she was not an incumbent by their standards. So they decided that the resume of Mike Greer, a race director from Texas, had a better resume than Valerie. The thing that makes it interesting is that Ray Plotecia, the chair of the nominating committee, had been the USAT BOD president the year before Valerie, but did not have the support to retain this position (you can see the conflict of interest here). And Brad, the other member of the nominating committee who voted for Mike Greer over Valerie (Fred Sommer did NOT vote this way), is also a race director from Texas. So another BOD member sought to remedy the situation by this resolution (since incumbents were supposed to be placed on the ballot). Valerie could have gotten a spot by petition, but did not have time to do so because of how late she found out that she did not get a spot from the nominating committee.

In my opinion, the nominating committee should be abolished, because there are not a set of clear-cut guidelines as to how candidates are selected. I personally think that this is a bigger "scandal" than the way the election was run. In a perfect technological world, the election will be entirely online, and candidates will not be allowed to collect votes. But think about it...if the members had such a problem with candidates collecting votes, why did they hand them to the candidate in the first place???

Bottom line, the election was carried out according to an established set of rules that all of the candidates knew about beforehand.

Amanda Pagon, BOD member 2002-2003

"hey should have brought it up BEFORE the elections were contested. Doing it now just seems like sour grapes."

i don't think it's a simple as that. there were plenty of people squawking about these election practices. however, it appears that the three elites (of which you were one) along with gattis and girand, plus at least one more, outvoted those who thought that having unsigned, filled-out ballots collected by candidates and their workers was a bad idea.

i wrote about this a year ago. PLENTY of candidates and potential candidates have a problem with this, however they're not on the board, and have no vote in this. perhaps you're right. perhaps the candidates running SHOULD have a vote in this. but they don't.

mandy, it isn't 4 disgruntled candidates who were wronged. it was 47,000 annual members who were wronged. it isn't 4 who need redress, it's those of us who own the federation. and we will get redress. this election will be re-run. the ONLY question is, will it be re-run because the board decides to re-run it, or because a significant number of the 47,000 decide to re-run it. that's the question we'll have answered by friday morning.

several of those on your side have said, "yes, okay, the practices were bad, let's change them before the next election." for those who think that way, too late. you had your chance to institute proper election practices in june. you had a former head of the federation, the co-chair of the legal committee, the same guy who helped rewrite the bylaws so that you and the other elites could get USOC funding, weigh in on this at your request. he warned you this would happen. now it's happening.

yes, there are sour grapes here. but the sour grapes belong to those who were warned this would happen, chose a really, really bad set of election practices anyway, and are surprised that they aren't allowed to get away with it.

my question for the elites is, did all three of you vote for the election practices used this past year? and if so, why? i think you guys have some 'splainin' to do to the other 47,000 among us.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

" . . . Valerie could have gotten a spot by petition, but did not have time to do so because of how late she found out that she did not get a spot from the nominating committee."

Actually, that's not true. When I heard Val had been shunned by the nominating committee, I personally gathered over 60 signatures of current annual members on a nominating petition for her (30 is the minimum) and sent it to her well ahead of the meeting in question. When I later heard of her "nomination" by resolution of the BOD, I was puzzled why she chose to rely on a controversial method for "nomination", rather than the one clearly outlined in USAT's bylaws.

---

Lew

Wow, this is great fun...

As for Dan's comments...I think it is a bit of a stretch to say 47,000 members were wronged. How many people actually voted? How many people, when they pay their 25 or 30 dollars, actually care who sits on the board? As someone who did this job for 2 years, I wish that more people would care and get out there and vote. The reality is, a lot FEWER people would have voted if the candidates were not allowed to get out and campaign. And that is what this is really about. If candidates were not allowed to hand out ballots, then people could sit in their house and just be an entity on their computer in some newsgroup, and hope people got name recognition in that manner. The way it is now, the winning candidate is most likely the one who got out there to the tri-group meetings and the races and made their presence known. I do NOT support the collecting of ballots, and if you reread what Gatordawg copied into this thread from the minutes, it explicity says that candidates are not supposed to collect ballots. The thing that Ray and Brad objected to was getting out there and handing out ballots. They also objected to colletecting them, but as far as I know we did not vote in favor of that.

As for Lew's message, I did not explain what I was trying to say very well. A person can get onto the ballot by petition, and I asked Valerie why she didn't just do that. But I guess not everyone gets on by petition, just those who get the most signatures. There was a concern because of the way the nominating process had gone so far that she would not be told how many signatures she needed to get to be guaranteed to be on the ballot, and would be conveniently left off. She also believed (as did several others of us) that the letter of the law was that incumbents should be put on the ballot. Nowhere does it say that a person must run in the same region to be considered an incumbent.

I hope that this discussion stirs more people to take an active interest in the elections to come!

Mandy

Mandy,

Thanks for offering another point of view. Here in lies one of the problems. In the minutes, it stated the candidates were not to handle others ballots, yet the vote right after that, stated it was overturned. Overturned to what? That is my question. My opinion of this whole sorted mess, is that the minutes do not accurately reflect what transpired. I'd still like to know what was in the board packets in regards to the bylaw changes.

As for incumbent, you can find many definitions for the term, but I would say the general usage of that term refers to a specified office. To me, it would mean running as a BOD member for the same region. Let me give you an example. Congress. It is made up of Representatives and Senators. If a Representative runs for a Senate seat, they are not considered the incumbent, they would only be considered an incumbent if they were running for the same Representative seat again. So, I can see how the nominating committee would not consider Val Gattis an incumbent if she was running for a spot other than the one she had been serving.

It seems to me that the bylaws of the entire BOD should be looked at and evaluated by people other than the board members. Because, from where I sit, it seems most everyone on the board has an agenda, be it intentional or not, and wants to vote for what is best for them and not the greater whole. It really is rather sad to see. I think greater disclosure of what goes on at these meetings should be in order too. I will say this, as a USAT member, I don't want my money being spent on litigation of an election that can in no way insure it's integrity, whether it followed the bylaws or not. The other real kicker is, that the board was warned, and for whatever reasons they had, chose to ignore this. On this point Dan is right on, and it's time to pay the piper!

I surely hope all of the board members have the integrity to stand up and do the right, honorable thing here.

---

---

KEEP ON TRI-NG

As a new board member I am almost rabid to hear more opinions from the athletes we represent. Please take the time to either voice your opinion in forum or to Board members directly. Personally, I ran for the BOD because I had gotten disgusted with my many years of complaints but no true help for solutions. My only agenda is to serve without a personal agenda...if that makes any sense. So speak up while there is time, the ears are listening.



Kevin Carter

" If candidates were not allowed to hand out ballots, then people could sit in their house."

fair enough. but i have no problem with handing out ballots. i have a problem with collecting ballots, especially when they're unsealed. you also have a problem with this. so why did you and the other two elites vote to allow it?

" I do NOT support the collecting of ballots, and ... it explicity says that candidates are not supposed to collect ballots... as far as I know we did not vote in favor of that."

it sounds to me that you DID vote in favor of that. if you're now saying you three elites voted for a process that has gotten out of hand, and that went way beyond practices that were being explained to you, well, the three know what to do on thursday.

now, as to my 47,000, it sounds like what you're saying is that these annual members can't have their federation stolen from them if in fact they chose not to vote. yes, i wish more of them had voted. but here's my idea: if turnout is what you want, install a set of procedures to SELL the election, instead of procedures that allow the possibility for one to STEAL the election.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I learned about teh election early because Jim Girand, our current
western rep, is quite good about communicating with people and sends
out his own personal e-mail updates on what he has done and what the
USAT is/has been doing. In fact, Jim mentioned that he will be posting
here asking for all questions and sharing his answers and comments. He
is en route out of the country for a few days (bike ride in Europe) and
will post when he returns so his responses are timely (he has a policy
that he will respond to any USAT-related e-mail sent to him in under 24
hours).

This is a quote from SFTriGuy on this forum when he was campaigning for Jim Girand back in August. I made a search for posts by Mr. Girand and found none. Only Dan knows if he ever registered for the forum.
Re the incumbency of Ms. Gattis, in every municipality in my are that has term limited candidates, a sitting district councilman, who has served his/her limited term, can run for as an at-large position and is not considered an incumbent. I don't know California law but this is the case here.
I can understand the rd's, like Jack and Fred, wanting to be on the board to control their destiny and the elites to keep their livliehoods, but what, may I ask, is the reason and agenda of some of these board members wanting control of the past and future boards, other than an ego trip? If the benefits are that great, maybe publication of them would open the field to more candidates.

Bob Sigerson

"but what, may I ask, is the reason and agenda of some of these board members wanting control of the past and future boards, other than an ego trip?"

i think there are a lot of motives for running for the board, some healthy, some not. i am not concerned for the future of the federation, regardless of who gets elected. yes, i have my own favorite candidates, as anyone does. but i'd be quite happy to see girand and/or gattis on the board.

i do not fear any candidate that is elected to the board freely and fairly by his constituency. i do have a fear of who'll end up on the board if anyone who's willing to get into the gutter to gain a seat determines the contents of our BOD.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman