Dan, nice article and take on the situation. While I think you were pretty thorough in your analysis, you might have missed one memorable piece of the puzzle. While not there this time, I do know the Nominating Committee sought and received professional legal counsel on this subject. Counsel advised them that Mike's candidacy was improper as he had missed the deadline. Mindful of the last "contested" election, USAT was not willing to disregard the professional advise offered by it's attorneys this time, thus availing itself of another lawsuit that again would question their ethics and ability to heed competent professional advise. If you recall the USOC zeroed in on that very item in overturning the last election and thus requiring a second election. If as you say there is a wrong call here, again there are avenues available to Mike within the system to challenge the decision. However irrespective of the decision that would be rendered, one thing would be clear and you have already pointed it out: The Federation acted without malice of forethought or any other felonious notions. In this case it would be simply a different interpretation by another group of legal minds.
Which brings us to another point. Since you and Lew are taking credit for writing the subject by-law, let me say that you both failed to connect the two requirements in any way. True, you state the incumbent is an automatic to the ballot but doesn't say if he/she must meet the requirements of sentence number 2. 24 years in the Air Force taught me that when you write a regulation you cover all the bases. What we have now is a rule that states an incumbent is automatically on the ballot but doesn't say provided he meets the same other requirements of the other candidates. If we're saying he does, then Mike failed to meet those. If we are saying he does not, then we are in fact tilting the election process in favor of the incumbent and thus exposing USAT to a major unfair election practice. Can't have it both ways.
Hope all is well with you, I have been meaning to call but hey, it's race season, and I have work to do.
Thanks,
Jack
Which brings us to another point. Since you and Lew are taking credit for writing the subject by-law, let me say that you both failed to connect the two requirements in any way. True, you state the incumbent is an automatic to the ballot but doesn't say if he/she must meet the requirements of sentence number 2. 24 years in the Air Force taught me that when you write a regulation you cover all the bases. What we have now is a rule that states an incumbent is automatically on the ballot but doesn't say provided he meets the same other requirements of the other candidates. If we're saying he does, then Mike failed to meet those. If we are saying he does not, then we are in fact tilting the election process in favor of the incumbent and thus exposing USAT to a major unfair election practice. Can't have it both ways.
Hope all is well with you, I have been meaning to call but hey, it's race season, and I have work to do.
Thanks,
Jack