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