And that is exactly the point! The composition of the Board and the USOC requirements as presented in our By-Laws absolutely leads to the Elites voting their self-interests and not necessarily for the good of the Federation. There are less then 100 pros represented by these 3 Board members and over 135,000 age group members, not to mention at least 500 Race Directors. Yet for all that we have only 8 elected reps. Do the math, the Pros represent 33 folks per Board member, the other Board members represent roughly 17,000 members per Board member. Considering the USOC financial support of the Federation (in 2005 was only $500,000 and annual memberships garner well over 3 million $$ annually) the By-Laws with regard to essential USAT business and representation is flawed. In my time on the Board if I had voted in favor of proposals benefitting me directly as the Elites are permitted to do, I would have been removed for Ethics violations.

In 2005 I proposed with Dan's assistance that USAT separate itself and let the USOC develop it's own Olympic program and that USAT once again revert to it's original mission prior to 1996: Sanctioning races and providing safe venues for Age Groupers and non-Olympic Pros. Interestingly one of the items that infuriated the 3 Elites was the fact that Skip went to the USOC and actually got approval to expand the pro representation within the AAC to include Ironman and XTerra Pro athletes. Obviously this would have diluted the influence of the Olympic Elites who over the years have pretty much had the financial situation all to themselves. Please also note thru 2005 when I was the Treasurer and Board member, USAT age Group dues financed roughly 40 percent of the Elite Program as the USOC funding fell substantially short of the requirements to train and field an Olympic Team. Yet the Elites not only were able to determine the use of these funds but in fact had a say in the use of Age Group funds and programs. Is this fair, you tell me.

So yes, these Elites do owe ALL of us an explanation on why they vote the way they vote. I doubt things have changed much on the funding aspect so if I am paying dues and for the record mine are paid thru Dec 2012, then yes we have right to know all the votes and I believe that's why Dan successfully had the Sunshine Policy included in the By-Laws.

Jack Weiss

dave, i will keep asking about the actions of the past week. at the same time, i do believe the board has both the right and the responsibility to make these decisions, including who runs the federation as chief executive. i don't begrudge the board, or the elites on the board, the decision to make that personnel change. that's what we empower them to do. i'm going to start by giving them the benefit of the doubt.

but i do have questions as to process, and, whether we're treating our employees appropriately, because this does reflect on the health and future of the organization. our votes for our board members have to be based on something, so, while i do start by giving them the benefit of the doubt, i do think it's appropriate to ask for answers. just, don't be in too much of a hurry. some board members are in budapest, there are HR issues to be resolved, so, maybe best to put this on low boil for a few days.

"to have the board only say what they said and how they said it so far, and how they treated Skip, is just something I am very upset about"

yes, i understand, and i don't disagree, but, they are still in the HR process. while few are speaking, and no one openly, i think it's to be assumed that the board, and skip, are working out the terms of his separation. so i think it's to be expected that there will be a few days of board silence.

at the same time, inertia will always going to flow toward secrecy and non-disclosure. transparency doesn't come naturally, you have inject energy into the system to get the transparency you want. i think the board understands this.

"how long until you would feel they will just ignore your requests to what happened and why?"

at some point, the HR process will be concluded. it's entirely possible that there will still be agreements by both sides not to talk. at that point, i have both a news obligation, and i have whatever compels me to write my opinions. on the subject of my opinion - writing oped pieces on the site proper - my current modus operandi is, the lesser the better. (on the reader forum, which is our "digital water cooler," that's different, because i'm just a guy, just like you. i'm a "citizen.")

as per the news, as of TODAY i don't anticipate writing anything until the HR process is concluded. then, even if there are non-disclosures signed, and still nobody wants to talk, if i think there are facts germane to the process i'll try to uncover them and display them. this, because USAT controls the processes that underlay a cultural institution, that is to say, what they do greatly affects people's lives; and, because it's an organization that is publicly owned, it's granted what you might call "monopoly protection" by the federal government, and these processes ought to be transparent. were important decisions and processes blocked from public view, how are members supposed to know how to vote? and even non-members, non-triathletes, pay taxes that flow to USAT. why should these processes and actions be hidden?

the board deserves a little elbow room to operate. but there is also the mandate of transparency, not simply because that exists inside USAT's bylaws, but because of the elements i mention above.

that's the long answer. the short answer: next week.

Thanks. That was my point but please note the Elites are not the only ones that have attempted to use their positions for personal gains, we have other Board members as well that Skip has had to "rein in" over time. I know this because one of those Directors I mentored this person and on this topic that I will convey, we had numerous face to face and telephonic conversations. This Board member champions Duathlon and in the last several years has successfully produced a Woman's Duathlon event in Colorado. This Board member has also worked hard to promote successfully the Duathlon National Championships in Virginia, where the Sport has really taken off. Both very admirable accomplishments. Trouble is, thru that Board position this Director has also solicited the ED and the Board for direct funding of her event to include free advertising and direct financial support. So here is another Director and not an Elite with an ax to grind with Skip and you will find her name on Dan's list of 7. Once again a Director at the very least has placed themselves in a compromising position.

In the years I was on the Board, whenever an issue or vote involving one of my events came up, I recused myself. Sharron Ackles for years the RD for Ironman Hawaii and a USAT Board members recused herself a number of times as items involving Ironman as they came up. For those Board members who have conflicts, recusing one's self is the norm and the right thing to do. However here is a case again where this Board may have failed in following its own Ethics Code by even permitting the discussion to go on.
Jack

Does anyone know if dismissing Skip was on the agenda?

If it wasn't on the agenda (which seems possible due to the fact that some board members were shocked about it), is the decision still legal?

I am not doubting the board has the authority but it doesn't sound like it has gone through a fair open process in line with by laws/proceedures.

From Dans post and yours, the common piece that makes me upset is a few board folks might have agenda's for themselves, rather than the membership, might have found a way to force Skip out. (Whether it was legal, or ethical, is still a question). It is great that Dan has a place like ST that cannot be controlled by the "organizations", and believes in ethics like at least some of us do. I fear many could care less, as with most things in society.

As has been posted, Skip always stood up for ethics and what he believed was best for the membership, not for a single focus in our sport, as you just stated, one persons focus ONLY on duathlon. Scarey if this person really pushed Skip to fund her race. And this is a board member?

USAT boards have proven in the past that some have not followed ethics, let alone their own rules, until the membership forces the issue. Seems like we might have another opportunity.

Now, if Skip comes into this thread and says he was kicked out for legal and ethical reasons, and wants us to ignore why it happened, then we just change the focus. But, it sure seems this board might have ......

Please keep posting your facts. At least this way members of our sport can decided on their own if our elected board has done the correct legal and ethical thing. I would love to be proven wrong, but so far, just does not feel right.

I have always wonder how these type of folks on boards who just try and force their agendas onto others look at themselves in the mirror. I deal with it all the time with my HOA board members.

I wonder if this type of stuff is why Dan resigned from the USAT board. Any comment Dan?

Again, thanks for you posts, and keep them coming.

Sean,
I almost pulled it off in 2005. It's not a stretch to get this done. USAT simply stops accepting the USOC Funding which is not enough to support the program in the first place. USAT was built based on the Budlight Series and Ironman in the mid 1980's. I know, I was there and competing. There was no ITU or Olympic Sport at that time and I can tell you know one cares or even for the most part recognizes Olympic Gold Medal winners, however we all know Dave Scott, Mark Allen, Paula Newby-Fraser. The Olympics does not drive this sport, age group athletes drive this sport and they all don't sign up because an Olympic hero was on a Wheaties Box, they do it because the consistently see IM events on TV and they want to be a part of it.

The Olympic program should be separate and with this we could shed the Board of 3 athletes reps who have nothing but their own self interest on the table. Their self-interests go to such extent that unless you are an Olympic Pro/Elite you have no representation on the AAC or Board. Olympic Athletes comprise less then 100 members out of 300 total US Pros. That means XTerra and Ironman athletes compose over 60 percent of the Pros yet they have no representation. As an age grouper I am tired of subsidizing an Olympic sport that brings no definite rewards to the sport or age groupers or Race Directors. Working with the ITU as an RD is anything but rewarding, it's expensive, excessive and with little or no payoff.

The Federation with over 135,000 age groupers doesn't need the Olympics to grow, in fact by separating themselves from the Olympic Pro/Elites the Federation would actually gain. Why, because folks who got the "fire in the belly" from watching the Olympics would still start doing sanctioned events without the cost of funding these Olympic folks. So now the Federation gains members without spending over 1 million $$ per year and in fact losing $500,000 in direct support.

Legally this can be done, in 2005 I checked it all out, there are no legal implications. USAT simply divorces itself of the program and moves on, like Swimming, see Kevin MD's response below yours.

Had we not been a part of the USOC, I can with certainty say, Skip would still be our ED as we speak. One of those votes can from the independent chair on the Board who really has no concept of what this sport is about. The other portion came from the ITU seat, although a non-voting member, had immense influence on the vote and put incredible pressure on those to vote the way they did. I know this because of my sources within the Federation. Once again, this Federation was born of need by Race Directors for Race Directors and it's since been hijacked by those who their own personal agenda.

It's really time to take OUR Federation back and insure that those elected are responsible to the 135,000 dues paying members, not the 100 special cases who so far have yielding nothing positive but have brought down one of the most capable ED's we have ever had.

Jack

"However, nothing is stopping RDs from working jumping to the AAU or creating their own entity."

Sean,
Looking at your above statement that you made in your last post. It's also a fact that USAT was started by Race Directors for Race Directors in 1982.
Jack

Paulo,
How about reading what I wrote USAT WAS started by Race Directors, are you dislectic or just challenged when reading ????
jack