This statement is what raised my question about eastern region candidates - everyone seems to be saying "let's return USAT to the members." We all know that at least three of the candidates did not want this. Did they all lurk here, and then copy Dan's mantra about the members? Yes, I know this that there are poilitics involved, just once, I like to see someone stand up and tell the truth about their motives. Am I that naive? And I am old enough to know better.

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------

that was not meant to be a knock against Jack or Steve

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Frog:

I know what you mean, everyone seems to now be jumping on this blue ribbon court bandwagon thing and saying "let's give back to the members". Weiss and Locke can't be accussed of jumping on the bandwagon (those e-mails by JSquare that were posted earlier show that the had planned for a long time, even before the BRP decision, to use it to get themselves elected). But where was everyone else? It seems kind of unfair that Locke, Weiss, Slowman and Kidder worked so hard to make this USOC hearing an issue but that other candidates can seize upon it to also use it as a campaign strategy. That strategy should belong to Locke, Weiss, Slowman and Kidder only.

"This is a mandated USOC rerun of the 2003 elections because as noted below in our campaign platforms, 3 incumbent Board members cheated in the last election."

Although the three candidates may have used questionable election tactics, these tactics were approved by the Board beforehand. I feel it is unfair to call it "Cheating".

"Steve, our former illustrious Executive Director resigned over the Board's conduct in this matter and today is candidate for that very same Board."

I questioned Steve, and everyone on the Board during the election, and Steve defended the Boards decision regarding the election tactics approved by the Board. Why would he resign over something he was in agreement with? I am not saying the election is without its faults but for Steve to say he resigned over the questionable election tactics after defending them is hypocritical.

Here is the e-mail I received directly from Steve on October 13, 2003.

Thank you for your inquiry concerning controls over the voting process by the USAT Board of Directors. I believe it would be useful to answer your questions in the following context. First, unfortunately USAT experiences a very low level of participation in the voting process, roughly 2% of its annual members indeed cast ballots in the past. So, we need to find ways to get a broader level of interest and annual members to actually cast ballots. Historically, candidates were allowed to collect ballots in the Board elections and there has never been a complaint or suggestion by anyone of any impropriety in the voting process.
This subject was actively discussed by the Board and we chose a two step process, tighten the procedure this year and lay the plans to undertake secure voting through the USAT website next year. Examples of changes from previous years include not allowing members to FAX their ballot to Waugh & associates. Also, Waugh is conducting random audits on all ballots submitted to verify authenticity and will pursue determining the nature of any ballot if anything appears suspicious. Third, we made ballots available on the USAT website as well as the traditional means of appearing in Triathlon Times. Fourth, the Rules of Engagement which are new this year, and passed by a majority of the Board, were published on the USAT website. All candidates abide by them. Fifth, a pre-paid mail permit is available for all members to submit their ballots.
Waugh and the Board are aware it is possible for a candidate to collect a ballot and, if an entry is not to his/her liking, the ballot could be discarded. A majority of the Board concluded (1) candidates for the Board are honest people (2) voting members can choose to send their ballots direct to Waugh or allow a candidate to collect the ballot (3) the chances of a member giving a ballot to a candidate marked for a different candidate most certainly represents an extremely small number of a total population of ballots collected by any candidate (4) the current method encourages candidates to approach and discuss their candidacy directly with members which serves the Federation and its members very well.
Regarding one of your other points, candidates who have run for the Board and relied on the members to submit ballots at a later date find a very small number actually follow through and cast that ballot, for whatever reason. The presence of a pre-paid mail permit, saving the member $.37 is at best debatable but one can reasonably speculate probably would not affect that situation in a material manner. So, the candidate collecting ballots, with the members permission, improves the level of participation in a process that is woefully low, as pointed out in the first paragraph.
Given our history and all these factors a majority of the Board believed the probability of abuse is extremely low, adopted the methodology for 2003 as covered by the Rules of Engagement and, will seek to adopt secure on-line voting for next year which will address your concerns.
Thank you for your input and I trust this description gives a full picture of the considerations undertaken and procedures adopted by a majority of the Board of Directors and our plans for the future. If you have any further questions do not hesitate to contact me.
Steven Locke Executive Director USA Triathlon

---

.
Willy in Pacifica

Willy:

Wait a minute - Steve Lock defended the voting rules? Are you saying that Steve Lock wrote that to you? I thought Steve was a witness at the USOC blue ribbon trial (that cost the USAT a LOT of money) for the candidates (like Weiss) who were challenging the election - was I wrong? Was he actually defending the election?

Either way, he seems to be taking inconsistent stands. I think Jack Weiss is his friend though, Jack do you know Steve Lock's position?
___________

Edit:

Yeah, Jack and Locke are good friends (probably one reason they are running together - along with their plans to pay off debts once they are elected). I found this post:

In Reply To

---

Larry,

As one of Steve Locke's closest friends and a current member of the USAT Board of Directors, I can assure you he stepped down on his own and was not forced out. True the circumstances regarding the election and his past dealings with this past Board made his time in the end frustrating. But by no means was he being forced out. Only a handful of us (myself included) knew of his plan in advance.

As to the election, you're the kind of person that helps give credence to what is happening. I don't know if you voted this time, my guess is you did not. Had you and others like you, voluntarily and as good citizens are suppose to, then this whole tragedy might not have happened. Folks like you slay me. You bitch on a forum and complain of conspiracy theories but do nothing. You like the folks who are the object of the complaintants in the USAT Appeal are not part of the solution but part of the problem. I was the one candidate that was NOT an incumbent that won and I really wanted a new election because it was unfair. For the record my election is NOT being contested. But enough is enough! Believe it or not there are those of us in this Federation that are honest and work hard for the growth of the sport. Tell me, what have you done today to further the sport???[/reply]

Jack,

I'll admit that I have no personal dealings in this matter but I still doubt that this was a spur of a moment decision. It's just my opinion. Of course, as a member of the USAT Board of Directors, you wouldn't admit he was forced out even if that was the case.

Where do you get off describing what sort of person I am based on practically nothing? We've never met and up to now have no direct contact. Is this the way you make all of your decisions and assessments?

I voted in the election. Sent in the USAT supplied ballot to the USAT supplied address. I worked in Jim Girand's campaign 2 years ago. I was not comfortable with the procedure but I understand how it came about. I support the effort to develop a more equitable process but I see no benefit in a replay that will cost USAT and will probably change nothing.

I do plenty to further the sport. I've been a USAT Official for years. I'm active with the Long Beach State Tri Team and I raise funds for the Challenged Athletes Foundation.

If you want respect as a Director, I suggest you show some respect to the membership.



Larry

Truth,

Yes that is the e-mail I received back from Steve. I sent an e-mail to every e-mail address I could find on the USAT site as well as the CPA firm questioning the election rules.

Being a CPA I blame the CPA firm as much as the Board as they should have put in better controls if this is the way the Board was determined to run the election. I believe the CPA firm just went along with the way the Board wanted to run the election and did not think it would blow up on them. I would be surprised if they remain the CPA firm for USAT in the future since they do not take things like this seriously.

I know this has been beaten to death but I tend to believe that these election rule issues were just sitting there for whoever needed to question them afterwards for their benefit.

Willy in Pacifica

---

.
Willy in Pacifica

Willy:

Thank you - I don't know if I agree with you 100%, I mean the election rules should have been updated. However, I also don't believe that the whole election should have been tossed out, only that the board be ordered to update the election rules.

I'm just really confused about this whole Locke thing. If he was defending the rules than he is as much to blame as any director for this whole re-election and USOC mess. It did kind of strike me as weird that he is just now complaining about it but during his 10+ years of leading the USAT he did nothing about it.

I was also called as a witness for the hearing before the Blue Ribbon Panel, and was present (by conference call) when Steve Locke gave his testimony. He was asked (several times) about the position he took in the e-mail messages to people like Willy. His answer, paraphrasing: "I was being a good employee at the time (he was still executive director), but I really didn't believe what I was saying."

---

Lew

>>when Steve Locke gave his testimony. He was asked (several times) about the position he took in the e-mail messages to people like Willy. His answer, paraphrasing: "I was being a good employee at the time (he was still executive director), but I really didn't believe what I was saying." <<


I can confirm what Lew says, having also been a witness in the proceedings and on the same conference call.

clm

---

clm
Nashville, TN
https://twitter.com/ironclm | http://ironclm.typepad.com

Truth,

After reading all of the posts on this forum, and the e-mail I received from Steve etc, etc, etc I believe many have used the election issues to circumvent the outcome of the election.

I really do not like it when those that won their election, using the Board approved rules, are then called the "Evil 3" or "Cheaters". Sure I would have rather the rules be changed before the original election but they were not and everyone ran thier campaign by those rules. If some felt the rules were ethically wrong then they took their stand and were at a disadvantage and some lost. Kind of like if you were to compete in a draft legal triathlon but decided you would not draft during the event. That is fine but don't complain that those that did draft cheated, were evil and should be DQ'd.

I have a suspision that after the original election Steve saw that the new board would not continue to keep him as the ED. Even though he defended the election process he then used that reason to resign knowing the election process would be questioned and hopefully have to be rerun. He could then do what he is doing now by jumping on the Anti "Evil 3"/"Cheater" bandwagon.

If he was so against the election process he should have resigned before the election after the Board approved the election rules. I guess he didn't because he still had the chance that his group may still get elected and additionally he still had the opportunity to possibly get the election thrown out afterwards.

I found this on Triathlon Mag's website concerning the election ruling

"The dispute concerned the grievance of Mike Greer, Robert Vigorito, Karen Buxton, John Duke, Jack Weiss, and Ray Plotecia against Valerie Gattis, Jim Girand, Diane Travis, and USAT. The grievants asserted that the 2003 election of non-elite athlete directors should be overturned because the Board had improperly determined the rules for the 2003 election, candidates may have engaged in improper election activities, and the rules did not impose adequate safeguards to ensure a valid result."

"The Panel's decision focused on the rules for the 2003 election, finding that "the election was flawed." The Panel made no finding as to the issue of whether the Board properly approved the election rules."

"The Panel specifically held that there was no evidence that any candidate, including Ms. Gattis, Mr. Girand or Ms. Travis "changed any ballot, discarded any ballot or in any other way tampered with the election results."

Nowhere in the decision does it call anyone "Evil" or a "Cheater" and I really feel strongly that Jack and or Steve should stop using these terms when refering to their opponants.

Willy in Pacifica

---

.
Willy in Pacifica

Lew:

I don't know Steve, but if what you are saying is true - then that doesn't sound like much in the way of "leadership" material that the USAT needs. If he was opposed to the rules so strongly that he can now freely call people evil or cheaters, then he should have stood on principal and loudly protested them before the election not after (as willy stated). I was under the impression that he was fighting against the rules all along. "Just following orders" has long since been dismissed as a legitimate excuse.

Also, simply put - he either lied to concerned USAT members about USAT policies; or he lied to the USOC panel. Either way - I won't vote for someone who acts like that.

Since you were a witness, did Steve testify as to his and Jack's plans as outlined in the e-mails posted by JSquare? Also, since you are a candidate - what do you think of those e-mails? I went back and re-read them. It actually appears that not only were Steve and Jack planning on running together and using the USOC hearing as their platform (as mentioned by frogonawire), they talk about a primary purpose of being elected (and getting others elected) was to get out of debt - or something like that. Was that ever discussed at the blue ribbon trials? Doesn't it strike you as improper for candidates like Lock and Weiss to plan to create a board that has already decided to pay off certain debts? Isn't that worse than any conflict that was raised before the blue ribbon trial?

I don't know, I may have to retract my first post and say that only you and Slowman should be allowed to use the election dispute as a platform. It's almost like throwing rocks in glass houses for Lock or Jack to attack the character of other people. What is your opinion?

Truth,

If you hear from Jack or Steve you might also want to ask if Steve is planning to remain a Director. It has been implied that if they can get the right people on the Board then Steve will then resign from the Board that will then hire him back as the ED.

If that is one of the main reason for their campaign then a Vote for Steve is a wasted vote since he will no longer be on the Board.

Does anyone know how a vacant Board slot is filled?

Willy in Pacifica

---

.
Willy in Pacifica

Willy,

Here's what the Blue Ribbon Panel actually had to say on the subject (pages 13-14 of their decision):

"Finally, the Panel turns to the issue concerning the activities of those Respondents who were also candidates for election. The Panel did not hear any evidence that the Respondents committed fraud or that they changed any ballot, discarded any ballot or in any other way tampered with the election results. They proceeded under the rules as they were published by USAT, ill-conceived as they were. However, the Panel questions the judgment of those individuals, as well as their motives, in advocating for and supporting USAT’s election rules and then in engaging in practices under those rules that were perceived as improper and as casting doubt on the credibility of the election. Their actions, at times, were certainly not of a caliber one would expect of candidates for Director positions on a National Governing Body. The Panel questions whether those candidates let their own personal aspirations override good judgment. Certainly they should have understood that their actions would raise the spector (sic) of impropriety and cast doubt on the election process, especially since they were sitting Board members."

Like you, I consider use of such emotionally charged terms as "evil doers" and "cheaters" to be distinctly unhelpful. However, I also feel strongly that a majority of the current board took actions which were clearly not in the best interests of the federation. That doesn't mean they are bad people; they definitely are not. But in my opinion (and in the opinion of the BRP), they made some very poor choices.

---

Lew

Vacancies on the USAT board of directors is governed by Article VII, Section 5 of the current bylaws. It reads:

"Vacancies on the Board of Directors, whether created by the removal of a director or otherwise, shall be filled by an affirmative vote of a majority of the number of directors remaining on the Board of Directors at the time, whether or not such number of directors then in office is less than a quorum, within forty-five (45) days of the vacancy or at the next regular meeting of the Board of Directors, whichever occurs first. Any director elected [presumably by the board] to fill a vacancy shall complete the term of the director whose vacancy is being filled, and may only be elected for one (1) additional successive term on the Board of Directors unless the vacancy is being filled for a period of less than six (6) months, in which event the vacancy shall not be considered a full term and the director may be elected for two (2) additional successive terms."

---

Lew

i guess i want to know why vote for SL if he has any thoughts on resigning if appointed to the ED position? I read the emails before dan pulled the plug where he mentioned something about stepping down so others could appoint/annoint whom they like. Seems a bit of a waste of running to me.
I think SL did tons of good for usat but it calls into question (at least for me) his motivation and intentions.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Willy:

I agree, it is a bit distastefull for people like Lock and Weiss (and for that matter - Slowman) to call anyone "evil" or "cheaters". One is just immature and the other lacks any basis. But then again, this is a campaign and while I (and I suspect most of the USAT membership) would prefer that the candidates take the high road and argue the issues instead of engaging in school yard name calling and other mudslinging, I guess that is their right (and a reflection of how they may act once elected).

I went to the USA Triathlon link and looked at the pdf files. The one statement that really strikes me as wrong (and I am surprised one would resort to using it or that the USAT would allow it) is where Jack called the directors "cheaters". I never saw any finding that anyone ever cheated. In fact, as bad as the blue ribbon trial's report made the directors seem, it never accused them of cheating. As you quoted, it said the exact opposite and found no cheating.

Jack - since you post here often and are a candidate, how do you explain those e-mails? In the e-mails, Lock seems to say that "I don't care who I would run against, I just care that we have a group effort to get our slate nominated and elected (and, one major reason is to get our legal bill covered as it should be)" you responded "Personally I think this might be the route we have to go to get ourselves any debt relief." Can you and Steve justify such a plan? Even if you think it is justifiable - is it proper under the USAT and USOC rules and by-laws? I mean - wow!

Its not your money, its not Lock's money. It belongs to the USAT membership. Lew or Slowman - do you know how the USAT works? Would there be an auditor or treasurer who would be able to prevent any directors from using USAT funds to pay off debts? I would certainly support Slowman/Lew's Sunshine Policy in their petition if that would disclose such things to the members.

TRUTH: "Since you were a witness, did Steve testify as to his and Jack's plans as outlined in the e-mails posted by JSquare?

LEW: No, he sure didn't. I think that e-mail exchange didn't occur until after the BRP hearing, and I'd be pretty comfortable wagering that Steve and Jack never intended those messages to become public knowledge.

TRUTH: Doesn't it strike you as improper for candidates like Locke and Weiss to plan to create a board that has already decided to pay off certain debts? Isn't that worse than any conflict that was raised before the blue ribbon trial?"

LEW: For obvious reasons, Dan and I have rather kept close track of the litigation in question. We both believe much of the legal time putatively spent on behalf of the federation was in fact NOT NEEDED BY THE FEDERATION - AND THAT ANY INVOICES GENERATED BY SUCH UNNECESSARY LEGAL WORK SHOULD NOT BE PAID BY THE FEDERATION. Dan has been particularly irked by this situation (having been part of the legal profession for 37 years, I am somewhat more cynical and resigned than he) and has conducted a running verbal battle with the ethics officer of the firm (Holland & Hart) who supposedly represented the federation in this case.

Can people hold an arguable view in opposition to that of Dan and me on this issue? Not only "can" they, some very specific "they's" do. That's where election choices can be quite meaningful. If you think these bills should all be paid, don't vote for Dan . . . and don't vote for me. Resistance on this one is at the top of our agenda.

---

Lew

Desert Dude:

I don't think Slowman pulled that link - he usually doesn't censor his board. I think its still in the original string - I found it just now using the "Search Posts" function at the top of the page. Its at: http://www.pem-usa.com/USAT/email-thread.pdf

I do agree with you that it seems wrong to run under the guise of really wanting to be a director when the true intention is to resign and have the other directors appoint him to a paying job so that the directors could then "elect" whoever they wanted to fill the vacancy. Here is Lock's own words (per the e-mail exchange anyway): "if I were to win, and if the Board were willing to restate me, I would resign and the Board would appoint someone else in that slot" It almost seems that it is a trade: a salary in exchange for a director of your choice.

Slowman, Lew, and any other candidates - would you go along with such a plan? Would you see this as unethical and dishonest to the USAT members?

Again, I really must retract my first statement - seeing the plans of Lock and Jack in their own words shows that they should not be allowed to use the blue ribbon trial for their campaign goals - only Slowman and Lew should be allowed to do that (although reiterating my earlier posts, I would prefer still no mudslinging and just a campaign on the issues and how they can best represent us members. In my region, the west, I actually didn't have much problems with the prior board and I did like how Jim Girand did seem to recognize triathletes' concerns about sold out races and race entrys, so I guess I have to see how any new and unproven candidate can do better).

my bad, i didn't go back and search but do remember dan saying he pulled a post the other day in which he referenced those emails. didn't know if he put it back or not. thanks.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I just realized that you and Willy are calling me "Truth". Thanks :) Actually, I lost a lot of weight doing triathlons (started with running), but when I went to register as "TrulyThinTriathlete" I found out that Slowtwitch has a limit on characters, so I shortened it to TruThinTri. But, I guess it gives an element (or illussion) of authority in my posts :)

I appreciate your responses. I think all candidates and USAT reps should be willing to engage in open dialog and communicate with the members. I do agree with you that the whole lawsuit cost way too much money. But, and I know you disagree, that was really the fault of the candidates who lost and decided to sue. I am shocked that they aren't running now - they caused the USAT to run up a huge legal bill, but then left the "scene of the accident" to leave us members to deal with it. Maybe that e-mail exchange reveals their real intentions in suing.

That aside, I take it then from your response that you would not support (and Slowman would not support) paying the legal bills of those who brought the lawsuit? I certainly agree with that - but how did Lock run up such debt? Did he help fund the lawsuit?

I guess the directors don't have bills as the USAT insurance probably covered them as directors - right?

Lew - you selected this from the blue ribbon trial (or I guess Panel): "Finally, the Panel turns to the issue concerning the activities of those Respondents who were also candidates for election. The Panel did not hear any evidence that the Respondents committed fraud or that they changed any ballot, discarded any ballot or in any other way tampered with the election results. They proceeded under the rules as they were published by USAT, ill-conceived as they were. However, the Panel questions the judgment of those individuals, as well as their motives, in advocating for and supporting USAT’s election rules and then in engaging in practices under those rules that were perceived as improper and as casting doubt on the credibility of the election. Their actions, at times, were certainly not of a caliber one would expect of candidates for Director positions on a National Governing Body. The Panel questions whether those candidates let their own personal aspirations override good judgment. Certainly they should have understood that their actions would raise the spector (sic) of impropriety and cast doubt on the election process, especially since they were sitting Board members."

I think you are a lawyer - if so, why would that finding give the USOC the right to order new elections? Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that the election rules needed to be changed, but really weren't the blue ribbon trial members just substituting "what I would have done" in place for what the directors actually did?

If there was no violation of any by-law or if they didn't do anything illegal, then there isn't any right to remove them - right? I mean, there are many things that I would do differently if I were a director, but unless the actions of the directors broke a law or a USAT rule, then my own personal choices couldn't be used as grounds to remove the directors. It strikes me as very odd. I looked but I couldn't find where the blue ribbon trial pointed to any authority to remove the directors. What gave them the right to remove our directors (whether you like them or not)? Even if the USAT is a part of the USOC family, doesn't the USAT have a right to govern itself? Seems really big-brother to me.

Another thing that irritates me, of all the USAT members and the many websites, I couldn't find too much discussion about this whole election on any other websites. I think JSquare is on one other and I think www.duathlon.com had about 12 posts on 1 string about this (one had an interesting discussion about the blue ribbon trials' members and their possible relationships with Steve Lock). But where is everybody else? You think more people would be talking about this.

TRUTH: "That aside, I take it then from your response that you would not support (and Slowman would not support) paying the legal bills of those who brought the lawsuit? I certainly agree with that - but how did Lock run up such debt? Did he help fund the lawsuit? "

LEW: The sides in this litigation are as follows: USAT, represented by Craig Stewart of Holland & Hart from Denver; the plaintiffs, represented by Steve Smith & Jill Chalmers (that would be ex-elite triathlete and former board member Jill Newman) from Colorado Springs; Gattis, Girand, and Travis, represented by Peter Bicks of the Orrick Law Firm from New York City. It is my best guess that Stewart's bills will exceed $60,000, that Smith/Chalmers will be in the same ballpark, and that Bicks will come in above $100,000 (perhaps well above). NOTE: I have no knowledge which would indicate that Steve Locke helped fund any side's legal fees in this litigation. That doesn't mean it didn't happen; I just haven't heard anything along those lines.

Dan and I are really irked by the irresponsible actions of everyone involved and the subsequent exposure of federation assets. If either of us makes it onto the Board, we will strongly urge that no legal fees be paid unless we feel they are completely justified or we are ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction.

TRUTH: I guess the directors don't have bills as the USAT insurance probably covered them as directors - right?

LEW: USAT's insurance carrier denied a request for this coverage, citiing an exemption for Board on Board disputes. This decision came early in the litigation process, and in my view, is but another example of the complete abdication of responsibility by a majority on the current board. They had lots of chances to settle this sucker at minimum cost to the federation, but let their friggin' egos get in the way of good judgment.

---

Lew

TRUTH: "I think you are a lawyer - if so, why would that finding give the USOC the right to order new elections? Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that the election rules needed to be changed, but really weren't the blue ribbon trial members just substituting "what I would have done" in place for what the directors actually did?"

LEW: Guilty on the first count of the indictment. As to the power of the panel, it (in this case, the power of binding arbitration) was given to them in a consent agreement on February 11, 2004 between the plaintiffs in the Colorado lawsuit and the current board. Absent the arbitration agreement, the only recourse USOC had was to threaten to decertify USAT as the official national governing body.

NOTE: If they did decertify, that would remove USAT's control of triathlon in the Olympic Games, but would have no de jure effect on anything else done by the federation. And decertification was pretty improbable - if only because there are lots of federations with much dirtier laundry than us. If they decertified us, what would that mean for the others? Plus, the USOC wants medals, and our women's team is poised to give USOC just what it wants. Why would it threaten that?

---

Lew

TruThin, I quoted the exlusion last week. When one board member(Weiss & Plotecia) sues another board member(Gattis, Girand & Travis), it becomes, my own words, an interfamily suit and the insurance does not respond. The only problem with this ia that most, if not all, corporations indemnify their officers and directors against outside lawsuits and will pay judgements and defense of said suits.
In my opinion, everything that happened could have been carried out by the plaintiffs sans Weiss and Plotecia; therefore, what they did was either one of the gances, ignor or arro. I think they both wanted to be seen as wearing the white hats.

Bob Sigerson