thanks for your insight on this matter, Dan. - I voted YES on both and mailed it in yesterday. Z

Dan, I understand your position of compromise,now,but it was not evident when many, on this forum, questioned the efficacy of the one year term and the all or nothing vote on yours and Lew's amendments. From my standpoint, I appears that your friends on this board were working hard at amendments, even before the now approved amendments were ratified. I think that if you and Lew would admit you erred, it would go a long way to getting the new amendments passed, otherwise, they get no's from me.
Here is another thing about which to think. You now have a board dominated by race directors from the three largest states in triathlon, CA, TX and FL. Two of these state dominate states in their competitive regions, CA and TX. Both of these competitive regions have very active smaller states with large triathlon populations. I can only address my own state, LA, which is in the top 10 in membership and number of races. It also boasts one of the more active and race directors in the nation, Premier Event Management. We are dominated on a regional basis by TX and I am sure, that on a national scene, we are, too.
I would hope that you, who found serving a year to be too long, would rethink your position on these amendments.

Bob Sigerson

"I think that if you and Lew would admit you erred, it would go a long way to getting the new amendments passed, otherwise, they get no's from me."

the petition lew and i authored, and on which you voted 9mos ago, had as its primary goal the ability for you and the rest of the membership to directly vote on large changes that are contemplated. as a result, you are now given the opportunity to vote on these changes.

mistakes. there is nothing in the original petition that i would do differently had i to do it over again, except to perhaps ease up on some stuff around the edges (30 days for board minutes instead of 10 days, stuff like that).

no, i don't think the regional federation boundaries are better than those lew constructed. lew's are better. however, 10 of the 11 folks you all elected disagree with me. in my view, what we now have is 100% better than what we did have. using the RF boundaries is 90% better. if the entire board feels strongly that the 90% solution is better than the 100% solution, acceeding to the board's desire is worth more than that final 10%.

having the board's year start in jan makes more sense. however, they find it cumbersome to gather signatures during the fall and winter. so, they'd rather have their terms of service start in jan and gather signatures during the season, so they can set up tables at races, etc. again, if the board all feels that's what it wants, it's not that big a deal. making board service easier outweighs the theoretical benefits i've attached myself to.

so, i'm voting yes on both amendments i imagine, tho these amendments are not known to me yet (the only thing i have to go by is the set of bylaw changes list on USAT's website that occur if the board's recommendations are adopted.

the problem you address in your post, where CA, TX and FL control the board. this occurs because of the east, west, central, at-large regions. as if this election, that goes away. if we change from our current 8 regions to the RF boundaries, yes, LA might get screwed, because you're in the same region as TX. hence my view that the regions lew set up are better.

jack weiss would argue that a guy in, say, oklahoma races almost exclusively in TX and therefore he is a texan for voting purposes, and so the RF boundaries make more sense. of course he might also say that you're a texan, if you race in his state most of the time ;-)

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I don't get USAT's inability to get information to its members. I received my ballot in the mail -- one page describing the BOD election (Mid Atlantic district) with the platforms of both candidates. The other page is the ballot to be sent in. There is no mention of any bylaw changes or ballots for amendments? What gives? I wouldn't even know about the amendments if it weren't for this forum.

I voted no on both because of one line in the second bylaw change that basically said 'We just can't do our job because the bylaw change made it too hard' well you know things are tough all over deal with the problem or step aside don't change the rules to make things easier on yourself; change the rules to make things better as an organization.

I am probably way off base; it won't be the first time or probably even the only time today. But, I'd like the USAT to work efficiently for all of the members and grow and I don't see how these amendments will help that.

"I voted no on both because of one line in the second bylaw change that basically said 'We just can't do our job because the bylaw change made it too hard'"

i don't yet have my ballot, and i don't know what the second amendment is. however, i would guess that the commentary on the second amendment to which you refer refers to the board's desire to be able to change certain bylaws all by themselves. however, if you go on USAT's website you can, according to the website, "Read bylaws with proposed changes from USA Triathlon Board of Directors."

click on that link and you get one and only one set of bylaw amendments. in that set, you read, "ARTICLE XX: No change." also, you'll read, "ARTICLE XXI, Section 4: No change."

so, apparently they've decided not to go forward with this after all. we are now well into the election, i was asked two days ago by our board's president to, "please come out publicly in support of the recommendations..." it was entirely appropriate for him to ask this, as i promised him i would, just as soon as i saw the what the result of a YES vote on the proposed amendments would yield.

tho i don't have a ballot, i read the set of bylaw changes that would occur, the only set that is on the site as of yesterday, and as of 5 minutes ago. it's clear that the board is no longer interested in reserving for itself the power to change bylaws, because USAT's site can't be more clear on this. there is one set of bylaw changes posted, and only one set, and the election is well underway. i've acceeded to our board president's request. i've sent my recommendations for a pair of YES votes to better than 20,000 triathletes on my mailing list. i've printed my recommendations in an oped on slowtwitch. i've printed them on this forum. i'm happy with the bylaw changes that are on on the USAT site or, at least, i'm not troubled by them.

i ask you all to go right now to:

http://www.usatriathlon.org/Elections/2005_Bylaws.htm

click the link, and tell me if there is anything other than a pdf that has one set of bylaw changes in which ARTICLE XX and ARTICLE XXI, Section 4 are untouched, and wit the Sunshine Policy basically intact.

folks, please go there. go to the link. see if this is in fact the case and post back here.

based on this, i have no problem with the two amendments.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Sig,

Even if the amendments proposed by the board get a majority of "yes" votes and Louisiana becomes part of the "South Midwest" district with TX, OK, and AR, things are likely to change almost immediately. Why? Because:

1. in the bylaw amendments we passed last year, there is a provision that triggers a redistricting requirement [Art. VII, Section 4a(4)]:

"In such event the largest District has at least double the annual members as the smallest District, the Districts shall be caused to gain or lose constituent states to bring about equality of representation, while still retaining geographic integrity. In this case the Board of Directors shall fashion two plans for reapportionment, both such plans having the same eight District headings above. Neither plan shall exclude a state from a District if that District’s Board representative resides in that state. Both prospective plans shall be presented to the general membership for vote on the next annual election. The reapportionment plan gaining the most votes shall replace the District apportionment contained in these Bylaws."

2. The board left this provision essentially untouched as part of its proposed amendments for this year.

3. If you look at the report of the election task force (on the USAT website - hit the first topic under "Hot Topics" at the bottom of the home page), you will see that as of mid-2004, the most populous region (the Southwest with CA, AZ, and NV) had 7313 members, while the smallest (the Southeast, with SC, GA,AL, MS, TN, and the panhandle of FL) has 3834. Double the latter number, consider the demographics of the sport, and you will quickly see we are probably going to trigger the redistricting provision within a short period of time. In fact, it may have already been triggered as we speak.

---

Lew

Dan,

Read the Board's bylaw platform document. It has information about Proposal #2.

A different version of this document, and the ballot, were the only items in the mailing that I received. No additional information or the document in the PDF link that you point us to...which BTW has changed at least once.

this is the link direclty to the current proposed bylaw changes - seems like we're looking at the same thing you are.

http://www.usatriathlon.org/..._Proposed_Bylaws.pdf

Interesting, they are proposing adding a forum to the website for feedback... should be a hoot to read that once it goes live.

"No additional information or the document in the PDF link that you point us to...which BTW has changed at least once."

yes, but i'm not relying on anyone's platform statement. i don't yet have a ballot, so i can't rely on that. i'm relying on "bylaws with proposed changes from USA Triathlon Board of Directors."

when i click that link, i get USAT_Proposed_Bylaws.pdf and that's all i get. the copy of this document is "Proposal #1: Language of Proposed Amendment"

however, there is no second document, no Proposal #2: Language of Proposed Amendment

as USAT's website promises that the changes in the bylaws that will accompany a YES vote in the amendments are at this link, the only evidence of such a change is in this one, sole document. yes, you're right, things are fluid, these documents have changed on the site. but this has been the sole document on the site for the last several days, the election is well underway, and i'm therefore simply adhering to what the site says. this is it. we're voting on this.

i am just asking you to verify that you and i are looking at the same, sole, document that describes bylaw changes that would occur upon a YES vote to the board's proposals. can you verify that we are seeing the same thing?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"NO" to both. It's just what I believe.

Tony

"Interesting, they are proposing adding a forum to the website for feedback... should be a hoot to read that once it goes live."

The REQUIREMENT for such a forum is ALREADY IN in the bylaws, placed there by last year's amendment petition. It reads:

"Section 4. Federation Website. Since the federation’s website offers a unique opportunity for timely, in-depth, and cost-effective communication with the membership and the public at large, the federation’s goal shall be to use the website to its fullest potential to promote the goal of open and robust communication with all interested parties. This effort shall include, but not be limited to the following:

a. The website shall offer a forum for submission of suggestions, inquiries, and opinions.

b. The president of the board shall hire or appoint a person whose job it is to respond promptly and thoroughly on behalf of the federation to submissions on the forum, and to report periodically to the board on all such exchanges."

Problem was, the board just ignored the provision - and now wants to amend it so as to eliminate the only way (the ombudsman) that any meaningful interaction would occur between the membership and the federation. If they make a forum, but provide no specialists charged with participating on the foum, answering questions, and looking up answers, why in heck would anyone go there in the first place? We already have something better right here on slowtwtich.

---

Lew

"...why in heck would anyone go there in the first place? We already have something better right here on slowtwtich."

Agreed - maybe USAT should just link over to here ;)

Dan,

Thank you for your quick reply.

-----

I confirm that if you click that link now, you get "USAT_Proposed_Bylaws.pdf"

If you clicked that link on January 16, you got "Proposed_Bylaw_Changes_01_05.pdf". It is a different document. I have a copy of it on file.

Personally, I would vote for what currently sits on the website if that is the actual proposal, but I cannot judge that. I do not have a paper version of the proposal. The original version, as Lew (I believe) noted, appeared to strip the financial reporting requirements from the bylaws. (I'm not sure that I'd agree with that) For all that I know, the file in that link can change again before March 1...then what have I voted on?

-----

To my knowledge, as yours, there is no separate document with the text of Proposal #2. Just the platform statements. That is the problem. It does not exist. Members are voting "Yes" or "No" on something that has not been defined.

-----

I believe that this bylaw vote has been compromised. I don't believe that this is intentional. The board and the USAT staff appear to have worked hard on this. I want to vote "Yes" on Proposal 1. However, I do not believe that this vote can be considered legally valid. I am planning on voting "No" only because a vote of approval to any of these "proposals" re-exposes USAT to legal liability...not that I am threating legal action.

We recently overturned an election where the practices lacked integrity. This bylaw vote lacks integrity. It's not any one person's fault. If we could cancel this bylaw vote and start it over right away, I'd vote for "USAT_Proposed_Bylaws.pdf" in a heartbeat.

I live in the one voting district that has a contested election for our next board representative. I wrote to the incumbent recently about the urgency in establishing the 2005 Nationals. I also recently asked him to consider this opinion of a compromised election and ask the BOD to cancel this bylaw vote. In an election where the two candidates are seemingly equally qualified, I see the integrity and performance of the incumbent as the primary discriminating factors in my vote.

There are several problems with the current voting. Verifying documents on web sites may or may not have anything to do with this election.

1. Are there changes to the bylaws? How many? Are the sunshine rules directly or indirectly affected? If we don't have the ballot then we just don't know; and from comments on this forum even some people with the ballot are not certain.

2. Some people have already voted and some of us (me included) don't even have the ballot. How could you vote for president of the USA if you did not know the candidates or their positions until you read the ballot? How effective would the elections be if the debates were held after a significant portion of the population had already voted?

3. The current board is not making a legitimate effort to comply with the existing bylaws. This opinion alone is enough to encourage me to vote against any proposal the board makes however reasonable they may be (i.e. changes regarding term length and redistricting).

4. The highly irregular nature of this election makes me very inclined to view the election as tainted regardless of any other fact. The organization has ample money, time and resources to stage an election that is unimpeachable. We should accept nothing less and should vote no to any election that has the slightest hint of impropriety.

Dan, before I pass judgement on what I just read, I think I'll wait a few days so they can change it, again. That's not what I read several weeks ago with all the crossed out sections, etc. I'll let you know tomorrow afternoon.

BTW, I went to CST lunch so I did not see your message until I got back.

Bob Sigerson

Dan is right. The board TALKED about an proposal which would give them the power to amend much of the bylaws without a vote of the membership - and they even TALKED ABOUT IT ON THE BALLOT. But if that's what they intended, they didn't follow through. Here's the deal:

A. There are two sections of the current bylaws that deal with the power to amend that document. They are:

ARTICLE XX. Amendments to or Repeal of the Bylaws. The Bylaws of USA Triathlon may be amended or repealed only by vote of the membership as specified in Article XXI, Section 4 below.

ARTICLE XXI, Section 4. Amendment or Repeal of the Bylaws. With the sole exception of the vehicle for reapportionment contained in Article VII, Section 4 (a), there are three and only three methods for amendment or repeal of federation Bylaws:

Standard Initiative. [Summarizing: The bylaws can be amended if a petition to amend is submitted by at least 100 members and then approved by vote of the overall membership. The proposal will go on the ballot at the next general election.]

Special Initiative. [Summarizing: The bylaws can be amended if a petition to amend is submitted by at least 2,500 members and then apparoved by a vote of the overall membership. The proposal will be submitted to the membership at an immediate special election.]

Vote to Approve Resolution of the Board of Directors. [Summarizing: The bylaws can be amended upon (1) a resolution of the board of directors which is (2) then approved by a vote of the overall membership.]


B. The ballot just submitted to the membership does not - repeat, does NOT - contain any specific language of a proposed amendment. Instead, by the last sentence of the very first paragraph in the ballot submission - which is PRINTED IN BOLD TYPE - the board says:

"You may go to www.usatriathlon.org to read the complete proposed Bylaw Amendments, the original Election Task Force Report, and the current Bylaws"

Read that statement again . . and note that it says the "COMPLETE proposed Bylaw Amendments".

C. Then go to the current website (or at least the website as it was all day yesterday - I haven't looked in the last hour or two) and read the document they refer you to (it is the second one down). Scroll through until you get to Article XX. What do they say? "No Change". Then scroll further until you come to Article XXI, Section 4. What does that one say? "No Change".

D. So that's it. They SAID they wanted to change the way the bylaws can be amended, but they didn't DO what was necessary to affect a change. Was that just another SNAFU (in the original sense)? Probably - but the election die is already cast. In effect, proposal 2 is therefore meaningless - and is meaningless no matter what the vote totals might eventually end up to be.

---

Lew

I remember reading this when I read the amendments but it didn't stick in my mind which is the same feeling I get from the board, that it didn't stick in their mind and won't be implimented.

Jack Weiss called me a whiner because, if I had my druthers, I would move Louisiana to the SE region. We are a lot closer to tris in MS, AL and the panhandle of FL than to Dallas, Austin or even Houston. This is why I was happy when the amendments passed, as it appeared as the first chink in the armor.

I think that this was concerted, hasty and incomplete attack by those who want the status quo. I do not see how anyone, not even Slowman, can put his imprimatur on such an amateurish attempt to alter the constitution of the organization. They, in fact, only half way clarified their position after your calls and postings on this forum.

I am voting no to both changes and will not vote on any amendments until such time they are either printed or shown in their etirety on the website.

Bob Sigerson

I see what you mean, but does the bylaw open a back door to allow them to change the article XX later. It looks confusing enough that it was done on purpose. Maybe it is my own criminal mind, but it screams ulterior motive to me. These board members are not lacking in intelligence and neither are the lawyers involved, you watch there is something tricky here hidden in the background.

They say the January referendum will refer to Article XX, but on the other page article XX states no change.

What if petition 2 passes allowing them to change a different bylaw, which then allows them to go back with a 2/3rds board vote and change article XX all by themselves. They would not be lying as the actual petition does not change article XX.

Worst case, I am wrong and we are all happy. This is why I detest politics.