While my perspective is admittedly limited, I perceive this as an unfavorable development.

I will be interested to see USAT's contingency plan.

Speaking on a strictly personal level, as an individual, I met Steve Locke on several occasions and each time came away with a high degree of respect for his personal integrity, insight and ambition for the sport.

I will miss his work and look forward to his next project.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

I was greatly dsappointed and saddened to read of Steve's resignation. In all the interactions I had with Steve, I was always impressed with his calm and open approach to deal with issues and to listen to USAT members. While Steve and I disagreed on some things and agreed on other things, I always respcted him and his leadership. Whether we had a common or opposed position, he was always respectful. I greatly value everything he did for the sport under his leadership and wish he would reconsider.

I understand his disappointment in the decision (which I still feel ws correct), but wish he would instead stay at the helm and work within the board to eliminate what he views as a fundamental flaw. The first way is to push through the creation of a codified election policy and set of rules. Then ensure their adoption and implementation. One of the major problems facing anyone attempting to throw out the election is that they are required to demonstrate that the election failed to abide by the by-laws or rules adopted thereto. Presently, there is nothing to which one can point. Standardized and clear rules are necessary - that is why it is (as per Steve's illustration) much easier to enforce rules against triathletes: we have a codified set of rules. If we didn't have that set of rules, race disputes and procedures would be much more open to interpretation and confusion. I think someone like Steve could do a lot to ensure that proper guidelines are adopted and, for that reason and about 47,000 other reasons, I wish Steve would stay on as USAT executive director.

Alan

I don"t usually have much to say here. Call me a lurker, or just call me quiet. But this I have something to say about.

I don"t know Mr. Locke, but if he loves the sport of triathlon (which I am sure he does) he is probably just plain worn out and disappointed. The first couple of comments say that he should just stay and continue to push for this and that. But you know what, after awhile all the BS that surrounds the administering of a sport just sort of grinds you down and there is no push left. From my observation, much of the time evil triumphs over good in amateur sports. And the evil comes in the form of self interest.

After coaching track and cross country at the college level for a number of years I gave it up to get a "real job", one that could support a wife and family. But I missed the coaching so I volunteered to coach wheelchair track and road racing for the team from the local rehab hospital. It was fun and challenging, and I (my athletes) had some real success (even garnering some silver and gold at Atlanta). But the longer I was in the sport the more I got sucked into the administration of the sport (read, politics) and finally it was just too much. So something that is supposedly as altrueistic (sic) as wheelchair sports can be ruined by administration and politics.

Sad, yes?! unexpected, no?! But once again the machine of self interest rolls over a good person that could make a difference. R.I.P.

"I understand his disappointment in the decision (which I still feel ws correct), but wish he would instead stay at the helm and work within the board to eliminate what he views as a fundamental flaw."

I do not wish to interject my views into the substance of this debate. It's not my battle. However, I do want to point out the fact that when boards and executives disagree on a fundamental issue and the executive comes out on what he/she feels is the wrong side of the issue, they generally don't stick around to try and implement reform. To suggest otherwise is simply to have some naiveté into corporate governance or to risk the appearance that what was just stated is merely a marketing line.

If the board basically did not back Steve on this issue to this point why would he be incented to stay and in fact try and improve the organization to remedy the situation when he has no assurances these people would in fact support you in that effort? That's like signing up to bang your head against the wall for any extended period of time. When someone does something you feel is wrong and not ethical, you generally don't agree to work with him or her (let alone a group of them) on an on-going basis. This is akin to believing Saddam is going to tell us if he had weapons of mass destruction.

I can't blame the guy for not wanting to report to a majority board that can't see the unethical nature of distributing and collecting ballots. Irregardless of any bylaws or minutes or prior history, it's Civics 101.

Seems to me we all lose here. Such a shame that the ego's of a few self important idiots can cause so much havoc. I guess we can just add Locke to the scraps left over from the sausage grinder.

---

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

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

There has to be a way for the membership to find out if the election took place according to the by-laws. The organization's charter that is filed with the government has to contain a clear and concise set of instructions on how elections are to be held. If it is outside of the by-laws then we the membership have legal grounds to dissolve the board and hold another election. If not, we need a new ED.

"And the evil comes in the form of self interest. "

Amen.

From the article on triathlete.com -

"In a meeting with USA Triathlon staff, Locke also said he needed to focus on his battle against prostate cancer. He was diagnosed with the disease in November of 2003."

I wish him luck with that battle. I wouldn't want to have to fight these two fights at the same time.

As crooked as a dog's hind leg.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

I can't say I blame him. I'm sure some will look at this as giving up when there is an opportunity to do some good and make a change, but I don't see it. Why should anyone submit to being a part of something they feel is unethical? What reason does he, I, or anyone have to believe that the board is going to do anything to change this type of behavior? I pay $30 bucks a year in support of this crap?

In 2003 I had the displeasure of sitting through a campaign soapbox promotion for a single candidate at a club meeting that was immediately followed by the handing out of ballots, the plea to vote a certain way, and the subsequent collection of those ballots. It made my skin crawl. I still can't believe it's legal. When specifically asked to address the legitimacy of such a process, the board gives it's stamp of approval with an "it's good enough for now, but we promise we'll make it better in the future" vote. If the process is OK, then why does it need to be changed?

I still haven't sent in my registration for this year and as of right now only have a couple of USAT sanctioned races on my calandar. Maybe I'll save a couple bucks this year.

Dan, I hate to ask you how long you are going to defend people who, it seems, are systematically tearing apart a ptetty good organization. Because of their challenging decision to remain in office and not hold new elections, I am definitely leaning towards taking my name out of consideration fro the South Mid West regional board. I really don't think I need to be a part of this cabal.
And, Alan, we had a governor in Louisiana who had his wife take $10,000 from a Korean representative while he was in Congress. It was legal but unethical. He also sold Medicare Certificates of Need to hospital companies. It was judged legal but unethical. He sold licenses to gambling casinos. He is in the federal pen in Huntville, TX. And 36% of the people think he should be out.
I am writing Ms Ellsworth-Gattis. I hope some of you will, also.

Bob Sigerson

"Dan, I hate to ask you how long you are going to defend people who, it seems, are systematically tearing apart a ptetty good organization."

i'm certainly not defending them. i'm just not ready to abandon the organization.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I suggest for the people who care, find out who voted how, and do not re-elect those who passed the proposal to let the election stand. Also, learn what candidate(s) supported them and this and do not elect them!



Let the counter-campaigning begin!

---

---

KEEP ON TRI-NG

I certainly don't fault Steve for resigning or saying that he shoudl stay around - I just wish thet he would. He can do a lot to improve the situation. As most comments here seem to indicate, there is general dislike with some of the election procedures, so Steve would no doubt have a majority of active USAT members on his side when reforming teh procedures. Likewise, I don't eblieve after this whole ordeal that many of the board would push back on adopting clear guidelines to avoid future disputes. But, all that is wishful thinking - Steve has resigned and that is not a good result.

Alan

I personally think its great when candidates go to clubs and introduce themselves and open themselves up to questions. That gives members a real chance to meet candidates before voiting. You don't want to vote? Turn down the ballot. You don't like that process - hell the candidate was in the room, did you question her or him? Did you raise that as an issue? Face to face opportunities are rare, taht was a great opportunity.

I won't defend the practice - I have already said that needs to be revamped. However - the whole point was that the practices may not have been best or desirable - but you fix those before an election, not after. What is lost is EVERY candidate, the winners and the losers, campaigned in the same system. You had valid winners. Is it any more proper to throw tout their valid elections because those who lost now, after the election, called it unfair? Does anyone really believe that any of those candidate would have asked the USAT board to toss out their their victories as unfair had they actually won? No way. This was, after all moral judgement on the election process (which is almost universally accepted as flawed) nothing more than an attempt to have a second bite of an apple.

You don't throw out the elections that were hard won at personal expense of the candidates because some who did not win can point to procedural flaws in the process that no one can show affected the election one way or another (in fact, the election results were just audited by an outside accounting firm that found no problems). NONE of those who voted to let the elections stand were in that election - they were "disinterested".

You think its unfair to let the election stand because those who didn't win chosose after the fact to attack the process in which they were a participant? I think it is equally unfair to attack those who prevailed in that process and strip away a valid victory. And, if that had been done, then the USAT would have been wrong as it had no legal right to take away those victories.

If the process if flawed - fix it. But don't try to make that fix retroactive. That is unfair.

Alan

Bob:

Do you know what you also have in Louisana? A codified set of ethics and corruption rules and laws that can clearly set forth what can and can't be done. That, to some extent, is missing at the USAT with regards to elections. That is what is needed to avoid these type of disputes.

Your governor is in federal pen because he violated the law. There was a law (and an ethical canon) that prohibited elected officials from abusing their office for personal gain. Had there been a law on the books (which from your tone sounds like their should have been - and I agree) that prohibited a governor's wife from taking $10,000 then she should be there too. Likewise, had there been a set of rules regarding USAT election which stated ballots are to be download and mailed in only; or candidates can't validate ballots; or that ballots couldn't be available on teh internet before publication of USAT's newsletter - then everyone would have rules to which they could point to show violation. Here, there are no such rules and, as such, nothing was violated except for some people's personal beliefs regarding election campaigns. That does not, alone, invalidate elections.

(I will admit, there seems to be some fact missing in your example or something in Louisiana's Napoleonic code that exempts that behavior as I don't know of many places where legal prohibitions on an elected official do not, by law, extend to that person's family. But that's a different analysis).

As for taking your name out of consideration - you definitely shouldn't do that. That is why people should be elected. They should feel that they can make a difference. They should want to make a difference or correct something they see as wrong. You believe that the process is flawed? Get on the board and change it. I'll help you - I do not like the existing procedures. But not liking adopted election procedures is different from throwing out an election. They are two different things.

You seem to question my morality because I opined that the by-laws were correctly followed. Sorry Sig - they were. As such, the vote needed to stand. What happens if the challenge was on teh grounds that those who didn't win felt that paying for postage on teh ballots was akin to buying votes? Would you still feel that the election results should ahve been overturned if the board had reaffirmed the use of postage-paid ballots? I don't think so. As such, your problem doesn't appear to be with the fact that the USAT votes as to whether an election procedure can be adopted. Your disgust is with the procedure that was actually adopted. It may seem distasteful, but that really can't come into play. If you let a valid vote be wrongfully overturned because you didn't like process adopted, then you are opening the door to have valid votes overturned - despite feeling that the process was good. That is why rules are promulgated, so that it is clear (or more clear) to decide if procedures should have been adopted.

You don't like the procedures that were adopted, many do not. Then start a campaign - get 100 people to sign a petition calling for a by-law amendment (the procedure exists). But don't withdraw from the organization because you are unhappy with a single decision. If you honestly oppose that decision, then you are letting "them win" if you run away.

Alan

I agree to a point - if you don't like the procedures then let it be known you won't vote to reelect those who voted for the procedures. I disagree that anyone should punish those disinterested board members who followed their obligations and upheld the election as valid. Who knows, there may have been some who voted to let the election stand becuase it was valid but who dispise the election procedures. Despite such personal feelings, they did the right thing and reaffirmed a valid election. Those people don't deserve to be punished - they deserve respect for living up to their duties.

Alan

"I personally think its great when candidates go to clubs and introduce themselves and open themselves up to questions."

I agree. Too bad the candidate wasn't at the meeting.

"You don't want to vote? Turn down the ballot."

I did.

"You don't like that process - hell the candidate was in the room, did you question her or him?"

No, he wasn't, so no, I didn't. Only one of his designees was there to spread the good word.

I am all for candidates campaigning. I'm not for them collecting votes. Say, why don't we have Dubya collect ballots the next time he's on a factory tour or out kissing babies? (Obviously you're against this too. You've written as much repeatedly, it hasn't slipped by. But the Board??)



"However - the whole point was that the practices may not have been best or desirable - but you fix those before an election, not after. What is lost is EVERY candidate, the winners and the losers, campaigned in the same system. "

Agreed. Funny though, I was under the impression that the board had the opportunity to take action before the election, but didn't. (Or did depending on who you ask.) Then had an opportunity to clarify the confusion, but didn't by virtue of the most assanine voting method I've ever heard of. (The equivalent of asking person for something while they're sleeping and assuming that no response is the same as an affirmative. "Say Johnny, mind if I sleep with your wife??... But you said it was OK.")

My issue isn't with the candidates. (The winners or the losers) My issue is with the rules (or lack thereof) for our (er, their)elections and the fact that the board seems only committed to total inaction on this issue. Look at the history here, not just this week. It's not just the most recent decision. Of course the board is going to say they made the correct decisions when asked to review them. I rather imagine that's why legal appeals are made to a different Judge than the one who made the ruling in question.



"You think its unfair to let the election stand because those who didn't win chosose after the fact to attack the process in which they were a participant?"

When did I say that? Wanna take a guess at what I'm thinking now?

"I think it is equally unfair to attack those who prevailed in that process..."

I'm assuming you're not referring to me as one who is attacking as I haven't written one single thing attacking any candidate.

Alan, are you telling me that some of those who were "disinterested" don't have agendas, obligations or alliances with some of those "interested"?????

Frankly, I find it reprehensible, that the board members newly elected were not allowed to partake in the conversation. How do we (and the "disinterested" voting) know that all the candidates operated the same way or understood that they could operate the same way if they were not allowed to participate in the discussion? Mandy even stated in a pre-conference post, that she did not vote to allow candidates to handle others ballots. The process was not clear as Mandy saw it nor was it clear in the published minutes.

Let me ask another question of you from an above post. Are you telling me that the candidates themselvs validated ballots? What did they do with the ones they found to be "invalid"?

---

---

KEEP ON TRI-NG

It's a sad day when the board puts their self interest above that of those they serve. You and I, the athelete should be their master but they know only themselves to be the master. You and I get shit on as they fail to see the stink they create.
If you can't put your self interest to the back burner when serving on a BOD you need to gracefully step down.
I'm voting your ass out next election anyway, so enjoy your time b/c my license fee is in the mail.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Pooks:

My apologies if I mis-used the word "attacked", I used that there as reference to one questioning the validity of someone's election in that process. I never saw you post anything negative about any candidate so I apologize for the inference.

It is interesting to hear that you turned down the ballot - I wonder how many others did. I think Cathy mentioned that she did also. I respect you for doing so since you obviously do not support that procedure.

We appear to be in agreement in one thing - better rules need to be written and adopted.

Alan

I may be mistaken, but I thought those who were elected were there to answer questions asked by the other disinterested board members. It was their input in the discussion that was not allowed. But, I admit I could be wrong, that was my understanding from this forum. As for Mandy, I do believe she was in fact allowed to participate fully in the discussion, just not vote (from the USAT press release and their website).

As for any alliance between the disinterested - no, I can't say I know of any - no more than they may have with any unelected candidate.

And, as for un-validated votes, I honestly don't know, there is nothing that I know of telling the candidate what they need to do with them. Maybe a candidate here can answer that question.

Alan

You read into my statement something that was unintended. I DO NOT question your morality. You have provided a lot of answers on this forum and without the absolute timeling or inside involvement, I don't think anyone on these threads could say your legal opinion was right or wrong but it was not immoral. My only thing is the same as Dan's, you should have identified yourself when rendering the opinion, otherwise, I can live with everything else that has transpired.

Bob Sigerson