Jeff,
I am also in the Eastern region and I voted for Robert Vigorito b/c he seems to be exclusively dedicated to working for age group athletes. (don't get me wrong, I want our elites to have a shot at a medal in Athens, I just don't think it should take precedence over some of the pressing issues related to age group racing) I agree that it's hard to vote based on the 5 sentence party-lines on the website, but everything I have read about Vigo (and attending one his races) led me to vote for him. not sure if that helps...

---

"The more you sweat today, the less you bleed tomorrow"

This is another pet peeve of mine on USAT. Board members being elected in that have a financial interest in the sport. Members of the board should be athletes and not race directors. It leaves too many opportunities for conflict of interest into entering into decisions based on championship races and which events take precedent on dates. Regional boards and national boards should be exclusive to people without a race attached.

Of course, I am not a member of USAT, so my view means nothing anyway, but just my two cents.

If you go to the USAT web site you can read up on each candidate. Unfortunatly, all they really say is what they have accomplished rather than what they plan for the future.

---

.
Willy in Pacifica

I can only adress the at-large position. The at-large candidate Val Gattis (outgoing USAT presient) is very dedicated to the interests of age groupers and was very responsive to triathletes' recent request for certain rule changes. She has been very cooperative with our club when we have issues. I like her attitude and responsiveness. I will admit to not knowing much about Karen, although Val has spoken very highly of her - but based upon my personal experience with Val, I feel she deserves my vote.

Alan

I have already made my decision for the Central region any more oppinions on the AT-LARGE REGION????????

USAT election rules limit each candidate to 300 words for publication in the magazine and on the website . . . and they are adament that not a single word will be printed above that limit. That doesn't leave a heck of a lot of room for nuances.

Personally, I tried to do two things with the space given. For the people who wouldn't know me from Adam, I tried to give some sense who I was and the level of experience I had accumulated. And as evidence of my thought process(es), I tried to highlight a few critical issues and indicate the direction I thought we needed to go.

I actually enjoy indepth discussions of the issues . . . and as those who have been in the sport for some time can confirm, am rarely shy about expressing my views.

---

Lew

Lew,

I just checked the site and you are one of the few who do indeed state what some of your future goals are.

Since a majority of members never get to meet the candidates that are running in their district, how about a portion of the USAT web site being dedicated to a Q&A for members to ask questions of their candidates. I know it may be a bit late this year but for the future elections.

This way members would be able to ask their candidates how they stand on certain issues and other members can review the forum at their leisure.

Willy in Pacifca

---

.
Willy in Pacifica

I appreciate your feedback, and that of the other posters. It's kind of sad that you are about the only candidate who posts on this forum, and you aren't in my region, so I can't vote for you.

Being somewhat opinionated myself, I appreciate it when people tell me what they really think, rather than feed me either A) What they think I want to hear, or B) what they think will be the most popular answer.

As a side note, it has been reading the unrepentant posts of the various people, like Slowman( not kissing up, just being honest), on this site that has gotten me to finally stop apologizing for voicing opinions that aren't always popular. But then, the truth is rarely popular, especially when you're arguing economics or politics, which I have the poor wisdom to do rather frequently.

Thanks again. I hope I hear more from or about the candidates in my area.

---

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

Like many (most) bureaucracies, USAT is loathe to communicate. Or, at least, they are loathe to communicate anything but the bare minimum.

Example? Though it is a public corporation, owned by you and me (and the rest of the annual membership), you will play hell prying real financial information out of the administration. If you press hard, you MIGHT get summaries. I'm looking at a recent balance sheet, which has entries such "Accounts Receivable, Sponsorship" in the amount of $74,197.68. Sponsorship from whom? Doesn't say. Is this hard dollars or is some of it "in-kind"? Doesn't say. If it is all hard dollars, where do they account for "in-kind" sponsorship?

How about the one under liabilities for "Deferred Revenue, National AG Champ" in the amount of $77,266.80. That probably is a mixture of entry fees collected in advance of the race and payments by the host city . . . but I'd only be guessing. Why should we, the owners have to guess? If USAT is making a slug of money on the AG Championship, maybe we could afford to make less and have the race at a more suitable location?

If I were on the board, I would press for much more complete, and much more timely, disclosure. I'd press to have complete minutes of each meeting typed, proofed, and posted on the USAT website - posted prominently on the USAT website - within a week thereafter. I'd press for much more detailed financial information that would be posted, again prominently, on the ngb website. And I would press to promtly disclose details of the national championship bid process - not AFTER it was a fait accompli, but while it was still underway.

Your idea seems sound. USAT should indeed have a way for members/owners to ask questions, and to receive prompt and public answers. I'd be willing to push for that one as well.

Lew

---

Lew

Lew, if elected, will you continue to weigh in on this forum on matters concerning USAT? Also, other than you and Jack Weiss, do any other board members or execs lurk on any of the forums?

Bob Sigerson

Lew,

Not sure if you know or not, but my guess is that they are a tax exempt organization. I don't believe they are a 501c3 charitable organization but only tax exempt which means they do not have to pay income taxes for the memberships, etc. that they collect.

If they are a tax exepmt organization they are required to file a Form 990 each year if they have revenue greater than $25,000.

An exempt organization must make available for public inspection, upon request and without charge, a copy of its original and amended annual information returns. I believe this is the Form 990.

This will show their income statement as well as a balance sheet, however, it may not give you the details you are looking for. But it may give you other information you were not aware of such as salaries etc.

I have just sent a request to them so I will see if I get a response. I did get an out of office replay form one of the e-mail recipients. I would guess that person is over in Hawaii.

Willy in Pacifca

---

.
Willy in Pacifica

Yes, I knew that - and I have traveled, several times, the road you are following now. You'll eventually get financials - balance sheet & profit/loss - but the entries will be so bland that you won't get any real understanding of what they are actually doing. I've asked for more detail, but all I get is vague protestations that "we can't put EVERYTHING in the financials" or "it isn't required that we put that kind of detail in the financials" or a sort of "trade secrets" type of argument.

Personally, I think that sort of secrecy is the wrong way to go. IMO, USAT should disclose entirely and disclose promptly. Not just the financials required by the IRS or California authorities, but real details. Not just a recitation of motions and votes at a meeting of the board, but a real account of what what actually went on. Not just a assertation that we have an insurance program, but what it actually costs.

---

Lew

"This is another pet peeve of mine on USAT. Board members being elected in that have a financial interest in the sport. Members of the board should be athletes and not race directors."

i couldn't disagree more. in fact if i had my 'drothers, i'd make the ENTIRE board race directors, except for the three spots reserved for elite athletes.

why would we want a board filled with people who know nothing about the business of RDs? maybe if more RDs were on the board, your concerns as an RD would be better addressed and you'd feel like joining up.

as for conflicts of interest, no problem there. you just recuse yourself form a vote tangential to your potential financial interest, or you don't respond to RFPs from the federation during your tenure on the board.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Lew,

The next step would be to fnd out if the books are audited by an outside independent CPA firm. My guess is that they are. I would guess they are audited by the same firm that collects the ballots for the board election, Waugh & Associates in Colorado Springs. Based on how well the CPA firm has been controlling the board election maybe you should not get your hopes up.

If audited you may be allowed to see a copy of the audited financials which usually has notes in the back to help clearify things.

Since these amounts most likely are the amounts that show up on their filings with the IRS there should be no reason to not show them to you since they are required to show you the Form 990.

Willy in Pacifca

---

.
Willy in Pacifica

Dan:

I agree that race directors should be on the board. They have a unique perspective of what it takes to run a race; the risks; the work; etc. However, I would not agree that the whole board be limited to RDs. USAT exists for the triathletes and race directors - not for race directors at the exclusion of triathletes. Triatheltes have interests which often, but not always, reflect those interests of rd's. It is in those times where triathletes' interests conflict with rds' interests that a board of all rd's would turn a deaf ear to the triathletes' needs.

No, as in everything, balance is what is required. The board should consist of duathletes, triathletes, RDs, pro racers, age groupers, bike store owners, etc. After all, that is what makes up the composition of our sport. The governing body should share a similar composition.

Alan

" would not agree that the whole board be limited to RDs."

i understand your sentiment. don't get me wrong. the federation's customer is, eventually, the end user. it is NOT the RD. however, consider the bike you ride. you are the one that trek wants to impress. but trek's customer in practice -- the one it spends almost all its time focusing on -- is your LBS. but the LBS is owned by a man who can only ride oe bike at a time. why him? because he's the one who facilitates the sale to you, times 500 or 5000 units a year.

likewise the RD. your entire competitive triathlon experience occurs at an event an RD produces for you. so do you want more fair triathlons? you get it through your RD. safer races? again, it's the RD who must produce it. you want cheaper races? more frequent races? see the RD. you want cheaper membership dues? more RDs have to sanction. and so on.

the RD is the guy who executes, fulfills, implements. when you wish for something your federation might do for you, when you're angry because the sanction emblem doesn't mean what it's supposed to mean, it's because of a lack of execution on the part of the RD. the RD is the expression of the federation when you see it.

so when you've got a bunch of very good board members who constitute a crack group of go-getters who'll make the right choices on the board, they ought to have RD experience, or else you won't see these changes executed on the ground, where you live. yes, okay, perhaps a finance guy would be nice to see on the board, perhaps an insurance specialist, but by and large what you want to see your federation do is going to occur through the RD.

hence my comment.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Slowman, SFTirguy

It seems like the majority of the funds going into USAT come from the average, middle of the packer, triathlete. This is from the $30 annual membership plus $9 day rates. These athlete/members really get little in return "directly". They do get a $25 Sports Basement cert and The United voucher but I would believe this was a comp to USAT and did not come out of the budget. This is enough to get most to join rather than pay the $9 day rate. What they get indirectly is more and hopefully safer races. This is a good buy for $30.

But it seems that they do not get an equal share of representation on the board.

Those that get direct benefits are race directors (insurance program) and elite athletes. Most of the directors are former or current RDs and the three Elite athletes.

Perhaps there could be spots on the board for the average athlete to speek up for the majority. It may be difficult for the average athlete to win a spot against an experienced RD so maybe there should be spots exclusively for non-elite athletes as there is for the Elites. How did it come about that Elites got three spots and what was the reason why?

I have not been around long so I am hoping someone can fill me in.

Willy in Pacifica

---

.
Willy in Pacifica

The IOC mandates that national and international federations of Olympic sports reserve 20% of the seats on their boards of directors for athletes who have represented their country at world championships. Twenty percent of USAT's 11-member board is 2.2, so they logically round up to three.

Would Madonna Buder fit that profile, or only Olympic-track competitors? No one is really sure, but the ITU seems to think that only Olympic-track athletes fit the description. USAT agrees and gives the AAC the right to select these three members from among its membership.

---

Lew

Dan:

Your rationale is the perfect reason why SOME of the board should be RD's. You are correct in almost everything you say. However, I would not put my faith in a group consisting solely of RDs to make a change that benefits triathletes at the expense of RDs.

For example, the perfect example is one of the most common voiced complaints triathletes have about RD's - their refusal to adopt reasonable race entry and transfer procedures. RDs know that it is unreasonable to give a full refund the week before a race; they know that it takes additional work and cost to manage transfers; they know that funds from race entry fees are often spent whether the triathlete races or not. However, I would also argue that RDs recognize the feasibility of a system that requires refunds only when the race is sold out; that pro-rates refunds based upon proximity to the race day; a system that charges a refund/transfer fee to cover costs/work; the establishment of a waiting-list with waiting triathletes signing all waivers and paying approropriate fees and which contains other elements of reasonabless. Yet, despite the clear call for these procedures from triathletes, RDs have ignored or made little concession to the triathletes' requests.

I think Terry Davis is a great guy who puts on awesome races....however, I wouldn't want a USATboard made up solely of Terry Davis clones. Why? Because as awesome as a RD he is, I feel I would grow old waiting for such a board to require refund/transfer policies from RDs. Despite a near limitles snumber of athletes wanting to do his races (thereby assuring him of full capacities in almost every race Tri-California produces) Terry has adopted the bare minimum of a waiting list - that's about it.

Graham Fraser is a bit better offering a fraction of a refund - but with Ironmans selling out a year in advance, a waiting list system or supervised race entry transfer system would not only allow triathletes who want to race a chance to get in - it would allow registered triathletes can't race an option to get more than 1/3 of their enytry fee back (and that's if they withdraw months in advance). Again, Graham puts on some of the best races in which it has been my pleasure to race. Yet, I don't see any transfer/refund changes coming out of IMNA. Likewise, while enough triathletes spoke with a unified voice so as to get the USAT to amend their automatic year suspension rules in certain instances...Graham not only ignored the wishes of triathletes for his races - he imposes lifetime bans. His interest as a RD outweighes the clear voices of triathletes. That is not necessarily wrong - but it is also not the characteristic of one I would want to be empowered with balancing teh interests of RDs and triathletes.

I have no doubt RDs feel that their actions are best - best for their races; best for their race management...maybe even best for the sport. But their opinions should not outweigh those triathletes who pay their dues; who pay (quite large) entry fees; who make up the corps of this sport.

It is true, triathletes wouldn't have races without RDs. It is equally true RDs wouldn't have races without triathletes. You need them both. Thus, you need them both as voices, as leaders, and as board members.

Alan

If Elites must be 20% then they can keep them at 3 and have a total of 15 board members. What I am thinking is to add to the number of board members to include non-elites, or USAT could replace the non-Elite 8 with non-Elite athletes. Somehow I think there needs to be a place on the board for the average athlete/member. Since most average athletes have full time jobs, families etc. it would be difficult to run for the Board against someone whos livelyhood is connected in some way to triathlons. Former and current RDs could have a financial interest in being on the board so will put more effort into getting elected.

There seems to be such a lack of communication between the Board and the majority of the members that perhaps these new non-Elite athlete board members could bridge the gap for us so we do not feel so out of touch with what is going on in OUR organization.

Willy in Pacifca

---

.
Willy in Pacifica

[snip]

i think lew can speak to this, but the age-group commission is generally what would be considered the voice of the age-grouper. they'd report to the board, who'd consider resolutions, etc.

i guess my problem with having the "average age grouper" represented on the board is that historically speaking, when somebody like that gets elected, they show up at the first board meeting, get "clued in" by the paid office staff as to what's what, and they sit around dazed and confused for 9 or 12 months before they even get their legs under them. by the time they're boned up and ready to contribute, term limits kicks in. i mean, heck, much of the board still doesn't really know how USAT's insurance works, nor do they know the rules, or anything about site selection, or sponsors, or the federation's strategic partners and vendors, or any of that stuff. the office staff knows what's going on and they just do what they think is best.

you really need people on the board who know the nuts and bolts of the sport, how it runs, what's possible, what's not, otherwise you get weak and ineffectual boards and the office staff runs everything the way they want. and in most federations that often means paying ZERO attention to age groupers, because these national federations are sitting underneath the influence of the USOC across the street.

so there's the way it oughta be and the way it is, and when you elect average age groupers, and people without any conflicts of interest, you get a board full of sea cucumbers (plus three ex pros).

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Actually, the problem isn't RD's who have interests different from the "average age grouper". In fact, most RD's ARE average age groupers themselves. For example, of the eight non-elite athlete members of the current board, seven are active age group athletes and the eighth (Fred Sommer) has a number of Kona finishes to his credit.

Instead, the problem is much closer to home. We - you and I - the annual membership - have the power to determine our own fate. It's called the vote. But 95% of those eligible never even cast a ballot. In the words of the immortal Pogo, " . . . we have met the enemy and he is us".

---

Lew

Wow Dan! I hope you didn't intend to sound as elitest as that posting reads (to me anyway). To claim that us mere age groupers are so unsophisticated or incapable of understanding the inner workings of our governing body is insulting enough. But then you go on to say that due to such inferior leadership abilities, its better to let a race director take that board position as they are less likely to be pushed around by receptionist. Either you have a very low opinion of the average age grouper or an overly-inflated opinion of race directors.

Most age groupers I know range from highly intelligent and motivated college students, to owners of small businesses, to CPA's and attorneys to multiple billion dollar revenue companies. To lump these together and dismiss them as meek and dumb and so ignorant as to follow office staff around like lemmings to the sea ignores the quality and intelligence of the age groupers that I have met in the last 20 years of this sport.

Believe it or not, but I respect race directors. But just because a person has staged a 300 triathlete race or two does not in my book make him or more better qualified than a student, businessman, or graphic designer.

Plus, by limiting board membership just to those who are comfortable with the way things are run in the USAT (without resorting to the office staff for guidence) - one merely propogates the status quo. New voices, new opinions and fresh personalities from varied backgrounds would help ensure that what is good remains while what is bad needs to be changed.

As I said - I respect race directors for the job they - that doesn't mean I believe the USAT board should be made exclusively of them.

Alan

i think you got dan all wrong. all he seems to be saying is people can't learn new things quickly. for example it is next to impossible for someone to learn to make wetsuits then start a bike company, become a major force in the bike industry, push inovation then switch around and create a great web site. no one could do that. people are too slow, man.

what you need is a bunch of people who have been in the game a long time. have them set in there ways and laugh at those posers being led around by the nose by miss doubtfire.

how you can expect someone to move into a position, learn the rules and take charge is beyond me. people just aren't quick enough.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.