BRP shows it's colors

Triathlon Forum
1

To go back to one of my earlier posts where I mentioned the air of conflict of interest between the USOC and Locke. A google search has discovered that two of BRC members, Mary McCagg and Barbara Smith,who were charged with deciding USAT, and ultimately SL’s fate, also sat with SL on an earlier BRC where the U.S. Equestrain Team petitioned against the American Horse Shows Assoc. Of course any friendships or relationships formed in that period had absolutely nothing to do with this decision.

Having read the “above all reproach” panel’s decision I find a few things curious about the decision. Since the original complaintants’ charges were that the irregular voting proceedures, (that had been used without question for years as long as the proper results were being returned), gave potential for so much fraud and vote fixing by the “Evil 3”, and since the panel found no evidence of any of these accusations, what is the justification for the overturn of the election? Because it had “potential” for fraud? Because it didn’t look good? Under this criteria I now call all past USAT elections null and void.

Another point is that the election is not to be recontested by just the original candidates, but by any Joe or Jane Blow that decides they want to throw their hat into the ring. Hmmmm! I can see SL’s petition circulating as we speak.

A very interesting thing about the decision is that it didn’t just limit itself to the election question. Nearing the end of the decision the panel felt the need to inject itself into the everyday running of USAT and in as many words decided that under it’s ruling that the next duly elected BOD should take the step of rendering itself impotent by ceeding all it’s power to the Executive Director. I just have to wonder who came up with that brainstorm and under what influence. Stupid me!!! I always thought an ED served a board of directors and they told him how to do his job. And if he wasn’t doing his job right they could inject themselves wherever they thought necessary. And if the ED didn’t like it he could resign. Opps, I forgot, that already happened.

JJ

2

So what?

You have posted at least twice now complaining about the BRC, Steve Locke and the USOC but I have not heard you deal with the real issue. I have not heard you say “I think it is fair to run an election which allows candidates to take ballots from voters and mail them in. I am comfortable with an organization that represents me and spends my money electing board members that way.” Until you say that, your other complaints sound like a six year old who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar whining because “Johnny did it too and he didn’t get in trouble.”

3

JJ,

It’s apparent you have failed to grasp the management aspect involved in running any corporation, be it profit or non-profit. The mission of the BOD is to set long range policy and deal with the strategic issues of the Federation, not run the day to day operation. That’s why we have a trained and paid professional staff for. Their statement indicated that during this last year, several members of the “old” Board had frequently placed themselves into the daily operation of the Federation which was not OUR job. The Board has duties but looking over the staff’s shoulder is not one of them, at least on a daily basis.

Again, I question your motives here. BOTH sides agreed with the selection of the members and that they would not have any relationship with Triathlon which certainly was the case. The fact that 2 members of the panel knew SL is not relevant here. In a small community that the USOC is relatively speaking, it’s not hard to figure out the SL with 13 years in that community would not work with many within it and have numerous personal contacts. SL was not a party to the lawsuit, he was not a plaintiff, I was! I better then you know all of the particulars since it was my attorneys that prosecuted the case. Which leads us to other “facts not in evidence” you submitted incorrectly to this site:

SL is NOT married and the individual you were alluring to as his “father in law” does not exist. He does have a friend, who’s father lives in retirement in Michigan. Also you claim that the USOC opened the election to all making it easier for SL, well I am one of those winning candidates that welcomes this. Afterall USAT is NOT a closed brotherhood, although looking at your business I’d say you folks might like it that way. Afraid of a little competition?? I suggest you do a liitle more thorough research before smacking SL and any other folks around. Bottomline, you and the “losers” are grasping at straws. The USOC has spoken and rightfully so and oh yes with regard to our friend, interesting I too was running for the Board at that time and I had a strong staff to handle the race in question yet I didn’t run off to campaign. No I worked the event I was contracted to. Nuff said!

Jack Weiss

4

JJ,

Jack, this is twice you claimed I said Steve was married. Work on your reading comprehension, “future” was the operative term.

While it’s true that day to day operations are not the normal job of a BOD, it becomes theirs when an ED acts in a counter direction to those “long range policies and strategic issues”. I’ve failed to grasp nothing. If BOD members were forced to perform some of these duties then obviously the failure was with the employees charged with those duties.
You’ve stated, " The Board has duties but looking over the staff’s shoulder is not one of them, at least on a daily basis. "
Actually this is the ED’s job but if he fails in that duty it becomes the BOD’s.

“Again, I question your motives here.”
My motive is simple. A group of duly elected representatives were falsely accused of improprieties in a sour grapes lawsuit when the system that the accusors had put in place and had worked to keep them in power for many years happened to fail them once because somebody learned to play the game better than them, and I’d like to bring forth the fact that what this entire issue boils down to is the ED’s position and bringing back to power a BOD that can reinstall it’s former holder.
" BOTH sides agreed with the selection of the members and that they would not have any relationship with Triathlon which certainly was the case. The fact that 2 members of the panel knew SL is not relevant here. In a small community that the USOC is relatively speaking, it’s not hard to figure out the SL with 13 years in that community would not work with many within it and have numerous personal contacts."

Did USAT know that these 2 panel members had previously served with SL on a panel? Did they offer up that information? The USOC was a poor choice to settle this dispute. That’s THE reality, be it mine or yours.
" SL was not a party to the lawsuit, he was not a plaintiff, I was! I better then you know all of the particulars since it was my attorneys that prosecuted the case."

Of course not, he wasn’t a candidate in the election and it’s to his advantage to keep himself “above the fray” to grease the way for his return. But you can’t possibly deny that the crux of this issue revolves completely around him and that the grand scheme is to return a pro Locke board that will reinstate him.

“Also you claim that the USOC opened the election to all making it easier for SL, well I am one of those winning candidates that welcomes this. Afterall USAT is NOT a closed brotherhood, although looking at your business I’d say you folks might like it that way. Afraid of a little competition?? I suggest you do a liitle more thorough research before smacking SL and any other folks around. Bottomline, you and the “losers” are grasping at straws.”

I’m not totally against the open election, I just found it curious that in a dispute between very specific parties, the remedy is to open the process up to additional parties.

“The USOC has spoken and rightfully so and oh yes with regard to our friend, interesting I too was running for the Board at that time and I had a strong staff to handle the race in question yet I didn’t run off to campaign. No I worked the event I was contracted to.”

Your company was under contract, but you personally could have gone to nationals the day before, obviously you didn’t need to, you won.

JJ

5

So what?

You have posted at least twice now complaining about the BRC, Steve Locke and the USOC but I have not heard you deal with the real issue. I have not heard you say “I think it is fair to run an election which allows candidates to take ballots from voters and mail them in. I am comfortable with an organization that represents me and spends my money electing board members that way.” Until you say that, your other complaints sound like a six year old who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar whining because “Johnny did it too and he didn’t get in trouble.”

I’ve never thought that the system handed down by SL and his previous boards of running elections was ideal. But the six year olds with their hands in the cookie jar are those that gave us that system and are now whining because it failed them in the last election. The system is bad and needs to be changed but answer me why it wasn’t changed in the last 13 years. Can I go back to my other whining now? Please, please, please?

JJ

6

This is not “a dispute between very specific parties.” The dispute involves every dues-paying member and their right to a fair election to decide who runs their organization.

7

This is not “a dispute between very specific parties.” The dispute involves every dues-paying member and their right to a fair election to decide who runs their organization.

Read the header on page 1 of the decision.

JJ

8

The caption to Brown v. Board of Education does not list the name of every black kid in the south.

9

JJ,

You’re like every other “whiner” on the losing side. The USOC made a ruling, both sides agreed to it, end of story! As for SL, he resigned after the suit was brought not before and for the record both sides agreed to the Board composition prior to its members being chosen. He only resigned after a Board which consisted of at least 3 members of Jim Girand’s election team voted to uphold the election, bit of conflict here, or is that fine with you since they’re your “boys”. SL was not the issue, the issue and the one rightfully addressed was the obvious cheating the “Evil 3” performed prior to and during the election and the fact that at least 3 of the other incumbent Board members who actively campaigned for these individuals were in effect complicit in the wrong doings. These 3 failed to reveal THEIR association with Girand or Gattis which is a Conflict of Interest and as a Board failed to heed the advise of in house Counsel on at least 2 occasions. The USOC decision was righteous all the way.

Again, it’s time to move on. The issue is closed, the new elections WILL be held and hopefully the membership has learned from this and will do the right thing. As to SL’s “marriage” you brought that up, so let me clarify, his possible “future father in law” as you originally stated lives in Michigan, is retired and has absolutely no part of the USOC. Where you got that piece of garbage is beyond me but considering who you seem to be defending here, gives me a real good idea.

Jack Weiss

10

The caption to Brown v. Board of Education does not list the name of every black kid in the south.

Nor does this one say: “Class action suit: Members of USA Triathlon VS USA Triathlon BOD.” It’s board members against current and unsuccesful board members. But since this seems to be such a sticking point with you, where was your outrage at the conclusion of the 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, etc, elections? Those were conducted the same, only enough of the “right” parties won.

JJ

11

Excuse me but I never “audited” anyone’s ballots, all 3 times I was previously elected nor did I go around with a check list to verify who voted for whom or handle the ballots. Sir, you have me confused with someone who might cheat and that is not me!

Jack Weiss

12

Brown was not a class action either.

I wasn’t outraged in 1999 because I was not a member of USAT then. I wasn’t outraged in '00, '01, '02, '03 because I didn’t know how the elections were being run. If you thought they were wrong then, you should have said something then. I would have gotten behind you and I suspect a lot of others would too. There may well be people involved in this fight who really do just dislike this year’s winners but you should realize that there are also a lot of people who really don’t care about the people involved at all and are genuinely angry that an organization they belong to is run this way.

I am still waiting to hear you say “I think it is fair to run an election which allows candidates to take ballots from voters and mail them in. I am comfortable with an organization that represents me and spends my money electing board members that way.”

14

Virginia and South Carolina both seceded and Delaware and Kansas were both border states. Regardless, if you’re saying Brown was about more than black kids in the south, I agree. My point was just that the case was an attempt to vindicate the rights of a lot of people whose names weren’t on the caption.

15

Very interesting. A lot of insightful stuff you have presented. I have a very good suspicion that you would be able to fill in a lot of the missing details on the real conspiracy behind the Kennedy assasination. Care to spill all with us?

17

Brown was not a class action either.

I wasn’t outraged in 1999 because I was not a member of USAT then. I wasn’t outraged in '00, '01, '02, '03 because I didn’t know how the elections were being run. If you thought they were wrong then, you should have said something then. I would have gotten behind you and I suspect a lot of others would too. There may well be people involved in this fight who really do just dislike this year’s winners but you should realize that there are also a lot of people who really don’t care about the people involved at all and are genuinely angry that an organization they belong to is run this way.

I am still waiting to hear you say "I think it is fair to run an election which allows candidates to take ballots from voters and mail them in. I am comfortable with an organization that represents me and spends my money electing board members that way.

You’ll never hear me say I like the election process because I don’t. However, where were all the sour grapes accusors the day after the 2002 elections when there was plenty enough time to demand a restructure of Bylaws? Don’t you find it curious that this issue came up much later when the start of the election process was upon the accusors and they realized that they stood a chance of losing the board? Where were the “Holy 4” that brought this suit upon us in 2002? They were all quite familiar with the election process then. I would have backed 100% then, just as I do now, improving the process. But to throw out the results when the accusations were shown to be false points to a problem with the deciding panel and we all know what it is. Jack made much protest because ONE of my USOC/SL connections might have been misinformation, but the rest are DEAD ON!!!
Answer me this Rich. Does it bother you at all that 2 of the panel members sat with SL on another BPC? Does it bother you at all that SL has sat on several USOC boards or committees and has other close personal connections to USOC. Do you think the USOC had any business making this decision or do you thing they should have recused themselves in favor of a truely unbiased third party?

OR, are you that far out of touch with this situation to believe that this entire issue doesn’t completely revolve around SL?

JJ

18

Excuse me but I never “audited” anyone’s ballots, all 3 times I was previously elected nor did I go around with a check list to verify who voted for whom or handle the ballots. Sir, you have me confused with someone who might cheat and that is not me!

Neither I nor anyone else I know suggested you “audited” or accused you of cheating, period. However, answer me this, did you or any member of your election team actually collect votes to send in and how many? I understand this was allowed according to the election rules so I’m not implying any wrongdoing here but I’d like you to go on the record. I’m certain you didn’t count them one way or the other so if you collected votes to send in a ballpark estimate that you might get from grabbing a stack of paper and saying there’s 50 here or 100 or whatever will do. You’ve certainly handled enough entry forms in your day to be able to ballpark it.

JJ

19

You know this is dumb…the BOD is seemingly power hungry people who want a soap box to stand on. Other than insurance I am not sure at all what USAT provides me with…any ideas? I dont get why when it is so obvious that this election was shit that there is anyone bitching about a “do - over”. I am so sick of it all. What is it someone gets from being elected into a position at USAT? Why do they want to do it? I dont get it.

20

You know this is dumb…the BOD is seemingly power hungry people who want a soap box to stand on. Other than insurance I am not sure at all what USAT provides me with…any ideas? I dont get why when it is so obvious that this election was shit that there is anyone bitching about a “do - over”. I am so sick of it all. What is it someone gets from being elected into a position at USAT? Why do they want to do it? I dont get it.

In the first place the only real dollars here are attached to the Executive Directors Position. The BODs are volunteers and most, including sitting board member JW that I’ve had the most discussion with here, are doing it because they have very specific opinions on how the sport of triathlon should be run. These opinions vary widely but without USAT many of the races you might frequent simply couldn’t exist. USAT does a lot more than provide insurance not the least of which is to sanction and provide support for Olympic athletes. Triathlon is no longer a fringe sport like it was in the early 80’s, it involves hundreds of thousands of people and many millions of dollars. Someone has to provide direction for the sport.

JJ

21

“USAT does a lot more than provide insurance not the least of which is to sanction and provide support for Olympic athletes.”

Great, doesn’t even mean a thing to me, your standard age grouper. Olympics get us draft legal racing. What’s the point? Yes, there is a lot more money in the sport now, for the elites and pros to go to the Olympics. It doesn’t impact over 99% of the rest of the people in triathlon. I had to laugh about the thread where the pros and the age groupers Worlds were split up (Japan and somewhere else). It leaves Japan holding the bag for promoting the pro race with no money from age groupers to cover the costs. How will this impact future World events, I wonder. Tax age groupers for support in advance? Oh yeah, just raise USAT fees. How hard can it be when there are three elites already on the board?

The worst thing to happen to triathlon ever, in my opinion, is when it became an Olympic event. Thank heaven that soaring is such a small (and also expensive) sport that it will unlikely ever become an Olympic event.

22

JJ,

I never collected any votes. They were placed in a box and taken directly to a post office by someone other then me and I did not nor do I have an election team. I campaigned and asked folks to vote. Ballots collected at the site were delivered to the PO by folks who were going that way. So I never saw how folks voted or if they even filled out the ballot correctly. Was NOT our business to monitor the election, the voting or the subsequent results. My purpose was to get folks to vote. So again, I say I did not participate in what you are suggesting.

Jack Weiss