SLB, I haven’t filled in and sent my ballot yet. . .What’s your position on the fundemental issues confronting the board in the near term? I understand you are for the members, but that doesn’t tell me enough. All these folks claim to be “for the members,” but their positions are radically different.
My position:
don’t spend money for personal law suits
don’t allow candidates to pass out ballots (although I support Dan and Lew’s proposed changes to the by laws, except for that item). Also, define acceptance of by proposed law changes better.
Regularly involve members in the decision process, using surveys and inviting representatives from clubs/teams to participate in discussions on topics that the the board takes up
Transparency - everything I do will be clear and apparent to the membership, no hidden agendas
Work towards having one voice from the board of directors and the management of USAT
Support programs and initiatives for age groupers
Closely watch financing and keep the membership informed - in plain english
Look into the supplemental insurance and it’s ease of use and benefits for the members
propose no changes without providing members with background information and the purpose/goals of the change
Make the goals of USAT clear to all members
Make the goals of USAT measurable
JJ,
This morning, my personal e-mailbox is filled with returns to an “election message” authored by you. Most of these are automatic “out of office” messages, but a few are of the “remove me from your list” variety. The question I have is this: I didn’t have one damn thing to do with your message, so why are these responses ending up in my box?
The return on your message seems to show “elections@pem-usa.com”, and www.pem-usa.com is the website for Premier Events Management. That’s the business owned by you and Bill Burke, right? This irks me, darn near as much as it apparently irks the people to whom you are sending it. I’d appreciate it if you would fix the problem and advise me personally of your action.
I found your e-mail to be dishonest–pretty close to spam. In my inbox, at least, the e-mail comes from “USAT Election Info” instead of whatever your real name is. In addition, the misleading sender info, plus the message caption “USAT Election Campaign Message” gives the impression that this e-mail is some kind of official message, instead of a political diatribe. When I got to the unsubstantiated attacks, I realized my mistake.
I also am annoyed with the flood of e-mail messages that were in my inbox this morning that responded to your message. You should figure out how to stop antagonizing the people you are supposedly trying to influence.
I don’t know you or your real agenda, but you did any of the candidates you support a real disservice.
you would think people would know how to bcc or blind carbon copy messages by now.
Jeff,
Not only is dishonest but it has a distinct half truth in there regarding my involvement in creating the present nominating/election procedures. This is true, Ray Plotecia and I wrote those 2 years ago, what is not true is that we sued to have them overturned. We sued because it was our belief and that of 2 inhouse Attorneys, David Backer and Jonathan Grinder that Val Gattis, Jim Girand and Diane Travis in fact violated those protocols. The procedures are fine, the way they were circumvented were not! So I stand by my campaign statement that I co-authored them but I sued because they were in fact violated, not that I changed my opinion of them. JJ once again has attempted to distort the truth.
Jack
SLBcoach:
You are such a breath of fresh air! How hard can it be for candidates to set forth some simple principles for which they stand? Most of these candidates are simply trying to pull the wool over our eyes so they can fatten their wallets.
Kudos, sir, and I hope you win.
-Robert
Actually, I’m an old athlete - I turned 60 in March. I’ve been in the financial business at chief security officer and chief information officer for a wall street firm. The tactics here are not as severe as some of the things I’ve experienced.
I just want to represent members views. And I want USAT to be a representative organization.
Thanks for the kind words and good wishes.
slb coach
thank you for running and posting your thoughts on this forum. i live in the east region and i don’t know any of the candidates. i decided i would use the resources i had available to do my best to learn more about the ideas and beliefs of each candidate, which for the most part meant the internet.
your thoughts on many issues were well represented and appreciated. i wanted you to know your efforts here have not gone unnoticed. i just sent my ballot in and i voted for you. we have never met, but if you hold up to your statements i am confident you will do a fantastic job (besides i can appreciate the wall street background). i wish you the best of luck and thank you for your efforts on our behalf.
jay ladieu, massachusetts
“The procedures are fine, the way they were circumvented were not! So I stand by my campaign statement that I co-authored them but I sued because they were in fact violated, not that I changed my opinion of them.”
Jack,
Are you saying that you stand by the Election Procedures? The way the procedures were written is what allowed any candidate to circumvent controls. The CPA firm should have placed more controls due to how poorly written the election proceedures were written. But if the Board decides the election proceedures were to be followed as written there is nothing the CPA firm can do except either resign from the engagement or go along with the Boards wishes. This is why the CPA firm should be replaced as they were lazy or just plain stupid for not putting in more controls.
With your proceedures allowing candidates to hand out, collect, and mail in members completed ballots it opened the door for the proceedures to be circumvented. Are you realy taking creidt for this somewhere in your election campaign?
It is too bad we do not know how many ballots were gathered by the candidates under these poorly written rules. If we could have thrown all of these ballots out perhaps those that won may still have won without them.
.
There is value in generating more interest in an election and having a greater percentage of members vote. BUT, I’ve never heard of an election where candidates are permitted to distribute ballots! Forget about not collecting them. There are other ways to increase voter participation.
I believe the procedures are flawed and need changing. Dan and Lew have suggested some changes, but I think we need to go a bit further than their proposal.
We need to seperate candidates from the voting process - entirely!
“believe the procedures are flawed and need changing. Dan and Lew have suggested some changes, but I think we need to go a bit further than their proposal… We need to seperate candidates from the voting process - entirely!”
below is an excerpt of the petition, under the sub-heading “handling of ballots,” lew and i co-authored. perhaps you can describe the things we missed:
- Once a voter has begun to complete a ballot, no one but the voter shall view or handle the ballot until it is mailed to the election administrator.
- Return of Ballots. Each completed ballot shall be mailed by the individual voter to the election administrator.
- Counting of Ballots. Ballots shall be counted by the election administrator and the results posted to the federation website as directed elsewhere in these Bylaws.
- Verification of Ballots. The election administrator shall randomly verify enough of the ballots received in each election to convince the administrator that the election was free from unfair influence and manipulation.
- Secrecy of Ballots. Ballots cast in federation elections shall treated as secret ballots. Totals shall be released as provided elsewhere in these Bylaws, but the actions of each individual voter shall be not be disclosed without the express written consent of the individual voter.
I’ve emailed back and forth with Dan and we clearly disagree on most of what has happened regarding USA Triathlon. I then check out this message board I’m shocked at some of what I see. I’ve written an editorial on Steve Locke, and it appears here:
http://www.duathlon.com/articles/3497
I quoted Steve Locke’s email to Willy, and I was glad that Willy caught the inconsistencies in Steve Locke’s actions. And then I see Jack’s post that Steve’s intent was to resign from the Board and then be quickly reappointed as Executive Director. As a Board Member from 2000-2003 those type of games were played much too often and the Board grew tired of it, and I hope the voters can see through those actions and vote appropriately.
USAT is a solid organization and it will continue to be. I served with Val Gattis, Jim Girand, and Diane Travis. They were all excellent Board members. I understand that some people did not like the voting procedures, but I do not question the integrity of any of them. I hope the statement (the first one in this post) attributed to Jack and Steve was not really made by them, because it is incredibly irresponsible:
“3 incumbent Board members cheated in the last election.”
There is no evidence of any cheating. I endorse Val Gattis, Jim Girand, and Bill Burke. USA Triathlon will be in very good hands with them. I am also voting “No” against petition (sorry Dan) - it’s bad for the members of USA Triathlon.
Eric
You did not quote the section that permits candidates to copy and distribute ballots. I do not believe candidates should handle ballots (other than their own) at any time.
I have no concern with the sections you quoted.
Ok. That make sense, but what does Val Gattis stand for other than the mini-blurb on the ballot that is utterly useless? Certainly we are entitled to rely on more than your assertion that she is a person of good character. Why doesn’t she participate here if she wants to be elected? These are only words, not swords. If I were her I would be fighting tooth and nail. Dan isn’t going to kick any candidate off this site, so what is she afraid of?
-Robert
Robert,
First of all, if I was a candidate, I’d run as far away as I could from any message board. It’s a mental energy drain, and then people say things about you that aren’t true (for example, the ludicrous claim that Bill Burke stole the AARP contract from USAT), which I’ve seen often. You end up fighting a fight that can’t be won.
Off hand I couldn’t tell you what any Board member stood for. I could tell you if I thought they were a good member, and if they ethical, and whether or not I agreed with their opinions (which is a separate issue from the first two items).
As President, Val demanded a lot of the Board and she demanded a lot of the Executive Director, and USAT took major steps forward. She involved the rest of the Board and/or Executive Committee in important decisions, and she allowed information to flow freely (this had never happened with previous presidents). A lot the work was improving the infrastructure, which was badly needed based USAT’s quick growth. These were things that the members never saw, but they needed to be done to keep things from falling a part. Val was supportive of just about everybody as long as they could justify their actions. Hopefully that answer is not more vague than the platform statements:)
Eric
Eric:
Yes, those were generalities, but I know where you’re coming from. I like McCain for the same reasons, but disagree with some of his views.
But, the heart of the matter is why is Val better than Locke? I’m just an uninformed, soon to be re-manipulated age-grouper, but I’d like to have my eyes partially cracked in the open position.
This whole brouhaha seems to be about entrenched interests. With the exception of SLBCoach, we have little new talent. I’m leaning strongly towards voting for only one candidate and the Petition (though I think the procedures will need to be changed). That one candidate is a PEOPLE’S candidate, not a race director, or race director’s candidate. (I realize we have had non-race directors on the board and some feel they have been worse than the race directors in terms of promoting their interests.)
I’d like to see a woman on the board, simply because they make up a large contingent of our racing population and should be represented. But, if Val isn’t going to get down and dirty with the boys I couldn’t vote for her. I live and die on dialectic tension. 
You notice what Dan has done here? (and you!) He is not shy about giving us his views. We may not agree with them, but we get them. I don’t think Val should rely upon being some sort of “stealth candidate”.
Thanks for your reply and keep up the good work on your web site.
-Robert
It would be nice if there were a dozen or so general questions that were submitted to each candidate and have their responses posted on the USAT web site or perhap this web site.
If they choose not to respond it would be noted but this way they could get their platform out without having to have direct dialoge if they did not want to. But at least we would know where they stood on some hard issues rather than the 300 words they were limited to on the USAT web site.
.
“First of all, if I was a candidate, I’d run as far away as I could from any message board.”
there are two sorts of people with political views, with elections at stake, on this message board. one kind are the candidates (such as myself, and jack weiss, lew kidder, SLB, and the like). the other kind are the shills for the candidates. truthintri, for example, is just shilling for the same candidate for which alan geraldi did last year (and the rhetoric of both sounds curiously alike, doesn’t it?). better to shill for yourself, methinks, since it isn’t truthintri or JJ that’s running for an election, it’s the candidates for which they shill.
in your case, for example, you and i agree on almost nothing. but you have the good sense (and sense of honor) to post your own posts and sign with your own name attached. plus, as you are one of the better journalists in this sport, and you run a first class site, you are eloquent enough to represent your own views, and you’re not going to get attacked. even if you are, you can defend yourself. seems to me we should expect that of our elected representatives.
in fact, there is a lot you and i hold in common. were we on the board together, i would suspect we could work together, and find a lot of common ground. the problem is, the things that separate us are right at the root of the tree. before we can even start a discussion, we have to agree on what the rules are. before we can talk about how val gattis is a better manager, or a nicer person, or a more effective leader of people, or has better financial skills, we have to talk about how val gattis the person gets to be val gattis the board member.
i remember the quote from george c. scott in patton, where he says, “hell, i know i’m a prima donna. i admit it. the problem with monty is, he won’t admit it!” i have no problem stipulating as to the issues with steve locke. i’m quite certain i’ve had more run-ins, over more issues, in more categories, with him over the years than any single person alive. my problem is that you won’t stipulate to your person’s very problematic recent past. no, she wasn’t proved to have committed any illegal acts. but yes, she was accused by the USOC as having behaved contrary to the way any elected official should, that is, she didn’t meet the minimum requirements for how a candidate ought to conduct oneself during an election campaign, hence her election was ruled invalid.
i would like to have had your choice, val gattis, just say, and say a long time ago, “hey, we broke no laws. we operated inside the rules – okay, we also made the rules, but just the same, we made the rules fair and square, and we operated within them. further, many or most of those who are complaining are doing so only to gain a competitive advantage and, in truth, they’re guilty of far worse than anything we’ve ever been accused of doing. that notwithstanding, when you simply look at the facts of how we’ve been elected–the tactics used–we can see how the electorate might have cause to complain. so, on behalf of the electorate, and the electorate only, we will run this election again, under a set of rules that a separate election attestor will devise.”
had that been done, i’d not be running, and i’d very possibly have voted for some of the same candidates that you’re now hoping win the election. however, nobody took that step, and as such i’m now finding impossible to trust anyone who can’t just voluntarily run an election the way the rest of the governments and corporations in the western world run their elections.
even at this late date there is a very powerful tactic that will take the sails right out from under my own candidacy, and that of steve locke. have jim girand and val gattis both offer up a mea culpa. it saved clinton’s presidency, he’s the most popular political figure in america (also the most hated, but still the most popular) and he’s going to probably make $20 million selling a book this year. people don’t much mind it when you make a mistake, say you’re sorry (even if you don’t say you’re sorry as soon as you should), and ask for a second chance to continue the good work you’ve started. but when a person keeps saying, “i did nothing wrong,” down to the bitter end, you end up with a legacy more like nixon than clinton, and you get the legacy you deserve.
Soliciting votes is not the same as invading Iraq. In the scheme of mistakes I’ve seen people at the top make, I’d say it is small potatos.
I’m willing to forgive Val for being aggressive in her solicitation of my vote.
But, I’m not willing to vote for somehow who won’t come out of her bunker and fight for herself. If she won’t fight for herself, she won’t fight for me.
-Robert