We’re voting starting tomorrow. It’s in the resolutions you’ll find the meat of this election. Here you go, one by one, my take on them:
**YES **(strongly). I initially misread this one, causing me to on balance consider a NO vote the safest. But I’ve been corrected by a Slowtwitch reader, and I don’t see any problem with it.
YES (barely). This is another innocuous change, and I’m inclined to vote YES. One thing, tho, our Board just does not get that we’re set up, according to our bylaws, like the house of representatives, not like the senate. We don’t give Rhode Island the same power we give California, Texas and Florida. But, we’ve switched from 3 regions to 8 precisely so that Texas, Florida and California won’t control the federation. But these 8 voting districts are supposed to be roughly equal in membership. When you keep trying align them with the regional federations, you keep mixing apples and oranges. Our Board has never understood this and still doesn’t. I’m probably going to vote YES, but I’d like someone on the Board to acknowledge that they understand the redistricting triggers embedded in the bylaws, and that messing with the voting districts gets you closer to those triggers.
NO (strongly). What the Board is asking you to do is to let them give you their rosey and misleading description of a resolution, then you vote on it, and then after it passes they write the bylaw as they really wanted all along, but were afraid to tell you. I… don’t… think… so…
NO (strongly). The right of members petitioning their federation, and placing on the ballot a question for the entire membership to vote on, has been used exactly once in 20 years, though it’s been in the bylaws the entire time. You can rely on your Board, during each election, to attempt to erode member power and consolidate that power in the Board. They’re trying it again, by raising the hurdle to member resolutions 1000%. What now takes 100 signatures will now take 1000 signatures. The Board is deathly afraid of the member petition, this is what this resolution is all about, and that’s why the description of this resolution fails to mention the real reason behind the resolution.
YES (strongly). Again, the Board is being disingenuous in its description. It says we just need to do a little housecleaning, and get surplusage verbiage out of the bylaws. What it’s really doing is getting rid of a bylaw it has never honored. The Board is right to do so. It ought not to be required to make every employee’s salary public. It would just be nice of the Board would be honest about what this bylaw is all about, instead of trying to sneak it through. This is more evidence why #3 is such a bad, bad resolution.
YES (barely). Personally, I like our situs in California, because it keeps us out of the sphere of the USOC. But, as a matter of law, we’re largely under Colorado’s jurisdiction, because we’ve already had lawsuits going on there in recent years. So, why not make it official. Just the same, I’d probably be happy if this item failed.
thanks for this. some of this echos my reaction at reading the proposals. had a question on a couple, eyes bugged out at the one ceding power, + making initiatives harder.
peggy
being from canada, I have no idea what the questions on the ballet are, but would love to gain some insight as to what is going on south of the border. would anyone care to re-post the questions as well?
Thanks for the insightful interpretations Dan! I’m no politician and have no time to do my own research on the subject, so I’ll open 2 internet windows and refer back to your comments to sway my votes in the “Slowtwitch” direction : ).
You can rely on your Board, during each election, to attempt to erode member power and consolidate that power in the Board.
I find this statement rather curious; I don’t know enough to disagree, it is just curious. I assume none of these people are getting rich being on the board, so what ulterior motives do board members have that makes them want to do what they want, not what the membership wants?
For instance, if I wanted to put a vote on the ballot that said “We don’t want to give out X number of dollars to fund an elite program”, then why does the board care? Are they not there to execute the will of the members? Why is this a constant problem and what are the board members gaining?
this is an answer to yours and several others’ questions:
why would the board want power? you’re right, these people don’t get any money for serving on the board, and they ought to be commended and thanked for their service. the very fact that they’re on the board for volunteer service means this is important to them. they want to make a difference, they want to effect change, they want to help. they think you don’t care, that you don’t know, that you don’t want to know. they’re right. accordingly, they don’t want you to have the power to end-run them, and effect change from your own vested, unwise points of view. they think this is dangerous. also, the USOC thinks this is dangerous, and occasionally reminds USAT to get rid of this right of the rabble, which exists nowhere among the USOC-affiliated federations except this one.
*what is going on south of the (canadian) border: * lots of good things. the US has the strongest triathlon federation in the world, and the most stable, and the richest. a case could be made that its stronger than the ITU. it enjoys generally good governance, but it’s open governance, we as members know precisely what is going on with our federation, and that’s a good thing. but, our federation has to be very careful not to let the USOC get its claws deep into the federation’s business, and that’s the most imminent threat. the USOC has only one agenda, and that is medals. elite medals. USAT has much, much bigger fish to fry, that benefits the USOC in the end, but the USOC is too short-sighted to see it. so we have to keep watch on our federation, and make sure our efforts are properly apportioned between elites and mass-participation. one only has to look at the ITU, and the fact that this organization voted, by act of its own congress, to cecede as the world governing body for 90% of triathlon, how lopsided in focus a governing body can get.
USAT voting via the internet only? yes. personally, i have no problem with this. i believe skip gilbert, our federation’s executive director, may get on this forum board today and explain the safeguards.
The emergence of xterra, with its own superstars, huge supplements in the magazines and a sort of organized triathlon counter culture, may be the reason for this. What, say you, that they
may want to establish their own organization away from USOC?
It seems that every year brings one of two thing, the eroding of the members’ ability to affect the governance or the consolidating of power in the boardroom. Power is as an inticing an aphrodisiac as money.
Thank you for taking the time to outline the ballot issues. It is helpful to have a perspective on what we are considering & will make me a more informed voter.
