The Petition (on the ballot you received)

Triathlon Forum
1

Last week I wrote what amounted to my campaign platform, and it can be found on slowtwitch:

http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/opinion/flames.html

there is another element to this election, a vote on the petition submitted by lew kidder and i, along with another 160 or so annual members. i just published my thoughts:

http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/opinion/petition.html

make your decisions on whom you want to represent you on the board. i would hope, however, that you consider the question of the petition just as seriously, because it is of MUCH greater long-term import than whomever you vote for on the BOD ballot. in my view, we’re now at a crossroads, where our federation goes down that road of so many others or whether we do something new and novel.

usually, sports federations become insular, unresponsive and eventually irrelevant. there is a national federation for baseball, basketball, track & field, and every olympic sport. how much do these federations really help you or your children in their abilities to participate in any of these activities?

alternatively, when the federation does have a big impact on a sport, and rules a sport, and likewise insulates itself from any governance by its members, it drags the whole sport down. modern pentathlon. bike racing.

triathlon is like no other sport, however. it is the only non-major sport to be able to say, “we can be in the olympics or out, doesn’t matter much to us.” that’s because like certain other activites (surfing comes to mind) the activity is so intrinsically rich in benefit the need to be under the olympic banner is not acute.

therefore, what i hope is that USAT remains, or becomes, that entity it ought to be: essentially an industry organization that makes it easier to put on cheap, safe, fair, and more triathlons. one way to keep this federation directed toward its mission is to keep its owners engaged, informed and involved. hence the petition.

i hope you’ll vote, i hope you’ll vote YES, and i hope you’ll stick it in the mailbox. my chief rival for the western regional board seat built his (rather successful) campaign strategy around the premise that you were unwilling to take the time to check the box and drop it in the mail slot. i hope you’ll prove him wrong.

2

Slowman:

I went back and read the postings from Willy. This petition is a killer to the right to amend our very own USAT by-laws. These by-laws belong to us, how can you justify killing the right to change them by requiring a 2500 signature ballot? I can not vote for it with that language in - I like the right that we, as USAT members, have the right to dictate our own future. Your petition silences that our voices. It is disturbing that you are running for the board but yet want to silence us.

VOTE NO ON THE PETITION!!!

Roy

3

am I missing something, because I just spent the last 10 minutes reading the petition and it seems to me like voting NO TAKES AWAY our ability to bring about standard and special initiatives. Voting YES is voting yes to the entire position, correct? I read the digital version on slowtwitch, didn’t check my mail yet. Is the petition standard and special initiative overwriting something even better that we previously had?

2,500 people is a lot of people, but it seems like around the right number to bring about a special initiative…

4

Tai you’re not missing anything. Reading through what truthintri has said in other post, etc. he has a rather twisted view. The petition will ensure WE have the ability to change it. If he has his way (depending on the board make up) WE, as slowman says, will probably lose that right. Voting yes is the right choice.

5

It’s pretty obvious what truthintri’s agenda is. That’s why I keep bumping the post about all the crap flying around. I’m glad you recognized this in your other post today. I just hope it doesn’t lead to banning legitimate posters.

6

I think trutintri is actually Slowman. His arguments are so vacuous and his manner so obnoxious that they must be put forward to get everyone to do the opposite of what he says.

Just kidding Dan! Well kidding about you, not about truthintri.

7

You’ve read it correctly. The opportunity for standard initiative, 100 sigs, with a vote of the full membership during the annual voting for the BOD stands. Special initiative resulting in a more immediate vote of the membership requires 2500 sigs.

Interesting that Yount sees the petition restricting the power of the board to act as a con.

8

Truth (though we may have to seek a more appropriate name): It seems obvious now that you are (a) either unable to read the English language or (b) you are a ringer. I’m leaning towards the latter . . . but here’s the real “truth”:

Under the existing bylaws, members have a right under Article VI, Section 7 to " . . . initiate a written ballot vote of the membership on any matter upon which the membership is entitled to vote by presentation to the Executive Director of a petition, signed by no fewer than one-hundred (100) members, requesting such ballot and designating the specific matter or matters upon which the vote is requested. Such written ballot shall be mailed to the membership NO LESS than 30 days after presentation of such petition to the Executive Director" .

In the proposed amendments contained in the petition now before the membership, there are TWO types of initiative petitions:

Article XXI, Section 4a. Standard Initiative. This preserves the right to submit a initiative petition signed by at least 100 annual members, and says it will appear on the next annual ballot.

Article XXI, Section 4b. Special Initiative. This provides that if the people involved with the petition want a more immediate vote on a matter, they must get the signatures of 2,500 annual members.

Why the proposed change? Because if we leave the bylaws as they are now, it will be - as Dan and I have discovered - a mess. Theoretically, we could have dozens of petitions submitted each year (I can certainly see one coming from the SF Bay area to mandate some sort of refund/transfer policy), and each would force its own special election. And since each special election could not be done for less than $1/member/election, this could easily put an enormous strain on federation resources.

Beyond that, read Article VI, Section 7 again - it is FULL of interpretive problems. Note that the language says “shall be mailed NO LESS THAN 30 DAYS” after presentation to the ED. Is that a typo (my best guess and therefore subject to reform by a court on a theory of clerical error), or is that what the drafters really meant? And if the latter, when IS the ED required to mail a ballot? Theoretically, he could never get around to it . . . just like he would have done with this one, had not Dan and I brought intense legal pressure to the question.

In the proposed amendments, we preserved the right of the “little guy/girl” to petition his/her government on the cheap. And we did this in part by not having overuse of the process threaten to break the federation bank. Then we went on to give a way to get an IMMEDIATE VOTE on a matter of extreme emergency to the federation as whole (the Special Initiative) - but to get that immediate vote, you would need to demonstrate that there was a serious movement, with serious numbers, behind the initiative.

Truth, it’s time to put our credibility on the table. I’m Lew Kidder, I live at 1768 Kestrel Way in Ann Arbor, Michigan. My phone is 734-662-1000 and you can read my bio on the ballot or the USAT website. Now tell us who you are, where you live, what you do for a living, how you are involved in the sport, and how you may or may not be connected with one or more of the candidates in the current election.

9

I read over the petition and the arguments for and against, and while I believe its no perfect solution, I also realize its probably a first step to a solution to the morass that’s developed in recent years with USAT.

As long as we’re dropping historical references, Winston Churchill once said something to the effect of “Democracy is the worst form of government… except for all the other forms of government.” I think what he meant is that if we try to look for perfect solutions to our problems we’re destined to failure and disappointment.

The challenge of democracy is that you get what you ask for: rule of the many. That doesn’t mean majority rules, and that sure doesn’t mean the rights of the few are protected. It does mean an itinerant loudmouth with an agenda can convince enough people that he/she is right and make things really bad for everyone else. So there’s the risk that we’ll go from a dictatorship to something like an oligarthy.

I think that between the lines of Slowman’s arguments, he’s asking all members to start caring about what happens with USAT and with our sport in general. Eventually, responsible, skilled, experienced leaders are going to have to emerge who can make very hard decisions, fight off narrow-minded interests, and foster the rapid expansion of triathlon in America. It’s the kind of leadership that is indeed going to take more than a one-year term, so eventually it’s “we” who are going to have to voluntarily cede our political power. “We” who are going to have to recognize when the time is right to do it.

History teaches us that you can’t just break down a political system - even a very bad one - and expect smooth sailing as you fill the vacuum. I appreciate the leadership of Dan and Lew in this effort to right the wrongs in the sport I love. I am voting YES on the petition. But I think this petition is merely a means to an end. And I think the next step is for people like me (and all of you, if you don’t already) to begin taking a genuine interest in what this federation does now and what direction it heads to in the future.

10

let me make this easy. what we have right NOW is as follows:

  • you get 100 signatures and you trigger an immediate election, and it’s 50%+1 to pass.
  • you get 2500 signatures and you trigger a special meeting.
  • right now, the board can take away this right from you by a simple vote of its eleven members.

what we WILL have, should the petition pass, is as follows:

  • you get 100 signatures and you trigger an election on the next annual ballot, and it’s 60% to pass (for bylaw changes).
  • you get 2500 signatures and you trigger an immediate election.
  • nobody, no board, nobody period, can ever take this right away from you.

why did we change the way this works, and why did tim yount see this as a threat to the board’s power? second question first.

yount sees this as a threat because this is the first EVER petition. we’ve opened pandora’s box. he sees ANY petition as a threat, even though our petition calls for a bylaw change that limits the right of petition. in other words, if yount considers the NEW more restrictive wording that lew and i propose a threat, imagine how threatened he feels about the EXISTING right of petition! likewise, the board squirmed and obfuscated and delayed and whined for four months, and only after we threatened everybody with a lawsuit we would certainly have won did USAT agree to allow this petition to be voted on at all (furthermore, the board STILL wouldn’t send it out, it was the USOC that finally agreed to allow it to be sent out for a vote).

so what do you think is going to happen to ANY right of petition if this one gets voted down? how many nanoseconds do you think it’s going to take a new board to get entirely rid of the right of petition unless this petition succeeds, and in so doing limits the right of the board to get rid of the right of petition? in other words, we struck before the board could, and in so doing we gave you the ability to always have this right of petition. if you vote YES, that is.

now, why did we limit this right. because yount has a point. we have two potential problems. first, now that people see how easy it is to trigger a petition, we could have one every month. let’s say i’m exaggerating. let’s say every two months (one on race transfers, one on the size of the field, and so forth). this election we’re in right now costs $60k. so, one every 2 months, you do the math. so, we’re saying, hey, let’s keep the bar set low, but let’s make it so that the issue of (say) race transfers and the other stuff can only appear on one annual ballot.

second, what if somebody puts forward a petition that might bankrupt the federation? ought there to be some safeguard against this? (this is yount’s concern). we thought about some sort of heavy supermajority of the board, like 80%, that could vote down the petition. we offered to meet with the board and talk about this. twice. they turned us down. so lew and i were left to our own devices. why not make it a 60% requirement to pass, we thought, to make sure only good bylaw changes make it through? so, there you go.

we did away with the “special meeting” because where do you have it? let’s say that 2500 signatures arise from a petition passed around wildflower’s 9000 athletes. should the meeting be in california? is that fair to have only californians voting on nationwide issues? ought we to have it in colorado springs, where only pro athletes and a few wealthy people can attend?

finally, back to the 60% majority for bylaw changes. it ought to be hard to change bylaws, just as it ought to be hard to amend the constitution. therefore, we said that the board couldn’t do it by itself. only the membership can do it. the board could vote to put a bylaw change on the ballot, but only the members could change a bylaw. if it’s a bylaw that REALLY needs to be changed, then the board, and executive director, everybody will be for it. your ballot will contain commentary from all these people, and they’ll all say, “we really need to change this bylaw and we all agree.” it ought, in that case, to pass easily.

however, if it’s something that is really problematic, if the membership is split, then let’s not have a bylaw change back and forth. let’s have a bylaw change only when there is a clear, but still attainable, majority. what is with the U.S. constitution? 3/4 of the states must vote to amend? that’s a high bar, and for good reason.

bottom line, this petition allows for growth. it allows members to whittle it and carve it and mold it through a variety of processes. however, you’ve just seen how a very few board members can attempt to steal your federation from you by subverting election laws in their favor. why trust them, or for that matter those of us who might replace them? why not keep a safeguard in your pocket, so that you the members can actually keep the foot pedals close, and the steering wheel in your own hands, so that you can run the federation you own?

11

Larry:

Please tell me - why is my view twisted? Because I happen to disagree with your hero of Slowman or his buddies Locke/Weiss? Because I offer a voice in contrast to the echoes parroted by 99% of the Slowman/Locke/Weiss dream team?

The facts are: as of now, USAT members can have an active voice in their by-laws. They can ask all other USAT members to vote to amend them with by getting 100 votes. That is how this glorious petition over which the Slowman-lemmings drool was even passed.

The petition now tries to raise that number to 2500 before the by-laws can be changed (or forces USAT members to still get 100 signatures and even then wait a year). Larry - I hereby dare you to get 2500 USAT signatures on anything. Come on - I dare you. Step up and prove my reasoning is twisted. You will not be able to do it - period. 2500 signatures is the same as no voice whatsoever. The great walks-on-water Slowman just barely only got slightly over the minimum 100 for this petition.

Roy

12

“yount sees this as a threat because this is the first EVER petition. we’ve opened pandora’s box.”

Why do we want to open a pandora’s box? The membership having the ability to voice opinions is one thing, but you seem to want to take it even farther. It seems that you hope USAT becomes overwhelmed by member petitions. Couldn’t that end up being counterproductive? I guess I just don’t understand all the hostility that seems to be directed towards the governing body. I do however understand hostility that is directed toward the board situation.

signing off but hope to check for a reply later.

13

“It seems that you hope USAT becomes overwhelmed by member petitions.”

go back and reread. we don’t know how many petitions will be put forward. but, for every one that is, cha-ching, it costs the federation $60k in special membership costs. therefore (lew and i thought) let us include in our bylaw rewrite a restatement of these rights of direct petition. let us say that such a petition, should it occur, is placed on the annual ballot with the board of director elections.

so, instead of hoping “USAT becomes overwhelmed by member petitions” we were setting up a safeguard in case such a thing occurs. there will always be one and only one annual ballot, but for the exceptional case that 2500 signatures warrants.

14

Hey Jackass,

How far is your head up your ass? Under the proposal the number of signatures required for a petition is still set at 100. The difference is that the actual voting would occur once annually rather than in a 30 day timeframe that USAT currently doesn’t honor. After all, how old is the current petition?

What is your problem with this? Why do you continue to assert that the current petition advocates changing the number to 2500? What is your god damned agenda? Have you considered just fucking off?

15

Needing 2,500 signatures is a real killer. The San Francisco Tri Club got about 1,000 e-signatures on the issue of Race Transfers.

My feeling is that it should have been set at a more reasonable 500ish as this would still be very difficult to achieve and take quite an effort on the part of the petitioners.

My other problem is having this petition all or nothing. It could have been set up with each issue being up for vote but I believe Dan and Lew wanted it this way to get the 2,500 vote passed. They mentioned that 2,500 is only 5% of the membership but that is also about 100% of the voting membership. I understand that you only need 100 votes to get an issue on the ballot but some of these issues are hot topics that will lose support if the vote is up to a year away.

Dan,

Is there some way that “E-signatures” of some sort will be allowed in the 2,500 to get an immediate vote? i see this as the only way anyone could ever gather 2,500 votes.

Thanks, Willy in Pacifica

16

Willy,

You keep returning to this topic, but I really don’t understand where you are going from a practical point of view. Take this test:

First of all, name an issue so pressing the triathlon world will come to an end if a decision had to wait until the next annual election? Not very many, are there?

Second, reread your own post. The rationale you cite for wanting an immediate vote on a petition is that it might otherwise " . . . lose support if the vote is up to a year away". Willy, do we really want to amend our constitution if support for the amendment is that ephemeral?

Third, look at the alternative. You continually disparage the current petition because it is “an all or nothing” affair. But your remedy for it is worse, for not only would it also be “all or nothing” (leaving us with our current set of bylaws), but it would leave us with an even bigger problem in the area of specific concern. Remember, the current initiative provisions are so friggin’ screwed up that a vote on the pending petition was delayed for four months as it is and is only being sent to the membership because Dan and I were willing to force the issue in court.

Fourth, admit that the petition would at least preserve the members right of initiative. But if the vote is “no” from the membership,don’t you think it is possible - or even probable - to assume the board will amend that right in a much more draconian manner.

If you like the current bylaws more than you would like them as the amendments propose, then by all means vote “no”. But don’t throw leave us with Roseanne just because you don’t like the mole on Kim Delaney’s cheek.

17

“First of all, name an issue so pressing the triathlon world will come to an end if a decision had to wait until the next annual election? Not very many, are there?”

A pressing issue is not the point. But if one comes up in the future you have made it immposible to gather the needed signatures to have an imidiate vote by requiring 2,500 signatures. Why 2,500 when you know that is roughly 100% of the typical voter turnout?

You had the choice and ability of putting each issue on the ballot separately but decided to make it all or nothing. My main concern, back a couple months ago, was that some may not vote for it since they had no choice but to vote all or nothing. If they do not like the term limits then they might vote no to the entire petition.

Remember this ballot is going out to roughly 50,000 members. 90%+ of those members do not subscribe to Slowtwitch so will not be as educated about the ramifications of voting for or against your petition.

Now what if this petition does not pass because of the all or nothing option? Who will then be responsible when the board then makes the changes to the By-Laws that you are so worried about?

18

I personally think the restrictions on amending the bylaws could be greater. Here in Florida they allow constitutional amendments by ballot initiative. Once it started being used, the process has been taken over by special interests. Unfortunately, the voters here aren’t smart enough to think about what they are voting on and they vote yes on most of the amendments. For goodness sake, we have a constitutional provision that prohibits farmers from restraining pregnant pigs?!?

My grip on the petition is that I don’t like the one year term for the board. I think it takes a year just to learn what you are doing. There needs to be some consistency on the board. I like the idea of 2 or 3 year terms, that are staggered. That way there is always some carryover from the prior board, but there is either 1/3 or 1/2 of the board up for election at any one time.

I’m still up in the air on how to vote. When I first read about the petition I was all for it, the more I think about it the more I see potential problems.

19

“When I first read about the petition I was all for it, the more I think about it the more I see potential problems.”

you’re right. but then, i’m all for the constitution of the united states as well. but, you know, there are potential problems. like women not being able to vote. minorities not given legal standing. no freedom of the press. no right to bear arms. how did we get around all those problems?

20

Remember, if you vote YES now, you can get 100 signatures and get a petition to change the terms to 2 years or whatever you want. The next election is in less than a year, so you wouldn’t have to live with 1 year terms for long if the majority of members agree with you. The alternative is that the BOD could re-write the by-laws giving themselves 100 year terms, and remove the right to petition.