Thread on the Blue Ribbon Panel hearing

Triathlon Forum
1

As some of you might notice, a forum regular asked about the Blue Ribbon Panel’s hearing yesterday. This was expected, as there have been several hundred, perhaps over a thousand, written statements on this forum since last fall regarding the election.

Lew Kidder, a regular contributor to these discussions and co-author, with me, of a petition according to USAT’s bylaw Article VI, Section 7, answered this and follow-up questions earlier today.

As all of you know, we’ve hosted about a hundred thousand posts in the last year and change, and I can count on one hand all the posts I’ve pulled in that time. But I’ve pulled this entire thread, at the request of Lew himself and because of the following…

At the end of the proceedings yesterday all attorneys, the clients they represent, and the Blue Ribbon Panel agreed to keep the proceedings in confidence. Lew and I both gave testimony, and afterward abandoned the conference call. As such, we were never admonished that these proceedings were to be kept confidential.

Further, neither Lew and I were litigants in this proceeding. Yes, we are principals by virtue of our petition, however our attorney was not part of the conference call, and we were simply asked to testify as witnesses.

Having said that, it is our wish to honor the desire of the Panel and, in so doing, we’ll not host any posts that betray the confidence of those attending the meeting. There are no-doubt those who’ll read this who were part of the conference call, and I’ll ask you as well to keep in confidence the contents of the meeting.

Thanks everyone for understanding.

2

Can you tell us why you will honor their requests when they won’t honor your requests to timely put the petition to a vote? I am guessing you have some good reasons, and I am curious to know them.

3

“Can you tell us why you will honor their requests when they won’t honor your requests to timely put the petition to a vote?”

the request came from the Blue Ribbon Panel, under the purview of the USOC, and as well from legal counsel representing the plaintiffs. i haven’t so far seen any evidence of bad faith from the USOC or its Blue Ribbon Panel. if it makes a reasonable request i’m happy to oblige.

as was expressed in a USAT press release a couple of days ago, the BRP has asked lew and i not to take any action on fast-tracking the petition until after it has finished its work. we have complied. this has the effect of mooting one element of the petition, namely, a quick election for a new board of directors. waiting on the execution of the petition effectively puts the question of a revote in the hands of the BRP. that’s fine with me. i don’t care that much about the last board vote. i’m much more interested in protecting the assets, institutions and processes of USAT. i wish more of those who are principals in this matter would share my concerns (i’d much prefer, of course, that a few thousand of you USAT owners have this concern, and i’m glad that you do).

waiting on the petition until after the BRP finishes its work does not effect the rest of the petition, however, and when the BRP is finished, and has decided what it’s going to do regarding the last election, i trust and hope it will exhort the board to honor the balance of the petition.

4

Who is on this “Blue Ribbon Panel” you speak of? I guess it’d be asking too much to expect actual practicing triathletes to decide this mess.

My guess is that USAT is not crazy about their names being made public.

5

I hope your trust is rewarded.

6

The five-member Blue Ribbon Panel was appointed by USOC. Here is a brief sketch of the principals (note: as far as I know, none have ever participated in a multisport event):

Thurgood Marshall, Jr. Chair of the Panel. BA, JD, U of VA. Long experience in government service. Deputy Counsel, VP Al Gore. Asst to President, 1997-2001. Member, President’s Management Council. Chief liaison between White House and agencies of executive branch. Vice Chair, White House Olympic Task Force under President Clinton. Currently attorney in private practice. Resident of Falls Church, VA.

Mary McCagg. Graduated from Harvard in 1989. National class rower. Member of US eights at 1992 and 1996 Olympic Games (4th and 6th respectively). Gold, 1995 Pan Ams and 1995 Worlds. Silver and bronze at 1993 Worlds. Competed with twin sister Betsy. Member of Board of Directors, US Rowing. Member, Executive Committee, USOC.

Tom Satrom. Attorney. Member of US Curling Hall of Fame. Chairman, USOC Membership and Credentials Committee.

Barbara Smith. Member of USOC. Past president of US Tennis Association, Texas Section. Resident of Austin, TX.

Glenn M. Wong. BA, Brandeis, 1974. JD, Boston College, 1977. Professor of Sports Management, Isenberg School of Management, U of Mass Amherst since 1979. Former faculty representative for U of Mass to NCAA. Arbitrator in Major League Baseball salary cases. Author of multiple books, including “The Essentials of Sports Management”.

7

— I guess it’d be asking too much to expect actual practicing triathletes to decide this mess. —

From what was written elsewhere - they wanted people for the Panel who not only had no connection to triathlons (governance, race production, participation, etc.), but also had no connections to any of the individual sports of swimming, cycling, and running. That way they can render an impartial judgement based on the evidence presented, without people accusing them of partisanship. At its roots, these issues have nothing to do with triathlons, other than it occured within triathlon’s federation. It could just as easily have happened in any other body politic (greco-roman wrestling seems to fit!)

8

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I’m a little confused about why there is a need to keep things quiet. What was said that requires such secrecy? As part of the membership (ownership?), what needs to be hidden from me?

I realize none of this can probably be answered now, but I’m hoping that eventually these proceedings will be released to the membership.

-Jay in SL, MI

9

From what was written elsewhere - they wanted people for the Panel who not only had no connection to triathlons (governance, race production, participation, etc.), but also had no connections to any of the individual sports of swimming, cycling, and running. That way they can render an impartial judgement based on the evidence presented, without people accusing them of partisanship. At its roots, these issues have nothing to do with triathlons, other than it occured within triathlon’s federation. It could just as easily have happened in any other body politic (greco-roman wrestling seems to fit!)
If Curling ever needs someone to to be on their “Blue Ribbon Panel” I’m their man.

10

The short answer is that the panel chair (Thurgood Marshall, Jr.) apparently asked that it be so (it was conveyed to me only by a third party). Dan and I both feel there is no power to COMPEL this of us - but there appeared little to gain from ignoring his request. The silence is likely to be short-lived, if only because the BRP plans to issue its ruling before the end of April. Once that happens, you can be assured that we will give you the entire story.

11

“I’m a little confused about why there is a need to keep things quiet.”

i am under no obligation to keep things quiet. i can write whatever i want. however, for some reason the blue ribbon panel requests that the hearing contents remain secret, and i’m acceding to that request. perhaps in a week or two or three, when it has rendered its response and finishes its work, there will be a full explanation and airing of the meeting. i rather prefer sunshine over secrecy.

i do, however, have strong opinions, and have placed one on slowtwitch today. while i’m holding in confidence the contents of monday’s conference, i’m not going to stay mute on the entire election scandal.

12

*waiting on the execution of the petition effectively puts the question of a revote in the hands of the BRP. that’s fine with me. i don’t care that much about the last board vote. *

Me, too. Of more than 40,000 USAT members only 3,300 voted. Many of them probably voted as a result of a ballot being placed in their hands by a candidate. The ballot process couldn’t have been more convenient yet over 95% of the membership didn’t bother to do it. That means that a small percentage of the membership can swing the vote one way or another. A candidate who runs an ambitious campaign stands a better chance of getting those votes than one who relies on Triathlon Times returns.

i’m much more interested in protecting the assets, institutions and processes of USAT.

What signs do you see that those things are in jeopardy? Thus far no allegations of personal gain have surfaced so it doesn’t appear that the issue is one of theft or corruption. Is the battle over which programs are most critical to fund and develop? What are the issues that divide the BOD? I believe that the election fuss is just smoke from a fire but lack details about the blaze.

*i wish more of those who are principals in this matter would share my concerns (i’d much prefer, of course, that a few thousand of you USAT owners have this concern, and i’m glad that you do). *

I think many, probably most, triathletes are very isolated from the sport and each other. If I weren’t an official, I’m not sure just how much interest I’d have in the organization. It’s pretty easy to mail in $30 once a year and show up at a few races without really being involved. I run several foot races a year and do nothing more than pay my fee and run. I suspect that the vast majority of USAT members are the same way with regards to the logistics of triathlon. You need a core of dedicated supporters to take care of the necessary business but most customers will be just customers and nothing more.

Larry

13

Larry, Dan is rightly concerned that the money USAT has hoarded will be squandered away in legal fees. Pots of money attract lawyers. That is why no organization like this has any business accumulating that kind of money.

14

One very big reason to build up a significant rainy day fund is the critical and cyclical nature of the liability insurance industry. Those familiar with the history of cycling in the U.S., for example, will remember the insurance crisis of 1989 - USCF could NOT find a carrier willing to insure the sport at a price it could afford, and so it ended up being significantly self-insured.

Given the absolute dependence of our sport on the availability of liability insurance, it was, IMO, smart of USAT to anticipate that possibility and build up a sizeable nest egg. But you are certainly right that a nest egg can be used for frivolous purposes every bit as easily as it can be for the common good.

15

It is not that I don’t respect you Lew, but that is pretty weak. A pot of money is an incentive for waste, legal and otherwise. It is a good bet that a big chunk of this rainy day fund will now go to laywers. If there were no fund, you probably wouldn’t have this fight at all since the lawyers wouldn’t get paid. The case would have settled by now.

Like Mother Teresa’s organization during her lifetime, USAT should justify its existence every year, not live off past glories.

The fund goes up. Our benefits go down. The lawyers get paid. All according to the natural order of things.

16

Larry, Dan is rightly concerned that the money USAT has hoarded will be squandered away in legal fees. Pots of money attract lawyers. That is why no organization like this has any business accumulating that kind of money.

Art,

Did Dan put that in words somewhere? Then my question is,“Why are he and Lew also considering suing USAT?” The threats of legal action and the failure of responsible parties to compromise on their own disappoints me greatly.

I don’t know the financial details of how USAT’s money has or hasn’t been spent. As a non-profit organization, it needs to remain solvent but not accumulate wealth. Regardless, the clash over fiscal management began quite a while before legal fees were an issue.

The USOC’s involvement is probably the best thing that’s happened since they’ll be very nit picky about ethics and they can apply their leverage without courtroom drama. Hopefully they’ll be able to defuse the situation and prevent further litigation.

Larry

17

I don’t presume to speak for Dan on his own forum. His post above, however, specifically lays out his concern about legal fees. They sound well thought out as usual.

Hopefully the BRC can put this puppy to bed before the legal fees take the whole fund.

18

" . . . Then my question is,“Why are he and Lew also considering suing USAT?” The threats of legal action and the failure of responsible parties to compromise on their own disappoints me greatly."

Dan and I authored a set of proposed amendments to USAT bylaws, put them in petition form, and secured over 160 signatures from annual members in four different States. Following precisely the provisions of Article VI, Section 7 of the USAT bylaws, we submitted the petition to acting executive director Tim Yount and expected Yount (and USAT) to send it out, as required by the bylaws, for a vote by the membership as a whole.

Yount, buffetted by USAT Board President Val Gattis and given a certain amount of legal cover by a hired attorney, has bobbed and weaved ever since. The petition was received by Yount on February 12, 2004; 62 days later, they are no closer to sending the petition out than the day it was received. This is a CLEAR violation of the bylaws, and if Yount does not act swiftly after a decision is rendered by the BRP, Dan and I plan to bring action in a California** court for a writ of mandamus. .

Just to be clear, however, Dan and I early on proposed the outline of a settlement for everything now at issue . . . and we have repeated that offer, to all parties, several times since. The settlement would be based upon a compromise set of bylaws to be negotiated among the three sets of parties (current board, the losing candidates who brought the suit, and the people signing the initiative petition) and one that could be presented by all sides to the BRP as “we’ve come together and solved our own problems”. But our proposals have been rejected repeatedly, without any discussion at all (let alone any SERIOUS discussion), by the current board.

19

“What signs do you see that those things are in jeopardy?”

it seems as if our federation is going to pay upwards of $250k in legal fees because of the election scandal. that’s $5 for each federation owner. that could’ve gone to other good stuff.

everybody that’s in this litigation on both sides knew it would cost this much. nobody cared enough about the federation’s assets to stop and think about this.

furthermore, if we do have to hold an off-calendar election because of this, that’s another $30k or $40k.

not counting scandals, there is a person working full time as a duathlon coordinator. that’s another, i don’t know, $50k per year with burden, office space, etc. why do we need a duathlon coordinator? because several board members are duathletes and voted themselves a person to help prop up an activity that isn’t one-twentieth what triathlon is. nothing wrong with duathlon, it’s just that you don’t throw good marketing dollars at a mature product that just isn’t sufficiently sexy. if you’re willing to spend money on a person whose goal is to make more duathlons, why not instead employ that person to make more triathlons, since that’s where there’s a shortage in parts of the country? because of the bad judgment, or selfishness, or just plain abuse (take your pick), by our federation’s elected officials.

i could go on, but that’s a few off the top of my head.

20

Thanks for the explanation, Lew. I hadn’t read the “Big Picture” editorial at the time so I was unclear as to what Art was talking about. Of course, it still seems contradictory to sue the federation if your motive is fear mounting legal costs and you intend to recover your legal fees from the federation. I’ll hold off forming a real opinion until the results are in.

Larry