Thread on the Blue Ribbon Panel hearing

Triathlon Forum
21

“it still seems contradictory to sue the federation if your motive is fear mounting legal costs”

you’re absolutely right. therefore, we haven’t sued. we’ve retained counsel, and we are prepared to sue, but we haven’t because we’re trying to exhaust every possible administrative remedy first. precisely because we’re so patient, we expect that a judge will presumably see exactly how patient we’ve been. in so doing, we hope that a quick verdict will be reached.

secondly, were we to sue, i doubt USAT would mount much of a defense, if any. there’s no real question here. the members have a right to have their petition heard. mind, the majority of the board doesn’t like the petition AT ALL, and they’d rather not send it out. they’ve got nothing to lose by not sending it out. maybe we are bluffing (they may wager) and we won’t go to court after all. if so, the petition dies. nothing lost (if you’re the board). however, if we do go to court and a judge orders the petition sent, then they’ll send it. this tactic won’t cost the federation any real money in legal fees.

22

“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.”

Lew,

As I asked in my prior question, that was taken off the forum, you were able to get 160 signitures on your petition which enabled you to submit the petition since you only needed 100.

You are asking that the membership to approve your petition in its entirety or not at all by not breaking out each issue for a separate vote. You then add that if a memebr does not agree with one of your issues they should vote for the petition anyways then turn around and try to amend the portion they do not agree with.

For instance, if I do not agree with Term Limits but I agree with the rest of the petition, you are asking me to go ahead and vote for the Term Limits included in your petition then go thru the process of gathering signitures on my own to put Term Limits back on the ballot.

However, one of your issues, which I have to agree to vote on, changes the number of signiture on a petition from 100 to 2,000 or 2,500.

Why 2,000 and not something more reasonable like 250-500? If 100 was good enouth for you why should I have to get 2,000?

Seems like you are limiting the powers of the general membership thru this issue once you get your issues thru.

Willy

23

“However, one of your issues, which I have to agree to vote on, changes the number of signiture on a petition from 100 to 2,000 or 2,500.”

that is only if you want to trigger an off-calendar election. only 100 signatures is required to trigger an election on any question you want, but that lower threshold only gets your question on the annual ballot that also contains the election for the board of directors.

i know that you disagree with one-year terms. however, one point of elegance associated with one-year terms is that EVERYONE is going to get a ballot, because the initiatives will be on that ballot. so, why not make the directors that much more accountable by having all their names on this annual ballot as well? certainly 2yr terms haven’t proven short enough to make them feel accountable.

that said, our petition called for a rather quick vote for an entirely new board of directors. that would’ve meant that anyone voting YES on the petition would’ve gotten a ballot only several weeks later, assuming the petition carried, for a new board of directors. that ballot could’ve also had specific questions of term limits, term duration, etc. that is why i offered to help gather signatures for any of these questions, so that you would have less difficulty gathering 100 signatures for an initiative you wanted to put on the ballot.

that’s somewhat changed, however, because the board and the natl office never sent the petition as required by the bylaws. the board complained that it was too busy and distracted to attend to the petition and needed more time, yet it’s now more than 2 months since the petition was presented and the board hasn’t lifted a finger to work on it. then it complained that it was prohibited from working on it because the blue ribbon panel wouldn’t let them function as a board, yet the board never queried the panel whether it could act in the narrow context of executing the petition as required by the bylaws.

finally, the panel asked us to delay any action on sending out the petition, i.e., it asked that we not sue in court to force the execution of the petition according to the bylaws. we assented to this request, but in so doing have handed to the panel the question of whether or not there will be a redo of the last election, or alternatively to accelerate in any way the terms of the current board.

in so doing, we’ve lost any control to have your issue voted on quickly. it depends on what the panel decides as to a new or early election. however, if the petition carries, it accelerates the terms of office to July of next year. your question would not be voted on until then. however, this delay would not delay the implementation of one versus two year terms, because the next election cycle is designed to place the board of directors on a term schedule starting on july 1 anyway.

that said, it would’ve been nice to give you the immediate gratification of a quick ballot on the issue of 1yr terms. you’d now have to wait a few months. nobody to blame for that but the current board. i’ll still help you gather the signatures required. i frankly don’t care whether it’s 1yr or 2yr terms. i only care that you retain the right of direct vote on issues of this nature.

24

Willy,

Let me add a further note of explanation to what Dan has already said. When drafting the proposed amendments to the bylaws, there were a small number of “headline” issues we wanted to address - and the most important one may well have been the right of initiative by the membership.

As it stands under the current bylaws, amendments can be done by either membership initiative or by vote of the board of directors. The current board was talking about significant amendments to the bylaws, which they would pass themselves without any input from the membership. One of the “reforms” we heard discussed (favorably, by Val Gattis) was changing the terms from two years to four years. The board has demonstrated its lack of accountability under the current system - doubling the length of their terms made the two of us shiver.

I use that possibility as an example . . . but what if the board also amended away the members’ right of initiative? That made us very nervous, and so initiative preservation and reform became a focus of the proposed amendments. Perhaps, if you think about it, even the most important one.

The good news is that the current initiative process had never been used. The bad news was that once we used it, the potential for misuse would become evident - and could well provoke a flood of individual issue proposals. Nothing wrong with individual issue proposals, of course, but if each triggered a separate ballot, costs would start to mount. For example, it is estimated that even if a ballot is sent out with a regularly scheduled issue of Triathlon Times, the cost could still come to $0.80-$0.90/annual member. Right now, the federation has 53,000 of the latter, so each separate election might drain $40,000+ from the treasury.

So that’s why our proposal has three ways to amend the bylaws. #1: The Board adopts a proposed amendment and then submits to the membership for approval; #2: The membership submits a petition with at least 100 signatures of annual members and it is sent out for approval by the membership; #3: The membership submits a petition with at least 2,500 signatures of annual members and it is sent out for approval by the membership. In the first two cases, the proposed amendment goes on the ballot for the next regular election. But in the third case, the ballot would be mailed immediately and by itself to the membership.

The primary force behind the distinctions was - no big release - cost. If proposed amendments are sent out with the regular election ballot, the extra cost is minimal - so we can give smaller groups the right to jump start change without breaking the bank, while still preserving the potential for a MAJOR problem, with a major constituency, to be addressed more quickly.

25

Lew,

I agree with your issues but the Term Limit I have issue with is the maximum number of years anyone can serve on the board in their lifetime. Correct me if I am wrong, but weren’t you trying to limit the total number of years anyone can serve as a board member to something like 6 years?

I was not aware, or forgot, that the board was trying to change the length of a term from 2 to 4 years. I agree that 4 years is too long of a term.

Willy in Pacifica

26

Willy,

Article VII, Section 4d(2) of the petition provides: “No one shall serve more than six total years on the board of directors during one’s lifetime, or past July 1, 2006, whatever would afford a board member the longest tenure.”

Dan and I felt very strongly about some issues in the proposed amendments, and less strongly about others. This is one of the latter - in fact, he and I actually disagreed on this one and fashioned a compromise. I believe that among 53,000 primarily college-educated, successful professionals/managers/entrepreneurs, there are LOTS of people who could do a great job on USAT’s board - and a few who are, on the whole, unmitigated disasters. I believe that term limits act to limit our exposure to the latter. A sunset on incompetence law, if you will.

That said, I understand the arguments that cut against this type of provision. If an amendment was proposed to that particular section of the bylaws, it could be on the ballot at the 2005 election - which means the membership could terminate the term limit provision before it even had a chance to take effect. I’d probably vote to keep the term limit provision as is, but I wouldn’t lose any sleep if the membership decided otherwise.

27

One of the important parts of the petition was a full-disclosure policy that would allow the members to keep an eye on the board. A gag order (voluntary or otherwise) on the investigation of the biggest scandal to hit the federation in a decade is a pretty inauspicious start for a sunshine policy.

28

Lew,

My concern is regarding someone who is on the Board and doing a fantastic job but when they get into their final year they become a Lame Duck that the other Board members can wait out for a year. If there are no term limits then each Board member has an equal say in matters.

If that person is a good representative of the general membership then the membership is going to have to find a suitable replacement, which might not be easy.

Why not just let term limits be set by the membership each year through the general election?

29

The sunshine policy is in the proposed amendments offered by the petition - which, thus far, the prevailing powers at USAT have refused to send out for a vote. Thus we still operate under the existing bylaws which have no such provision. Moreover, the “gag request” was made by the Blue Ribbon Panel, which does not operate under USAT bylaws in the first place.

Don’t get the idea, however, that we are going to be “gagged” all that long. The panel promised to issue their ruling by the end of April - and our courtesy will extend not a day further.

30

" . . . Why not just let term limits be set by the membership each year through the general election?"

I’m a practical person, Willy. Given where we are now, what do you suggest be done? The petition is a living, breathing entity - under the existing bylaws, which is all we have, it’s going to go out for a simple up or down vote. If “up”, then people can submit amendments for the provisions they think should be changed. If “down”, you get the status quo - at best - with the (substantial, in my opinion) risk that the current rogue board will amend the members out of the small rights we now have. The proposed bylaws as amended may not be perfect, but they are one hell of lot better than what we have now - and it may be our ONLY shot at member-based reform.

31

“I’m a practical person, Willy. Given where we are now, what do you suggest be done?”

Well, noone asked me when it counted as only 160 members were asked.

Lew, I appreciate what you and Dan are doing but I would have rather seen each issue up for a separate vote. Can this still be voted on separately? The important issues like not allowing the Board to amend the By-Laws without member support should be a no brainer. However, some of the other issues may effect the outcome of your entire petition if myself or others do not agree on any one of the issues strongly. Some may feel as if these issues are being forced on us as “take it our leave it” which is exactly what you propose.

I am 100% behind 90% of your petition. I would just hate to see 100% of your petition shot down due to that other 10%.

Willy in Pacifica

32

“Can this still be voted on separately?”

No, a (the) petition has been filed. If and when the board sends it out, you can vote for or against ALL the amendments at once.

I guess you could whip together your own petition(s) for what you want exactly, and get 100 signatures (I assume 100 for each), and submit it.

Or, as Lew pointed out, you can vote for all the amendments now, and change the term-limits at the next regular election.

If the proposed amendments lose, the BOD can (most likely will) do whatever it wants, including amending the by-laws to not let you change anything.

Your choice (for now).

33

I understand that nobody is bound by the petition because it has not taken effect or even been voted on and that neither the committee nor you and Dan would be bound by it even if it were law. It is troubling to me though that the two people who have outspokenly (and convincingly) advocated full disclosure are retreating, even temporarily, from that position now, when sunshine is most important.

My point is not to criticize. You guys helped bring the election problem to light in the first place and have created what I think is the best possible solution. I am only suggesting that delay and silence both work in favor of the bad guys here. I think you already know that but you might do well to remember that your petition will basically stand or fall on how many people are angry about what happened in the election when it comes time to vote. The more time that passes and the less people hear about all the bad things the board has done, the less angry people will be. It would be a shame to see your good and hard work go to waste because the board successfully stonewalled until people had forgotten what they have done.

34

Rich,

Both Dan and I hear what you are saying. When the lawyers for the plaintiffs relayed the BRP’s order for “confidentiality” to us, we were initially resistant. The panel probably doesn’t have the power to even order this of the parties to the arbitration proceedings, but it certainly doesn’t have any such power over anyone else. But sometimes it’s worthwhile to consider whether a fight is worth picking.

Here were the considerations:

  1. The Panel has promised to act quickly (before the end of April, so they have repeatedly said), so we weren’t giving up our right to speak for very long.

  2. We have strongly suggested the Panel issue an order that directs USAT to send out the petition immediately. That would leave the current board without cover for additional delay.

  3. If we have to go to court to force USAT to send out the petition, one thing the court is sure to ask is if we have “exhausted our administrative remedies”. By acceding to the Panel’s request that we delay enforcement action until they have finished with their work, we think a court will be impressed with our good faith - and unimpressed with that of the current Board.

35

The more time that passes and the less people hear about all the bad things the board has done, the less angry people will be.

Rich,

I agree with your point and that is one of the reasons that I think requiring 2,500 signitures in the future will make it next to impossible to submit a future petition.

Dan & Lew will be taking advantage of the 100 signiture rule to get their issues on a ballot but then will require me to get 2,500 to do the same thing.

All the board has to do is wait until right after the annual election to do something that may not be in the best interest of the membership. Under the present rule I can gather 100 signitures and get an immediate vote. But under their new proposed rule I will need 2,500. How is anyone going to get 2,500 signitures when only just over 3,000 members even voted in the last election.

Under Dan & Lews proposed change I can still get in on the ballot with 100 signitures but I may have to wait up to 12 months and by then the “people will be less angry” and may not react the same.

I am not saying the annual process is not a good idea but for a short term vote I think 2,500 signitures is way overboard. By requiring 2,500 signitures they are restircting every members right and they are doing it by using the right that they propose to take away from each member.

Again, I ask Lew or Dan, why 2,500? Why not 500 or 750? Do you believe you could have gotten 2,500 signiture for your petition? If not why are you requiring of the next petition and how would you propose someone would even collect 2,500 signitures?

willy

36

Willy,

We provided the distinction to address several competing interests. You got a major problem, you can get an immediate vote . . . but because an immediate vote costs a lot of money, you will need to demonstrate a major constituency before getting it. But if you have a minor or essentially regional problem (here I see the next petition coming from the SF area, requiring a prescribed rebate/transfer policy of all sanctioned races), you can still do it. But you have to do it in a way that doesn’t cost the federation a pile of money.

As a side note, we didn’t pick the 2,500 number out of thin air. If you would read Article VI, Section 6c, you would find a provision allowing special meetings of the entire membership to be called by submission of a petition bearing the signatures of 5% of the current annual membership. 5% of 50,000 is 2,500, so rather than stick in a constantly moving target, we decided to give everyone a fixed bogey.

Special meetings of the annual membership and special ballots to the annual membership have one major thing in common: cost. Both require a special mailing to all annual members - for notice of the meeting in the former case, for the ballot in the latter. Both have follow-up costs: the return mail and the counting thereof in the case of the ballot, vis a vis the logistics of the meeting itself.

Lew

37

As a side note, we didn’t pick the 2,500 number out of thin air. If you would read Article VI, Section 6c, you would find a provision allowing special meetings of the entire membership to be called by submission of a petition bearing the signatures of 5% of the current annual membership. 5% of 50,000 is 2,500, so rather than stick in a constantly moving target, we decided to give everyone a fixed bogey.

Lew,

I would guess that Article was written long ago when there were not 50,000 members. You and I both know that no matter how important the issue noone or group would be able to gather 2,500 qualified signitures. Talk about a huge expense.

I think you may just be falling back on this formula to ensure noone can ever do the same thing you are doing. Don’t you feel it is a bit unfair to the other 49,998 members?

Why not 500 now and if you feel this power gets abuse you can always petition to increase the number later. Why set such a high, unreasonable standard unless you really don’t want someone else to use this power other than yourself. This is almost equivilent to the board making changes to the bylaws without membership approval which is what you are against.

38

Whatever, Willy. I’m not quite sure what prompts you to equate what Dan and I are doing to the actions of the current board, nor why you continually ignore the fact that we left the 100 signature route in the proposed amendments. I think we did the responsible thing; you, on the other hand, think we screwed up. So I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

39

“I’m not quite sure what prompts you to equate what Dan and I are doing to the actions of the current board, nor why you continually ignore the fact that we left the 100 signature route in the proposed amendments.”

Lew,

Again, believe me when I tell you I believe that your issues need to be address and submitting your petition is the best way to do so.

However, you were able to submit your petition in a way that you are now disallowing to the rest of us. You say you are increasing the 100 signitures to 2500 to keep every Tom, Dick and Harry from doing what you were allowed to do since it will be to expensive to USAT. But in the lifetime of this Article it has never been used and never cost the USAT a penny. That is until you and Dan submitted your petiton. Again, I belive in your right to do so and the issued in your petition ned to be addressed.

You include in your petition the important issues that need to be taken care of such as,

a) Election reform, b) Not allowing the Board to change the By-Laws without membership approval.

These are the things that the membership should and will get behind. But you then add on the Re-Do of the election, term limits and the increase in the number of signitures required to get a timely vote on any issue from 100 to 2,500. I don’t have an issue with the increase just the impossible increase to 2,500. You say that is only 5% of the membership but it is also a 2,500% increase in the number you needed to get.

If this had been the number of signitures you and Dan needed to get your voice heard it never would have happened and you would be on this forum screaming about it. You and Dan have access to many more USAT members than just about anyone thru this forum. How would you expect anyone else to gather 2,500 signitures. And if a group felt strongly about and issue the only real way to get the word out, and enough signitures, would include a post to this forum for your scrutiny.

So now in order for me to help reform the election and keep the Board form making changes to the By-Laws, I have to agree to a re-do of the election, the 2500% increase in signitures and term limits for the Board.

I can only assume you put these issues on the ballot in hopes that noone would care and would not notice. Who really cares about having to get 2,500 signitures until something important to them comes up and now they have to get 2,400 more than you.

Besides, if you can get people to vote for your issues on a whole then you get the re-do of the election. I would guess this is the bigest issue to you and Dan. This is the one reason I cannot vote for your combined issue as I do not feel a re-do is needed as the prior election was done within the rules. Maybe I do not like this anymore than you, but everyone had the same opportunity to campaign. If one candidate gets out there and campaigns like hell and wins why would I want the lazy guy to get a redo.

This pains me as there are some very important issues in your petition. But you are forcing me to agree to issues that I do not agree on.

What bothers me about this is that you and Dan could have submitted separate petitions for each issue and gotten them on the ballot separately for everyone to vote on individually. But you decided to force us to decide on all of your issue one way or the other.

Answer me this,

Can you amend your petition to put each issue on the ballot separately? I am not asking if you want to only if you could if you wanted to.

Willy

40

Willy,

Get the 100 sigs now for the reforms you have issues with in Dan and Lew’s petition and submit your petition before the BRP makes it’s decision (or very shortly after)…Then this will all be a moot point.