USAT Board attempting silent coup on membership

Triathlon Forum
1

We all remember the 2004 petition to amend the USAT bylaws - which the sitting board hated and tried to smother. Eventually, however, their hand got called and they sent it out for a vote of the membership. The result? It passed overwhelmingly in July of 2004.

Six months later, very little in the amended bylaws has been honored by the current board (which still looks a lot like the old board) - and now they appear to be executing a plan designed to “re-amend” the bylaws back to a place much closer to what they were in the first place. Here in a nutshell is what is going down:

  1. In the summer of 2004, the board assigned the task of recommending bylaw amendments to a task force chaired by Mike Highfield of Michigan. Highfield was the president of the board in the late 1990’s and the person who designed the odious election process that formed the basis of last year’s well-publicized “troubles”. Highfield, many will remember, also came on this forum before the 2004 election and urged people to vote against the proposed bylaw amendment petition.

  2. To no one’s surprise, Highfield’s task force produced a set of recommendations that would essentially reverse what the membership approved in the summer of 2004.

  3. At their September meeting, the board basically approved Highfield’s proposal and slated it for a vote of the membership at the 2005 election.

  4. What is in the new proposal? You’ll look in vain on USAT’s website for anything on that. The minutes, such as they are, of the September meeting are now posted on the USAT website, but you’ll find almost nothing of value regarding this huge bylaw amendment proposal. The amended bylaws REQUIRES it to be included - but the current board mostly honors the amended bylaws in the breach.

  5. What’s the problem with this? IN JUST A FEW DAYS, THE MEMBERSHIP WILL RECEIVE A BALLOT FOR THE 2005 ELECTION AND WILL BE ASKED TO APPROVE THE BYLAW REWRITE - BUT THERE WILL HAVE BEEN NO DISCUSSION OF THE PROVISIONS IN ADVANCE. MOREOVER, RATHER THAN THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE BEING ON THE BALLOT, YOU WILL GET YOUR BASIC ADVERTORIAL FROM THE BOARD ON HOW YOU SHOULD JUST “TRUST US” AND VOTE “YES”.

  6. A few weeks ago, I pointed the problem out to board president Brad Davison of Texas - but he has done nothing to rectify the problem.

  7. Last week I served USAT with a demand under the Freedom of Information provisions of our amended bylaws. This document demanded that the federation post the following documents to the website within seven days: USAT financial statements for the past ten years, USAT tax returns for the past ten years, and the complete text of the proposed bylaw amendments approved by the board in their September meeting. Thursday, 1/14 would be the deadline for action.

  8. A couple of days ago, someone posted a “letter from the board to the membership” on USAT’s website. Read it - and then note that it does nothing to address my concerns or the right of the membership to be informed on this crucial issue. The message? “Just vote ‘yes’ - this will be good for you.”

2

…I’m not even sure what you’re saying, but with all the stuff that’s gone on in the last year with USAT - I’m not sure I care much.

Is it better now that Dan quit the board instead of being on there to stand up for members? Or are we back to square one now???

3

This is what the membership should be focussing on on these boards. This is an outright attempt to ignore the wishes of the membership of USAT. If you vote yes on this proposal, then you are allowing a few people to completely control your sport.

Lew, if they do not post the required information by the 14th, what is your next step

4

Hello,

Very disappointing. I signed the original petition and voted for it. I didn’t agree with some of the provisions, but I agreed with most of the provisions and trusted that the people involoved had USAT members best interests at heart.

I am very suspicious of this amendment for the following reasons:

I have no idea what they are asking us to approve. I’m not a lawyer and the article on the website is gobblygook. I think it is aking to let the board have the ability to do anything they want with a simple vote amongst themselves.

USAT claims the current provisions doesnt let them work with the ITU, Olympic commitees and US government. Fine, that would be a very good reason to amend the constition. Just let the members know how this has been affected. How exactly are they unable to work with these entities?

They say that the current situation is bad, but they haven’t actually abided by it so how do we know.

My feeling is that when they have a full plate of things to do, such a find a national championship site and organize a worlds worthy of the name, the board is busy trying to overturn something that the members voted for.

Finally, even if this amendment passes, it wont be the end. I’m pretty sure a countersuit or some such will be filed, bringing more delays, expenses, etc .

Shawn Tyrrell

5

Lew, if you read the website, it says that the proposed amendment has been approved by those who made the original amendment. In other words, you and Dan approved.

Bob Sigerson

6

Yeah, I read that. I’ll let Dan speak for himself . . . but though I did SEE the proposal (Dan e-mailed it to me on the sly, a day or so in advance of the meeting at which the board would approve it), no one (outside of Dan) even asked me for my thoughts. I haven’t seen the final draft - but, if my information is correct, it contains numerous provisions that are truly problematic. More importantly, asking the membership as a whole to approve this without advance disclosure and discussion is irresponsible in the extreme.

7

" . . . USAT claims the current provisions doesnt let them work with the ITU, Olympic commitees and US government. Fine, that would be a very good reason to amend the constition. Just let the members know how this has been affected. How exactly are they unable to work with these entities?"

They’ll have a tough time with this request - because it assumes a fact that simply isn’t true. Even if the IOC or the USOC adopts some sort of policy that would require amendment of our bylaws (and I am at a loss to think of single potential example), there is no reason on earth why the board couldn’t submit the proposed amendment to the membership at the next annual election - as is now required by our bylaws. And if we don’t approve - well, it is OUR federation, not the USOC’s.

8

Now that Brad has more time he’s commenting on the USAT proceedings.

I think I’ll try to get the 65 signatures necessary to nominate Brad for the board! That’d be fun.

9

The interim executive director (Mike Greer) says he agrees with my position and will have the documents posted to the website within seven days as required by the bylaws. I’ll take him at his word - unless, of course, he doesn’t keep it.

10

I’m not a USAT member, but this thread looks like it should stay up top for the next few days.

11

I’m just commenting how important this is to triathletes in general. Not Democrats or Republicans, but everyone. If people want control or at least to have a say in the direction the sport is going they will vote no and tell the higher ups how things will operate. you pay the money, you should have the right to have things work to your benefit.

I’ve been asked many times to run for some sort of USAT position and since I retired from race directing, I’ve received many more requests to help out. But for all of you who know me, know how poor I am at playing politics and how often I tend to irritate people by saying what I think, it just wouldn’t be a good idea.

I just don’t want the sport to end up only being high end races and cutting out the races that got people where they are

12

I agree with you - like the thread I posted 1-2 months ago, I really don’t believe that many could give a crap what USAT is up to.

Not to put down what others are doing/trying to do, but look at the ballot numbers - they are pathetically low. No one cares. The vast majority of US tri-geeks are concerned with ironman racing. USAT is more aligned with short course and getting juniors and elites into the ITU draft legal format.

Let the board members conduct fradulent elections, bicker or do whatever they do. They have outlived their purpose - we’ve gotten a retarded cousin of triathlon into the olympics. Just provide me with insurance and keep things simple.

13

Lew, is there anything the membership can do to spread the word so the re-write of the rules doesn’t occur? or doesn’t pass?

14

Lew, several questions I asked Dan but did not get answered:

  1. Which of the amended provisions do you think would be changed by the “reform boar?” Will it be the financial reporting, the time limit for publishing minutes(which they cannot seem to meet), the annual elections or the lifetime term limts or all of the above?

  2. Why haven’t the amended by-laws been put on the website?

  3. Who is being mentioned to replace Dan and Susan?

Bob Sigerson

15

I disagree that we should be apathetic about the USAT board. I realize a ton of people on this board are much more interested in Ironman that the shorter distance tri’s but USAT is screwing over Olympic distance age-groupers big time right now. I’m pissed that this is affecting what I will do this season and I want answers from the board. The bylaws they want to ammend are the only ones that allow the membership to have a clue what is going on. They only have to have the membership approve the bylaws regrading change and then they can go in and change everything else they want. You can bet the first bylaw they will change is the one regarding posting of the meeting minutes (which they aren’t even following now).

Communication from USAT is dreadful in all regards. Please vote and vote no on this bylaw change. We have to try to keep the doors of communication at least cracked open.

16

AQctually, in a lot of ways I agree with you, even though I signed and voted. I really don’t care much about the politics. Unfortunately I see a whole lot of time and $$ being spent on this, both of which should be spent on other things, most notably finding a friggin nationals site sometime before the race is supposed to occur.

Also, its galling that the issue at hand has been decided on by a vote of the members and now they are asking for essentially a revote.

Amazingly they are saying that the people who originally started the petition agree with them. One of them (Lew) has already stated that this is not the case. The other hasn’t yet been heard from.

Frankly if I had voted against the petition the first time I would likely vote for it this time just because I hate underhanded tactics such as this.

ShawnTyrrell

17

Similar question as sig for lew:

  1. What do you take to be the “essence” of the july 04 member-approved by-laws? IOW, why should we care about these USAT admin by-laws?

  2. How exactly will the proposed revisions “essentially reverse” these important by-laws? Again, why should we care?

At the mo this thread contains too much politicking and not enough facts for the average uninformed USAT member.

18

I agree with you - like the thread I posted 1-2 months ago, I really don’t believe that many could give a crap what USAT is up to.

Not to put down what others are doing/trying to do, but look at the ballot numbers - they are pathetically low. No one cares. I’m also in agreement with these assertions. If people cared enough they would vote. Period. I would suspect that most USAT-members have memberships merely because it is more convenient to be a member than to fill out a one day license at every race. (People also like to look cool with the bumper sticker.)

USAT is more aligned with short course and getting juniors and elites into the ITU draft legal format.

The sad thing is that USAT has done quite a pathetic job in the final department. 2004 Junior Nationals (draft legal) attracted a grand total of seven girls between the ages of 20-23.

19

Nice post Lew! And here I thought you were sleeping with the enemy now. :slight_smile:

Is this why Dan really quit? Did he see this Board and its culture as a hopeless morass of conflicts, including promoting the interests of a few board members?

Should we have Board Members who are race directors or who have agendas that promote narrow interests?

If you are interested in suing the Board, then sign me up as a very likely participant. But, let’s hope getting the news out is sufficient.

The members are really at fault for not electing independent people to the Board, IMHO. But the apathy of 75% of the membership is self-evident at each election.

-Robert

20

Question #1. Which of the amended provisions do you think would be changed by the “reform boar?” Will it be the financial reporting, the time limit for publishing minutes(which they cannot seem to meet), the annual elections or the lifetime term limts or all of the above?

Answer: It is impossible to answer that question with any precision unless and until one sees whatever it is that they eventually approved. When I looked at the Highfield proposal, I took the following notes:

A. They want to change the new electoral districts so that it more reflects the current USAT “regions”. Personally, I have no problem with that concept in the abstract, except the current USAT regions are (a) very unbalanced as to “population” and (b) some actually divide individual States.

B. They want to go back to the old term limit rule - which bascially allowed someone like Jack Weiss to serve six years on the board, sit out for two years, come back for another six, set out two, ad infinitim. Wouldn’t want to interfer with the good ole’ boys club, now would we?

C. The bylaw petition authored by Dan and me put control of future elections in the hands of an independent CPA. One who had no connection with USAT except for the election process. The Highfield proposal wanted to return control of the election to the USAT executive director. I mean, just because that person is hired by the board, wouldn’t mean he would feel any hesitation in acting independently, now would it?

D. Highfield wanted to return to the old election schedule, with the vote in the Fall and the new board taking its seats on January 1. The problem with that is an almost complete lack of accountability: the new board takes office on January 1, only to find that the old board has set things in stone for the entire upcoming year. That’s the reason Dan and I set up the new schedule, with elections in February and the new board taking office on July 1. Under our plan (the current plan), the same board plans AND executes. If they screw up, we know just whom to blame.

BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE BOARD ACTUALLY DID WITH THE HIGHFIELD PROPOSAL. DID THEY ACCEPT AS IS? DID THEY MODIFY? DID THEY ADD THEIR OWN PET IDEAS? WE DON’T KNOW, BECAUSE THEY HAVEN’T BOTHERED TO INFORM US.

Question #2. Why haven’t the amended by-laws been put on the website?

Answer: DAMN GOOD QUESTION. THE NEW BYLAWS CERTAINLY REQUIRE IT.

Question #3. Who is being mentioned to replace Dan and Susan?

Answer: Don’t have clue one. Susie was one of the three elite athlete reps, and her successor would be chosen by the AAC. Or they may just leave her post vacant until July 1, 2005. Dan’s term expired on July 1, 2005, and vacancy in that post would be governed by Art VII, Section 5 of the current bylaws:

“Section 5. Vacancies. A vacancy in a seat of a General Director shall be filled by an affirmative vote of a majority of the number of directors remaining on the Board at the time of the vote. Quorum requirements shall not apply. The person selected shall be an annual member of the federation in good standing, a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the district he or she is appointed to represent. The vote shall take place within 45 days of the vacancy or at the next regular meeting of the Board, whichever comes first. Any person selected by virtue of this paragraph shall complete the term of the director who vacated the position.”

Since Dan resigned on November 23 or so, it is clear that this is another section of the bylaws that has been ignored by the current board.