“He’s running for office on a ballot note. He’s out there preachin’ in front of the steeple, telling me he loves all kinds of people. He’s eating bagels, he’s eating pizza, he’s eating chitlin’s. Eeeeeew!!”
Though the risk of indigestion may be high, here are four basic things one candidate (for the Central Region) thinks important:
-
Like Dan, I believe in the primacy of process. Every annual member will get two ballots in the mail within the next ten days - but one is of out-sized importance. I won’t lie to you - I’d like to win the election. But I’d give that up in a second if you would guarantee passage of the proposed bylaw amendments. Reasonable people can differ on this provision or that, but few would contest that the proposed set of amendments would be a huge improvement over what we have now. It would reform the election districts, reform the election process, end the climate of secrecy at the national office . . . but most importantly, it would preserve the power of the owners (that’s you and I) to control our own organization. Don’t get hung up over small disagreements: pass this set of amendments and take control again.
-
IMO, the leaders of this organization have for years pursued a skewed set of priorities. If the choice is (a) provide a top notch service to the sport or (b) make a buck, the choice has always been door #2 ('er, #b). That’s how we end up with national championships in Shreveport. That’s why the world age group teams are repeatedly screwed on uniforms and travel. That’s why the Gatorade sponsorship is no longer available to race directors. That’s why the one-day license fee is ominously high. Taking advantage of your best customers is a recipe for business disaster. The whole attitude of federation needs to do a 180.
-
The federation needs to identify and then focus on its core business. What is the core business? Providing increased opportunities to race at a local level, and making sure that races are as safe as reasonable possible. I would favor an aggressive program that identifies new or under-used venues, identifies and recruits organizations capable of producing races at these new venues, and then provides substantial support to those new recruits. I would push hard for a strengthened sanctioning program, complete with visits by and consultations with experienced race directors from the same region. USAT’s sanctioning program would benefit from some veteran eyes on the ground. And finally, I would look very hard at the one-day license fee, which at its ominously high current level of $9 is viewed with great unease by a vast majority of race directors.
-
The USOC is an important customer for USAT, providing nearly three-quarters of a million dollars in hard currency and in excess of two million in in-kind services. But the USOC is also a hard-nosed customer - it knows what it wants, and what it wants are world and Olympic medals. Our women are making USOC happy right now, but it isn’t happening because of anything in particular that USAT has done. USAT did nothing to recruit Sheila, Barb, Laura, Susan, and Joanna - they just fell into our lap. Problem is, after Athens, all but Laura are going to fall out of our lap - for come Beijing, all will be nearly 40 and gone from the elite ranks.
Is that a problem? You bet it is, because we have zero legitimate medal contenders in the women’s pipeline, and only two among the men. Why? Because we haven’t even formalized a definition of the qualities it takes to be a medal contender, so we don’t even know WHO to recruit. As a result, we have been providing support for a bunch of athletes who, though they may be extremely nice people, have no chance of ever becoming the product sought by our customer. I would push for a rigorous elite program that (a) aggressively identified and recruited athletes with the talent to be legitimate medal contenders, (b) that didn’t spend a dime more on the program than that paid by our customer (what a novel business idea, eh - don’t spend more on the product than what the product will sell for in the marketplace?), and (c) that didn’t spend a nickel on people who have no chance of becoming the product sought by the customer.