Fellow USAT members (or at least, those who care about the governance of USAT). Proposition #2 in this most recent election was improperly submitted to the members for a vote, and as such, should be invalidated.
Under the pre-election bylaws (see Article XXI, section 4(c)(1)), a proposal to amend the bylaws which is submitted to the members by the Board must include the precise language of the amendment. The information provided to us on the ballots and available on the USAT website here: http://www.usatriathlon.org/Elections/USAT_Proposed_Bylaws.pdf, does not provide the precise language of the proposed amendment to Article XX. Instead, all it says is: ARTICLE XX:
Will be amended to allow the USA Triathlon Board of Directors to change the USAT Bylaws by a two-thirds vote, except for the following:
ARTICLE VII – BOARD OF DIRECTORS: SECTIONS 1-5, 7 – GENERAL DIRECTORS, ELECTION DISTRICTS, TERMS AND TERM LIMITS, VACANCIES AND REMOVAL OF A DIRECTOR
ARTICLE XXI – ELECTIONS
ARTICLE XXII – SUNSHINE POLICY This is insufficient according to the governing provisions of the pre-election bylaws. Coupling this with the shoddy election practices (e.g., providing varying drafts of proposed changes to certain of the bylaws), I think we need to send a message to the Board that we will not allow them to run this federation, or its elections in a haphazard and half-assed manner. If you would be interested in signing the protest, please PM me, or email me at perkinsst@gtlaw.com.
If it is true that only 600+/- people cared enough to vote no to prop #2, I’m having a hard time caring anymore. That over 3,000 people would vote yes and not know what they are voting for is crazy.
My first reaction is say “good luck with your organization” and just walk away from USAT. It turns out that my membership is coming up for renewal anyway. Why bother anymore? The BOD is intent on using USAT for their own ends regardless of what it costs the sport. After this election, if it is true, then it is obvious that the people don’t care either.
Is it just me or are the numbers hard to believe? There were really (rough numbers) only 600 people who voted no to prop #2? Did the postal service “lose” a few thousand ballots in the mail? Did we get less than 4,000 responses to the last election?
Me, too. But if we start letting the BOD shortcut the rules, we’ll find ourselves back in the situation from last year, where the USOC stepped in to slap us around.
I’m all for accepting proposition #2 as long as it complied with the rules in place before the election and as long as there was no confusion as to what proposition #2 meant (incidentally, BOTH of these provisions could have been met, if only they’d provided the text of the proposed amendment).
I think the issues are 1) the confusion over what #2 meant; and 2) the lack of proposed language for the amended bylaw. If you read Dan’s threads on the proposal, then you know that a LOT of people had no idea what it meant. But regardless of the confusion, the failure to provide proposed language for the amendment was specifically contradictory to the bylaws as they existed prior to the election. If the Board failed to follow proper election procedures, then the proposal is invalid.
You (and everyone else) can “walk away” from USAT all you want - but the sport would have to invent something to take its place. After all, it is at its core nothing more than a buying cooperative. The key product is liability insurance - not insurance FOR you, but insurance AGAINST you (or rather, against the possibility that you will bring a liablity suit against the organizers and facility owners). For 99 and 44/100’s of all races, that is the only way the race can happen in the first place.
That sole product costs a friggin’ bundle. First is the $700,000+ for the premium. Then there is the fact that we wouldn’t come close to getting that premium without (a) a proven track record (which USAT has back to 1983), (b) a set of safety standards, (c) a staff to administer the program, and (d) the “official national governing body” designation. The last may not mean anything to you, but it is a major liabiility hedge (cya, in other words) to the insurance company.
If I were buiding this “co-op” from scratch and did not have the “official ngb” designation, I would budget $1,000,000 for a comprehensive policy, $200,000 for staff time to administer and monitor the program, another $100,000 for offices/phones/etc. If I got half of USAT’s current races to sign up in the first years, that would be sterling - and it would still mean I’d have to get $2,000 average from each event - JUST FOR THE INSURANCE PROGRAM. That’s a tough sell if someone is out there offering a competitive program which basically gives the insurance program away.
So, walk away all you want - but it isn’t going to change much at all. Far better that we simply start taking responsibility for what is already there - but of course, in a sport which glorifies narcissism in an already narcissistic society, expecting a high percentage of responsibility is unrealistic.
Once again…I point you toward OBRA (www.obra.org) which successfully walked away from USAC years ago and still hosts more races, better participation, and higher profile events than most USAC regions.
OBRA has its own equipment, own insurance, own communications vehicles, and has kept the price of races down (to promoters and therefore to racers) resulting in INCREASED participation and satisfaction from athletes.
Quit waving the insurance banner. It simply doesn’t hold true. It’s a scare tactic used to justify a “marketing cooperative” of a small number of industry leaders.
-were i to be behind the bench, my first question would be how can you prove those who voted in favor of #2 did not know what they were voting on, regardless of what was posted at the USAT site, and when?
-we all (presumably) have phones and email and have the right to ask anyone directly connected what was up. how do you prove that none of the majority did that on their own? and would you then really want to claim that the majority who voted yes did so out of ignorance? that would go over wonderful with the voters wouldn’t it now?
-does an informed electorate learn from typically innacurate media sources or by asking directly?
-conversly, can you reverse an election or get a new one ordered because the electorate never individually asked someone directly connected provided again you are able to evidence that?
-and how do you get an Order from a court to reverse the vote, or require a new vote, based on what appears to be simply sloppy communication. would not a reasonable court require you to prove some kind of malicious intent behind the sloppy communication? and are we really going that far then as to pull out conspiracy theories here?
jus wonderin’
-heck…were i to hear what i can see as oposing arguments to this…i’d send you both into a room and not allow you to come out until you agreed to work together, and a little harder on it next time…and stop bothering a court of law.
All of your statements assume that the only reason for overturning the election is because it was confusing. That’s not the case. The elections did not conform to the standards and procedures outline in the bylaws. Ergo, the election was invalid.
i try to be a little more on the basic side on some of this. i’m asserting that anyone who wanted to know could have called or messaged any one of a bunch of USAT folks and found out what they needed to know.
your original post or somewhere along the line i believe indicated issue #1-confusion, #2-lack of language.
confusion has been pretty clearly addressed. so were left with the what must be that the bylaws then state the language has to be posted accurately and timely, and presumably much more specific than that, on the website? there’s yet another joke for us all to roll around over. and do the bylaws state the only place official language may be posted is on the website, and subsequently the bylaws clearly state the framework under which the language must be posted?
otherwise, no one still has the right to make direct contact to clarify anything they might be confused about?
I object strongly to Steve’s insinuation that somehow those who voted in favor of the amendment number 2 either didn’t get it or don’t care about the governance of USAT. That is patent BS. They made the effort and time to actually cast a ballot. I believe the opposite may be true. Many who voted may have supported it because they have enough wisdom, professionalism and experience in board governance to know that this Board needs the ability to govern. I am very suspicious of motives that are stated as “because they didn’t follow the procedure exactly.” That doesn’t wash on the surface level. Does it bother me that they didn’t? Yes, to some extent. But more importantly at this point in time I believe in {and trust} the new board, the new director to straighten it out and they have a lot on their plate. All of the seriously dysfunctional board members who forced the situation are gone. I have much less trust in your motives and what you hope to accomplish. If its simply about procedures then you really need to get a life. I also object sternously that you would try to bring USAT to a screaming halt and cost another round of lawyer fees once again when over 3,000 people voted to support the amendments and essentially to get back to business.
IMO, protesting the election has a small chance of success. Even if the protest is won and everything they hope to acheive happens, there is nothing stop the BOD from doing it all over again … and again, and again … The longer this goes on the better for them b/c people will get tired and forget about it. Money is also on their side unless we get someone with very deep pockets and plenty of time to kill.
The root of the problem is the BOD. The only reliable cure is for the mass of the people to reject the behavior. Unfortunately, as Lew pointed out about the membership “expecting a high percentage of responsibility is unrealistic.”