At the very least watch closely what happens this weekend as they grapple with the elections and the USOC. Should speak volumes
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.
I don’t think I said, implied or insinuated any such thing.
Certainly there was a lot of confusion over exactly what proposition 2 was… at least for ME, there was, and I suspect, for many others. Read the old posts on THIS forum and you’ll see a large number of people had no idea what Prop 2 was, or if it even really existed. I know what the stated purpose was, but not providing the text of the amendment is tantamount to asking for a blank check. The rules are there for a reason. When we allow them to become optional, we get problems like last year’s Board elections, and USOC telling us to get our shit together.
I’m glad you understood Proposition 2, and I’m glad you approve of it. I, however, refuse to allow my Board to disregard the rules whenever they feel like it.
I strenuously object? Is that how it works?
“Objection.”
“Overruled.”
“No, no, no, no, I strenuously object.”
“Oh, well if you strenuously object, let me take a moment to reconsider.”
i would agree with your opening line. but i don’t specifically blame the BOD. i see the issue as the BOD simply does not know which way to go. BOD’s fault…or maybe ours?
the lack of direction as far as USAT placing amateur age groupers, pros, or prospective Olypians, first and only, is a huge factor behind this and other confusing situations with USAT. trying to be everything for everyone has gotten us nowhere quickly.
i’d like the focus to be on age groupers. so from a purely and admittedly self-serving standpoint, and validity of legal challenges aside, i’m thinking the approval of #2 may give Jack a better chance at winning BOD support for his USOC separation move. that BOD meeting comes up this weekend if my calendar is working right.
My favorite scene in that movie…much better than the Cruise/Nicholoson showdown!
I didn’t care for the way they seemed to be trying to slip one by us with no real excplanation of what prop 2 was and the implications of it if implemented.
USAT won’t come to a halt if this comes to a lawsuit, they never missed a beat last year.
I support your efforts Steve, doesnt sit well with me either to ignore procedure.
wait a minute though…so if Jack can use approval of #2 to get the USOC separation proposal though…but then Steve’s lawsuit finds a loopy court to reverse the vote on #2…would that then mean a USOC supporter could get the BOD vote to separate cancelled out… because the basis was the reasoning applied by the majority BOD members due to a majority vote of the electorate…who a court determined voted under a shroud of ignorance plus malicious conspiracy? i need to sit down.
I can’t find the article “kill 2 so that 1 may live” any help?
I know I mentioned a lawsuit in a previous thread, but let me be unequivocally clear. At this moment, I plan on doing nothing other than filing a protest of the election results based on the fact that 1) the election was not run in accordance with bylaws as they existed prior to the election; and 2) the Board’s ineptness/sneakiness/whatever-you-want-to-call-it caused sufficient confusion as to the existence and/or content of the so-called Proposal # 2, that it should be invalidated.
If I feel I need to, then maybe I’d file a lawsuit after all internal remedies have been exhausted.
“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.”
Good thing we are a nation of laws, not of “belief in and trust”.
Have you ever heard about a book called “The Conduct of the Game”? Its a novel about baseball umpires. Its a beautiful book. It makes a point (which I have also heard expressed by basketball refs) that if you strictly enforced all rules all the time you could bring the game to a complete halt and ruin it for everybody players and fans alike. There are degrees of rules which range from those which require strict enforcement (usually affecting physical safety) to those which are judgement calls. The degree of enforcement affects the overall success of the game as fair or unfair, a good experience or not. It affects the actionand the dance. Yes we are a nation of laws but they are enforced on a case by case basis, usually with a high degree of inconsistency. We have to “trust” enforcement officers, judges, politicians to strike the balance on timing and severity so that in the broader sense (not neccesarily in each and every case) justice is served.
With some procedural rules, I’d agree with that statement. But I think it’s a little more than that in this case. Those rules exist to provide the membership with adequate notice of exactly what they’re voting for. Without seeing the actual text of the proposed amendment, how can you really know what you’re voting for (or against)? I WANT to trust the Board, and I want to let them do their job. But we just finished having to deal with a Board that took shortcuts and played fast and loose with the rules. Why are we going to let them start doing it again?
“There are degrees of rules which range from those which require strict enforcement (usually affecting physical safety) to those which are judgement calls.”
You are aware, of course, that in baseball some umpire decisions are not subject to appeal or protest, and some are. And, in addition, that the set of decisions that are subject to appeal or protest are explicitly specified? There’s no " trust" involved here. If an umpire makes a call that a manager disagrees with, and it’s subject to protest, that manager will protest, and there’s nothing that the umpire can, or should be able to, do about it. Ask George Brett.
Do the USAT Bylaws explicitly state that certain decisions are not subject to appeal or protest? Of course not. Like it or not, if the BOD did not obey their own Bylaws, their action is subject to protest.
I am possibly putting to much faith in change of BOD and new leadership but I actually like the balance struck in the new bylaws that retains the good open governing articles, yet gives them the flexibilty to change. Every non-profit I’ve worked for existed with similar structure. Mind you it still requires 2/3 agreement on any bylaw change. Getting these guys to agree on what to order for lunch appears to have been a challenge. I also think the more important area to press on is the enforcement of the sunshine provisions…which I agree they haven’t met and should. That’s where I’d start.
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:
It is unclear, and the reason I voted NO, whether the BoD wished the 2/3 ability to amend the bylaws to be in addition to the three methods as stated in the bylaws or to replace the three methods as stated in the bylaws.