USAT Election

Triathlon Forum
1

An Open Letter from America’s Olympic Triathletes:

Dear USA Triathlon Member,

We are proud to have worn the stars and stripes as representatives of the United States of America at the Olympic Games in Sydney, Athens, Beijing, and London, and we are proud of our membership in USA Triathlon. We could not have lived our dream to compete in the Olympic Games without your support, and the support of USA Triathlon.

An important component of USA Triathlon is the participation of athletes on the Board of Directors. From its inception as the recognized National Governing Body for triathlon, USA Triathlon has encouraged the participation of athletes on the Board, and reserved at least 25% of the seats on the Board of Directors for athletes. While the U.S. Olympic Committee requires at least 20%, USAT has always realized the importance of Olympian representation above the minimum standard.

All Olympians were once age-groupers, and many of us continue to compete as age-groupers when we retire from Olympic competition, giving us a broad perspective of the sport, not just the Olympic movement. In addition to supporting programs for all athletes, Athlete Directors serve an important role: to communicate the needs of athletes, and champion programs to help our Olympians and Olympic hopefuls.

The Board of Directors has proposed reducing the percentage of Athlete Directors from 25% to 20%. We oppose this proposal. As USAT members, you can vote to defeat this proposal, and keep the Athlete Director ratio at 25% of the Board.

Please support the Athlete Directors and our future Olympians and vote “NO” on USAT Bylaw Amendment Proposal #1.

Thank you.

America’s Olympians
Laura Bennett
Ryan Bolton
Julie Ertel
Sarah Groff
Jennifer Gutierrez
Manuel Huerta
Gwen Jorgensen
Hunter Kemper
Barb Lindquist
Victor Plata
Andy Potts
NICK RADKEWICH
Matt Reed
Jarrod Shoemaker
Sheila Taormina
Susan Williams
Joanna Zeiger Shenk

2

An open response to the open letter:

I agree with you. I think elites should have that 25% representation. I personally have no problem with that bylaw and I see no reason why it should be changed. As you rightly point out, elites have enjoyed a greater-than-mandated representation on the board - via election bylaws I was proud to help write and enshrine.

On the flip side is this: Elite athletes are taking advantage of an unfortunate reality in USAT’s bylaws (and probably to some degree via USOC requirements) which allow them to double-dip, both running for elite AND general director seats, and in the ability to vote twice - for 2 board members - while the rest of the membership can only vote once.

I think this is wrong. I would like to hear the Olympic athletes who’ve signed this open letter tell our readers why this double-dip - and in particular I’m talking about running for both general and elite seats - is a good thing. Or, if you do NOT think it’s a good thing, I’d like to hear you tell our readers that they should NOT vote for the elite member, or for a candidate put up to run on the elite slate.

3

Ditto Slowman. One person= One Vote. If you all trying to pull a ‘fast one’ just admit it.

4

An open response to the open letter:

I agree with you. I think elites should have that 25% representation. I personally have no problem with that bylaw and I see no reason why it should be changed. As you rightly point out, elites have enjoyed a greater-than-mandated representation on the board - via election bylaws I was proud to help write and enshrine.

On the flip side is this: Elite athletes are taking advantage of an unfortunate reality in USAT’s bylaws (and probably to some degree via USOC requirements) which allow them to double-dip, both running for elite AND general director seats, and in the ability to vote twice - for 2 board members - while the rest of the membership can only vote once.

I think this is wrong. I would like to hear the Olympic athletes who’ve signed this open letter tell our readers why this double-dip - and in particular I’m talking about running for both general and elite seats - is a good thing. Or, if you do NOT think it’s a good thing, I’d like to hear you tell our readers that they should NOT vote for the elite member, or for a candidate put up to run on the elite slate.

Dan

Can you answer for us all how many people we are really talking about who are considered “elite”. When I look on the USAT site … it lists 40 people, but I don’t know if that includes pro’s as well for the voting issue. If it really is just so few people, I’m perplexed about how the whole system and the vote is so messed up. Thousands of “regular” dues paying members who obviously are athletes as well seem to be totally bound up by a handful who even get special ballots. Something seems very wrong if the numbers are so small.
One vote per member … no special ballots … no special board seats unless there are a** LOT** more elites than what I see on the website. Those getting the handouts shouldn’t be voting their own benefits ( hmmm … starting to sound familiar ;-))

Dave

5

victor can speak to this, but, broadly speaking there are 2 elite cohorts: “pool” elites, and the rest. a pool elite is one who races in the olympic format and has risen to a level of excellence or competence or stature defined by the USOC. olympians, national team members and the like. these elites are eligible for 3 board seats out of the 11 board seats on USAT’s board. they are eligible for 2 board seats based on the USOC’s requirement for NFs. but the elites have 3 board seats because USAT’s bylaws go above and beyond the USOC requirement, granting the elites a 25% composition on the board versus the USOC’s 20%.

there are a lot of pro athletes who don’t fit the description of pool elite, and mostly these are pros who don’t, and never did, race in the olympic format. if you grow up racing AG in no-draft triathlons and move straight to pro, you aren’t a pool elite. you have no representation on the board, unless you want to race for a general director spot.

my issue is this: 10 years ago the USOC gave about $550,000 to USAT for its elite program, and USAT matched that with $550,000. now, the USOC gives roughly the same amount, and USAT gives about 4 or 5 times as much to olympic development as it was giving in 2005. that might be okay. USAT’s budget has grown. but it’s only okay if age-group racing - which funds that $2 million and more given to olympic development - does not suffer as a result.

i think we have races today which are not as safe as they should be; which are not as fair as they should be; which are not as professionally run as they should be; because there is not enough money in the budget for that to occur. i believe i can make this case. i’m happy to engage with any of these undersigned pros above, or anyone else, if they’d like to debate this.

meanwhile, the pool elites are trying to pack the board by electing athletes either directly eligible to be pool athletes, or sympathetic to their cause, for general director seats, although the pool elites have typically struggled to find enough of them just to be willing to serve in their own 3 mandated seats. i wonder why that is? i can only assume that it’s because they aren’t getting enough of what they want, i.e., that $2 million isn’t enough.

i doubt whether ANY of the signatories of the open letter starting with this thread will engage in this discussion, other than victor plata, who is running this discussion. i applaud victor because elite athletes in every sport struggle to make a go of professional life after retirement, and victor is not one of those. victor is a smart, tough, talented mofo. his problem is he’s herding cats. i would like to see any of the undersigned pros write, in their own words, here, why they signed the open letter and how they feel about this current elective landscape. let’s see how many do.

but if they don’t, that would and probably will frustrate victor, who is the one guy hauling the water and cutting the wood for these pool elites. he’s going to be embarrassed when maybe 1 or 2, at most, if any, respond on this forum to you all. it’s going to be clear that the very most he could get from them was an assent to use their names, rather than any real understanding and engagement in this representative process. i would LOVE to be proven wrong.

6

my issue is this: 10 years ago the USOC gave about $550,000 to USAT for its elite program, and USAT matched that with $550,000. now, the USOC gives roughly the same amount, and USAT gives about 4 or 5 times as much to olympic development as it was giving in 2005. that might be okay. USAT’s budget has grown. but it’s only okay if age-group racing - which funds that $2 million and more given to olympic development - does not suffer as a result.

i think we have races today which are not as safe as they should be; which are not as fair as they should be; which are not as professionally run as they should be; because there is not enough money in the budget for that to occur.

Well put as always … this seems rather glaring from a members standpoint where we are the ones who pay the bills by our dues … yet apparently our safety isn’t that big a deal so long as we can give big amounts to this handful of entitled individuals.
It also seems that election turnout by regular members is not a priority … ???so agendas can be maintained ???

Dave

7

Dave your last point is very astute- member voting apathy. I cannot recall the exact numbers from the last elections - but then USAT Membership ran about 144,000 and only about 1.4% actually voted - so about 1600 or so.

Years ago I saw a play called Having our Say - and the key line in the script for me was , “if you don’t vote- you have no right to complain.”

Come on everyone vote and be counted.

Thanks

8

“only about 1.4% actually voted - so about 1600 or so.”

when i write about the lack of elite athlete engagement, i don’t mean to pick on elites. there is a lack of engagement in the entire membership. mostly, it’s because the general membership does triathlon for fun. it’s a release. it’s your parallel life, away from life. so i don’t indict our membership for not voting. it’s just the way it is. when a big group people who are, as a group, exemplary, who are giving, honorable, high achieving, blah blah, don’t vote, then it’s not the problem of the group. it just is.

there’s a history to USAT. it was formed as an industry support group, by race directors. it was run by race directors. it was a way for RDs to establish a community. it was a way to pool resources. to guard against a catastrophic event. the question is, if this organization is now focused, or going to be focused based on the outcome of this election, most ardently on olympic development, does that leave the RDs back at square-one, without that industry cooperative? i don’t know. i think you have to look at the posture of the organization, moving forward.

obviously the organization is going to claim its #1 focus is the AG athlete, and the RD, on race safety, on keeping down costs for the RD, on race fairness, because that’s where almost all its budget comes from. but is that really the case? i just think we have to see.

9

Victor,

What your letter does not address is what you plan to do with your extra seat on the board. Why do the Athlete Directors need 3 seats on the board versus the necessary 2? Why should 27% of our national body be chosen by a very small percentage of its athletes?

For 2012 I see that the High Performance program was worth 2.8 million, 18% of the USAT budget. Does the contingent of Athlete Directors see this as a fair expense of the budget. Are they trying to protect this budget or increase it?

Personally I like our sport having domestic Olympians and see value in it. I think it worth while to spend a chunk of our budget on it. What I don’t understand is why this contingent needs 27% of the board (or more).

Why should us, the age groupers, let you keep this seat? Effectively giving up our votes, for yours?

Thanks,
~Greg

10

Dave your last point is very astute- member voting apathy. I cannot recall the exact numbers from the last elections - but then USAT Membership ran about 144,000 and only about 1.4% actually voted - so about 1600 or so.

Years ago I saw a play called Having our Say - and the key line in the script for me was , “if you don’t vote- you have no right to complain.”

Come on everyone vote and be counted.

Thanks

Voting is now open.

To vote https://www.directvote.net/USAT2 you will be asked to log in with your ID. Many will have already received an e-mail from USAT that has your personal login already attached so you can just click and vote.

I’m proud to have voted for Mike Plumb again in the SW region… and voted YES on #1 to restrict elite representation to 20%.

Dave

11

Greg, for clarification here, the Elites already have 3 seats and the proposition on the ballot to reduce representation from 25 percent to 20 percent does not change that number of current positions in any way. What it would do is if for some reason the total number of seats goes from presently 12 to 16 then at 25 percent the Elites would gain at least one more seat. A point to note, presently the USOC and USAT By-Laws require that every sub-committee or task force within USAT except the Race Directors Committee (RDC) and the Age Group Committee(AGC) be comprised with at least 20 percent elite representation. All of these committees are important because they provide valuable input and the basis for responsible governance on the part of the whole Board. But the fact is that that in the vast majority of the cases, Elites do not attend these Committee meetings and they do receive direct invitations from the Committee Chairs. As Treasurer of USAT, I chair the Investment Committee and the Audit Committee as required by the By-Laws. I can tell you that while there are Elites appointed to both, neither has been attended by an Elite in the last 12 months.

What does this say about their ability to seriously govern?? I leave that to you and the rest of the electorate to determine.

13

ironjack, how many committees are there and how often do they meet. are there other committees where elites are mandated to be part of but don’t show? if so, says a lot. thanx

14

Slowman…can you or anyone else give us a breakdown on how our membership fees are spent. I would like to see what % goes to support olympic developement, race officials, etc.

15

Alex, There are at least 15 sub-committees. Two of the Committees are mandated by the BY-Laws: Audit & Finance Committee and the Nominating Committee both of which have mandated 20 percent elites and yet none attend. All the Committees except the AGC and RDC mandate Elite representation but in most cases Elites do not choose to attend. The Committees meet normally once a month by Phone and the time and place are posted via e-mail by the Committee chair as required by USAT. Hope this helps.

16

I am not the Slowman but as Treasurer, USAT has a 2.1 million dollar Elite budget of which 600,000 dollars are from USOC funding. Race Officials are funded by charging Race Directors for their services. A major cost to USAT is the 1.9 million dollars paid for the insurance to produce 4000 plus events in 2014. I believe you can go to the USAT web site and the Financials are posted.

17

Greg, for clarification here, the Elites already have 3 seats and the proposition on the ballot to reduce representation from 25 percent to 20 percent does not change that number of current positions in any way. What it would do is if for some reason the total number of seats goes from presently 12 to 16 then at 25 percent the Elites would gain at least one more seat.

Ahh, thank you for that clarification. Is their a plan for the number of seats to change? What is the originating factor for this vote?

18

Of the approx. 13mil in expenses, 10.6mil are described as “Program services”; divided into “High performance, Event services, Nat’l events, Membership & Sport development”. Will you explain what type of expense is included in each catagory? thanks!!

19

Greg, not at this point. This is looking forward.

20

BHC, I don’t have that with me at this point. I believe you can go to staff directly and get that.I will say the breakout includes salaries, healthcare producing events owned by the federation like the national Championships. There are detailed lists but it would take more space then I have here.

21

<<Greg, for clarification here, the Elites already have 3 seats and the proposition on the ballot to reduce representation from 25 percent to 20 percent does not change that number of current positions in any way. What it would do is if for some reason the total number of seats goes from presently 12 to 16 then at 25 percent the Elites would gain at least one more seat. A point to note, presently the USOC and USAT By-Laws require that every sub-committee or task force within USAT except the Race Directors Committee (RDC) and the Age Group Committee(AGC) be comprised with at least 20 percent elite representation. All of these committees are important because they provide valuable input and the basis for responsible governance on the part of the whole Board. But the fact is that that in the vast majority of the cases, Elites do not attend these Committee meetings and they do receive direct invitations from the Committee Chairs. As Treasurer of USAT, I chair the Investment Committee and the Audit Committee as required by the By-Laws. I can tell you that while there are Elites appointed to both, neither has been attended by an Elite in the last 12 months.

What does this say about their ability to seriously govern?? I leave that to you and the rest of the electorate to determine. >>

excellent point Jack, bears repeating.
Now what we really need is instead of Victor coming on and telling us about the Elites, we need Melissa Merson coming on and really telling us what is going on behind this apparent Elite takeover of the BOD. That (IMO) is where the root is.