Vote "No" on Bylaw Petition

Triathlon Forum
1

Based on my extensive history with USAT, including three terms as USAT President, I strongly urge a “no” vote on the Bylaw Petition. While I appreciate the revision efforts of Dan and Lew, and while there are certain elements of the proposal with which I agree and certain other ones which I think are worthy of further discussion and refinement, there are many components of these bylaws with which I disagree and which I believe will be very problematic and potentially detrimental to the future governance of USAT. Since this Petition doesn’t give us the option of accepting some proposed changes and rejecting others, I believe we must say “no” to the Petition and use Dan and Lew’s proposals as a starting point for a serious and thorough bylaw revision project within USAT.

While the events of the past several months have been very troubling, distasteful, and should not have happened, they were preceded by a long history of growth and overall good management by a dedicated, hard working staff and many committed, selfless volunteers providing excellent contributions to the board of directors and the various committees and regional federations, making USAT one of the more respected NGBs in the USOC family. We must be very careful not to overreact in protest and make it overly difficult, cumbersome, and expensive for USAT to be governed and operated.

For those of you unfamiliar with my background, I summarize it as follows: 1992 -1994, founding Chairperson of USAT Age Group Commission 1993, creator and founding Director of the Michigan Grand Prix Race Series, which is still going strong with Lew Kidder as the current Director. 1994-1997, creator and founding President of USAT Mideast Regional Federation. 1998-2001, member, USAT Board of Directors. 1998, USAT Treasurer. 1999-2001, President, USAT Board of Directors.Additionally, I was a primary architect of the Protocol for the selection of the 2004 Olympic Team, and currently serve on USAT’s Legal Committee. (I want to point out that the views expressed here are my individual views, not necessarily those of the USAT Legal Committee.) I am an attorney in private practice in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Before itemizing the problems I see with these proposed bylaws, I again want to emphasize there are various sections with which I agree. By way of example and primary among them, is the creation of eight election districts, with one director elected from each district, as opposed to the current two directors from each of three regions and two at-large directors.

Turning to the problems I see with these proposed bylaws, they include the following: First, throughout the Petition, there are references to current bylaw provisions adopted with “No change” and others that are “Deleted”. However, none of those provisions are set forth in the Petition. While I am probably more familiar with the bylaws than most, it would take me a considerable amount of time and most likely consultation with others, to thoroughly evaluate whether when the proposed new provisions are integrated with the provisions being left unchanged and the ones being deleted, they all integrate into a document which does not leave us with significant gaps, ambiguities, inconsistencies or overlapping provisions. Article VII, Section 4.a.3. provides that directors shall serve one year terms. I see this as a major flaw in this proposal. There is a learning curve to being a director. New directors will hardly have their feet wet before they will need to start focusing on reelection. Directors will be susceptible to posturing their views and votes for reelection as opposed to what may be in the best interests of the federation. Running for the Board can involve a significant expenditure of both a candidate’s time and money. Going through this annually is problematic. For sitting directors several months of each year will potentially be devoted to campaigning, diverting the director’s attention from governance. This is not a good idea. Article VII, Section 6. While there is considerable flexibility allowed for the date of the first of the three regular yearly board meetings, the proposal mandates that the second meeting be in July and the third meeting be in October. This will not be workable. Scheduling board meetings is a tricky task. It involves the coordination of the busy schedules of eleven directors. It is particularly difficult to schedule the summer meeting. Occasionally it makes sense to schedule board meetings in conjunction with other events and in various locations other than Colorado Springs. That demands flexibility. In my tenure on the Board the summer meeting dates ranged from June to August. During my tenure there was never an October meeting and I have no recollection of there ever being one. The Fall meeting is where final approval is given to the budget and other important matters pertaining to the next fiscal year, and I believe the USAT staff would agree that October is simply not a workable date. Historically, this meeting has always been sometime in November or early December. Article XXI, Section 1.c. This requires that each year one issue of the Federation newsletter (Triathlon Times) be solely devoted to the annual election. Producing and mailing Triathlon Times to over 50,000 members is a costly proposition. While it makes sense to have the focus of the “election issue” be the election, it is imprudent to forbid USAT from communicating any other news to the membership in this issue. Article XXI, Section 2. This sets forth the election schedule for Board of Director elections in 2005 and beyond. With this schedule the candidates will be campaigning in the winter/off season between January 15 and March 1. This may just be my personal preference, but I believe we should encourage and facilitate the candidates’ personal interaction with their constituency. This can best be done at races. It is good for the candidates, particularly incumbents, to get out and personally meet with the members. A summer voting season encourages that. This schedule does not. Article XXI, Section 3. This calls for a Board of Directors election in 2004. It calls for an election to be going on right now, with ballots to be mailed to the membership July 1. Obviously, this provision was put in this proposal prior to the USOC ordering the current special election. Presumably, we can just pretend that this provision is not here. But, can it be demanded, that with certain time adjustments, we have a new Board election immediately after this one is concluded? Article XXI, Section 4. This provides that the bylaws can only be amended by a vote of the membership, removing the provision in the current bylaws which allows the Board of Directors to amend the bylaws by a 2/3 vote of the entire membership of the Board. I see this is as very serious flaw. Clearly, the membership should have the right to petition to amend the bylaws. The current bylaws give the membership that right. That is the process we’re going through right now. But, I view it as bad governance to totally take this power away from the an organization’s board of directors. We would all be hard pressed to find a significant organization or corporation whose bylaws do not give its board some authority to amend bylaws. Maybe there should be certain types of amendments which can only be made by the membership. That would be a good subject for discussion by a bylaw revision committee. However, to require every single bylaw change, no matter how small, to have to go through a process like this is not good governance. Article XXII, Section 1. This requires board meeting minutes to be “prepared, distributed, amended, and approved within 10 calendar days from the date of the meeting.” While getting minutes completed timely is often a frustrating task, and, accordingly, it may make sense to put some time requirements in the bylaws, this 10 day requirement is extraordinarily impractical, if not impossible. USAT board meetings are two, sometimes three, days in length. They generally extend from 16 to 20 hours. To expect quality minutes to be prepared within 10 days is a stretch, much less having them also carefully reviewed and amended by all eleven board members within that time. Requiring such a short time frame is likely to create more problems than it is intended to solve. Article XXII, Section 3. This places the same requirements on the minutes of committee meetings as Section 1 places on board minutes. I have the same general concerns here as noted above. Article XXII, Section 4. This deals with USAT’s website. It may make sense to have a section in our bylaws setting forth certain requirements with respect to the Federation’s website. It is certainly a good topic for thorough discussion by a bylaw revision committee. This provision requires USAT to create a “forum” section on its Website. That’s probably a good idea. However, it then requires USAT to hire a person “whose job it is to respond promptly and thoroughly” to the submissions on the forum. This is a costly, massively time consuming, bad idea. I doubt if Dan would want to be forced to “promptly and thoroughly” respond to every post on this forum, even though I expect he will respond to this one. Article XXII, Section 5. This deals with freedom of information. While I agree with the principle that the members should have access to USAT information, this provision is very broad and has the potential for creating almost impossible demands on USAT staff. This is just another example of an important topic, but one which needs more thorough discussion. This one particularly requires input from USAT staff.Some of these points may appear minor, and many of them individually might not be a sufficient basis for voting “no” on this Petition. But, collectively these flaws call for a “no” vote followed by further work on the important task of bylaw revision.

2

i’ll go through your issues one by one. you might have a visceral reaction to the petition at first reading but, after a little back-and-forth, you might feel differently. however, the visceral reaction to what i write in the next paragraphs might make all that moot.

you write, “While the events of the past several months have been very troubling, distasteful, and should not have happened, they were preceded by a long history of growth and overall good management.”

i’m wondering which parts you thought were distasteful? i write this because, as i recall, you were the architect of the “voting station as part of registration” tactic. much of the election practices honed to a fine art by jim girand were those which were instituted under your presidency, and originated with you (at the chicago triathlon, perhaps? you might refresh my memory).

so, when one considers the root of these abuses, and federation transparency, and member empowerment, i don’t know that you represent the poster child for appropriate membership engagement. that established, here is my answer to your points:

• “they all integrate into a document.” we’ve already been criticized by taking on too large of a task. we’ve tackled a third of the existing bylaws. you’re so right. once you tackle one, you’ve got to tackle another, because they’re interconnected. hence we tackled all those which related to each other. when we didn’t amend a bylaw, it was because it was far enough afield of the issues of voting, representation, and transparency that we felt we didn’t need to change it.

• “one year terms.” as has been presented here ad nauseum, first the board has to demonstrate it’s earned more than a one-year term. second, at any point the membership, or the board, can place on the annual ballot the question of 1yr v 2yr terms. however, i certainly don’t believe any board has earned the right to expect a longer term at this point. it ought to be the membership that decides this, not the errant board members themselves.

• “schedule the candidates will be campaigning in the winter/off season between January 15 and March 1,” and “second meeting be in July and the third meeting be in October.” Understand what’s going on here. Previously boards like those which you oversaw conceived of plans in the Fall, then left office and the new board inherited those plans, too late to amend them. a board ought to have both the right and the responsibility to execute the plan of which they’ve conceived. this new schedule allows them to do so. were triathlon a winter sport, then yes, the current schedule would make sense.

• “one issue of the Federation newsletter (Triathlon Times) be solely devoted to the annual election.” there is no addn cost to taking one of the six tri times issues and devoting it to the election. me? i’m not especially riveted by most tri times copy. no big loss if one of these issues is devoted to a process that has gone so awry.

• “It calls for an election to be going on right now.” you’re late to the party. the BRP asked us to delay implementation of the petition until after it rendered its verdict. we did so. read the severability clause at the end of the petition. we’ve agreed to set this element of the petition aside, and render it unenforceable. it doesn’t affect the rest of the petition. the USOC originally asked us to delete this from the petition as it was unenforceable. we agreed, and lew did the work. however, at the very last minute (USAT executive director) tim yount (probably on the advice of USAT’s current attorney) said the entire petition must be included, tho this part is unenforceable. so, it doesn’t apply, and i believe tim may even have included a phrase in his remarks that attests to that.

• “bylaws can only be amended by a vote of the membership.” you can’t amend the U.S. constitution easily, you shouldn’t be able to amend USAT’s bylaws easily. plus we, as members, no longer trust board members to be the sole arbiters of what goes into the bylaws. 'nuff said.

• “To expect quality minutes to be prepared.” transparency is new to USAT. that notwithstanding, USAT needs to get used to the same sort of rigor applied to other corporations. USAT’s staff is now perhaps twice what it was when you were president. also, the budget and revenues are twice as large. time to become a real company, instead of the private club USAT has operated as in the past.

• “I doubt if Dan would want to be forced to ‘promptly and thoroughly’ respond to every post on this forum, even though I expect he will respond to this one.” Right-e-o. slowtwitch gets 700 posts each day. i doubt USAT’s forum would get that much. if it did, how about we task USAT’s PR person, b.j. hoeptner, to do it? as it is, i haven’t seen but two or three press releases in the last month. must be time in her schedule for the communications director to, well, communicate.

• “freedom of information.” i’m glad you came out against this. i would assume anyone who reads your remarks are now sufficiently apprised of the degree to which you represent the status quo to understand why we need to change the status quo. i’m running for the board. i’m urging YES on the petition. should board members feel that they can’t exist under the strictures of the petition, i urge them to stand aside. lew, i, and others would be glad to take their place.

3

Mike:

That is a thought provoking response so I’ll be sure to re-read it and think more about it. Thank you for your input.

Regarding amending the bylaws, I think in a membership organization such as ours the requirement that the members approve bylaws changes is a good one. This amendment would avoid the catastrophic results which would otherwise be possible if a renegade board decided to “fix” everything, including elections. Not that we’ve had a renegade board or any renegade directors… :slight_smile:

Minutes of meetings can be transcribed almost in real time today. You are behind the technology curve. Lawyers do it all the time. Er, well, court reporters do it for lawyers. :slight_smile: The minutes should be on the web site within 48 hours of each meeting, IMHO.

I happen to agree with your newsletter objection, but that is a small matter. Most of the best information from USAT SHOULD BE ON THEIR WEBSITE. That includes complete minutes of all board meetings, per above. I complained about this to U.S. Swimming and they refused to do it at a time when U.S. Swimming was being run by a golfer. Furthermore, if USAT has an urgent communication for its members that communication can be made through the numerous web sites and Usenet newsgroups.

It’s been my experience that directors don’t want the minutes to be easily accessible because they know they will get grief about some issue. Too bad. Get out of the kitchen. (I haven’t forgotten Goebbel’s view that “truth is the biggest enemy of the state.”)

A lot of the foregoing could have been done during YOUR ADMINISTRATION, speaking of viscera. :slight_smile:

Regardless, I appreciate you views.

-Robert

4

Mr. Highfield,

Are you serious? You don’t think it’s possible to produce minutes in 10 days? I think 10 days is excessive.

Have you ever worked in a real job in the corporate world?

Wow.

5

Dan, The only issues I raised in my post were regarding the proposed bylaws and I tried to so with respect and appreciation for the efforts of you and Lew. While I am disappointed, I am not surprised, that you inititated your response to my post, not by addressing the bylaws, but by personally attacking me and my service to USAT as President for 3 years–3 years in which we fielded our first Olympic Team, brought the USAT National Training Center to reality, greatly expanded the role and funding of Regional Federations, and never put the membership through anything like the last several months. I could also detail many extraordinary accomplishments as President of the Mideast Regional Federation and Chair of the AGC. but won’t. AND, Dan the charges you level are not accurately stated. I DID NOT originate the election practice of handing out and collecting ballots at races or elsewhere. I WAS NOT the architect of that practice.

I first ran for the Board in 1997. I inquired of USAT as to what was permissible and what was not. I was advised that it was permissible protocol for candidates to hand out ballots to members and to then collect those ballots and mail them. This was a protocol that had been used for some time prior to my candidacy. Accordingly, one of the ways I got votes was by handing out ballots and collecting them at races, including Chicago. It was a common practice in campaigns then, before then, and subsequently. These were all elections prior to the more advanced potential use of the Website we now have. To the best of my knowledge no abuse was ever alleged, no member complaints or conerns were ever made, and unlike now, no legal committee opinions were ever issued recommending stopping or amending the practice.

There was actually nothing specific in writing as to what could be done and what couldn’t be done by a candidate in the election process. There was just this protocol that had been used and accepted for many years. It was not a big issue during my tenure, maybe in part because there was no abuse, and also there were virtually no hotly contested elections during my tenure as President. However, in my last year on the Board I, on several occasions, urged the creation of a written election protocol manual, which would spell out to all candidates what was and was not permissilble election practice. I was not able to get any significant interest in getting that done. I will concede that that is unfortunate, and maybe I should have pushed it harder. It would have sparked good debate, resulted in Legal Committee input, and likely have been resolved internally and appropriately.

I am not totally privy to all that transpired with the board on this issue in the last year, but it was clearly mishandled to the detriment of USAT and its image. Apparently, and possibly because concerns for abuse were now a bigger fear, this became a significant issue in a year of several hotly contested elections. Confusion reigned over a passed resolution. Two strong and clear opinions from the Legal Committee were rejected, a lawsuit followed, the USOC had to step in, and huge legal expenses were incurred by USAT and others.

After witnessing how badly a Board can screw things up, I am even more proud of my tenure as President of the Board, both for what we accomplished, but also because we never put USAT through anything remotely like this.

Anyway, I remain appreciative of the work you and Lew have done in bringing focus to bylaw revisions, but continue to strongly urge a “no” vote for all the reasons stated in my post.

6

Hello Mike,

It’s nice to see another voice chime in on the topic, especially one with such experience and long-standing history with USAT.

Unfortunately, as I’ve posted previously, my opinion with respect to the petition is the exact opposite. This is what draws me to respond, but not to attack, but instead to ask a question.

Let’s say that the petition fails, as you suggest. Let us also consider that the same individuals who have started talks about extending term limits to 6 years get elected.

In so doing, these same individuals decide to pass, under USAT’s current bylaws, a provision that effectively ends memberships’ possibility of ever putting a petition forth in the future. After this legislation passes, they decide to keep the doors closed to all meetings and the bylaws continue to resemble that which we’ve seen.

How would you suggest we, the ownership of USAT deal with that scenario?

I see how Dan and Lew are dealing with it, and although I don’t like everything that is included, I like the direction they’ve headed in. What has happened in the past isn’t right, it’s not the correct way to run an organization like ours and we are entitled to more accountability from our leadership. We demand it. This petition does exactly that.

What I would most like, is for everyone to start playing nice again. At that time, put for a board generated petition, ENDORSE it strongly, and present it to the membership. I can’t fathom a petition that had a reasonable change, like term limits to 2 years, or an adjustment of regions from eight to ten (sorry Dan, had to throw that one in there), that also included a paragraph from the sitting BOD supporting and detailing the need for changes to the membership, wouldn’t be passed.

That’s my take on it, FWIW.

Vote “YES” for the petition to pass, it’s what’s best for the sport.

7

MIKE HIGHFIELD: " . . . This was a protocol that had been used for some time prior to my candidacy. Accordingly, one of the ways I got votes was by handing out ballots and collecting them at races, including Chicago. It was a common practice in campaigns then, before then, and subsequently."

LEW: It is possible the protocol was there prior to your original candidacy in 1997, but you were clearly the first to exploit it. More importantly, you ignored entirely Dan’s second and more important observation: that you were the one who stood at the table checking USAT licenses at the Chicago Triathlon - a mandatory stop for all people entered in the race - and there solicited votes for your candidacy by handing them ballots and then collecting the ballots once marked. Did you in fact do that? Had any candidate in a campaign prior to 1997 stood at a USAT desk and solicited ballots? Did anyone else do so in the 1997 campaign? Wasn’t that a considerable escalation (exploitation) of this previously existing “protocol”?

8

Dan, I’m trying to figure out why these jobs are so important to the current board members. Is there a pay check involved or is it just a lot of prestige? I was under the impression that these were non-paying jobs. Any way you put it, it would be a slap in the face to lose one.

jaretj

9

“it was permissible protocol for candidates to hand out ballots to members and to then collect those ballots and mail them.”

Forget whether this was “permissable.” What part of that protocol sounds like a just, equitable, and ethical way of doing business?

I’ll tell you what part sounds right to me. . .none of them. Sooner or later it HAD to produce a dispute such as we are now in the process of resolving.

My 10 year old could have figured out that one. I am really puzzled as to how such a protocol came to be seen as “permissable,” let alone acceptable amongst a sober gathering of adults.

10

“you inititated your response to my post, not by addressing the bylaws, but by personally attacking me.”

you’re new to this board i think, that is, you don’t normally post here on how to stop a bottom bracket from creaking, or when to start your taper (i’d vote to make you USAT imperial emperor if you could stop all speed wobble). most of us have been here awhile, and before this we hung out at RST. during that span of time we all generated a history, and we’ve got a record, even if that record is just a list of a few hundred or few thousand posts to message boards.

my record on this subject is quite clear. i didn’t start carping about elections recently. when i asked you about the voting station at registration, i’m not just picking on you. i wrote about this almost 20 months ago, after the 2002 election:

http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/opinion/election02.html

since i’m here, with my baggage, my history, my record, it seems only right that not only your words, but your deeds, ought to be part of the record that you bring into this discussion. you think so as well, or else you wouldn’t have listed your accomplishments and legacy as past board president.

i didn’t attack you. had i attacked you i would’ve called you a poophead or a dirty so-and-so. i certainly acknowledge your service to the sport and, no, you’re not a poophead (to the best of my knowledge). at the same time, USAT’s board of directors has been devolving for some time now. it’s not just bad election practices. it’s also the habit of keeping from the membership any real idea of what our federation is up to. i asked you a question four years ago, when our board was preparing to elect a new president of the ITU, triathlon’s world governing body:

“I do not mind if America’s federation votes to keep McDonald, et al, in power. I simply believe that those who own the federation (you’re an equity shareholder if you’re a USAT annual member) ought to know why. Is it because McDonald is the best man for the job? Or is it–as some have speculated–because USAT has handicapped the field and suspects McDonald will win, and so does not want to incite the well-documented anger of this man?..”

as you might remember, my intention was to publish the answers from all USAT board members, which i did. here was your answer…

“As USAT President and as one of the four United States delegates to the Perth World Congress, whose collective responsibility it will be to cast our country’s vote in this critical election, it would be inappropriate for me to comment publicly on this issue, and I will not do so.”

we didn’t get a comment from you afterward either. in my view, that’s the sort of thing we need to change. there is a view in colorado springs that what goes on in colorado springs stays in colorado springs. this is why almost every sport’s governing body has lost the involvement and engagement of its members who are, lest anybody forget, it’s owners. USAT has operated in this very same way for too long.

i’d like to stop that. that’s why i co-authored this petition.

i suspect you might see this as another personal attack. i rather see it as part of your record, and when you, or i, give our opinions on an idea, we bring more than our words. we bring our past deeds.

that said, i did, and i do, value your words, and that is why i answered your bylaw comments point by point.

11

Am I the only one to see the irony of an ex-president of USAT coming to your forum pledging for a vote against you, while explaining why it would be a “bad idea” for USAT to have its own forum?

12

Dan, I’m trying to figure out why these jobs are so important to the current board members. Is there a pay check involved or is it just a lot of prestige? I was under the impression that these were non-paying jobs. Any way you put it, it would be a slap in the face to lose one.

jaretj

Sorry jaretj, I’m not Dan, but I might be able to shed some light on the subject, so I thought it okay to respond to your post.

There is no pay check involved with any of the board positions… directly. That is to say no one specifically receives compensation for serving on the national board of directors. Travel to/from meetings is funded (reimbursed), so arguably expenditures out-of-pocket are also kept to a minimum. Current board members as well as previous board members would obviously have a better take on this than I do.

Much of the issue surrounding the positions on the board relate to individuals thinking they are doing what’s best for the sport. Meaning, as with anything else, egos come into play. Regardless of whether you or I believe in a candidate’s platform or approach to running USAT, the most dangerous aspect is that the candidate believes in his or her approach. As with anything else, that’s what makes politics such a different arena.

Let’s get back to the money issue. I have no hard evidence, nor it is even fair for me to insinuate anything, but looking over meeting minutes, and understanding a little bit about how things operate, it would be possible for a board member to, for example, use travel, paid for by USAT, and capitalize on that travel for personal or business reasons.

Does this happen a lot? No, I don’t think so. Is there a means to avoid this completely? I don’t think it’s possible to completely avoid it, no. Is there a conflict of interest here? I think that’s pretty obvious (yes, there is, IMO).

Other potential conflicts of interest that can be pointed out revolve around race direction, amateur athletes who might travel to worlds or Hawaii to “represent” USAT. There will always be a potential for this type of thing to happen. Some of it does happen, but most of it doesn’t. All in all, the board is comprised of good people who mean to do well by you and I for our sport.

You might find it valuable to read over board minutes, paying special attention to reimbursements request as well as any meetings that were attended by board members. I think this will give you some ideas of things that could be paid for by USAT, and will shed some light on the perks of being a board member.

Please don’t take this post as an attack on board members in any way, or one of me blowing the whistle on anyone. I personally don’t think that board members take advantage of the situation, I am merely attempting to answer your question in slightly more detail.

I hope this helps.

13

Thanks for the explaination Jeff, that cleared some things up for me.

jaretj

14

I think there is also the issue of where the National Championships and Olympic Qualifier races are held, and who directs/manages them.

15

What Jeff didn’t mention is the biggest payoff of all, that is, the ability to come into a forum like this and, instead of just saying, being a past member and president of USAT, you can spout off the myriad of accomplishments that occurred in your administration. The biggest perk is the ego trip.

Bob Sigerson

16

Admittedly i could do more research, but for anyone who knows. If you are a board member, say for the last 3 years, where and when were reimbursed trips for meetings (or other purposes) made and what were the typical expenses.

I’m not on a witch hunt here, I think meetings should be reimbursed and i see no reason why a meeting shouldn’t be at a nice place and involve some fun, but their is a limit. For example driving 3 hours or flying coach if it would be longer a longer drive is fine. Flying 1st class isn’t. Having a meeting in Las Vegas (central, cheap location) is fine, Maui or Paris isn’t.

17

As I mentioned, I’m not completely in the “know”. However, I can tell you that board meetings are held, or at least have been held in one of two places. Colorado Springs, CO or Clermont, FL. These meetings are put on at very minimal (read-reasonable) costs with a low budget in mind.

Costs reimbursed are for coach-class flights to and from the meeting as well as accomodations at the meeting. No five-star restaurants, not staying at top of the line hotels. Very straight-forward accomodations. There aren’t any Enron parties going on.

The items that I was referring to that seem a little more marginal would be more like individual or smaller group travel arrangments. ITU events, age-group championships, IM-Hawaii, etc. I don’t know if any of the costs of attending these events or others has ever been paid by USAT for a board member, but it is conceivable that it has happened.

I’m not trying to suggest any of these things are completely “wrong” or bad uses of funds, if they even happen, merely that they could be added perks to being a board member.

In some cases, it is difficult to see the total value to USAT if these things do happen, but that’s another conversation.

18

From what Dan and Lew have said,a light will be shown on these expenses under the new sunhine policy with the financial statements.

Bob Sigerson

19

Dear Dan and Lew:

        Dan, you’re right.  While I have visited Slowtwitch many times, this is the first time I have posted on the forum.  I certainly expected some strong opposition from you guys on my position on the bylaws, but even I find it a bit incredible that you have dug deep into relatively tangential stuff to make it the focus of responses to my post.  Because your responses to my post continue to be in your case Dan, grossly inaccurate, and in your case Lew, somewhat inaccurate and a  bit disingenuous, I will do what is probably the stupid thing, and try to respond. 



        First, to you Dan.  You say in your post of last evening that you’re concerned about the “habit of keeping from the membership any real idea of what our Federation is up to.”  You then use as an example USAT’s vote to keep Les McDonald as President of ITU at the 2000 Perth Congress.  You then pull out a pre-Congress quote from me on your website where I said that since I was only one of four delegates to the Perth Congress it would be inappropriate for me to comment at that time on the vote and that I would not do so.  Clearly, since I was just one of four delegates, and we did not make our final decision until we had all arrived in Perth, it was appropriate for me not to comment at that time.   



        It’s here that we get to your gross inaccuracy.  You then say “we didn’t get a comment from you afterward either, in my view, that’s the sort of thing we need to change, there is a view in colorado springs that what goes on in colorado springs stays in colorado springs”.   



        Dan, you’re not the only one that keeps old stuff around.  The Perth Congress was April 27, 2000.  On May 5, 2000 I drafted and posted on the USAT website a 2 ½ page document entitled **“****USA**** Triathlon Delegation Report to the USAT Membership on the 2000 ITU Congress**”.  This report is still on the USAT website and can be found at: <u>http://www.usatriathlon.org/viewRelease.asp?File=05-05-2000_1.txt</u>.   



        Lastly, I think your position that USAT does not, in general, communicate well with its membership is not fairly stated.  During my tenure at least, Steve Locke on a  regular basis did weekly reports to the membership which were posted on the website.  You and your readers can go to the “Archives” section of the “USAT News and Information” section of the USA Triathlon website and those weekly reports are still there.  In those Archives you will also see a tremendous number of regular reports to the membership, including summary reports of board of directors meetings issued very promptly after the conclusion of the meetings.  And, of course, in addition to all the postings on the website, there is Triathlon Times which goes out to the membership 6 times a year. 



        Now turning to Lew’s comments on my election practices back in 1997.  First, I stand by the comments I made on this issue in my second post yesterday.  In your post Lew, you say “It is possible the protocol was there prior to your original candidacy in 1997”.  It’s not “possible” that it was there.  It was there.  Everything I did in my campaign I cleared with USAT.  I learned what was permissible from others who had done it before.  To say that I was the first to exploit it or the first to work hard at gathering votes in this manner is erroneous.  To say that I was working the registration desk in Chicago is erroneous.  Certainly, the registration area in Chicago was one place where I sought votes.  I also did so down in the expo area.  Having been President of the Mideast Regional Federation for 4 years I personally knew many of the athletes.  A great many of those who voted for me on the spot were people that I knew.  There were many I would approach that did not want to vote, and they didn’t.  There were those who wanted to take a ballot home and think about it.  I would give them a ballot.  



        I explained all this yesterday so the real reason I’m responding to you now Lew, is that I find your comments here to be a bit disingenuous.  Obviously, you were in Chicago and saw me collecting votes.  We were at races together all over the region, so I certainly assume you observed me doing so at other races.  I don’t recall whether you or your wife ever voted for me at one of these races, but one or both of you may have.  



        We are both longtime residents of Ann Arbor.  We have known each other for over 20 years.  Since 1997 we have seen each other and communicated with each other frequently.  Our basketball seats at the University of Michigan are about 10 feet apart.  We have over the years discussed several USAT issues.  In early 2000, you sought my assistance in getting a special invitation for Sheila Taormina for the Sydney World Cup, which was the first race being used in the selection of our 2000 Olympic Team.  I did what was necessary to get the special invitation for Sheila.  



        Never in all of our contacts did you ever raise a concern about USAT election protocol.  And, you obviously saw it firsthand.  Never in my four years on the board of directors and three years as President did you call me or write me and suggest that USAT should address vote solicitation practices, or any aspect of election protocol.  My urging to the USAT board to formulate a written election protocol manual was my idea.  It was not at the suggestion of you or any other member. 





        P.S.  to Trirunner.  In your post you said that I stated that it would be a “bad idea” for USAT to have its own forum.  That’s not true.  What I said in my post was this: “This provision requires USAT to create a ‘forum’ section on its website.  That’s probably a good idea.”  My concern is with the requirement that USAT hire a person to respond to everything on the forum.
20

“This report is still on the USAT website”

i never saw this. kudos to you for posting it, and my bad for not knowing it was there. you are right, i am wrong. i apologize.