Call our board representatives?
Call the USOC Blue Ribbon Panel?
Call the law firm representing USAT?
lew and i are flogging this thing. there may be a workaround, which we’re considering. i’ll let you know if i think we need an emailing campaign.
Please do! This is just getting annoying!!!
I’m sure I’m not the only one here who would contribute to some sort of legal fund to defray yours and Lew’s expenses. Just let us know.
Bob Sigerson
Dan,
What’s the hold up? I thought they had 30 days in which to get the ballots out?
“What’s the hold up? I thought they had 30 days in which to get the ballots out?”
all throughout the bylaws events that trigger votes have one of two phrases: either “no later than 30 days” or “not before 30 days and not later than 45 days.” however, in the case of the petition, the bylaws say, “not before 30 days.” period.
it has been assumed by long-time board members and USAT’s legal chair that this was a miscasting, and nobody i spoke to ever assumed it was anything other than that. no where, for example, is there an event in the bylaws that doesn’t have a closing date except in this case. in fact, in the very next sentence the phrase “no later than 30 days” is used.
certain persons, however, have decided that no, this is exactly what the writer intended, and that the lack of a closing date moots the entire bylaw section, because it allows the board to decide whether it likes the petition or not and to simply fail to mail it out if the member’s petition isn’t to its liking.
mind you, neither the office nor the board is saying this, but if actions speak louder than words (or in this case inactions) you see what’s going on.
so, it’s 50/50, or 60/40, or whatever odds you want to place on it, whether a judge will order the petition mailed. but it’s got everybody a bit edgy on the other side. they’re just waiting to see whether we actually spend the several thousand dollars to make it happen. only then will they make a move to mail the petition or reach some accommodation.
as i wrote before, this is the first, last and only time the members will ever have a chance to vote on a petition. i guarantee that this right goes away if this petition fails. as early evidence of this i simply offer as “exhibit A” the failure of this petition to be mailed. if this petition fails, kiss your federation and the several million dollars on its balance sheet goodbye. i predict that money will all go to the elites, because that’s the only constituency the usoc really functionally serves, and the complainants in the lawsuit ceded their power to the usoc’s blue ribbon panel. in my view the very LAST thing the usoc wants to see is an activist daughter federation run by politically engaged age-group members (how many of you running 10k and half marathons are members of USATF?)
if all this washes out according to my doomsday predictions, you won’t have a meaningful federation any longer until somebody forms a new one, which would happen before the end of this year (several prominent race directors are already planning for that). i wouldn’t mind that, but what galls me is that we’ve all paid a lot of money into THIS federation, and it will all go up in smoke. all those $9 one-days (for insurance that only costs $2), $30 annuals, national team uniforms you purchased, trips you bought through USAT’s official travel agent, conferences the RDs attended, coaching certification classes your coaches attended, these were all programs run to extract a profit, to build up a rainy day fund in case we had an insurance crisis. That fund has now accrued to several million dollars in equity sitting on the balance sheet. you’re a toenail way from seeing all that money transfer from you–the people who put it there–to 150 olympic-style eites.
some of you took umbrage, a week ago, because i boiled everyone down to givers and takers. here’s the reality. a LOT of those who read and post to this forum, and who race triathlons, can’t be bothered about what i wrote above. it’s too icky. and they won’t care until they don’t have triathlons to race anymore because we re-enter our once-every-decade liability insurance crisis. then they’ll scream. unfortunately, when they had the chance to protect the rainy day insurance fund you and they built to smooth over the rough spots, they sat on their asses and let it fritter away .
last insurance crisis: 1990. half our country’s races went away within 3 years.
Dan,
Let me ask you this, is the board still in a status of not being able to conduct USAT business and if so, who is behind the decision not to mail out the ballots for vote?
George
some of you took umbrage, a week ago, because i boiled everyone down to givers and takers. here’s the reality. a LOT of those who read and post to this forum, and who race triathlons, can’t be bothered about what i wrote above. it’s too icky. and they won’t care until they don’t have triathlons to race anymore because we re-enter our once-every-decade liability insurance crisis. then they’ll scream. unfortunately, when they had the chance to protect the rainy day insurance fund you and they built to smooth over the rough spots, they sat on their asses and let it fritter away .
last insurance crisis: 1990. half our country’s races went away within 3 years.
i’ve read the entire thread, and although i’m not completely up to date on all this stuff, i’ve tried to keep up…so what do i(we) need to do?
Dan,
What if you are not a current USAT member? If I renewed now, would I be able to vote (assuming there is a vote)?
so what do i(we) need to do?
Slowman wrote:
in my view the very LAST thing the usoc wants to see is an activist daughter federation run by politically engaged age-group members
I think Dan is advising us to do nothing right now.
“is the board still in a status of not being able to conduct USAT business”
the board can individually conduct business. it just can’t meet as a group and conduct group business. so, for example, the board president valerie ellsworth-gattis continues in her duties of managing tim yount, acting ex. dir.
“who is behind the decision not to mail out the ballots for vote?”
nobody. nobody is making a decision not to mail the ballots. also, nobody is making a decision to mail the ballots. they’re pretending the petition doesn’t exist.
want proof? does anybody think jim girand, valerie gattis, tim becker, diane travis, fred sommer, don’t know what’s said on this forum? anybody thinks they haven’t read the oped piece published a couple of days ago on slowtwitch? have you seen a post from any of these directors that says, “we’re preparing the ballots now. we solemnly promise they’ll be out by the 20th of march .”
no. you haven’t. and you won’t. the ONLY thing you’ll see here, if anything, are excuses as to why the ballot can’t be mailed, or promises to mail it in due time, and warrants that “we’re taking the petition very seriously,” etc. it’s clear that the ballot ought to be mailed out by the middle of march at the latest in order to keep faith with the members, and it just flat-out won’t. they had the chance to delay the issue of tri times you’ll be getting in your mailbox in a few days so as to include the ballot. but they didn’t. so now they’ll say, “we have to wait until may, the next issue of tri times, because it would be too costly to mail the ballot outside of the magazine.” but if they put the ballots’ mailing off to may, they know that kills the timelines for new elections set out in the petition. shrewd, eh?
look to your board members. they have all the power in the world to ask the USOC, and all the attorneys, if they can please follow the bylaws and mail out this petition. but they haven’t, and they won’t. i listed their names above. i didn’t list jack weiss because he’s all for mailing the petition. i also expect brad davison and ray plotecia are, tho i haven’t asked them. the three elites–who knows what motivates them?–but my guess is they won’t be for mailing any petition that empowers people like yourselves. (i hear that for the past few weeks the elites have been passing emails amongst themselves asking why it is the AGers are on their case, here’s an opportunity for them to rehabilitate their image, let’s see if they take it by demanding a vote on the petition).
the mayors of several cities around the country have ordered the generating of marriage licenses to gay men and women, always in the face of significant opposition. whatever you think of that tactic, it takes guts to stand up and do what you think is right, and to protect your constituency. if the board wanted to take a stand and protect your rights as members, how hard could that possibly be? they won’t. 'nuff said.
“If I renewed now, would I be able to vote”
yup. pay your $30 this morning, you can vote this afternoon. and, you don’t have to pay $9 one-day insurance anymore.
“I think Dan is advising us to do nothing right now.”
i’m not spoiling for a fight with the USOC, but don’t think that i’m afraid of it either. there is one thing the USOC can do to this federation: decertify it. if that was ever threatened, i’d be happy to break new ground and be the first federation to voluntarily withdraw from the USOC banner. we don’t get any money from the USOC except to house and fly around a few draft-legal elites, we otherwise generate all or own money, we take care of ourselves, we do just fine.
that said, i’m also happy to be a daughter federation of the USOC. my view is, we bring as much to them as they to us, and we have a relationship of equivalency. as long as the USOC treats USAT with the respect due to a fully-vested partner in a 50/50 relationship, i’m very happy to be best friends with the USOC. the key to stability in any relationship is for both parties to remain healthy should the relationship decline. therefore, i have no fear of the USOC, and our good relationship with that federation is based on being in a position of never having to fear it.
yes, i think we should have a little letter writing campaign. my question now is, who ought we to be writing letters to? i’ll have that figured out by monday, and i’ll post it here.
To Dan,
If it is going to cost money to obtain the action requested in the petition, please set up a fund for doing so. I will not hesitate to contribute.
To those that just want to do triathlons and don’t want to be bothered with all this crap, I ask “Do you vote for governmental (local, state, and federal) officials?”
If you don’t, please read no further.
If you do, please consider what fraction of your waking hours you spend on triathlon/duathlon. Of my 112 hours per week spent awake, at least 12 are spent doing triathon training/racing. That does not include reading, slowtwitch, etc. Therefore, more than 10% of my life is strongly influenced by USAT. Therefore, I will vote for, petition for, and financially support any effort that makes USAT responsive to my interests. The cornerstone of achieving that is a democratic USAT. The actions I have seen so far are autocratic; and, the thin democratic veneer makes it all the more irksome.
Heck, if Dan ran for President of the US of A, I might even campaign for him.
Bill
One place is to USAT. I just renewed so I could vote, and there is not a word about the petition or a possible vote on the web site. Only a brief blurb about the arbitation. I think its fair to ask the USAT to provide information on the petition on the website.
Dan,
(Pardon my cryptic use of “they” and “their”)
Call me a cynic, but I see the following scenario, if your petition is successful and the Bylaws are changed. A group of USAT members, who represent the interests of those currently in power (and who may have been voted out of office in the meanwhile), will propose an amendment to the Bylaws that substantially changes things back to the way they were. Because of general membership voting apathy on the one hand, and the dedication of those in their camp, they will get their supermajority of votes cast, and things will be as they were. They will then manage to get themselves voted in, and the USAT will be back where it was.
If I understand correctly, the USCF/USAC failed to get a quorum on ballot measures for many, many years; the Board (or whoever) finally decided that the membership didn’t care, and took the power into their own hands (where it still resides?).
Nevertheless, I certainly back what you are doing. I just think that the overwhelming majority of USAT members don’t care, and won’t care, what happens.
Ken Lehner
“Call me a cynic, but I see the following scenario”
see, i don’t view that as cynical. if a group of members wants to petition for a change, and 60% of those voting support it, they OUGHT to get what they want. currently, that’s sort of what’s happened. a group of people seem to me to want to enjoy a bit of power, and they’ve accessed the very apathy you describe in deriving their power.
my interest is in stopping that sort of abuse of power, and mine and lew’s cause is simply this:
- let’s have fair and clean elections.
- let’s have equal and robust representation of the members.
- let’s have ways for members to decide issues important to them.
- let’s have more, not less, sunshine on the process.
i’m willing to accept the will of the members. i’m not afraid of that. others appear to be, hence the lagging on sending out the petition.
girand, gattis and travis said it was okay to hold elections the way they did because they simply used the power the bylaws granted them. in the case of the petition, we were a group of people who did exactly the same thing. we used the power the bylaws granted us. so, ought the members to have a speedy election on their petition? this forum awaits the reply of any board member who wants to answer that question.
yes, we’re going to have a letter writing campaign, and yes, we’ll probably set up a legal fund. whatever happens, however, this is probably one outcome: eventually there will be an election for board members, and i would gess the question of whether gattis, girand or travis will ever survive that vote and be re-elected to the board is in serious doubt.
Slowman,
I have a few questions on what members can do, mostly stemming from the fact I cannot find ANY information on the USAT website about the bylaws, what state USAT is incorporated in, and just what the heck is a member “in good standing” (petitions can only be submitted by such members). Another complaint is the failure of USAT to articulate why I, or anyone else should be a member; I personally don’t think a USAT logo sticker is worth $30 a year. The only reason I send in my $30 is because it is cheaper than paying one day fees if you participate in more than three events.
I have served on the BOD of a non-profit, and typically bylaws have a provision for members to force a meeting of the board; is this also the case for USAT?
Maybe USAT decided Dan is not a member in “good standing”
I’d be careful using USAC as an example.
The Oregon Bicycle Racing Association (amongst many others including BRAC, etc.) seceded from USAC during that time. Since then, we’ve had:
-
More racing
-
Increased grassroots participation
-
Lower costs to promoters
-
An improved end-user experience driven by local involvement
The cost? Well, there is a lot of work for the “District Rep” Candi Murray (and her husband Mike Murray). However, you won’t see any of us looking to return to the “National Body” any time soon. Simply put, unless I hoped to make the Olympics or World Championships, it makes more sense to maintain local control in Oregon cycling.
With that said, until recently, I was very impressed with USAT and its ability to maintain a decent focus on the AG athlete.
Cheers,
Jonathan C. Puskas
“what state USAT is incorporated in”
california. but it’s not entirely easy bringing suit in california in this case, because suit has already been brought by others in colorado, and so suing in california might be in vain because a court has already asserted jurisdiction (it’s an open quesion, because the suit in colorado brought be vigorito, et al, is sort of in abeyance pending the blue ribbon panel). just the same, we’d sue in colorado.
"just what the heck is a member “in good standing”
if you’ve paid your $30 less than a year ago and you’re not under some sort of suspension you’re a member in good standing.
there are ways members can force a “special meeting,” most notably via a petition signed by 5% of the membership, which would be 2400 or so members, daunting but not out of the question. the problem with a special meeting is, where do you hold it? it would necessarily unfairly limit the voters to one particular region. hence, a petition forcing a nationwide election by mail or via online balloting would be the way to go, and is what we did.