Stephanie Hightower tries to bully Law & Legislation Secretary, gets called out by Lionel Leach

agip wrote:this deal has made me a little queasy - any of us who has worked in organizations can understand that the boss needs to know if someone is actively working against her. it sounds like this guy Baker has been, in fact, working against the boss. Not because she is breaking any rules - just because he doesn't like some of hightowers' decisions.

USATF is a voluntary membership based organization, not a corporation. Hightower doesn't own USATF. Hightower is not the employer of committee members. She is the elected head of a voluntary organization, not the "boss."

What this comes down to is that Hightower views people supporting Bob Hersh over her as the USATF's IAAF representative as being "disloyal" to the USATF. In fact, it is perfectly appropriate for the USATF's members and volunteers to have different opinions than Hightower and to vote against Hightower's candidacy if they think that is what is best for USATF.

This is simply an attempt by Hightower to punish dissent by members by conflating loyalty to her (and her attempts at self-promotion) with loyalty to the USATF and its mission.

kmaclam wrote:

"Bullying" is a serious charge, especially in this day & age. And I also have some reservations about dispersing emails all over the internet. And what did Tim Baker say or do to precipitate this?? Anyone have the transcripts so that we can at least see what has gotten Steph in such a tizzy?

Yes, I should have given more context with my initial posts last night.

There are no transcripts of the Law and Legislation Meetings. The committee met over three days at the Annual Meeting in December. I personally attended all three meetings, though I had to leave pretty early in the second meeting.

I will try and summarize things as simply as possible...

Within USATF, there is the Rules Committee, for Competition Rules, and the Law and Legislation Committee, who deals with the bylaws of the organization. Submissions for changes are only accepted in alternating years, this year was a Rule year, not an L&L year.

However, under certain circumstances, changes can be submitted in an off year. Ostensibly, the USOC wanted USATF to make some governance changes immediately, so the Board of Directors was able to submit emergency legislation changes, which then had to be approved by the L&L committee.

Once these emergency changes were introduced, it opened those articles of the Governance Manual up to counter-proposals. David Greifinger submitted counter-proposals to most of the changes the Board introduced. He ALSO submitted a change that allowed the delegates to vote for IAAF Council nominee.

He basically took advantage of a loophole in the system. Historically, the L&L committee has ruled that (in an off year like this) once any part of an article has been opened via emergency legislation, the whole article is open for changes to be submitted.

That is how David was able to submit changes allowing the delegates to vote for IAAF Council Nominee, even though that topic was not part of the emergency legislation. Prior to this, it was ONLY supposed to be a vote of the Board of Directors.

Stephanie/The BOD/their legal counsel STRONGLY disagrees with this interpretation that allowed for the whole article to be open to amendments. They immediately withdrew the changes they had submitted to that article, but ultimately the chair of the committee ruled that it was legal to continue to vote on Greifinger's submission.

Long story short (and I know this is already long) the Board (basically, Becky Oakes representing Stephanie), caved in on most of the changes that the USOC supposedly wanted so urgently to focus on the election for IAAF Council. There was much drama over whether the Board could overturn with a simple majority or super majority, they finally caved at the last minute and avoided a closing session floor fight once Stephanie got her votes lined up.

Stephanie is still upset about this. She had a simple majority of votes lined up on the Board of Directors prior to the Annual Meeting. There wasn't supposed to be all of this drama, she was just supposed to quietly get elected and then be on the IAAF Council and the USATF Board of Directors for many many years to come.

This letter wasn't about the L&L committee not empowering the National Office agenda or helping move the sport forward, this is about Stephanie being pissy that there is still drama undermining her IAAF Council election.

I honestly have no idea what she is even talking about with Tim's "public statements" but maybe there were email discussions or something that I never saw.

Why is she sending this letter now? Months and month after the Annual Meeting? And why on earth was she foolish enough to do this over email instead of phone? I have no idea. I just hope that her fellow Board Members wake up and see the truth in time for Saturday's Board Meeting, their last chance to do the right thing and re-vote for IAAF Council nominee.

I am no fan of Hightower but I don't think her letter was incorrect. She appoints the head of the L&L committee. If the guy wants to keep his job, then he better tow the company line. By the way, that is how almost everyone involved with USATF in the upper ranks feels: be careful because SH has no mercy for dissenters. That, one could argue, is an ineffective leader.

All that said, the more I think about USATF, the more I think that the professional governing body needs to be completely separated from the mass membership. Get rid of the volunteers, fire SH, hire a real executive team and run it like the NFL and NBA. All of the other stuff (youth, seniors, etc) should become its own organization but not part of the governing body.

25 years ago we had TAC

25 Years Later

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/29/sp...he-crisis.html

Quote:

VIEWS OF SPORT; Track and Field: Solutions to the Crisis

By TRACY SUNDLUN; Tracy Sundlun is the executive director of the Metropolitan Athletics Congress and head of the New York Amateur Sports Alliance. He has coached internationally and nationally on the club and college level for 20 years.

Published: July 29, 1990

Make no mistake, track and field is a sport in crisis. The public's confidence has been shaken by a seemingly never-ending series of controversies. As it stands now, for instance, only a statistician with an assist from a surveyor and a meteorologist could tell you what the marathon records are today.

why does he write about laying in bed?

AKMarmoset wrote:

Obviously I can't guarantee anything. But I can say that the regional politics (while still maddening) are much smaller and more direct. It's much easier to directly interact with representatives at USATFNE than USATF. It's also easier to take broad consensus and focus that on a handful of representatives. I need to look at all of it, but I think USATFNE has their big meeting in November, leading up to the national convention.

We'll need to be prepared though, because I think we can expect SH to come out swinging as December draws near.

Associations typically hold their Annual Meetings in August or September. The National Office wants them held by the end of September because the delegates need to be submitted to the National Office not too long after that.

People who are interested in attending the Annual Meeting in Houston as delegates need to start getting involved with their Associations now. Even if you don't plan to go to the Meeting, you should get involved and try to communicate your feelings to your Association.

I'm just throwing this out there, but does anyone else suspect that Nike is behind a lot of this power struggle within USATF? They are the ones who have the most to gain. I can't help but thinking that we would have more luck getting Stephanie out of office if Nike wanted Stephanie out of office. So, how would we get Nike to want Stephanie out of office? Make it clear to Nike that we are tired of their bullying and meddling within USATF. Let them know that their behavior is going to drive down sales rather than increase them. Maybe LRC should be starting a Facebook/Twitter campaign that we can all get behind.

In Bed With Nike wrote:

I'm just throwing this out there, but does anyone else suspect that Nike is behind a lot of this power struggle within USATF? They are the ones who have the most to gain. I can't help but thinking that we would have more luck getting Stephanie out of office if Nike wanted Stephanie out of office. So, how would we get Nike to want Stephanie out of office? Make it clear to Nike that we are tired of their bullying and meddling within USATF. Let them know that their behavior is going to drive down sales rather than increase them. Maybe LRC should be starting a Facebook/Twitter campaign that we can all get behind.

I suggest a sponsor boycott a couple months ago which received two replies:

(1) Go away

(2) Agree

Good luck.

Mundus Vult wrote:

In Bed With Nike wrote:

I'm just throwing this out there, but does anyone else suspect that Nike is behind a lot of this power struggle within USATF? They are the ones who have the most to gain. I can't help but thinking that we would have more luck getting Stephanie out of office if Nike wanted Stephanie out of office. So, how would we get Nike to want Stephanie out of office? Make it clear to Nike that we are tired of their bullying and meddling within USATF. Let them know that their behavior is going to drive down sales rather than increase them. Maybe LRC should be starting a Facebook/Twitter campaign that we can all get behind.

I suggest a sponsor boycott a couple months ago which received two replies:

(1) Go away

(2) Agree

Good luck.

That is why I suggested that this endeavor should be spearheaded by LRC. The majority of posters on here assume that every other poster is an idiot, but would be more willing to throw their collective weight behind an LRC initiative. It will be interesting to see if Wejo or Rojo respond to this idea.

I do not suspect this, because Nike signs deals with Max Siegel, not SH. She seems focused on herself, not Nike.

I do not think a sponsor boycott would be productive. The issue is with the Board of Directors, the MOST productive thing people can do right now is email all of the Board members and ask them to rescind the vote for Stephanie and revote at this Saturday's Board Meeting: http://www.usatf.org/about/directory/info.asp?parent=&group=Board%20of%20Directors

Back when we had TAC--

* T.A.C. needs to reposition itself as a service organization first and as a governing body second. History has proved time and again that when an organization serves its constituency, the constituency is much more likely to give that group its respect, cooperation, loyalty and even obedience.

* T.A.C. has to learn from road running and take track and field to the people. Track is not sold as an elitist sport at the scholastic level. Why should it be when the athletes get older? Track, like road running, can and should be a lifetime participation sport.

* T.A.C. must reestablish among the sport's many different disciplines, groups and events that in order for all to succeed and even survive, everyone must work together.

* T.A.C. must take advantage of the fact that it is a model volunteer organization, ideally set up to use the many talents and contacts of its membership.

* T.A.C. must take a proactive, as opposed to a reactive, approach to the sport. Like any business, T.A.C. must spend money today in the belief that, like any investment, it will be returned tenfold in the future.

* T.A.C. must lead an effort to sell the sport for what it is - competition and the striving for excellence. We will kill it in the public's eye if we continue to market track only by the presence of stars and record possibilities. Where would football, basketball, baseball, tennis, gymnastics, auto racing, boxing and the rest of them be if the success or failure of an event or an athlete rested solely on whether or not more points were scored that day than ever before?

* T.A.C., developmentally, cannot continue to focus the lion's share of its energy and resources at the elite end of the sport, the one area in these difficult financial times that is able to fend for itself. The sport is woefully out of balance when the national scholastic indoor track and field championships (created and operated by the M.A.C.), which annually generates more than $2 million in scholarships, may die for lack of a $50,000 sponsor - about equal to what several of the world's elite athletes charge just to show up at a competition.

Track and field is a unique sport. It is not a game, but rather a discipline, one that has contributed to the development of millions of young men and women. I love how you can marry athletics with academics and can help someone grow off the field as they improve on it. For me, sport for the sake of sport alone holds little interest, but when it truly fits into the fabric of a society and contributes as it is capable, then I get excited. I, like many others, have been afraid we're about to lose that sport I love. But if T.A.C. can take advantage of what began in Chicago three weeks ago and take an objective look at what has been going on in New York for years now, it can reclaim that great sport. Being an idealist and an optimist, I believe it will.

polevaultpower wrote:

I do not think a sponsor boycott would be productive. The issue is with the Board of Directors, the MOST productive thing people can do right now is email all of the Board members and ask them to rescind the vote for Stephanie and revote at this Saturday's Board Meeting:

http://www.usatf.org/about/directory/info.asp?parent=&group=Board%20of%20Directors

Becca,

That doesn't make sense to me especially in light of the letter she sent to Tim Baker.

If SH considers L&L to be "her" committee, how could she not think the board also belonged to her? If the board ignored the vote at the annual meeting, why would they suddenly value the voice of the members? If SH will bully a committee head for letting discussion take place, why wouldn't she bully a Board member who dissented?

If revenue is driving growth and change in the wrong direction then people should choke the revenue stream.

That's just my opinion. I have sent my views to the board but I am sure they went in a big pile labeled "sh it we don't care about."

Mundus

meh wrote:

I do not suspect this, because Nike signs deals with Max Siegel, not SH. She seems focused on herself, not Nike.

Ok someone help me out here. What does Stephanie get from all of this...

Comments are made that the members of the board are volunteers. Is Stephanie? Does she get paid in this position? Does she get paid more if she is the IAAF Council Representative?

Does she expect to make change to the sport on the IAAF Council? Is she just in search of uber power over all of track and field?

As a former athlete in the sport does she not have any idea of how the sport works now that she is on the board?

What path did she take to become the board director?

Why does everyone on the board bend to her will. Is she like Hitler and just sounds that impressive when she is convincing you to do something morally wrong that you go along with it?

I just don't understand all of this at all, but agree she comes off as a terrible director.

In Bed With Nike wrote:I'm just throwing this out there, but does anyone else suspect that Nike is behind a lot of this power struggle within USATF? They are the ones who have the most to gain. I can't help but thinking that we would have more luck getting Stephanie out of office if Nike wanted Stephanie out of office. So, how would we get Nike to want Stephanie out of office? Make it clear to Nike that we are tired of their bullying and meddling within USATF. Let them know that their behavior is going to drive down sales rather than increase them. Maybe LRC should be starting a Facebook/Twitter campaign that we can all get behind.

I don't see that Nike has anything to do with it. It's a matter of Hightower being ambitious and self-aggrandizing and punishing anyone she sees as an enemy to her ambitions. I wouldn't be surprised if Nike would be just as happy if Hightower and her drama and dysfunction were gone. In any case, I think Hightower will be term limited and gone if her scheme to be elected to the IAAF fails.

Polevaultpower, you are completely wrong about the Ethics Committee. They are a great group of hard working people that care about the sport. The USATF Board has constructed the bylaws in such a way that the Ethics committee has no oversight over them. The EC serves to oversee any Ethical complaint for any member of USATF. Complaints against the Board of Directors and the CEO do not go to the EC.

polevaultpower wrote:

recall knope! wrote:

Is there anything we can do to get rid of her, now!?

No, not until the next Annual Meeting in December. And unfortunately, the USATF Ethics committee is a joke..

Editor's note 3/11/2015: This post by Weldon Johnson is replacing a sexist post that was removed. For more on this keep reading.

Alan Abrahmason has written a letter highly critical of Lionel Leach's letter to Stephanie Hightower. You can find it here:

http://www.3wiresports.com/2015/03/11/race-card-usatf/

First off, Alan noted a very sexist posts in this thread, that we have removed. It should have been removed in our moderating process but wasn't. I'm guessing it wasn't reported to us, and our moderators, myself included, didn't see it on our own because the language in it was worded strangely to get around our cuss filters and it was a very short post people might just skim over. Now that Alan pointed it out, it is clearly offensive. Usually we would just remove it, without a note, but I'm including this note as well so people don't think we are trying to cover up that it was posted here.

Turning to Alan's piece, I don't see how Lionel Leach's email which is way over the top is racist. Lionel makes crazy analogies to Bloody Sunday, but he also makes analogies to Richard Nixon and Chris Christie. He's equally over the top in his ridiculous analogies.

Alan goes on to set up a strawman argument. "Racism in any or all its forms cannot be tolerated, whether white on black, black on black, purple on green."

I agree one hundred percent. Almost no one disagrees with this. However, I don't see how Leach's email is racist. Alan drops a reference to the racists at the University of Oklahoma (I have no idea what that has to do with Lionel's email).

Alan then says, "No one condemns this noise? No one?"

Alan himself then cites 3 emails people wrote that were criticla of Lionel. So clearly people condemned the noise. I even posted in this very thread, "The langage (sic) of the Leach email is way over the top. The MLK references etc do a disservice I think to what Selma was about. Tremendous difference in degree. I think a more understated letter would have been more effective."

Now I focused on Selma, instead of the Nixon thing, but I don't see how his letter is racist. (I also focused on Stephanie because I consider the vote this weekend of much more importance). It does a disservice to the civil rights fight but it's not racist. Strip out the ridiculous analogies and Lionel argument is this:

"You see, I have witnessed bullying in all its forms. Every day the members in the union I represent are bullied by their bosses all day long. I dont let them get away with it, and I most certainly will not allow it to happen in the USATF, the organization I love most in the world.

Our good friend Timothy Baker received a letter from you that was offensive, disrespectful and downright abusive. It was Bullying 101, intended to intimidate Mr. Baker to do what you want. He was shaken by this threat and I am appalled to know that you would send this travesty to him."

That's his argument: Stephanie bullied Tim Baker. I don't buy he was "shaken" by this threat, but Lionel's letter was full of hyperbole.

I never thought to read his letter and think it was racist but the easiest way to not have a discussion on the merits of anything today is to throw out the race card.

That is exactly what Alan does. Alan in nearly every piece he has written that praises the current USATF administration brings out the racism/sexism angle. If anyone is pulling the race card it is Alan.

Dec 18: "The USATF board voted to put forward federation chairperson Stephanie Hightower for the IAAF council slot at elections next year despite a floor vote for Bob Hersh. This produced raw emotion. Why? Sexism? Racism? Petty personality politics? Some combination of all three? Or something altogether else? "

http://www.3wiresports.com/2014/12/18/get-program-people-usatf-trending/

(Correct answer: People feel disenfranchised and that they have no voice when a vote of 85% of them is ignored. USATF is super diverse. 85% of the delegates, the same people who elected Stephanie, a black woman, to be USATF President twice voted for Bob, who happens to be an old white guy, for the IAAF spot. Yet now we have to question their motives and pull the race and sexism card?

Feb 6, "What is it about Siegel, who is African-American, that seems to be so off-putting to detractors?"

Alan could easily have written the sentence above without mentioning Max's race but he does so with the words "off-putting" making the subtle hint without having to say it.

Alan continues: "The USOC has made diversity and inclusion a point of emphasis under chief executive Scott Blackmun, particularly in the management ranks of the national governing bodies."

http://www.3wiresports.com/2015/02/06/usatf-notion-homework/

Yes they have and the USATF delegates, the same people who voted 85% for Bob Hersh, are the same people who have made USATF the most diverse governing body of any sport in the USA.

Alan's final piece before todays doesn't hint that those who disagree might not have pure motives, but much of the reason that he cites for Stephanie being great for the board is she is in her 50s and black and Bob is in his 70s and white.

Feb 7: "This, too: the IAAF has a “demonstrable need for more women and women of color.” Hightower is African-American."

and " If Hersh got four more years, he’d see 79 before the end of his term."

http://www.3wiresports.com/2015/02/07/stephanie-hightower-iaaf-council/

If you think Bob Hersh has lost his faculties, come out and say it. Otherwise leave it out. Evie Dennis who is on the USATF Board is 91 years old according to this:

http://www.usatf.org/HallOfFame/TF/showBio.asp?HOFIDs=208

Discriminating against someone because of their age is no better than discriminating against someone because of their race or sex.

Alan has been one of my mentors in the journalism world. And the thing he taught me most was stand for what you believe. Do what is right. A job of a journalist is not to be liked (or disliked). If you have to ask a tough question, ask it. So thanks to Alan's guidance, I have no problem calling him out. Most importantly I don't question his motives. I think he is terribly misguided on this issue and does not know track and field like someone from track and field. But as Alan said let's "start acting with decency and tolerance."

I couldn't have said it better. Let's not question the motives of those we disagree with without proof, but not get sidetracked either. I was worried Lionel's letter would distract people from what the real issue is here and that is the Board of Directors ignoring 85% of its constituents and that is clearly the case. 85% of the diverse USATF Membership voted for Bob Hersh for the IAAF Council, and the Board of Directors may still try and overrule that.

Because the "tremendous growth" period that SH cited in her letter is about additional revenue brought in by the Nike contract. The argument goes that if Nike experiences backlash because of its partnership with USATF that they will mandate change.

Nike controls running in this country. If they want Hightower gone, she will be gone. The only way to do that is to boycott Nike.

Mundus Vult wrote:

Because the "tremendous growth" period that SH cited in her letter is about additional revenue brought in by the Nike contract. The argument goes that if Nike experiences backlash because of its partnership with USATF that they will mandate change.

Nike controls running in this country. If they want Hightower gone, she will be gone. The only way to do that is to boycott Nike.

what you're doing is playing chicken - to bug nike enough to effect change at usatf without making Nike wash their hands of what is probably charity to them.

be careful of ticking off nike with Phil Knight 77 years old - when he is off the track lord knows what will happen with Nike support of track - It's not guaranteed to stay as it was.

But I don't know the details of this long term arrangement with nike - if the dollars are locked in or if nike can back out. I suspect there are ways nike could scale back its usatf charity work if it wanted to. Would that help anyone? Nike seems to like this version of USATF - it made a long term investment. what makes you think Nike is longing for change?