USATF BoardRecap: USOC Exec Slams Mt. Sac ""Thank goodness that embarrassment is behind us", USATF Board breaks its rules

H. Selection of Independent Board members:

The following procedures shall apply for selecting independent Board members that the Nominating and Governance Panel is responsible to select:

1. The Nominating and Governance Panel shall solicit applications for the independent Board member positions. All applications for independent Board members shall be submitted to the USATF General Counsel. All applicants shall fully disclose all current and prior business, professional, and personal relationships with USATF Board members, National Office staff, and all other interested persons as defined by USATF’s Code of Ethics.

2. If an independent Board member is eligible to serve a subsequent term, the panel may select that individual without soliciting applications for the position.

Bylaw reader wrote:

H. Selection of Independent Board members:

The following procedures shall apply for selecting independent Board members that the Nominating and Governance Panel is responsible to select:

1. The Nominating and Governance Panel shall solicit applications for the independent Board member positions. All applications for independent Board members shall be submitted to the USATF General Counsel. All applicants shall fully disclose all current and prior business, professional, and personal relationships with USATF Board members, National Office staff, and all other interested persons as defined by USATF’s Code of Ethics.

2. If an independent Board member is eligible to serve a subsequent term, the panel may select that individual without soliciting applications for the position.

My reading (and I think most others) is panel refers to the "Nominating and Governance Panel". If the Board could appoint this it would say "Board".

Bylaw reader wrote:

H. Selection of Independent Board members:

The following procedures shall apply for selecting independent Board members that the Nominating and Governance Panel is responsible to select:

1. The Nominating and Governance Panel shall solicit applications for the independent Board member positions. All applications for independent Board members shall be submitted to the USATF General Counsel. All applicants shall fully disclose all current and prior business, professional, and personal relationships with USATF Board members, National Office staff, and all other interested persons as defined by USATF’s Code of Ethics.

2. If an independent Board member is eligible to serve a subsequent term, the panel may select that individual without soliciting applications for the position.

That is referring to the Nominating and Governance Panel. Not the board.

Not only did they blatantly disregard our bylaws, I suspect they also violated a non-profit law as well.

The Board is supposed to have its own legal counsel, whose job it is to keep them from doing stupid crap like this.

Who is on that panel (names)?

wejo wrote:

Bylaw reader wrote:

H. Selection of Independent Board members:

The following procedures shall apply for selecting independent Board members that the Nominating and Governance Panel is responsible to select:

1. The Nominating and Governance Panel shall solicit applications for the independent Board member positions. All applications for independent Board members shall be submitted to the USATF General Counsel. All applicants shall fully disclose all current and prior business, professional, and personal relationships with USATF Board members, National Office staff, and all other interested persons as defined by USATF’s Code of Ethics.

2. If an independent Board member is eligible to serve a subsequent term, the panel may select that individual without soliciting applications for the position.

My reading (and I think most others) is panel refers to the "Nominating and Governance Panel". If the Board could appoint this it would say "Board".

If the bylaws have a definitions section, the difference between the usage of "board" and "panel" should be clarified there. I checked the bylaws and board is defined, but not panel. Panel refers to multiple panels in the bylaws, while Board is consistent in its meaning.

I also don't see anywhere in the bylaws that allow the board to vote on the selection of the independent board members. The authority for their selection seems to lie solely with the Nominating and Governance Panel, members of which cannot be voting or non-voting members of the Board.

I would be interested to hear a legal justification for this decision from USATF, because it doesn't appear to be legal. Moves like this make the USATF board seem incompetent, clueless, and arrogant.

I never would have guessed that USATF was capable of feeling embarrassment.

Also, final thought on the summary, the Board seems to be evasive in their explanations about the Lananna decision. Sounds more like a personal vendetta than a reasonable, well supported decision. It's interesting that they would seek to distance themselves from Lananna and Eugene related the controversy for the 2021 Worlds, but are perfectly fine with considering Eugene as the hosts for the 2020 Olympic Trials.

vivalarepublica wrote:

Also, final thought on the summary, the Board seems to be evasive in their explanations about the Lananna decision. Sounds more like a personal vendetta than a reasonable, well supported decision. It's interesting that they would seek to distance themselves from Lananna and Eugene related the controversy for the 2021 Worlds, but are perfectly fine with considering Eugene as the hosts for the 2020 Olympic Trials.

I honestly do not think Eugene has a shot. I think a lot of people on the Board have a strong dislike for TrackTown for whatever petty political reasons, and the reasonable people on the board will generally recognize that you cannot justify taking the meet away from Mt SAC because the stadium might not be done, and give it to a facility that has barely begun any of their work.

I did get the impression that the National Office is making the decision, it is not clear to me how much input the Board will actually have. But I also do not see the National Office picking Eugene.

But you never know, anything can happen!

They are going to perform a SWOT analysis of all three cities, so we can all be confident the decision will be fair and in the best interest of the sport.

polevaultpower wrote:

I honestly do not think Eugene has a shot.

Of course they do. More under the table perk potential from the locals. That was never going to happen at Mt Sac.

The board may not be the best but I honestly believe they will correct a blatant violation of rules. There has to be a procedure to overturn this and I assume at next meeting it will happen. I didn't hear discussion that this might not be allowed. It was sort of brought up as a good idea. I'm assuming it had to have been pre-planned to keep them on so I'm assuming someone planned this behind the scenes so the planner may have known it was in violation of rules but I don't think others did even those who voted against it.

Would be nice if USATF released audio of meetings. I recorded parts but much of this discussion was hard to hear.

On a different note, I am not sure what USATF can do to address the cost of the streaming services. These companies need to make money off the service or the service goes away. I guess USATF could lower the fees it charges for broadcast rights, but that then impacts programs.

wejo wrote:

The board may not be the best but I honestly believe they will correct a blatant violation of rules. There has to be a procedure to overturn this and I assume at next meeting it will happen. I didn't hear discussion that this might not be allowed. It was sort of brought up as a good idea. I'm assuming it had to have been pre-planned to keep them on so I'm assuming someone planned this behind the scenes so the planner may have known it was in violation of rules but I don't think others did even those who voted against it.

Would be nice if USATF released audio of meetings. I recorded parts but much of this discussion was hard to hear.

They seem to provide meeting minutes, but, at the very least, a transcript or full audio recording should be provided. I think that is important transparency reasons.

Luv2Run wrote:

On a different note, I am not sure what USATF can do to address the cost of the streaming services. These companies need to make money off the service or the service goes away. I guess USATF could lower the fees it charges for broadcast rights, but that then impacts programs.

I agree that there's no obvious fix, but national governing bodies for sports address all kinds of "health of the sport" problems that are not under the direct control of the organization. It often requires a lot of careful study of the problem, brainstorming about solutions, and discussions with various stakeholders. The result is often a medium to long term path towards improvement, rather than an overnight solution. But it's absolutely correct that it shouldn't cost as much as it does to watch livestreams of track meets.

The board notes from February aren't even public yet. But you're right the Board serves constituents. No reason the whole audio shouldn't be posted immediately after meeting.

wejo wrote:

The board may not be the best but I honestly believe they will correct a blatant violation of rules.

There is no motivation for the organization to operate in a manner consistent with its own rules. None.

wejo wrote:

The board notes from February aren't even public yet. But you're right the Board serves constituents. No reason the whole audio shouldn't be posted immediately after meeting.

There are minutes available for an emergency meeting on February 5th that focused on safety conditions in El Salvador ahead of a NACAC XC meet. But that is not the meeting you are referring to.

Full audio of conference call meetings and a professional transcription service should be standard for these board meetings.

vivalarepublica wrote:

wejo wrote:

The board notes from February aren't even public yet. But you're right the Board serves constituents. No reason the whole audio shouldn't be posted immediately after meeting.

There are minutes available for an emergency meeting on February 5th that focused on safety conditions in El Salvador ahead of a NACAC XC meet. But that is not the meeting you are referring to.

Full audio of conference call meetings and a professional transcription service should be standard for these board meetings.

I meant to say professional transcription for in-person meetings, like the one in Des Moines.

Is there any board that provides an audio of its meetings? (Leaving aside those in executive session.)