You obviously don’t understand the litigation implications or the necessity of removing individuals who could be adverse to the case. You, Becca, have been an incredible advocate for SafeSport and for protecting athletes and others, which is why it’s disappointing to see you not exercising due diligence or engaging with the broader athlete community on these issue. You’re better than that, and I know you can do better here. Just do your due diligence and be part of the solution.
I'm a little confused. Do you think that Becca is a journalist, or trying to be? The timeline she posted seems fairly neutral, and in any case includes a link to all the trial documents -- where "both sides" have a chance to tell their story. What does any of this have to do with the "broader athlete community"? Why do they need to be engaged? How does a suspending the memberships remove individuals from the case, or otherwise have any litigation implications -- the suspended members will still testify, hopefully uninfluenced by the suspension.
You obviously don’t understand the litigation implications or the necessity of removing individuals who could be adverse to the case. You, Becca, have been an incredible advocate for SafeSport and for protecting athletes and others, which is why it’s disappointing to see you not exercising due diligence or engaging with the broader athlete community on these issue. You’re better than that, and I know you can do better here. Just do your due diligence and be part of the solution.
You know asking for *more* free labor to better educate and advocate from within USATF membership from the person who is genuinely accepted to have done the most and the best job of that over the last decade-plus makes you look like a real tool, right?
Like, you do it! Or acknowledge that what you’re asking is unreasonable.
You obviously don’t understand the litigation implications or the necessity of removing individuals who could be adverse to the case. You, Becca, have been an incredible advocate for SafeSport and for protecting athletes and others, which is why it’s disappointing to see you not exercising due diligence or engaging with the broader athlete community on these issue. You’re better than that, and I know you can do better here. Just do your due diligence and be part of the solution.
I'm a USATF member and a litigation lawyer.
I do understand the litigation implications involved here.
While I do not know all of the details, based on the information provided so far by USATF and Killough-Ali, as well as the publicly-available information in the ongoing litigation, I can say that the suspension of the type levied creates a colorable claim for retaliation, and may even be usable against USATF in the underlying litigation to draw adverse inferences relating to the testimony.
The only ones winning in this situation are the lawyers. I know; I'm often the one benefitting from my client and parties on the other side letting their egos run ahead of what's best for themselves or their organizations (despite my best efforts to drive them to think pragmatically, not emotionally).
As a USATF member I'm embarrassed by this nonsense. So embarrassed that I've begun to get involved in my state's USATF, and intend to continue to do so to help bring about change.
I am no Max Seigel fan. At the same time, neither am I a Max Seigel hater. The man has done good by USATF in a lot of ways, even if I don't think his salary corresponds with that as of late (plus, for the leader of a non-profit like USATF, is a bad look!).
Regardless, it is fast approaching the time for a change in leadership at USATF. We are the greatest track and field country in the world, and there is a lot to be proud of, but we are stagnating and not supporting the athletes, or the sport, as we should. We risk losing our lead, our strength, and losing the sport as a whole; new leadership is needed to avoid this.
The petty nonsense of this lawsuit, and how USATF has reacted to it (and reacted to the Nashville bid drama, generally) is not leadership. It's ego.
You obviously don’t understand the litigation implications or the necessity of removing individuals who could be adverse to the case. You, Becca, have been an incredible advocate for SafeSport and for protecting athletes and others, which is why it’s disappointing to see you not exercising due diligence or engaging with the broader athlete community on these issue. You’re better than that, and I know you can do better here. Just do your due diligence and be part of the solution.
I'm a USATF member and a litigation lawyer.
I do understand the litigation implications involved here.
While I do not know all of the details, based on the information provided so far by USATF and Killough-Ali, as well as the publicly-available information in the ongoing litigation, I can say that the suspension of the type levied creates a colorable claim for retaliation, and may even be usable against USATF in the underlying litigation to draw adverse inferences relating to the testimony.
The only ones winning in this situation are the lawyers. I know; I'm often the one benefitting from my client and parties on the other side letting their egos run ahead of what's best for themselves or their organizations (despite my best efforts to drive them to think pragmatically, not emotionally).
As a USATF member I'm embarrassed by this nonsense. So embarrassed that I've begun to get involved in my state's USATF, and intend to continue to do so to help bring about change.
I am no Max Seigel fan. At the same time, neither am I a Max Seigel hater. The man has done good by USATF in a lot of ways, even if I don't think his salary corresponds with that as of late (plus, for the leader of a non-profit like USATF, is a bad look!).
Regardless, it is fast approaching the time for a change in leadership at USATF. We are the greatest track and field country in the world, and there is a lot to be proud of, but we are stagnating and not supporting the athletes, or the sport, as we should. We risk losing our lead, our strength, and losing the sport as a whole; new leadership is needed to avoid this.
The petty nonsense of this lawsuit, and how USATF has reacted to it (and reacted to the Nashville bid drama, generally) is not leadership. It's ego.
You obviously don’t understand the litigation implications or the necessity of removing individuals who could be adverse to the case.
You're illustrating exactly what's sneaky and dishonest about USATF's position here. USATF's statement was drafted to fool non-lawyers.
Legal conflicts of interest arise under very specific circumstances, where the individual's interests and the organization's are not aligned. There are rules for how they are handled. The normal procedure is for a non-profit director to be recused and screened from any matters in which they may have a personal stake, but they are not removed as directors.
Here, however, there isn't even a conflict.
Being a fact witness for an adverse third party is not a conflict of interest. The point of anti-retaliation and whistleblower protection regimes is to ensure that people can truthfully testify against their employers without being punished. In many contexts, there would be no way to bring a successful claim against an organization without relying on testimony of employees, members, officers, or directors. This is not a lawsuit that will put money in the pockets of the witnesses or advance their own personal interests, potentially at the expense of USATF--that would be a conflict.
It's also not a conflict of interest to disagree with the position that USATF is taking in a lawsuit. Look at it this way: The entire point of a director is to exercise independent judgment about the direction of the organization. Indeed, directors can even be held personally liable if they simply rubber-stamp the CEO's decisions and those decisions harm the organization. So if a director is allowed to disagree with how USATF handled the issues that led to these lawsuits, it makes no sense to say that the director's opposition must cease at the moment of filing. If a director thinks that the organization's position in a lawsuit is unfounded, it is actually their responsibility to say so and to push for a settlement. A conflict of opinion is not a conflict of interest.
This post was edited 13 minutes after it was posted.
My wife is involved with a volunteer board of little consequence but I laugh at how horribly they botch and misinterpret the ways they think boards are supposed to act. It's almost like they're pretending to be directors based on what they've seen on TV. It's incredible to learn that USATF is functionally doing the same thing. I didn't read into the details too deeply but as someone who advises boards, I am wondering if they have legal counsel at all. Who is making these decisions?
My wife is involved with a volunteer board of little consequence but I laugh at how horribly they botch and misinterpret the ways they think boards are supposed to act. It's almost like they're pretending to be directors based on what they've seen on TV. It's incredible to learn that USATF is functionally doing the same thing. I didn't read into the details too deeply but as someone who advises boards, I am wondering if they have legal counsel at all. Who is making these decisions?
In the past it was standard for USATF's BOD to have their own independent legal counsel, separate from USATF's counsel.
I do not believe that USATF's BOD currently has their own independent legal counsel and I am not sure if they ever have in the past decade or so.
The BOD is generally advised by USATF's in-house counsel and possibly by any outside counsel the organization hires for specific situations (those discussions happen in executive session so I don't know how often outside counsel is involved), and of course a number of the BOD members and other USATF employees are attorneys themselves, so it's not like some small local non-profit that is clueless, but I agree with those who feel the organization would be better served if the BOD had its own independent counsel.
WTF! What kind of site is this? We're gonna relegate this thread to page 3 while all sorts of regurgitated slop takes it's place?
What'chu talking about, Willis? It's in the hot topics section, bottom of every page
I think this forum is dy-no-mite! but that's beside the point.
The article states that both members were suspended after a vote was taken and both have the right to appeal. They also have the unstated right to let their suspensions play out in the court of public opinion, where they will get a lot of support, regardless of why they were actually suspended.
In the article, it states that Jere Summers-Hall was suspended for the following reasons:
USATF in a letter to Jere Summers-Hall wrote:
“The Board received detailed reports of several significant concerns. These include, but are not limited to, allegations that you have not fulfilled the duties of your position by failing to work with the AC to ensure all athlete appointments are made to the organization’s committees; that you have exceeded the authority of your position by making certain decisions and appointments without first obtaining the AC’s input; and that you have harassed and berated other athletes and National Office staff. The athlete representatives also reported that the AC has been unable to advance any of its initiatives over the past year due to the disruption caused by these behaviors. They expressed that, if such conduct continues, athlete engagement in the AC is likely to further decline. In light of these concerns, they requested that the Board take immediate action
So, no mention of the Estes suit and some pretty serious, if vague, accusations.
Kristie Killough-Ali's suspension is a different matter. Here is the rationale:
USATF in a letter to Kristie Kilough-Ali wrote:
After further consultation with outside counsel, the Board discussed the immediacy of discovery and the likelihood that your position will be adverse to USATF. As a result, the Board holds significant legal and ethical concerns regarding your continued involvement in USATF governance committees and other membership functions while Litigation remains pending.
“Although you offered to discuss the matter further with the Board, you did not take actions to resign from the Board and other committees, nor did you volunteer to suspend your USATF membership. Therefore, the Board remains concerned that your continued participation could be detrimental to USATF both with respect to the Litigation specifically and the organization’s broader mission.
This is about the Estes suit.
I don't see how either person is being silenced, as they have both taken the opportunity to leak private communication to public media. And, again, they both have the right of appeal.
How do the AC athletes feel about their chair being removed by the board? Isn't that quite an overstep? They elected their chair. Did they have a say in this suspension?
I don't see how either person is being silenced, as they have both taken the opportunity to leak private communication to public media. And, again, they both have the right of appeal.
I would like the record to reflect that the title of this thread was edited by the admins of the site, they added the second half of it. I'm not personally making the allegation that they are trying to silence people in the Estes lawsuit, Jeré's suspension does not appear to be related to that at all.
But obviously they are being silenced to some degree more broadly speaking, because their entire membership was suspended, which denies their further participation in the Law & Legislation process, despite having each proposed numerous amendments.
I am not aware of a situation like this before in USATF history, where someone had active L&L on the table and then had a membership suspended.
The board could have chosen measures such as suspending them from the board while still preserving their memberships and ability to continue to participate in the legislative process.
I cannot see any possible connection between Kristie participating in L&L meetings and the Estes lawsuit or any of the concerns that have been raised. L&L meetings are open to the membership, nothing confidential is happening. I've attended dozens of L&L meetings and never been on the committee. I have proposed L&L before and advocated for it before the committee.
Few people have worked harder over the past seven years than Kristie on trying to improve the governance of this organization, even though I have personally disagreed with a lot of her proposals. In my opinion she has always acted in good faith.
Totally understandable. I guess this might be the situation and I’m sure the lawyers have plenty on their plate. I even understand the oversight with missing Jim’s COI disclosures but Siegel suspending board members is a bad look.
I don't see how either person is being silenced, as they have both taken the opportunity to leak private communication to public media. And, again, they both have the right of appeal.
But obviously they are being silenced to some degree more broadly speaking, because their entire membership was suspended, which denies their further participation in the Law & Legislation process, despite having each proposed numerous amendments.
With retaliation, often the purpose isn't really to silence the people who spoke out. After all, it's kind of too late for that. The idea is to send a message to anyone else who might think about speaking out in the future.