The Board sets it. It should look at CEO salaries for comparable entities in terms of staffing, budget, etc. But to give some perspective, Sarah Hirschland the USOPC CEO compensation is $882K (2020 figures).
So does Max put up proposal out to the board on his salary and they just vote to approve it? I really don't get how this can fly unless he's giving some serious kickbacks to board members.
The Board sets it. It should look at CEO salaries for comparable entities in terms of staffing, budget, etc. But to give some perspective, Sarah Hirschland the USOPC CEO compensation is $882K (2020 figures).
So does Max put up proposal out to the board on his salary and they just vote to approve it? I really don't get how this can fly unless he's giving some serious kickbacks to board members.
From what I read in the little public commentary there is about that employment agreement, it is a contract signed by USATF after approval by the board in 2014 (2012, I'm not exactly sure) for an agreed upon term. That board was chaired by Steve Miller, with S. Hightower as Pres. If true, there would be very little that subsequent boards could do, and the range of options would be constrained by the terms of the contract (e.g. a termination "for cause" provision, how "cause" is defined, etc.). And, whatever those options may be there needs to be at least a majority of BOD members in support of any action.
USATF is a 'The Charity is Me' aka Non-Profit setup to benefit those at the helm. Red Cross, United Way, Public Broadcasting, NCAA, etc. are all non-profits with top exec making insane money. Lincoln Riley of USC Football gets his own corporate jet on 24/7 standby for use by his family only, while 90% of USC Football are not paid a dime.
USATF is a 'The Charity is Me' aka Non-Profit setup to benefit those at the helm. Red Cross, United Way, Public Broadcasting, NCAA, etc. are all non-profits with top exec making insane money. Lincoln Riley of USC Football gets his own corporate jet on 24/7 standby for use by his family only, while 90% of USC Football are not paid a dime.
Max Siegel.is a despicable POS and everyone associated with the sport should be disgusted by his salary and regime.
Q: how is the youth track & field scene where you (anyone) live?
But this is exactly what is wrong with this whole thing. Siegel justifying his salary because top athletes are making decent enough money versus looking at his salary and how many good athletes could benefit from a pay cut & some more USATF grants/funding.
I feel like USATF is caught up with other major sports/corporations. They think they need a CEO making a ton of $$$ & that's what will bring legitimacy. Maybe. But maybe someone who really cares about T&F would do a better job for a fraction of the price.
By all means, let's be clear: We're both angry at and frustrated by the situation, we both understand a number of the legal issues (and probably some of the issues that are frequently raised but tend to have little to do with this case), and (I'm guessing here) we're both lawyers who are not, at least by our profession's low standards, horse's asses.
We do seem to disagree on some things. One may be that I believe that more legal options are available than you do. Probably a much bigger disagreement is that I believe that there are excellent lawyers who can reasonably handle such a case for an amount much less than what you believe, and they certainly wouldn't have to do it for nothing. And on the flip side of that, I don't think that anyone in his right mind would hire an AmLaw 20 firm (or something similar) for this case, on either side. This is a crummy little entity with maybe 25 or 30 million in gross revenues that apparently pays something like eleven percent of gross revenues to a single employee and a substantial percentage to another. That's a big enough target for a good little plaintiffs' firm, but it's not a big enough defendant to hire an "AmLaw 20" firm on the other side, and no liability insurer (if there's an existing policy that even covers all of all the claims) would hire one.
As for remedies in something like a class action, there could certainly be refunds on member fees and dues as well as injunctive relief. (As far as I know, ever since Harding v. U.S. Figure Skating Ass'n, NGBs have been held to have contractual relationships with member athletes that can give rise to both monetary and injunctive relief in favor of the athletes.) But the defendant's biggest expense in such a case, and the biggest incentive for a profit-minded class action attorney, would be the award of attorney fees in any settlement or plaintiffs' judgment. Although judges have a certain amount of discretion in determining the amount of the fee award as well as the acceptability of any class settlement, even third-rate, ethically challenged class action attorneys tend to do very well in these cases. If they actually believe in their case, so much the better. And I don't believe that's typically a matter of state law; it's a matter of F.R.C.P. 23. (I haven't done class actions in a long time, but I think I'm right about that.)
I do suspect, as you apparently do, that USOPC may not be eager to get into matters of certifying and decertifying NGBs right now, though it probably could have spared itself millions of dollars if it had taken control of USA Gymnastics earlier. I think this case is more similar to the tussle over control of the taekwondo NGB, which I seem to recall was more about financial corruption and self-dealing. But a big push by USATF members and the journalists who have followed this case for a long time might catch USOPC's attention. The USATF Board does not appear to be doing its job, and people are noticing.
Finally, regarding the "choice of law" or "governing law" that either explicitly or implicitly applies to Siegel's employment contract, it's simply one of the first steps in interpreting the terms of employment and compensation that were agreed upon. I still haven't seen the contract, or many relevant portions of it. Although the contract presumably sets out a salary (and, one would hope, standards and limits for "bonus" awards), I have yet to see any serious discussion about, for example, conflicts of interest, retirement benefits, and "deferred compensation," which has made up the bulk of Siegel's income for at least the last couple of years. What previously earned compensation (which, in this year alone, was something like $2.5 million, was being deferred? I'm pretty sure that Siegel himself has acknowledged that he received a personal loan of about $1 million from USATF to pay taxes on some of that deferred compensation. I'd like to know what authority there was to lend this money to Siegel, and I'd also like to know what the specific terms of the loan were (anything less than market interest rates and full repayment of principal to a borrower with Siegel's credit history or rating would ordinarily itself be considered "imputed income" that would be fully taxable to Siegel and reportable to all taxing authorities).
Anyway, I didn't expect to be talking about things like this so many years after I transitioned to what I like to call my period of "deliberate work avoidance." I' am glad I still remember some of this stuff. Can't say the same about whatever I learned in French class.
