Becca Peter is here to answer your questions on USATF Annual Meeting and why you should vote no on giving the Board more power

Becca

Thanks for doing this.

I'll start with a question.

I know I framed the issue differently than you did in your editorial so correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume the Board wants this legislation passed because it gives them more power. Is that correct?

So the call for reform by the USOPC actually lines up with the Board interests?

wejo wrote:

Becca

Thanks for doing this.

I'll start with a question.

I know I framed the issue differently than you did in your editorial so correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume the Board wants this legislation passed because it gives them more power. Is that correct?

So the call for reform by the USOPC actually lines up with the Board interests?

I think each individual on the board has their own reasons for supporting this.

If you only care about running USATF as the most efficient business possible, this legislation makes sense. There are good arguments for moving in this direction.

But I come at it from a different perspective. In the business world, the employees can leave and work at another business if they are not happy with how the business is being run.

If you want to make the Olympic team in the sport of track and field, you HAVE to go through USATF. There is no other path. So I do not think it is appropriate to make our governance perfectly match what other businesses or other non-profits do.

We have seen the results of “money and medals first” in other NGBs. The USOPC loved USA Gymnastics and USA Swimming because all of the power was concentrated at the top of the organization, making them easy to deal with. The USOPC knew they were covering up sexual abuse and protecting abusers and they did not care.

Now the USOPC is using the Larry Nassar case as an excuse to try to force us to make changes, but I feel strongly that the change I am opposing pushes us strongly toward the governance models that we already know failed.

Some board members genuinely feel this is good governance. Some board members want the power it will bring. Some board members think this is a bad idea, but the USOPC is holding a gun to their head with the threats of decertification and they are not in a position to say no.

That's a bold statement I'd like to see some support for but that can be another discussion.

A couple points.

I don't read them as holding a gun to their head. They've made some vague threats from what I've read which probably can be ignored. Maybe the Board wants to make it look urgent but the USOPC letter said if this isn't changed it's "likely to be identified s areas of NGB non-compliance." and then "if the items remained unadressed".. that could lead to "launching a separate process that could end in decertification of USATF".

So 1) We're multiple steps away from decertification.

And point #2. I get some governance manual might say the Board should have the power in theory. But in practice what are the end results that USOPC is upset about? What concrete things have been done by the membership that have hurt USATF as the NGB?

Are there any? As a follower of the sport I can think of multiple things the Board have done that I disagree with.

So back to the real world and not some corporate governance manual, I'me fine with the Board having less power. But even if the USOPC is upset with USATF I don't see how it is because of anything the membership has done? What am I missing or is this just about internal politics and the USOPC feeling the need to show they know what proper corporate governance is about?

I just don't understand they the USOPC even cares. What am I missing? Or do I need to get more in the weeds to care?

How did the Bowerman Track Club set "American records" when they violated multiple rules on setting national records? Please vote no on their ratification if possible. Thanks.

Becca,

Thank you for your analysis of the board situation and vote this coming weekend.

What has greatly troubled me in recent years is that the board and USATF executive management has shown little to no interest in grassroots growth. The masters and youth programs are a confusing mess of good intentions, incompetence, backbiting, and apathy from the top. While I am all for elites having a voice at the table, do you sense any movement by the powers in Indianapolis to create a long term stable plan to address the larger membership's needs?

Let's be frank, if all USATF does is smile and crow about "The World's #1 Track and Field Team", why do we even need them at all? The Oly and WC teams selects themselves via performance and any medals or records attained are done so without any assistance from the NGB.

Thanks!

What is the downside of the Board getting this power?

What does Vin think?

I don't have a question per-se but I'm supportive of this effort by Becca. USATF is not perfect but its inadequacies are nothing compared to the greed and corruption we've seen in the USOC (now USOPC), the IOC and the IAAF. At least USATF gives athletes a voice now (which was hard fought). We've seen time and again in almost every organization that board members tend to look out for their own interests, the only solution is transparency and oversight by the greater organization and community. USATF is the only Olympic organization in the US that has that now and it's been a long fight to get here, we cannot let the USOPC strong arm our sport because it threatens their gravy train.

Grouchy Runner wrote:

How did the Bowerman Track Club set "American records" when they violated multiple rules on setting national records? Please vote no on their ratification if possible. Thanks.

Sorry, I have not kept up to date with where their marks stand in the ratification process. I am not a member of the records committee.

Voting isn’t going so well this year. Come back later with this crap.

CO Coach wrote:

I don't have a question per-se but I'm supportive of this effort by Becca. USATF is not perfect but its inadequacies are nothing compared to the greed and corruption we've seen in the USOC (now USOPC), the IOC and the IAAF. At least USATF gives athletes a voice now (which was hard fought). We've seen time and again in almost every organization that board members tend to look out for their own interests, the only solution is transparency and oversight by the greater organization and community. USATF is the only Olympic organization in the US that has that now and it's been a long fight to get here, we cannot let the USOPC strong arm our sport because it threatens their gravy train.

Thank you. I wish people would look at how this type of governance has worked out for the other large NGBs. Most of them are engaged in expensive litigation for their failures to protect athletes. USA Gymnastics is going through bankruptcy. I cannot remain silent on this issue.

Our governance model needs to continue to evolve and we should work with the USOPC. But we need to push back when the requests are unreasonable.

In 2008, they told us that we needed to eliminate ALL constituent reps on the board, and that we should have a soft mandate that all board members contribute financially to the organization. In 2018 they told us that the independent members on our board were going to start coming from a list that they gave us.

We have never blindly accepted every single thing the USOPC has proposed and I don't think we should here either.

Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:

Becca,

Thank you for your analysis of the board situation and vote this coming weekend.

What has greatly troubled me in recent years is that the board and USATF executive management has shown little to no interest in grassroots growth. The masters and youth programs are a confusing mess of good intentions, incompetence, backbiting, and apathy from the top. While I am all for elites having a voice at the table, do you sense any movement by the powers in Indianapolis to create a long term stable plan to address the larger membership's needs?

Let's be frank, if all USATF does is smile and crow about "The World's #1 Track and Field Team", why do we even need them at all? The Oly and WC teams selects themselves via performance and any medals or records attained are done so without any assistance from the NGB.

Thanks!

I think this is the flaw with having a single governing body for the sport. Professional Track and Field should have its own organization. Do you think the NBA cares about youth or masters basketball? Youth track should have been left with the AAU and Masters should probably have their own organization as well. USATF tries to do many things and does many of them poorly. We've already had USTFCCCA split off and it seems like they are doing a better job representing coaches and providing coaches education than USATF ever could. USATF needs a narrower mission statement, and they need achievable goals for the budget they have. They take in a lot of money from their membership and they give almost nothing in return.

should i care wrote:

What is the downside of the Board getting this power?

What does Vin think?

Well once the board has this power, they have nearly unlimited ability to control who is on the board by changing the bylaws that determines who is on the board.

Weldon was with me in 2018 when two members of the board were allowed to vote for themselves to remain on the board past their term limits. This did not move forward because it violated the bylaws and behind the scenes volunteers threatened to file a Section 10 complaint :

Moving forward, it would be easy for the board to return all elected positions to positions that go through the nominating and governance panel, and to change the panel to better suit their political whims, returning us to the governance model we had when Stephanie Hightower was President.

But honestly, they could get crazier. They could move the athlete board seats to being selected by the panel as well, ensuring that outspoken athletes never get on the board. They could eliminate all term limits. They could eliminate having a President that is elected by the delegates.

I do not believe that our current board WOULD do those things. But we only have to look back a few years to find a board that would. Once we lose this power, we are at the whims of whoever ends up on the board in the future. If we have a great board, things will be great. If we have a self-serving board, we will be unable to stop them.

What does Vin think? Vin's statements indicate that he thinks risking decertification is bad.

CO Coach wrote:

I think this is the flaw with having a single governing body for the sport. Professional Track and Field should have its own organization. Do you think the NBA cares about youth or masters basketball? Youth track should have been left with the AAU and Masters should probably have their own organization as well. USATF tries to do many things and does many of them poorly. We've already had USTFCCCA split off and it seems like they are doing a better job representing coaches and providing coaches education than USATF ever could. USATF needs a narrower mission statement, and they need achievable goals for the budget they have. They take in a lot of money from their membership and they give almost nothing in return.

I think the professional athletes would benefit greatly from having an independent organization to represent their interests. AAC serves an important function, but ultimately is not best suited for handling the business needs of the professional athletes.

I disagree that USATF gets a lot of money from their membership. Membership dues are only a small part of the overall budget, and half that money goes to the local Associations where the members live.

Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:

Becca,

Thank you for your analysis of the board situation and vote this coming weekend.

What has greatly troubled me in recent years is that the board and USATF executive management has shown little to no interest in grassroots growth. The masters and youth programs are a confusing mess of good intentions, incompetence, backbiting, and apathy from the top. While I am all for elites having a voice at the table, do you sense any movement by the powers in Indianapolis to create a long term stable plan to address the larger membership's needs?

Let's be frank, if all USATF does is smile and crow about "The World's #1 Track and Field Team", why do we even need them at all? The Oly and WC teams selects themselves via performance and any medals or records attained are done so without any assistance from the NGB.

Thanks!

I think that the "powers that be" are interested in the idea of grassroots growth, but do not understand how to make it happen, they are too disconnected from the grassroots and have largely been unwilling to spend the time at that level to learn.

USATF does more for the top tier athletes behind the scenes than you may realize. Once you reach a certain level, there is some financial support, medical support, travel reimbursements for certain USATF Championships. Unfortunately, those efforts only go so far, and we lose a lot of athletes after college who could make it to the next level with more time. But the support from USATF is not zero and our athletes will be harmed if that abruptly dries up.

Yusef Scummm wrote:

Voting isn’t going so well this year. Come back later with this crap.

There is no later. If this passes, the delegates will no longer be able to vote on the bylaws, and mostly likely the same thing will happen with the Rules package and the World Athletics representative.

Becca, how can we use your voice and position to decertify USATF and start anew with a modern-day federation that places athletes and participants first?

Becca,

From a legal perspective, is it prudent to allow large groups of volunteers to make decisions that leave usatf open to litigation? Is that not a reason for this request from the USOPC? Is this not an attempt to make the organization a bit more professional?

Relying on volunteers to help run the organization has been helpful to usatf in the past but as the organization grows financially could you see this current structure holding the organization back? Why not reinvest in staff positions and allow the organization to operate (albeit much, much smaller) like the MLB, MLS, etc. Those organizations would never allow volunteers to make organizational decisions.

So Cal Runn3r wrote:

Becca,

From a legal perspective, is it prudent to allow large groups of volunteers to make decisions that leave usatf open to litigation? Is that not a reason for this request from the USOPC? Is this not an attempt to make the organization a bit more professional?

Relying on volunteers to help run the organization has been helpful to usatf in the past but as the organization grows financially could you see this current structure holding the organization back? Why not reinvest in staff positions and allow the organization to operate (albeit much, much smaller) like the MLB, MLS, etc. Those organizations would never allow volunteers to make organizational decisions.

Well, all of the large NGBs that have their power concentrated at the top of the organization, in a more "professional" way, are currently engaged in litigation for failing to protect their athletes from sexual abuse. USA Gymnastics was raking in the cash with Steve Penny in charge, which the USOPC loved, and now they are going through bankruptcy.

Let's look at USATF's most recent litigation. While it was not a lawsuit, we had extensive legal bills because of the witch hunt against Vin Lananna, which USATF lost in the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

They had a lawsuit from Nick Symmonds which was largely due to USOPC regulations about logos and had nothing to due with the actions of USATF's volunteers.

There was a lawsuit that USATF instigated against its own Youth Executive Committee that was going poorly for USATF and they eventually settled in favor of the Youth Executive Committee. This was a matter that should have been resolved through the grievance process and not in the courts.

I'm not sure how much USATF had to spend on Nick's lawsuit (that may have been covered by insurance), but I believe the other two legal issues cost the organization several million dollars in the end.

I cannot speak for the entire history of the organization, but the recent legal expenses have largely come from the decisions of the board, not the little people below them.

There has been a move over the past few years to ensure the National Office has the final say on business decisions. That is why the 2016 Marathon Trials ended up in LA. But I agree with the office that volunteers should not have the final say when it comes to awarding contracts and such, and we have strengthened the bylaws to have better clarity when it comes to business decisions versus sport decisions.

I'm not sure where the reinvest comment comes from. The volunteers do not get paid, so I am not sure where any savings are to reinvest.

Standard Setter wrote:

Becca, how can we use your voice and position to decertify USATF and start anew with a modern-day federation that places athletes and participants first?

I do not think decertifying USATF is the best path forward. We have made tremendous progress toward a better governance system and the Board has improved dramatically.

The athletes need their own independent professional organization, separate from AAC. Easier said than done, it has been tried numerous times and keeps not lasting.