mafioso.
I thank god for people like Stephanie Hightower because they make me look like a model citizen in terms of ethical credibility. USATF is one of the worst governing bodies of any large corporation in the nation. Poor leadership. No credibility.
This comes from someone that has CLEARLY effed up his own coaching career by being a dumba$$.
Enjoy.
#usawtf
Kevin Hadsell wrote:
mafioso.
I thank god for people like Stephanie Hightower because they make me look like a model citizen in terms of ethical credibility. USATF is one of the worst governing bodies of any large corporation in the nation. Poor leadership. No credibility.
This comes from someone that has CLEARLY effed up his own coaching career by being a dumba$$.
Enjoy.
Not sure what more to say than a full THUMBS UP!
Good luck in further development of your career. Having done some much less dramatic but still damaging things in my career, I still found that I was able to make things turn out reasonably well.
Mundus Vult wrote:
Let's break this bull$hit down piece by piece.
USATF wrote:Very few organizations in our everyday lives are “pure democracies,” where decisions are made by a straight popular vote. At USATF, we vote for our officers and leaders via democratic means, but it is through a delegate system.
First, sure we live in representative democracies all the time. Guess what? When those representatives fail to reasonably reflect the will of their constituents, they are removed from office by popular vote.
At the next annual meeting, Stephanie Hightower will be removed from the office of President by a 2/3 vote of the member delegates. Watch and see.
And while democratic institutions such as governments have governance as their sole function, USATF also functions as a business. Our governance therefore is a combination of governance and business principles, under the USOC charter.
This a stupid statement. Goverments are always businesses. No government has governance as their sole function.
The real point, however, is that nowhere in Chapter 36 section 220503 of the US Code does it say the purpose of the USOC or its governing bodies is to run a business. Moreover, the USOC and its goverrning bodies are expressly prohibited from "engag[ing] in business for profit." 36 USC 220507.
In fact, the primary responsibility of a national governing body is to "develop interest and participation throughout the United States and be responsible to the persons and amateur sports organizations it represents;" (35 USC 22054(1), emphasis is mine).
In other words, the national governing bodies are commanded NOT to act like businesses. This is precisely why the cozy relationship with Nike is so troubling for so many who love the sport.
Change is difficult for any organization. It is especially difficult when it involves long-serving officials. In 2015, there will be significant, structural change at the IAAF – with their leadership, with their direction, vision and politics. This is a different era and a different time. We think Stephanie Hightower provides us with the best chance to move forward as part of that change.
First, who is the "we" here? Clearly, "we" doesn't mean USATF members because clearly they don't agree. Clearly, it doesn't mean Max Seagall and the national office because you made it clear that Max "had and has no role, and no vote, in the selection of our IAAF representatives."
So, this "we" can only mean the "Board" of the USATF.
If this is correct, this entire letter is a piece of crap and, worse, an admission of guilt.. The primary purpose of the USATF Board (by their own bylaws) is to "Establish policies to enable USATF to achieve its purposes and perform its duties." But, these policy decisions--by the rule of US Law--must "reasonably reflect the views of the athletes." (36 USC 220524(3)).
Whilte they attempt to sugar coat this with the statement that "Leaders are charged to lead and to make difficult choices," the Board of USATF--in direct contradiction of US Law--is out to serve its own purpose not those of its members or athletes. And, to make it hurt, they outright ADMIT it. Look again:
We think Stephanie Hightower provides us with the best chance to move forward as part of that change.
If the "we" in this sentence means the Board (and it could only mean the Board), then the "us" refers to the Board. Replace the pronouns and see how incredibly brash this statement is:
The Board of USATF think Stephanie Hightower provides the Board of USATF with the best chance to move forward as part of that change.
Unbelievable. This is exactly what they mean. They voted in the best interest of the Board not the members.
#theyArentUSATF
POY
Thanks man. Life. All anyone can do is accept responsibility for their actions and make positive changes. I know you have had strong opinions on my situation so I appreciate the acknowledgement.
Back to the OP. I think I found a perfect video to explain the USATF definition of "we".
First, thank you Kevin for your various posts. I think it takes a lot of character to come back and make things right. I know you are speaking at my university's HR/athletics function in two months and I am looking forward to your speech.
I think we all understand that much like the rolling stone article, the deadspin story was only half the story. Many of us look forward to your new book to read the other side of the story.
See you in February. Dress warm, my friend.
Can the tracksters make their own USA Track governing body already? Enough is enough. The only way to get changes would be to make a new one!
The first year USAs for the group would be small but over time it would grow. And eventually USATF would have to deal with the repercussions of its actions.
They can try but national governing bodies are governed by the USOC which was created by the Amateur Sports Act of 1978. Starting a new one is difficult but not impossible.
USATF (once called TAC-The Athletics Congress) was a spin-off from the AAU which had become a millstone.
There is currently a new athletes association which could become a new governing body (http://trackandfieldathletesassociation.org/site/).
Everyone should send the TFAA $20 for a Supporting Membership.
Editor's note: The post is reference this letter sent out by USATF: http://www.letsrun.com/news/2014/12/message-usatf-board-directors/ Let's break this bull$hit down piece by piece.
USATF wrote:
Very few organizations in our everyday lives are “pure democracies,” where decisions are made by a straight popular vote. At USATF, we vote for our officers and leaders via democratic means, but it is through a delegate system.
First, sure we live in representative democracies all the time. Guess what? When those representatives fail to reasonably reflect the will of their constituents, they are removed from office by popular vote.
At the next annual meeting, Stephanie Hightower will be removed from the office of President by a 2/3 vote of the member delegates. Watch and see.
And while democratic institutions such as governments have governance as their sole function, USATF also functions as a business. Our governance therefore is a combination of governance and business principles, under the USOC charter.
This a stupid statement. Goverments are always businesses. No government has governance as their sole function.
The real point, however, is that nowhere in Chapter 36 section 220503 of the US Code does it say the purpose of the USOC or its governing bodies is to run a business. Moreover, the USOC and its goverrning bodies are expressly prohibited from "engag[ing] in business for profit." 36 USC 220507.
In fact, the primary responsibility of a national governing body is to "develop interest and participation throughout the United States and be responsible to the persons and amateur sports organizations it represents;" (35 USC 22054(1), emphasis is mine).
In other words, the national governing bodies are commanded NOT to act like businesses. This is precisely why the cozy relationship with Nike is so troubling for so many who love the sport.
Change is difficult for any organization. It is especially difficult when it involves long-serving officials. In 2015, there will be significant, structural change at the IAAF – with their leadership, with their direction, vision and politics. This is a different era and a different time. We think Stephanie Hightower provides us with the best chance to move forward as part of that change.
First, who is the "we" here? Clearly, "we" doesn't mean USATF members because clearly they don't agree. Clearly, it doesn't mean Max Seagall and the national office because you made it clear that Max "had and has no role, and no vote, in the selection of our IAAF representatives."
So, this "we" can only mean the "Board" of the USATF.
If this is correct, this entire letter is a piece of crap and, worse, an admission of guilt.. The primary purpose of the USATF Board (by their own bylaws) is to "Establish policies to enable USATF to achieve its purposes and perform its duties." But, these policy decisions--by the rule of US Law--must "reasonably reflect the views of the athletes." (36 USC 220524(3)).
Whilte they attempt to sugar coat this with the statement that "Leaders are charged to lead and to make difficult choices," the Board of USATF--in direct contradiction of US Law--is out to serve its own purpose not those of its members or athletes. And, to make it hurt, they outright ADMIT it. Look again:
We think Stephanie Hightower provides us with the best chance to move forward as part of that change.
If the "we" in this sentence means the Board (and it could only mean the Board), then the "us" refers to the Board. Replace the pronouns and see how incredibly brash this statement is:
The Board of USATF think Stephanie Hightower provides the Board of USATF with the best chance to move forward as part of that change.
Unbelievable. This is exactly what they mean. They voted in the best interest of the Board not the members.
#theyArentUSATF
Mundus Vult wrote:
They can try but national governing bodies are governed by the USOC which was created by the Amateur Sports Act of 1978. Starting a new one is difficult but not impossible.
USATF (once called TAC-The Athletics Congress) was a spin-off from the AAU which had become a millstone.
There is currently a new athletes association which could become a new governing body (http://trackandfieldathletesassociation.org/site/).
Everyone should send the TFAA $20 for a Supporting Membership.
The TFAA has accomplished nothing since it first started and they are basically leaderless at this point. I think everyone in the know agrees that the TFAA is a failure. Great in theory, horrible in execution. There is room for an organization to dethrone USATF, but it's not going to happen. The IOC nearly revoked USATF's authority a few years ago, but they all smoothed it out and the new surplus of cash Max has brought it gives the organization even greater power and resources. The very best thing that could happen is Stephanie Hightower is removed as President and someone who's both ethical and intelligent can step into the role. There are plenty of people who want her spot. I see this IAAF board move as a simple power play for Ms. Hightower. The more power she accumulates the harder it is to remove her.
Great Post.
Seriously, bravo.
I have a couple general wonderments: first, were these concerns over change presented by a board member to the delegation before voting? If there is relevant information that might effect how the delegation makes its decision, why wasn't this presented BEFORE the vote instead of after it. Secondly, the only justification given here is that since the IAAF is changing, then we need to change. OK, not the worst argument, but do we know HOW it will change? If not, how do we know Hightower is the right choice? Again, if there is a compelling reason, it is curious it was not presented in the memo, much less in advance of the vote. I don't see why someone didn't come out and say, "hey look, Bob's been our guy, but we want to see "X" happen and Bob isn't on board with that." Nut up and take ownership! Its not like you were avoiding public criticism, at least go all in and say that you know better in this case. It's not like anyone can stop you and its not like public criticism can actually change your decision. It's times like these I wish everyone had some military service.
I am thankful we have a legal type looking after these points, my doctorate is in history/philosophy (not usually as useful).
Better Call Saul!
Ironically, and we can save the off-putting jokes on this, I had been lobbying within the NCAA executive committee that there should be some sort of internal oversight over the governing body. I think the same goes for USATF.
I had been lobbying for the organization to hire an independent "ombudsman". That person would be responsible for making sure that policies and procedures are followed. This is a case where having an ombudsman would be valuable.
A true Quenton Cassidy!!
Well done
Excellent post, thank you.
Thank you for your more enlightened insight than what I could piece together myself.
Another line that particularly caught my attention was the section about the skyrocketing revenue and assets of the USATF under Seigel. Is there a plan for this? Will it trickle back to the athletes or are they hoarding cash for the sake of hoarding cash? I'd love to see prize money triple across every national championship, and go ten places deeper, but I can't imagine that's the intention.
This also flies in the face of your assertion that governing bodies are prohibited from engaging in business.
I quit USATF years ago when I will still a moderately active racer.
Others in the club I belonged to quit as well.
Ironically, considering we are on the cusp of Christmas, what tore it for some people was USATF scheduling their annual meeting in Hawaii a while back.
...and now NIKE owns them.
Whatever.
I assume the skyrocketing revenue is from Nike.
Freshman Matt wrote:
I'd love to see prize money triple across every national championship, and go ten places deeper,
I'd like to see USATF provide ANY funding for road championships. Currently it is the race (local organizing committee) that funds the championships-- prize money, hotels/travel for elites and even anti-doping.
Last year I believe prize money was doubled for outdoor track champs. Great!!! But still no funding for road championships.
Excellent analysis of the letter put out by USATF to try to try to placate the membership. The board (except the one dissenter) believes it knows more and better than the 390 delegates who voted against Hightower and for Hersh. Just another example of the managerial elitism USATF continues to practice and the hollow excuses (and occasional threats) they use to try to justify their irrational and self serving behavior. This is just another incident which makes me glad I let my membership expire years ago as it was just a waste of my money. Hopefully the membership can boot Hightower out and get some real leadership. I am sure very little of the millions from the flawed Nike deal, will actually make it to athlete support, encouraging participation, etc. More likely most of the Board will be traveling and staying First Class at all major events (if they aren't already).
femme wrote:
Freshman Matt wrote:I'd love to see prize money triple across every national championship, and go ten places deeper,
I'd like to see USATF provide ANY funding for road championships. Currently it is the race (local organizing committee) that funds the championships-- prize money, hotels/travel for elites and even anti-doping.
Last year I believe prize money was doubled for outdoor track champs. Great!!! But still no funding for road championships.
what about the national championship in Alexandria? Was the prize money provided by pacers?