P.S.
Under USATF Article 10-F, the President may be removed from office for good cause by a two-thirds vote of the delegates at the Annual Meeting. The vote for removal must be included in the meeting notice.
When is the next annual meeting?
In Houston. The first week of December.
Make sure if you plan to attend (and vote) that you contact your local delegation. You must vote through your association and there are only so many spots (most delegations don't use their 12).
USATF needs to be decertified by the USOC and we need to start all over. There is no other solution. No shuffling of the deck with the cast of characters currently at USATF is ever going to be satisfactory. It's a wretched organization. Extinguish it. Seriously.
I don't follow what's going on in the IAAF or the USATF, so this whole fiasco is a mystery to me. The Board's press release stated,
"we believe we made the right choice for the organization for the right reasons."
I'm not informed enough to even guess what's going on here. What are these "right reasons" that are so important that they override a 85-15 vote?
fisky wrote:
I'm not informed enough to even guess what's going on here. What are these "right reasons" that are so important that they override a 85-15 vote?
All they have really stated is vague references to Stephanie being more new-era than Bob. In other words she is younger. Which is true, she is roughly 20 years younger than Bob.
But as far as being more new-era in any way other than age... I've never seen evidence of that. She's never shown herself to be adept at using social media, for example, while Bob has (though he does not normally post much).
IMO, the only truly legitimate reason you might choose Stephanie over Bob is if you think the IAAF is totally corrupt (which it probably is) and that Bob is not corrupt enough to get us things we want like the World Championships, and you think she is that corrupt. But of course that has a tendency to backfire.
EVERYONE NEEDS TO READ AND UNDERSTAND WHAT DAVID GREIFINGER IS SAYING HERE ON T&FN. HE IS VERY SMART - SO TIME TO SUPPORT AND PAY ATTENTION.
AND KEEP THIS THREAD AT THE TOP OF THE PILE ON THIS WEBSITE
Here is the current composition of the Board (Bill Roe wrote this up for me):
Fifteen members:
President — one (1) person elected by and from the delegates to the Annual Meeting in the Olympic year. Currently Stephanie Hightower.
IAAF Council member — one (1) person, if we have such a person, as selected according to the current process; the bylaws are silent on what happens to that seat if we have no IAAF Council member (remember that our nominee must be elected by the IAAF Congress), but — then again — that has never happened. Currently Bob Hersh, whose place on the Council will end in August 2015.
5C member — one (1) member chosen by and from the representatives to the organization from the NCAA, NAIA, NJCAA, NFSHSA, RRCA, and Running USA. Currently Becky Oakes, NFSHSA.
AAC athletes — three (3) international athletes, directly elected by and from the international athlete members at the Annual Meeting. Two are selected in the Olympic year, and one in the even-numbered year between. Currently Doc Patton, Hyleas Fountain, and Curt Clausen.
Experience and expertise members — six (6) individuals representing six areas of our sport, who are nominated by the committees or councils within those areas and chosen by the deliberations of the Nominating & Governance Panel (NGP), along with the deliberations for independent directors, so as to achieve diversity and leadership requirements. Three — high performance, long distance running, and officiating — are selected in the Olympic year, and the other three — general competition (Associations and Masters), youth, and coaching — are selected in the even-numbered year between. Currently Evie Dennis (HP), Fred Finke (LDR), Ken Taylor (Officials), William Shelton (General Competition), Sam Germany (Youth), and Steve Miller (coach)
Independent directors — three (3) individuals picked as independent directors, with one selected in the Olympic year, and two selected in the even-numbered year between. Currently Jackie Joyner-Kersee, Mickey Carter, and Eve Wright.
From that group of 15, officers are selected. An exception is that it is not explicitly stated that any of them have to be members of the board, but if they are not, they are non-voting. Since the USATF President must be either the chair or vice chair, at least one position is always a board member. Current officers are Stephanie Hightower (chair), Steve Miller (vice-chair), Darlene Hickman (secretary non-voting; also chair of the Nominating and Governance Panel), and Ken Taylor (treasurer).
Here is the best person to email based on who you are (this is just my best guess at this)
Elite/sub-elite athletes should contact
Doc Patton:
Hyleas Fountain:
High Performance (not sure exactly who this is supposed to represent that is not already covered)
Evie Dennis:
Distance people
Fred Finke:
Officials
Ken Taylor:
Masters Athletes and general Association people
William Shelton:
Youth coaches and administrators
Sam Germany:
Coaches:
Steve Miller:
These are the people who are supposed to be representing you.
This is my first posting on Letsrun.com. Below is a copy of my posting on the trackandfieldnews.com for forum. My observations from New Zealand.
Unlike posters on LetsRun.com, posters on this forum have so far ignored the "proverbial elephant that is in the room".
I have just finished reading the Day's Best Reading article on the front page "Call To Rescind The Anaheim Vote" by USATF activist David Greifinger. The article contains a link to the USATF website where the photos of the board appear to confirm that:
- 10 voting members are black
- 5 voting members are white
- 1 alternate voting member is black
It appears the identity of 12 voting members has not been disclosed. However, the following would appear to be possible scenarios.
The Board has 15 members. After excluding the 2 candidates there should have been 13 voters. As the total number of voters was 12, it appears that either 2 board members did not vote and Michelle Carter voted as an alternate; or 1 board member did not vote and neither did Michelle Carter.
Therefore the race make-up possibilities of the 12 voters would be 10b-2w or 9b-3w or 8b-4w. And as Clausen has been identified as the lone hold out then the race make-up possibilities of those voting for Hightower would be 10b-1w or 9b-2w or 8b-3w.
Following are some postings from LetsRun.com.
mjr: "Simple reasoning. The 11 who voted yes were appointed by Stephanie. The 1 who didn't came from AAC"
polevaultpower: "And FFS, I am a woman and I don't support the racism/sexism/homophobia that exists within groups such as the IAAF. But you have to be aware of those things so that you can have the greatest chance of success. Stephanie has barriers to success within that group, and getting there by stabbing the #2 most powerful and popular person from that group in the back may very well preclude her from ever having a shot within the IAAF."
inequality: "polevaultpower, can you fill everyone in on when/how the Board of Directors were given the power to over-ride the will of the constituents? From what appears (and no one likes to openly talk about it), the "divide" is racially provoked, with Stephanie appointing black people who support her. It's also evident that the sprinters are out of touch with the other event groups, including how to define the criteria for Tier Support (supporting primarily sprinters/jumpers)."
wuzther: "RE: "Bet on Black". That's bullshit. I'm Black and I would vote Bob in a heartbeat over Stephanie. And I can promise you that most black athletes and officials would vote for Bob over Stephanie. This is not a black-white thing. And to besides the board is more white than black. This is about more than black and white. It's about abuse of power. We the people in the sport cannot stand for this. There has to be a huge outcry on this to stop this type of nonsense."
A Board press release stated that "Only one person from a board comprised of representatives from officials, coaches, athletes, LDR, high performance and general competition dissented to the selection of Stephanie Hightower."
If mjr is correct and the reason the Board supported her is because the 11 disciples were all appointed to her and "owed" her, then she is stupid for apparently stacking the USATF with blacks, presumably because she thought she count on them to support her in any future battles, including, if necessary, against the vote of the wider membership.
The abuse against black athletes in the USA by the white power structure pre the 1970s was an evil. However, whether Hightower meant to do this or not, doing a "perceived" 180 degree on racial sport politics does not help anybody.
Tuariki wrote:
I have just finished reading the Day's Best Reading article on the front page "Call To Rescind The Anaheim Vote" by USATF activist David Greifinger. The article contains a link to the USATF website where the photos of the board appear to confirm that:
- 10 voting members are black
- 5 voting members are white
- 1 alternate voting member is black
It appears the identity of 12 voting members has not been disclosed. However, the following would appear to be possible scenarios.
The Board has 15 members. After excluding the 2 candidates there should have been 13 voters. As the total number of voters was 12, it appears that either 2 board members did not vote and Michelle Carter voted as an alternate; or 1 board member did not vote and neither did Michelle Carter.
Bob and Stephanie were not eligible to vote and should not have been in the room during deliberations on this subject. The remaining non-voter was probably whichever guy was missing but called in at the beginning of the meeting. I can probably find out, if I remember to ask Darlene tomorrow. I am pretty confident Michelle Carter did not vote, Doc and Hyleas were both there.
We know Curt Clausen was the 1 yes vote.
So I don't personally find race to be of significance here but that does narrow down your possibilities if you want to go down that road.
Don't just read David's piece in T & F News…..ACT ON IT. CALL, write, email, text USATF now! Contact your local chapter of USATF & ask them what they are doing to turn this ship around that has been sinking fast over the past 3 years or so. And screw this "bottom line" stuff. If I hear one more time how much money USATF has now vs. a year or two ago, I'm gonna puke. For one, none of us like being wed to Nike for the next 50 years and two, as has been predicted, are our elites seeing any of this money? Are we as members of USATF (ex member here, take back your membership now & while at it, ask for a refund!) seeing any benefits ? I am SO done. And you elites, c'mon! bite the hand that barely feeds you. Get it together. Follow David & Lauren's lead. Where's Nick's voice in all of this? Any bet we don't hear a peep out of any of the Nike sponsored elites? Do something all you Lets Run posters and then report back.
I want polevaultpower banned from USATF. Can we get a petition started ASAP? Thank you.
kmaclam wrote:
Don't just read David's piece in T & F News…..ACT ON IT. CALL, write, email, text USATF now! Contact your local chapter of USATF & ask them what they are doing to turn this ship around that has been sinking fast over the past 3 years....
Have you not been paying attention? Your local Association has absolutely no bearing on this outcome, as the Board voted against their will. The National Committees have no bearing on the BOD either, as they make recommendations throughout the year, but the BOD/Stephanie/Max/National Office can turn a blind eye. People need to write directly to the BODs, as they're the ones in control.
The idiot saying to ban polevaultpower, what have you done lately to better the world/sport?
Yes, I have been paying attention. And I've just written USATF again this very moment, explaining why 2015 will be the 2nd year in a row that myself and families membership will not be renewed. I'm sure they are now shaken in their spikes. Why shouldn't my local association (which yields more 'clout' than a single member & his family does, even if they have no concrete 'power') chime in & let their bosses know how they feel about all of this? I support the efforts of my local assn. and feel badly that my family is hardly participating in any of their USATF track meets during the year and if I knew they were being vocal also and not going along with these shenanigans, then I'd be much more likely to support them (and just pay the higher entry fees for all of my kids as non USATF members).
How many votes will be needed? If funding is available, how can those in support of this initiative be identified and sent to Houston to vote?
kmaclam wrote:
Yes, I have been paying attention. And I've just written USATF again this very moment, explaining why 2015 will be the 2nd year in a row that myself and families membership will not be renewed. I'm sure they are now shaken in their spikes. Why shouldn't my local association (which yields more 'clout' than a single member & his family does, even if they have no concrete 'power') chime in & let their bosses know how they feel about all of this? I support the efforts of my local assn. and feel badly that my family is hardly participating in any of their USATF track meets during the year and if I knew they were being vocal also and not going along with these shenanigans, then I'd be much more likely to support them (and just pay the higher entry fees for all of my kids as non USATF members).
No, you haven't been paying attention. 85% of the constituents voted for Bob- they are NOT "going along with these shenanigans". I'm sure the Associations are also expressing their dismay, but it doesn't make a difference when the BOD is at the knees of Stephanie, not those they represent. I don't know who you're writing to, but the BODs are who you should be going to, as they're the ones who have been given the power (and abusing it).
Someone can chime in on this, but I believe USATF membership 100% goes to your local Association. Therefore, you revoking your membership has no bearing on the National Office. They showed a piechart at the National meeting showing that membership makes up 'only' 5.5%- that's barely a dent on total revenue. The National office could care less if people revoked their membership in droves, but it will likely 'hurt' your local Assoc. (who likely relies moreso on membership for revenue, vs. the National office relying primarily on sponsorships). If you truly support your local Assoc., you should continue to have membership.
mar828 wrote:
How many votes will be needed? If funding is available, how can those in support of this initiative be identified and sent to Houston to vote?
How may votes are needed to recall our president? I'll have to get back to you, but I will find out. I think it is 2/3 of the total delegates, but I don't know what the total number of delegates is. 500ish? The key is going to be getting athletes to stay through the end of the closing session. For funded athletes, their tickets are booked by the National Office...
To get a vote, you generally either need to get a vote as an athlete through AAC or as a delegate of your Association. Associations vary widely in their turnout, you really have to get involved locally and see what the deal is.
All right, so it seems like identifying that number needed is the first step, then organizing to the extent that these people can at the very least be contacted and lobbied, and then if they resist attending for financial reasons, developing a fund for sending the needed votes to Houston. This seems doable, correct me if I am wrong.