Stephanie Hightower tries to bully Law & Legislation Secretary, gets called out by Lionel Leach
-
I'm glad the Victory spikes don't fit my feet. I've already chosen another brand of shoes as well and haven't gotten a pair of Nike trainers since 10/2012.
-
It wouldn't be the end of the world if Nike did wash their hands of USATF, put on their best suit, packed their suitcase and left. There would be an inevitable time of restructuring, but in the long term the absence of Nike would open up a lot of new opportunities for athletes. Think back to the "one logo" debate, which Nike was clearly influential in. A monopoly is not good in any sport or enterprise. On another note, no one said Nike was longing for change. They are not. They clearly have the people in place that they want in place. It's time that we put in place the people that we (the people) want in place. You will not meet any elite runner or manager who has anything good to say about Nike (if they are allowed to say it in confidence).
-
Mundus Vult wrote:
Because the "tremendous growth" period that SH cited in her letter is about additional revenue brought in by the Nike contract. The argument goes that if Nike experiences backlash because of its partnership with USATF that they will mandate change.
Nike controls running in this country. If they want Hightower gone, she will be gone. The only way to do that is to boycott Nike.
After re-reading that section of the letter, it does seem that she believes the Nike deal and her rise in power go hand in hand. As if the USATF can't have one without the other. I think she is just trying to take credit for Max Siegel's work (typical of her type) but I suppose Nike might want her in place for some reason. If that's true, then pressuring Nike to kick her out won't change anything for the better. Another figurehead will take her place. -
I know Tim Baker, Lionel Leach and Stephanie Hightower to varying degrees and they are all good people, hardworking and competent. A lot of people on this board want to believe Stephanie is some incompetent, evil, power hungry person; I can tell you for an absolute fact that is simply not the truth. Stephanie isn’t someone who cheated her way into her position or got lucky, her career speaks for itself. And, Stephanie like just about every USATF executive I have known, could have been making more money elsewhere, but work for USATF out of a desire to be connected to our sport. With that said, the memo from Stephanie to Tim ‘as a public document’ does not come across too warm and friendly, but I assure you that this is normal communications from an executive to a subordinate under the circumstances. Quite frankly, I found Lionel’s letter to be more over the top, on one hand he does not like the way Stephanie spoke to Tim and then on the other hand, he is not respectful in the way he speaks to the USATF Chief. The American Track and Field community has a history of not liking the national governing body, I saw this with the AAU, TAC and now USATF. Descent is sometimes justified, but what bothers me is when I see a lot of people talking on this board without knowing the facts about Stephanie Hightower and the mob mentality when it comes to mischaracterizing her and misinterpreting USATF rules. Btw, the people that really care about USATF, volunteer and/or find other constructive ways to make it better as opposed to just always criticizing.
-
My gross impression is the ' actual current year value' of Nike support money diminishes over the years and at the end of the contract they are donating a significantly smaller % of the presumed USATF operation budget than they do this year.
-
TrackCoach wrote:
I know Tim Baker, Lionel Leach and Stephanie Hightower to varying degrees and they are all good people, hardworking and competent. A lot of people on this board want to believe Stephanie is some incompetent, evil, power hungry person; I can tell you for an absolute fact that is simply not the truth. Stephanie isn’t someone who cheated her way into her position or got lucky, her career speaks for itself. And, Stephanie like just about every USATF executive I have known, could have been making more money elsewhere, but work for USATF out of a desire to be connected to our sport. With that said, the memo from Stephanie to Tim ‘as a public document’ does not come across too warm and friendly, but I assure you that this is normal communications from an executive to a subordinate under the circumstances. Quite frankly, I found Lionel’s letter to be more over the top, on one hand he does not like the way Stephanie spoke to Tim and then on the other hand, he is not respectful in the way he speaks to the USATF Chief. The American Track and Field community has a history of not liking the national governing body, I saw this with the AAU, TAC and now USATF. Descent is sometimes justified, but what bothers me is when I see a lot of people talking on this board without knowing the facts about Stephanie Hightower and the mob mentality when it comes to mischaracterizing her and misinterpreting USATF rules. Btw, the people that really care about USATF, volunteer and/or find other constructive ways to make it better as opposed to just always criticizing.
Neither Stephanie nor Lionel work for USATF and it is not a relationship of an executive and a subordinate. If people keep insisting on treating this as a job/business environment rather than an organization which is volunteer driven (at least on this side and not the staff side) then they are going to continue to misconstrue the dynamics in play. -
A few things. First Jill Geer has responded to my questions. Amont the thing she wrote, "Stephanie sent an official letter as the president of USATF to a USATF office-holder. It was on official USATF letterhead, not "joint stationery." Official USATF letterhead - used for correspondence, press releases, and a host of other purposes - has always listed, at minimum, the president and the CEO. (At least, as long as I have been at USATF, and that includes more than 15 years and three CEOS.)"
And I was able to find this from Stephanjie with Doug Logan's name on it.
http://www.usatf.org/events/2009/AnnualMeeting/Hightower.pdf
I told Jill I thought it was bad policy for them to have joint letterhead for issues where one is acting as an individual especially in a way the the other person migh object too.
Mundus Vult wrote:
polevaultpower wrote:
I do not think a sponsor boycott would be productive. The issue is with the Board of Directors, the MOST productive thing people can do right now is email all of the Board members and ask them to rescind the vote for Stephanie and revote at this Saturday's Board Meeting: http://www.usatf.org/about/directory/info.asp?parent=&group=Board%20of%20Directors
Becca,
That doesn't make sense to me especially in light of the letter she sent to Tim Baker.
If SH considers L&L to be "her" committee, how could she not think the board also belonged to her? If the board ignored the vote at the annual meeting, why would they suddenly value the voice of the members? If SH will bully a committee head for letting discussion take place, why wouldn't she bully a Board member who dissented?
If revenue is driving growth and change in the wrong direction then people should choke the revenue stream.
That's just my opinion. I have sent my views to the board but I am sure they went in a big pile labeled "sh it we don't care about."
Mundus
Can the Board vote be a anonymous vote? I think the Board's initial decision was a case of group think. Stephanie from the letter above clearly shows she wields her power strongly. If the Board voted without names being tied to the votes I think the Board would be more likely to vote against Stephanie.
I think emailing the Board can not hurt. I have emailed almost all the Board members and the ones who have written back have said they appreciated my opinion. I think also on social media we should organize and show how unpopular this decision is. I had one Board Member ask if I had polled people to find out how unpopular this is. I was on the defensive at first as he was saying I should do that, and then I stopped and said, "What more polling do we need than 85% of the delegates voting for Bob?"
The two Board members I have spoken too who voted for Stephanie essentially fell back on maybe the delegates weren't as informed, or you just had to be there it was convincing after you heard the presentations. -
Sounds like they are both rearendholes. This is a smear campaign from disgruntled supporters of Hersh(who by the way has been on the job for how many years and done nothing for the sport????USATF sucks now more than ever) so who cares if one entitled shippy appointee is replaced by another entitled s shippy appointee. Were losing focus. Time that USATF and everyone who works there just disappears and we start over.
-
wejo wrote:
Can the Board vote be a anonymous vote? I think the Board's initial decision was a case of group think. Stephanie from the letter above clearly shows she wields her power strongly. If the Board voted without names being tied to the votes I think the Board would be more likely to vote against Stephanie.
The Bylaws don't say either way.
Article 11
L. Voting: Except as otherwise provided, all matters shall be decided by majority vote of those present and voting. There shall be no voting by proxy. -
Hayduke wrote:
supporters of Hersh(who by the way has been on the job for how many years and done nothing for the sport????USATF sucks now more than ever)
Bob disagrees with the the statement that he has done nothing: http://trackandfieldnews.com/index.php/category-features/2360-bob-hersh-response-to-usatf-board-memo -
With no bias to either side, as I know neither of the parties.... both emails have flaws.
First- Hightowers' email was fine all the way up until the last paragraph. The ultimatum style was not ideal. It would have been much better to come at it from a: "I Would appreciate a sit down meeting where the two of us can discus our differences and settle on a plan of action."
The follow up email was much worse. Way over the top and emotional. It made too many comparisons that were just plain ridiculous.
Although I respect a friend coming to the aid of another friend and respected colleague, to do it in an emotional rant just doesn't carry the same weight.
All this email did was make Lionel look like an emotional hothead and not a smart political move. -
That's a good analysis except that politics is about votes and you are pretty much the first person that is "voting" in favor of Queen Hightower.
-
TrackCoach wrote:
I know Tim Baker, Lionel Leach and Stephanie Hightower to varying degrees and they are all good people, hardworking and competent.
I know all three as well. Competence is a pretty low bar but how do you give SH a pass for her devisiveness and long history of problems while she has been at the helm? This is not about her person; this is about her performance as President of USATF. In that regard, she has been almost a complete failure at everything except wielding power to maintain power (which I admit is a skill). -
Neutral Observer wrote:
That's a good analysis except that politics is about votes and you are pretty much the first person that is "voting" in favor of Queen Hightower.
I try to isolate this one incident since that is what the thread is about. It is easy for people to get clouded and bring opinions of other actions to this one action.
Looking at this one occasion objectively, I would question anyone who puts more to do on the HT email over the Lionel email.
That being said, I am not saying I'm in favor of the way HT is running the ship. I just wouldn't give this the attention that clearly Tim and Lionel would like it to get. Or in other words; I would base my assessment on the rest of her body of work. -
None of this explains why the statistics section of the USATF website, the one with the time lists, is rarely up to date (IAAF, whatever else its faults, updates theirs almost instantly). Last month, when I looked on the Thursday afternoon before Millrose, they still weren't including anything from the New Balance Indoor Grand Prix in Boston.
Keeping these lists up to date would be the easiest and most obvious signal that there's at least some level of competence over there. They could get a high school kid to do it. Honestly, what possible excuse to they have for this? -
The langage of the Leach email is way over the top. The MLK references etc do a disservice I think to what Selma was about. Tremendous difference in degree. I think a more understated letter would have been more effective.
The Stephanie email is more troubling to me as she is the President of USATF and refers to a committee as "my committee". That is extremely troubling. The letter gives the impression if you don't agree with her then that means you are not advancing the goals of USATF. She says, "During the Annual Meeting, in your public statements and committee activity, you were very outspoken and critical of decisions made by the board and committees, and critical of the overall direction of USATF." Meanwhile Stephanie went to great lengths to try and prevent the L&L Committee from changing the rules so that the membership could nominate someone to the Board for the IAAF Council. Isn't she the one trying to thwart a committee? If Mr. Baker voted in the majority he would be the one supportive of the committee.
Mr. Baker may be her appointee but he is free to vote how he wants. Stephanie can replace him, but the letter on official stationery is just so over the top trying to intimidate him. And she had the lettered relayed by the USATF General Counsel. What a waste of resources. -
polevaultpower wrote:
Hayduke wrote:
supporters of Hersh(who by the way has been on the job for how many years and done nothing for the sport????USATF sucks now more than ever)
Bob disagrees with the the statement that he has done nothing: http://trackandfieldnews.com/index.php/category-features/2360-bob-hersh-response-to-usatf-board-memo
I would say that proves my point. Bob actually thinks he brought meets to Eugene?? Hmm I would bet that Vin being there and THEN meets coming to Oregon have more to do with it. -
Ethics wrote:
Polevaultpower, you are completely wrong about the Ethics Committee.
...
The EC serves to oversee any Ethical complaint for any member of USATF. Complaints against the Board of Directors and the CEO do not go to the EC.
The members are complaining.
Aren't the board of directors and the ceo members as well? -
wejo wrote:
She says, "During the Annual Meeting, in your public statements and committee activity, you were very outspoken and critical of decisions made by the board and committees, and critical of the overall direction of USATF."
Umm the crazy thing is that Tim WASN'T outspoken or particularly critical. I spoke with David Greifinger this morning, and we both wonder if Stephanie somehow confused Tim with David? Or with me?
I honestly can't remember anything Tim said in the meeting. That doesn't mean he didn't say anything, of course, but I would remember if someone was being "very outspoken and critical of decisions made by the board and committees, and critical of the overall direction of USATF"
David was the one in the L&L Meeting being very outspoken, as he was the one who submitted the counter-legislation. -
Mundus Vult wrote:
TrackCoach wrote:
I know Tim Baker, Lionel Leach and Stephanie Hightower to varying degrees and they are all good people, hardworking and competent.
I know all three as well. Competence is a pretty low bar but how do you give SH a pass for her devisiveness and long history of problems while she has been at the helm? This is not about her person; this is about her performance as President of USATF. In that regard, she has been almost a complete failure at everything except wielding power to maintain power (which I admit is a skill).
re: "she has been almost a complete failure at everything"
Really.
1. The last couple of national championships have went well.
2. XC Club National's have clearly become a success.
3. Membership is up.
4 Anti -doping controls are working better.
5. USATF has the best sponsorship deal in its history.
6. Participation in the youth programs and JOs are up.
7. etc.
Btw, I am not here to defend Stephanie, I am on the side of fairness.
