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!