Candi Murray

 



From now until Sept. 15, licensees of USCF, NORBA and USPRO have an

opportunity vote on four legislative proposals that are identified in the

ballot materials as Propositions A, B, C, and D. This note reviews those

proposals and makes recommendations.







PROPOSITION A



If you like the way USA Cycling has been operating the last seven years,

this is the proposal for you! It is similar to the one the USAC board of

directors attempted to adopt in 1999 but that was overturned by the

Colorado Courts as a result of our lawsuit. It calls for 11 of 15

directors to be elected by special interests who constitute less that 1%

of the licensees. That is even more undemocratic that the current 8 out of

12. It also gives the board of directors the right to amend the Articles

of Incorporation, which currently can be done only with the approval of

the members. Just as in the failed 1999 coup attempt, it removes the

members' rights to propose amendments to the Articles but it does allow

them to vote on proposals that the board of directors puts forward.

However it also allows the board to change anything that the members have

approved.



In other words, it gives total control of the organization to a board in

which the members have no significant representation. A number of people

are listed as co-sponsors of this proposal who should know better, while

others were probably hoodwinked into supporting it without understanding

what it says. This proposal was submitted after our "Democratic Reform

Initiative" and was submitted with the title "Responsible Democratic

Reform Initiative" in an apparent attempt to confuse voters. However, as

discussed above, it is neither "Responsible" nor "Democratic" nor a

"Reform." The USAC staff later removed this laughable title.



I recommend that you send a message to the board of directors and members

of the junta that currently controls USAC by voting "NO" on Proposition A.



PROPOSITION B



This is an updated version of our Democratic Reform Initiative, though the

staff removed that title from the ballot materials without authorization.

Instead of the current situation in which 8 of 12 directors are elected by

special interests who make up less than 1% of the licensees, the proposed

board of directors would consist of six regional directors elected by the

general membership, one female and one male athlete director and two

foundation directors elected by the board of the USA Cycling Development

Foundation. In other words, 6 of the 10 directors would be elected by the

general membership. This means that members' interests will have

significant representation on the board, unlike either the current

situation or that proposed in Proposition A..



Whereas general members currently are not permitted to vote for directors,

they ARE permitted to vote on legislation but generally decline to do so.

(I hope that the current election will be an exception, of course!) Under

this Proposition B, members will get to vote for directors but annual

meeting legislation will be voted on by delegates who are selected by

member associations.



Another key provision is that the bylaws will make it clear that the board

of directors may not attempt to remove others' voting rights without their

permission, as was attempted in 1999..

The revised Bylaws will be about 15 pages long, replacing 47 pages at

present. There will be just eight classes of voting members, compared with

20 to 30 in the existing organization, depending on how you count.



The existing boards of trustees will become racing rules committees to

review and vote on rule changes for their respective sports. In summary,

USA Cycling will focus on national and international competition, with one

board of directors, one annual meeting and many fewer bylaws.



I recommend a "YES" vote on Proposition B in order to start USAC back on

the road to serving the interests of its members.



PROPOSITION C



This proposal, which was originally titled "Changing Members' Voting

Rights Requires Member Approval" before the titles were inexplicably

removed by the staff, was submitted by Charles Howe, et al, and is a

backup in case Proposition B is not adopted. It simply prohibits another

takeover by the board of directors such as their 1999 attempt. As such, it

deserves your support -- vote "YES."



PROPOSITION D



This proposal submitted by Eric Petersen, et al, was originally titled

"Reimbursement of Expenses" and proposes that "Members who successfully

assert member rights through legal action against the corporation shall be

reimbursed for their out-of-pocket expenses." Guess who would benefit from

that?



Our successful lawsuit that reversed the USAC board's coup attempt has

been expensive, but under Colorado Law we are directly entitled to recover

only a tiny fraction of those costs. We had nothing to gain financially

from this effort and in return for this service to the membership it seems

fair that at least some of these costs should be reimbursed. In other

words, I recommend a "YES" vote but must acknowledge that I could benefit

financially from passage of this proposal.



CONCLUSION



As discussed above, I recommend voting "NO" on Proposition A and "YES" on

B, C, and D. I haven't received the ballot materials yet but have learned

from people who have that some "Staff Responses" appear there. Such

insertions should consist of objective analysis of proposals but the

"Staff Responses" that has been faxed to me are blatantly political and

contain a number of apparently deliberate falsehoods.



I will plan to review those misstatements in a future posting and will

also review the pattern of staff misconduct that is marring this election.

In the meantime, feel free to ask me any specific questions that you may

have, either by responding to le-@cs.stanford.edu or phoning me at

650-941-3984. However, I will be off-line from Friday afternoon through

Tuesday afternoon (Aug. 10-14).



-Les Earnest