mmur-@teleport.com
For those of you that retain a USAC membership I am forwarding an analysis
of the 2 main propositions on the current USAC ballot. If you, like me and
most Oregon bike racers, no longer have a USAC license then you may hit
delete right now.
Proposition A represents an effort to maintain what has been the status quo
for the past few years and to further strengthen the position of the Board
of Directors ad decrease the voice that the membership has in governance of
the organization. Proposition B represents the last ditch effort by those
who retain some hope that USAC can be turned around to become, once again, a
more membership responsive organization. Personally I have given up hope of
this and a mean spirited portion of me hopes that Proposition A prevails and
that this will hurry USAC down their current path of self destruction due to
decreasing membership, decreasing events, and decreasing control over the
sport of bicycle racing. Unfortunately, I am afraid, much baby will be
tossed out with the bath water if this is the course of events.
If you are a USAC member then it is important that you vote. It is also
important that you consider the proposals carefully. Do not be swayed by
propaganda or pronouncements from famous bike racers. Try to consider what
you want to see from a bicycle racing organization and why USAC is rapidly
losing market share in this sport.
I did not write the analysis below but I agree with virtually everything
stated in it. If you have any questions on the subject feel free to contact
me.
Mike Murray
Propositions A and B: USA Cycling at a crossroad
USA Cycling members have a choice between two contrasting and far-reaching
measures (Propositions A and B) this voting period, which runs through
September 15. The complete text of each of the five propositions (A-E) on
the ballot, along with "Staff Comments" about each, can be found at the USA
Cycling election page
(http://www.usacycling.org/?2001_election/2001_election.html), which also
contains a printable ballot.
BACKGROUND
Proposition B was originally titled the Democratic Reform Initiative before
USA Cycling removed that name and assigned the letter B to it. It was
authored by Les Earnest, a retired Stanford University computer scientist,
who served as a USCF Trustee from 1979-1999, with a two-year interruption in
1985-87. Earnest was a UCI National Commissaire who served as commissioner
of road events at the 1984 Olympic Games. He was responsible, along with
the late Arthur Greenburg, for the last (late 1970s) major revision of the
racing rulebook, which brought it more into line with international
standards and practices, and was also instrumental in the adoption of helmet
standards as well as regulations requiring their use -- a fight which
briefly cost him his trustee's seat. Earnest did write most of the present
USA Cycling Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, but immediately repudiated
them when he discovered the Board of Directors had been changed behind his
back to the grossly undemocratic structure which it still retains (2/3 of
Board members represent less than 1% of all licensees.) His several
subsequent attempts to rectify this imbalance have been stymied by an unholy
alliance between the Board and the USA Cycling Staff. Most recently,
Earnest and several other members led a lengthy legal battle which restored
member voting rights, after they had been illegally taken away by the USA
Cycling Board during a secret meeting in February 1999. His victory on
appeal is what has allowed the present ballot to come before the membership
for a vote. In late 1998, Earnest began posting a series of articles which
presented 8 different 'Alternative Futures' for USA Cycling to various
internet lists and newsgroups. The final version of his reform proposal was
shaped by member response and comment to those articles over the following
two-and-a-half year period.
Earnest has set up an election web site, at
http://home.pacbell.net/learnest/, and posted a response
(http://velonews.com/news/fea/1396.0.html) to the VeloNews editorial which
appeared in their September 3 issue.
Proposition A, originally called the "Responsible Democratic Reform
Initiative," was authored by Mick Hellman, a founder and board member of the
USA Development Foundation (USACDF). Hellman is a financial analyst for
Hellman & Friedman, LLC (http://www.hf.com), a San Francisco-based private
equity investment firm. Hellman did not respond to questions about his
proposal which were submitted to him at in-@hf.com, however, a member of
the USA Cycling Board of Directors informs me that he began writing his
proposal after voting rights were restored by court order last March, and it
became inevitable that Earnest's reform proposal would appear on the ballot.
COMPARISON
There is much similar, even identical language ("legalese") in the two
proposals which is incidental to reincorporating USA Cycling. Here are
their salient features and differences:
1) "B" would decrease the size of the USA Cycling Board of Directors to 10
from the present 12, and restructures the Board so that 6 of 10 Directors
would be directly elected by the general membership, as opposed to the
present 4 of 12.
"A" would increase the number of Directors to 15, and retain the present
arrangement where Directors are elected from, and by, the various Trustee
Boards (USCF, NORBA, USPRO, and NBL). 11 of the 15 would represent
commercial interests and professional/elite athletes, who constitute less
than 1% of the membership.
Both afford the newly-formed USACDF proportionately equal representation on
the Board -- 3 of 15 seats for "A," 2 of 10 for "B."
The VeloNews editorial of September 3 states that the Board of Directors
would be "stronger" under "A," however, it would have the same powers under
each proposal, with one exception: under "B," the Articles of
Incorporation -- where member voting rights are enunciated -- could only be
changed by the House of Delegates, in which clubs and associations are
represented according to their size. The composition of the Board and how
it would be elected is what differs between the two.
"B" would call a spade a spade by changing the present Trustee Boards into
racing rules committees, which is how they have been functioning since USA
Cycling incorporated in 1995.
2) "A" requires legislation be proposed by 5% of USA Cycling members. USA
Cycling has erroneously claimed 90,000 members in the past by simply adding
up membership totals for each branch (NORBA, USCF, NBL, and USPRO), and not
subtracting out dual memberships. A more realistic figure is 60,000,
although a recent estimate put the number at 44,000. In any case, it is
clear that there could be confusion in determining the number required, and
even the lowest estimate would require 2,200 signatures, which would
constitute a barrier to member initiative in most regions (for instance, in
April 1999, there were 453 licensees in the Northeast Ohio/Western
Pennsylvania region, i.e., ZIP codes 150-166 and 439-449.)
"A" would let members to vote on proposals that the Board of Directors puts
forward, but allows the Board to disregard the results of any vote by the
membership.
Under "B," legislation would be proposed by a House of Delegates made up of
representatives chosen by each USA Cycling member association and club.
Each delegate would have a voting strength proportional to his or her club's
size. Hellman and the USA Cycling Staff claim delegates would be
"designated" and "unelected," however, it would be up to each club or
association to to choose their representative as they see fit, either by
election or appointment.
A PERSONAL COMMENT
Up to this point, I have tried to be factual and objective in my treatment
of the two proposals. A number of people have asked me to comment on them,
and my reply has usually been to recommend they read each proposal carefully
and do what they think best.
Now the time comes to say just what is on my mind: Proposition A is a
transparent, desperate, eleventh-hour attempt to co-opt the issue of reform.
It original title -- "Responsible Democratic Reform" -- was absurd. It
would have been better called "Reactionary," rather than "Responsible,"
since it was crafted by special interests immediately after the February
1999 takeover attempt was ruled illegal, and is clearly intended to preserve
their dominance of USA Cycling. It is not democratic, since it hamstrings
member access to the legislative process with a burdensome requirement that
Bylaw amendments be proposed by at least 5% of USA Cycling members; it
allows the Board to cancel member voting rights without member approval; and
it allows the Board of Directors to override member vote on the few issues
which the Board might deign to put before them. Finally, it reforms
nothing, since it perpetuates the death grip that the commercial,
professional, and elite sectors have on our sport. Thus, if you are happy
with the present posture and direction of USA Cycling, if you want more of
the same thing that the last few years have brought, then by all means, vote
for Proposition A.
For memory's sake, let's review some of the trends and developments of the
recent past:
Less local support for the membership with the termination of the District
Rep. system in late 1998.
Cancellation of voting rights in February 1999 (since ruled illegal).
Declines in membership (especially juniors), the club structure, and the
number of sanctioned events.
Declining sponsorship income.
"Roll-out" (often followed by cancellation) of one program and initiative
after another: Member Service Reps (MSRs) and the toll-free number; LAJORS
results and rankings; the Regional Coaches/Camps/Teams program; Project
Triad; the Publications Program; the Regional [Dis]Membership program.
A national ranking system that has been either invisible (except for USPRO
events) or else a farce, as is presently the case.
Elimination of the Resident Athlete Coach, Women's Road Coach, and the
Men's/Women's Endurance Track Coach, as well as the Membership Director and
Technical Director positions (note concerning the latter: there is presently
no one at USA Cycling to train/supervise officials, answer technical
questions, etc. There have been no officials' seminars since spring 2000).
At the same time these cutbacks were made, a new position was created: Chief
Marketing Officer.
Redesign of USA Cycling magazine so as to include more Pollyannish
propaganda and less useful material in fewer issues per year. The adoption
of a glossy format meant that lead time for race listings increased to the
point where they are useless for most race promoters.
Continued payment of grossly inflated salaries to USA Cycling executives
(Executive Director and CEO Lisa Voight, $155,000; Chief Operating Officer
Steve Johnson, $110,000. Cutbacks? Not for them!)
Low morale and high turnover among junior staff members.
A recent experience of mine illustrates so much that is wrong. I was asked
to be a staff member at a USA Cycling Development Camp in Whitewater,
Wisconsin this past June 18-22 (see
http://truesport.com/Bike/2001/f0039.htm). The cost of the camp was
announced as $525 for 4 days, then changed to $645 just as applications were
sent out. I told that there would be partial payment for mileage, but to
date, I have received nothing for it. Rather than a development camp, it
was much more of a testing camp, consisting primarily of three time trials
of varying length each morning, a group ride in the afternoon, and a lecture
in the evening. Of the 25 boys age 12-22 who attended, the rider with the
lowest combined time for the TTs, and one other rider, were selected to
attend the National Camp. Contrary to what is stated in the previously
referenced camp announcement, there was no evaluation (much less teaching)
of bike handling skills, nor were there any "physiology tests," nor were
such topics as "physiology of cycling, psychology of cycling, selecting and
working with a coach, . . . stretching and much more" covered. The camp
staff met the first day, and among the topics we agreed should be covered
were bike fit, stretching, etc., but none of these were discussed. It is
not pleasant to report any of this, since numerous good people put their
best efforts into the camp. My criticism is not of them, but rather, of the
plan and priorities of the camp, which are dictated by USAC.
Contrast this with a development camp recently held by the American Cycling
Association, a breakaway organization from USAC. It was held in New Mexico
in April, attracted 80 participants, and was (gasp!) free to ACA members. I
was not present at this camp and have only read about what was covered, but
I do know what USA Cycling is interested in, namely, identifying the next
Lance, since we need "heroes" in the media to grow our sport. (The USAC
camp, by the way, was "supported by the USACDF," according to their web
site. I wonder how it would have been different without their support?)
Regarding the USA Cycling Development Foundation, it is particularly sad to
see this important organization being politicized (see
http://usacdf.org/ad.html and http://usacdf.org/PropA_Q_A.html), as it
spends considerable sums of money on large advertisements in VeloNews and a
direct mailing to USA Cycling members from Lance Armstrong, both filled with
misinformation. It has also sent representatives to various large events
around the country who have duped riders (including children) into signing
proxy forms. Be not deceived: there is nothing in Prop. B which will "kill
the programs and fundraising efforts we [USACDF] spent years creating," as
Mick Hellman claims in the September 3 VeloNews. Rather, the Foundation's
primary benefactor, San Francisco investment banker Thomas Weisel (see
http://www.tweisel.com/), will likely withdraw his support from the
Foundation if Prop. A does not pass. This threat seems to have laid bare
Weisel's true motives -- he wants to call the shots at USA Cycling, and is
willing to use USACDF as his political action committee; that is the
"string" attached to his support of the Foundation. Hellman denies that
USACDF supporters "are a bunch of patsies" for USA Cycling; a much better
question would be "Is USA Cycling a patsy of the Foundation? It clearly is
at present, since the Executive Director of the Foundation, Steve Johnson,
is also the COO of USA Cycling.
In summary, the contrast between these two proposals could hardly be more
distinct: Prop. A seeks to govern from the top down, sandbags member
initiative with an onerous requirement of 2,000+ signatures for
member-proposed legislation, and does not allow any significant role for
associations, thereby guaranteeing continued fragmentation of our sport.
Prop. B, on the other hand, encourages member participation by restoring the
House of Delegates, allows members to directly elect USA Cycling Directors,
and provides that the composition of the Board of Directors more accurately
reflect the membership as a whole.
USA Cycling members have an opportunity to reverse the trend in which power
has become centralized and concentrated in the hands of those who are
indifferent to grass-roots cycling and broad-based development programs.
Again, are you happy with USA Cycling? Do you want to see it changed?
Would you like it to be more member-oriented?
I recommend you vote for Proposition B.
Thank you,
Charles Howe