Discussion: USOF cancels Open Champs

At its AGM on 13 August 2003, USOF membership voted to rescind USOF Board's decision to create the Open Champs. Details are
here.

This decision appears in direct breach of USOF's own By-Laws:

8. b. The Agenda of the Annual Convention—based on the text above and with additional details as may be required—shall be made known to members of the Federation at least two weeks before the opening of the convention.

The decision to rescind was clearly an "additional detail" which should have been made known to the general membership no later than 30 July 2003. There was no mention of this item on the Board Net, on USOFClubNet, or in O/NA, prior to 30 July 2003 (AGM minus 14 days).

The proposal by SAMM was submitted on 07 April, which is indeed in accordance with AGM proposal submission guidelines in the By-Laws:

10. Proposals to be submitted to the Annual Convention.
a. Proposals to be submitted to the Annual Convention may be from:
1. Member clubs—submitted no later than 4 months before the convention.
[...]

However, Robin Shannonhouse's message to the ClubNet notifying of the AGM agenda is dated 04 August 2003, only 9 days before the AGM. There is no mention of the item on the ClubNet or the
BoardNet between 07 April 2003 and 03 August 2003.

Message 2971 of 3014 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] Message Index 



From: []"Robin Shannonhouse"  

Date: Mon Aug 4, 2003 7:50 pm

Subject: AGM & Board info



USOF members:



Information on the issues and agendas for the USOF Convention AGM

and Board meetings are now up on my Virtual Binder website:

http://www.mindspring.com/~rshannonhouse/



The AGM and Board meetings will be held at Sargent Center, site

of the USOF Convention. More info available via the Convention

website www.geocities.com/upnoor/convention2003



Robin Shannonhouse

USOF Executive Director

rshannonhouse@m...

Since the original Open Champs proposal was brought up by me (Vladimir) on behalf of several US O-Team members, and affects first and foremost these Team members before the general membership, the impression that one may forms is that the general USOF membership not only does not care about its Team, but will break its own
By-Laws to get back at these pesky Team members.

The extremely unsettling thing about this is not the general membership's vote that goes against the Team's interests, but the way things were done, secretly and behind people's backs.

I think this is serious cause for membership-wide discussion of whether USOF really needs its Teams, and if the answer is "no", then remedy steps are available, up to the creation of another organization governing competitive orienteering in the USA. (I hope it doesn't get there.)

The last paragraphs should read:

Since the Open Champs proposal was brought up by me on behalf of several US O-Team members, and affects first and foremost these Team members before the general membership, the
impression that one may form is that the general USOF membership not only does not care about its Team, but will break its own By-Laws to get back at these pesky Team members.

The extremely unsettling thing about this is not the general membership's vote that goes against the Team's interests, but the way things were done, secretly and behind people's backs.

I think this is serious cause for membership-wide discussion of whether USOF really needs its Teams, and if the answer is "no", then remedy steps are available, up to the creation of another organization governing competitive orienteering in the USA. (I hope it doesn't get there.)

"... the general USOF membership not only does not care about its Team, but will break its own By-Laws to get back at these pesky Team members."

While the first part of this statement is undoubtedly true (I don't think more than 10% of the membership could even name who's on the team), I think the second part is a bit over the top. It's easy to mistake the general incompetence of an organization run by amatuers for some sinister conspiracy when things don't go your way. I certainly experienced similar feelings when USOF crushed both of SLOC's big meets a few years ago.

However, listing the agenda a few days late looks much more like a clerical error than an orchestrated plot to undermine the national team. There's not much to support the position that the vote would have been different if the item was published a week earlier.

I don't think "sinister conspiracy" is appropriate. Rather, "conflict of interest" and "lack of due process". I believe what happened was that the individuals responsible for proper process had their personal preferences, likes, and dislikes govern what they did, and to hope that nobody would notice.

Oh, and 07 April until 04 August is much more than a few days late.

Having the proposal available in, say, May would have allowed for sufficient discussion on, say, USOF ClubNet, and maybe even in O/NA. And, even knowing about the proposal on 30 July (when I last checked my e-mail before heading off to the WOC) would have allowed us at the WOC to draft some text to be presented by Eric Bone to defend the merits of the Open Champs before the AGM.

Randy and I had a long discussion on this SAMM issue on the drive up to the boulder dash. I had seen the minutes ahead of time (they get sent to me as pres of SVO). We gave our votes to DVOA to vote by proxy, and I was asking Randy who I should lobby to get a favorable decision on this issue for the team (i.e. punt the uninformed SAMM proposal). Actually, the first thing I asked Randy was if *any* SAMM member had ever even run a Blue or Red course at an A-meet or more importantly here, at a Champs. Ever. I couldn't recall one. But I digress... I asked Tom Strat last week how the vote had gone on this at the convention and he gave me the bad news. Among the things Randy and I talked about was representation of the team on the board. As in some kind of permanent position - so that team interests and defense of our efforts in support of the USOF membership in general can be expressed. I know that Vlad and Eric B. in particular have been very active in USOF affairs and I gather that its very frustrating for them. I certainly appreciate your efforts and I try to keep up on all the issues you guys send around and post for us - really appreaciate it. I'd like to ask if people think it would be useful to try to get a permanent team rep appointed to the USOF board (an actual voting, full membership). The same should be true of the sanctioning committee. A-meet and champs sanctioning are very important to the team, as they relate to the quality of competitions here. If USOF is averse to a permanent team presence (this would cover all the teams - juiors, etc), then maybe we should make a firm effort to get one of us elected there. That should be fairly easy.
Having membership overturn board decisions by referrendum each year at the AGM seems like a bad way to run the organization. Either we elect a congress to make the laws, or we cast chits on every issue and don't elect a congress at all. Overturning the board's decisions 6 months after they are made is inefficient at best.

Amazing as it may seem, the Team is represented at the Board by one full voting at-Large member, who currently is Nancy Koehler.

But trying to change the Board composition in the Team's favor is a losing proposition. First, you can't get the majority; several regions have no Team members. Second, even if you somehow get a majority or you get the majority of the Board to vote your way, you'll then be exposed to claims from some of the members that the Board is out of touch with the membership. If they don't like what you do, you can't shove your policy down theirs.

The problem here is with the general membership, not just the Board. Actually, the Board has been quite good to the Team in the past 2–3 years. The problem with the general membership is that there are many people who do not understand what the Team does, do not know what the expectations are going both ways, and what the obligations are for USOF to the Team and high-level competition, and the other way. Some folks are just plain messed up, but that's beside the point.

So, what do we do? It seems like the real reason for the frictions is the neglect that USOF as an organization has for its stated missions and objectives, one of which is the development of high-level competition, and another one is the selection of the Team to represent the nation. We can attempt to remedy the situation with communications—the Team would have to establish some kind of communications office/officer to talk to USOF and the clubs, however ridiculous this sounds.

Interesting. I think the main problem that people had with the Open Champs as the BOD had instituted it was that it was done without public discussion, and people felt that it was done "behind people's backs", and wasn't thought through thoroughly (now *that's* an interesting phrase). Anyway, my impression was that what's supposed to happen now is that the BOD should look at the concept again, and possibly approve it, but with more public discussion and maybe some changes of the details. Bear in mind that this Champs structure affects more than just the Team, it also affects the clubs that would be interested in putting on Championship events.

If the Board felt that the Open Champs proposal was instituting a change so radical that it required public discussion and/or a membership-wide referendum, it (the Board) should have told me and Eric B. so when we presented the original proposal. We would have withdrawn the proposal, initiated discussion, and prepared the matter to be sent to a referendum if needed.

As things were, we acted entirely within the way things are done within USOF, both from the point of view of tradition and formality. There were about 4 months from the time the original proposal was submitted to the Board to the time it was voted on. Additional 16 months passed from the time the proposal was passed by the Board to the 2003 AGM. This was more than enough time for any concerned USOF member or club to contact her/his USOF Board representative and suggest action. As, during these 16 months the Open Champs decision became widely known to the membership, although the reasons for it may not have been.

The way things were done at the AGM looks more like a public vote of no-confidence to the Team and the BOD, structured so as to minimize any chance of dissent, than a way to conduct civilized discussion.

First, I'd like to say that, from a process point of view, I agree with Vlad.
- As far as I could tell, the creation of the Open Champs went through as much or more USOF discussion than many issues that are voted on. It's not like every decision they make is thoroughly discussed in advance in ONA and USOFClubNet, and it's not like every USOF member thoroughly reads either source. As an example, even the extremely thoroughly discussed F50/55 changes caught some people unaware, even on the second vote after it had generated so much controversy!
- As Eric B. pointed out, posting the proposal to reverse the change 10 days vs. 14 days in advance of a meeting is hardly a gross (nor uncommon)violation of USOF By-Laws. However, it certainly seems to have received less discussion than creating the Open Champs in the first place.

Now, as for whether there should be an Open Champs at all, I'm reposting something I sent to usotesc, below. Basically I'm fine with the fact that the Open Champs co-designation for the Team Trials has been removed. It sounded nice up front, but the combination with the Team Trials was getting messy.

- For years, the Team Trials has stood on it's own to draw a high caliber elite* field of competitors, without any designation of USOF Open Champs. (*as elite as we get...)
- There is a lot of bureaucratic hassle of linking the Trials to the Open Champs, including start-list rules conflicts, and event selection/management conflicts (Team ESC vs USOF BOD group). Removing it as a "Championships" removes these sticky issues that had yet to be resolved.
Additionally, it ensures that the ESC retains more control over the Team Trials selection. While it could be argued that the ESC hasn't managed this all that well in the past, would you prefer joint management by the ESC and the USOF BOD? Imagine trying to get concensus from that even wider group..
- USOF has too many championships already. I think it's approaching 10. I finished in the bottom half of the eligible field in the US Night O'
championships in M21, aka Open/Overall US Championships (at night) and I medalled.
- I don't like taking anything away from the M21 and F21 at the one primary US Championships. Especially with BAOC taking those categories seriously and offering $3500 in prize money to the top US finishers in M21 and F21. (I know of at least 2 people who have decided to go specifically because they hope to grab some of that to help pay for (or totally pay for) the trip, and I haven't
been listening too hard.) With the enthusiasm (& $) BAOC is putting into the 'elite' at the regular US Champs, why do we need to split off our own event?

There are other arguments for making the Trials an Open Champs that I like too, but at this point I'm leaning against...

- Wyatt

Oh, sorry about that Nancy. I didn't realize. I'm a dummy. Actually I think Randy did tell me that.

Not to further a discussion that took place some 20 months ago, but I though one of the main reasons for pulling out the M21/F21 champs and attaching them to the trails was to avoid adding to the already large number of "champs" events by taking the already existing m21/f21 champs and just attaching them to the trials - to give the trials more "bid appeal" for sponsoring clubs? It also served to help ease travel burdens, as m21/f21 runners could then go to a single event to get their champs *and* team trials in. The rest of USOF doesn't have this dilemea, as they are not trying to make the team.

... and Middle + Long in a single Champs in addition to the Trials. And, proper technical standards for the neglected Middle. And, a proper-length Long. And, potentially in the future, a Sprint to go with the MIddle and Long. And, and...

I wonder how much USOF is providing for the teams on the yearly basis. And if we should go and separate teams and general membership by making team finacially self-sustaining (taking Vlad's early proposal veryu seriously and working toward having it as a reality). Elite orienteering is in very bad position in the USA and it needs a boost.

When the issue of splitting off US Elite Champs came up originally, my biggest concern was the potential alienation of the Team from the general orienteering community. We need to work within the system to improve orienteering, not try to separate ourselves and do our own thing. I believe there is reasonable support for elite orienteering in the US (BAOC's donations to Team fund and cash prizes at US champs are a good example; I've had lots of positive feedback from my club with regards to US Champs/WOC performances). The way to get more support (both in terms of recognition and money) is to make Elite/Team activities more apparent to the general orienteering community, not less.

There are lots of pros/cons with the separation of elite champs. I for one am not too disappointed the AGM voted down the separation. And I agree that the original decision (at the Board level) was not that widely known/discussed before it came into place.

As for courses at US Champs, if we want the US Champs races to more reasonably reflect international distances, then let's go about changing the course structure. I'm leading the setting team for next year's US Individual Champs (at Telemark). I had already given thought to setting M21/F21 courses to mimic WOC Long Qual/Final events (i.e., men's winning times of 60/90 minutes and women's winning times of 45/70 minutes).

Those crowds of hundreds of excited general orienteering-community spectators will be so disappointed about the long times they'd have to wait for their favorite US elites at the spectator control because of the lengthened M/F21 course times to mimic the WOC Final.

Sorry, just couldn't resist.

Well unless any of the top WOC finalists become US citizens in time for next years US Champs, the lengths will be approximately the same. In fact, they should be a little shorter if Brian is not running.

The issues you are debating are similar here in Canada. For example, the idea that Brian mentioned is currently being discussed by Canadian team members. We also have the team trials vs. national champs issue. But I agree with Brian that we need to work within the system to improve orienteering. The US already has a plethora of Championship weekends which IMHO makes it easier for elites to achieve what they want within the existing system. For example, why not work together with the BOD and suggest that your short/long champs weekend be held every year in the spring and that it double as team trials? Ideally it should be terrain relevant but not necessary. In your proposal you can state that age groupers do the status quo but that the event be modified to meet the interests of elites preparing (and selecting) for WOC. Instead of the status quo the elites would race international standard short(15) and middle(30) on Saturday (almost like this spring) and long(90) on Sunday (this would be shorter than your current long winning time). Then in the autumn you have your standard US Championships where everybody runs classic (perhaps 2x60 - ie, WOC qualifying distance for men).

Referring to the different Championships as the spring and autumn US Champs would make them appear equally important.

Just a thought...

By the way, I had the chance of winning my first prize money at the Boulder Dash. My good friend Alar offerred me $5 US (a lot more in Canuckistan cash) if I could run sub 9min/km. I hit the wall (something I did in almost all my August races) and lost the big cash prize opportunity. So my career winnings remain at $0.