TheFinalSprint.com - Track & Field, Marathons, Racing News, Training Advice, Elite Athlete Blogs, Interviews, Podcasts, Videos and More! - TheFinalSprint.com is the Premier Destination for Track & Field, Marathon, Cross Country, Olympic and Road Racing Enthusiasts.

TFS to Expand Writing Staff and Internship Program

Whether you are a seasoned veteran, an aspiring journalist, or even just a knowledgeable fan looking for a profitable hobby, we want to hear from you! Click here to apply today!

Dysfunction Run Amuck
Part VI: Overstepping by USATF Board Members and Conflicts of Interest

Posted December 2nd, 2008 at 11:00 PM by Adam Jacobs

Section: News & Results, Track & Field, Olympics

This is Part VI in TheFinalSprint.com’s seven-part series titled “Dysfunction Run Amuck: USA Track & Field and the Need for Change”. To catch up on the preceding installments and/or to view the publication timeline for the final parts in the series, please scroll to the bottom of this article.

Overstepping by USATF Board Members

A major problem with having a bloated board of directors is that its members tend to venture into administrative areas instead of limiting themselves to focusing on the big picture, as they’re supposed to do. Two high-profile deals, in Birmingham and Eugene, illustrate the point admirably.

It has become practice for the organizing committee for each Olympic Games to help nearby cities provide training facilities for national teams from all over the world. The way the Olympic marketing rights are supposed to work is to have the Olympic organizing committee compile a list of “approved training camp cities” and announce those cities during the preceding Olympic Games. The announcement, according to the UK’s The Herald, acts as “the starting pistol in the race to attract teams and sports.”

That article, published on last February 20, reported, “Birmingham City Council has scooped the jewel in the [London Olympics training camp] crown, the American athletics team. A memorandum of understanding was signed during the indoor athletics international there on Saturday. Stephanie Hightower, the former international hurdler who is now chair of USA [Women’s] Track & Field, signed the memorandum with Birmingham Council leader Mike Whitby.”

The only problem was that the USATF national office knew nothing about the deal, and had no inkling that it was in the works until thenewspaper report of February 20. Though the memo of understanding was not binding on USATF, it could have been a major embarrassment if USATF’s national staff decided to cancel the deal.

A report in The Daily Mail suggests that Hightower’s relationship with Scottish distance running legend Ian Stewart, the director for televised events at Fast Track (Exclusive rights marketing, event management and media agency to UK Athletics), helped seal the Birmingham deal. Hightower acknowledged her long-term romantic relationship with Stewart but denies it played any role in the Birmingham selection.

Similarly, USATF Men’s Track and Field chair John Chaplin acknowledges his long-term professional and personal relationship with Stewart but says it was a moot point. Birmingham’s superior security capabilities and training facilities made it, insists Chaplin, the ideal choice.

Despite widespread agreement that Birmingham is the right choice, and that Logan will probably approve the deal, quite a few people think Hightower should have recused herself from this deal as a conflict of interest on the her part. Was taking part in revealing the deal a case of her overstepping her authority?

Without the requisite approval for such deals from the USATF CEO, several national members of the national office staff and board of directors have questioned the appropriateness of such an announcement. The CEO, not the board of directors, has the authority to announce such deals.

Conflicts of Interest and the Judgement of USATF Leadership

A discussion about conflicts of interest can be so convoluted that perhaps it would be useful to define the term first. The USATF’s Code of Ethics defines Conflict of Interest as “any circumstance or behavior that is inconsistent with or in violation of any provision of the Code. For example, a conflict may occur when outside activities or personal interest interfere with or influence, or appear to interfere with or influence, a member’s ability to objectively perform their job or to act or be perceived as having acted in the best interest of USATF. [Examples of] potential financial conflict of interests (sic) that must be avoided [include]:

Any transaction greater than $100 between USATF and a Responsible Person, except for out-of-pocket expense reimbursements and “honoraria” payments in excess of $2,000 annually.
Soliciting or receiving gifts or favors in any form, including money, service, loans, travel, apparel, equipment, entertainment, hospitality or promise, under circumstances in which a reasonable person would inter that the gift was intended to or could reasonably be expected to influence the Responsible Person.”

According to Wikipedia, “a conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results from it. A conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence” in the person or organization.

As a consultant for Nike and as USATF Men’s Track and Field Chair, High Performance Division, John Chaplin oversaw the committee that chose Eugene, Oregon for the 2008 and 2012 Olympic Trials. In the eyes of many, and from the perspective of those on the outside, this would seem to be a major conflict of interest. That, and the fact that Craig Masback resigned as USATF CEO and took a lucrative position at Nike just one month after the 2008 trials were awarded to Eugene, were two of the many reasons behind the decision by the USATF Pacific Association (which includes Sacramento, host city of the 2000 and 2004 U.S. Olympic Trials) to file a formal grievance.

The awarding of the 2012 Olympic Track & Field Trials to Eugene instead of to Sacramento continues to be controversial. USATF Director of Communications Jill Geer was quoted in the Eugene Register-Guard as conceding that “awarding the 2012 Trials before the 2008 Trials was an unusual move that raised eyebrows. I don’t know the specifics, but the [Eugene] bid was deemed so strong and provided such financial support for our athletes and events that the decision was made to move forward.”

John Mansoor, the Pacific Association’s executive director, told the Sacramento Bee in February, 2008 that, “What we believe is happening, or at least the appearance that this is all happening, the individuals that were involved in the selection process … they may all have conflicts of interest with awarding a bid to Eugene.”

Should Chaplin have recused himself from sitting on the selection committee in order to, at a minimum, avoid the perception that there was a conflict of interest?

Asked about the issue in the abstract, Stephanie Hightower stated, “As long as it has been disclosed and as long as that person abstains from the vote, it’s all above board. If you’re going to have coaches at the table, you’re going to have contracts, whether they’re direct or indirect. Any college coach is in some kind of way affiliated with an apparel company or a shoe company.”

Chaplin concurs with Hightower’s view on issues of this nature, “I had been a consultant for Nike for years on overseas stuff only. Everybody has knowledge of it… It’s approved by the ethics committee. Everybody knows it.”

TheFinalSprint.com has confirmed that Chaplin always includes his professional relationship with Nike on the annual and requisite ethics committee disclosure form.

When questioned specifically about the Eugene selection process, Hightower said, “Do we all know that Nike is intimately involved in the Eugene Limited Liability Corporation [bidding on the Trials]? Absolutely. But that is not necessarily a bad thing nor is it unavoidable with any city or university that has close ties with a major corporation.”

“However, should maybe John have recused himself [from the selection process] in hindsight? Yea, maybe … But he didn’t necessarily have to because Nike wasn’t actually bidding on the Trials, it was the LLC.”

What about Masback?According to the Register-Guard article Geer said that the CEO was not involved in the selection process: “Geer pointed to USATF bylaws which put the job of site selection for major events into the hands of sports committees.” However, the CEO does have final approval on the business deal and contract itself.

“‘In our bylaws, the CEO has no role in making those decisions,’ she said. ‘He works to put the business deal together once the selection has been made, but he doesn’t have a vote in the selection process.

“‘I can understand how people might look at it, but I can assure you there is no connection between Craig’s new job with Nike and Eugene getting the Trials. I think that does a disservice to the Oregon Track Club and the University of Oregon. Those are the people who bid for the Olympic Trials.’”

As of November, 2008 the grievance is an action item on Doug Logan’s task list. In an exclusive interview with TheFinalSprint.com, Logan stated that he had “heard both sides of the Eugene v. Sacramento issue, ad nauseum.”

“It was an extraordinarily convoluted process. The contracts remain unsigned on my desk, I will tell you that, and very shortly, as I’ve addressed some of these other issues that have come to the fore with regard to high performance and other issues, you’ll see a decisive determination made on my part and I can assure you that at the end of the day, people will understand that we’ve dealt with prospective [local organizing committees] in a fair way and at the end of the day, they will understand why we made the decision that we made and that decision will be in the best interest of USATF.”

The Register-Guard article concludes with a quote from Mansoor about waiting for a decision on his grievance by the USATF’s Board of Directors:

“This is less about moving backward and more about moving forward,” he said. “We’re waiting for a response from the national board, and if that response is adequate, and we can investigate (the process) without a grievance, we will proceed in that manner.”

“But if the response is not adequate, we will proceed with the grievance, and if necessary, make an appeal to the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) to step in a take a look at this organization.”

Lately, the crossroads analogy has been used frequently in discussions about USATF. A crossroads implies choice and the choices facing the USATF membership at this week’s Annual Meeting include: (1) To either accept or reject the reform proposal that will up for a vote, and (2) Who to elect as the next USATF President. The new president will have to partner with Doug Logan to either implement the new reforms or to lead the way during an inevitable showdown with the USOC if USATF fails to enact the mandated reforms.

Such discussions about USATF Board members overstepping their bounds, interfering with the National Office staff and potential conflicts of interest raise questions about both the judgment and character of those leaders and the lack of checks and balances in USATF’s governance structure that may have led to such issues.

With the upcoming votes on restructuring and for USATF President, delegates will now come face-to-face with a number of questions:

Is USATF on the right track? If so, are the proposed reforms necessary? If not, will the proposed reforms lead to the type of changes that USATF needs?
Is the board of directors (to some degree) dysfunctional and inefficient?
Has such dysfunction been the result of poor leadership or the inevitable result of bylaws that are in need of reform and insufficient safeguards?
What type of President does USATF need to deal with the potential reforms and organizational restructuring?
What do the past leadership tenures of each presidential candidate predict about their future performance if elected president?

——

NOTE: The next and final installment, Part VII, in TheFinalSprint.com’s seven-part series, “Dysfuncton Run Amuck,” will be published on Wednesday afternoon, December 3, 2008.

The topics that have already or will be covered and the updated publication dates for each segment are as follows:

11/20 - Introduction

11/21 - How Did We Get Here?

11/25 - USOC Mandates / A Question of Authority

11/28 - Cannon’s Allegations / Financial Mismanagement

11/29 - ‘Jets vs. Sharks’ Dynamic / Racial Tensions

12/02 - Overstepping / Conflicts of Interest

12/03 - Pres. Election / Logan / Restructuring

— — —

CREDITS:

Segment Title:
“Part VI: Overstepping by USATF Board Members and Conflicts of Interest”

Series Title:
Dysfunction Run Amuck:
USA Track & Field and the Need for Change

Author:
Adam Jacobs, Editor-in-Chief of TheFinalSprint.com and CEO/President of the TFS Media Network. Jacobs also serves on the Board of Advisers for Giving Athletics, Inc and is a co-founder and the current Executive Producer of the Running Film Festival (RFF).

Additional reporting by:
Jimmie R. Markham, associate editor and podcast co-host at TheFinalSprint.com. Markham is also the founder of 400meteroval.com.

Special Thanks To:
James Dunaway: A senior editor at Track & Field News for four decades, Dunaway writes for the International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF) and is the editor of American Track & Field and Athletes Only! He has covered fourteen consecutive Summer Olympic Games, twice served as president of the Track and Field Writers of America (TAFWA), and written stories for newspapers around the country, including The New York Times and Austin American-Statesman.

— — —

Please direct all inquiries, including requests to reproduce or republish this article, to Adam Jacobs: adam(at)thefinalsprint(dot)com