I struggled before publishing Jonathan Grinder's legal opinion but in the end, after seeking counsel from sage men, I've decided that when in doubt sunshine is the best policy. Before I go off opining, then, below are the salient elements of Grinder's opinion given to USAT's executive director Steve Locke yesterday:

"In short, it is my opinion that the election was improperly conducted as the proper procedures were not used to change, clarify or modify a decision of the Board of Directors made at the June, 2003, board meeting.

"In reaching my conclusions, I did not delve into other areas of alleged impropriety such as allegations that the election started early as I did not feel a need at this time. If you feel that an inquiry into that issue, as well as other issues that may come up, are warranted please let me know.

"I did not reach the issue of remedies as that will likely require rather extensive research into California corporate law as there is no specific remedy stated in the By Laws. Remedies could range from allowing the election to stand all the way to extensive litigation in the California courts.

"This obviously was a situation of a well intentioned Board trying to clarify a situation in a quick, simple and cost effective manner. The problem is that attempting to solve this situation, or any situation, by email vote creates not only the appearance of impropriety but also huge potential for impropriety. When an organization such as USAT serves a membership of 50,000, not only must impropriety be avoided but also the slightest whiff of an appearance of impropriety must be avoided as well. The By Laws and Robert's Rules of Order and the rules and regulations contained therein exist for the very purpose of allowing business to be conducted in an open and forthright manner and allow for accountability. While they may seem archaic and at times troublesome and expensive to deal with, they do serve their purpose in that business can go forward in an orderly fashion.

"Obviously a lot more expense, effort and time can be put into this issue by all parties involved. If this matter were to proceed to litigation neither the Board members who were elected or the defeated candidates would be allowed to serve. Further, this issue not be resolved for several years given how fast litigation proceeds in California. The personal expense to the candidates, as well as to USA Triathlon, would be enormous. All of these factors would cripple USA Triathlon in an important Olympic year.

"I suggest two resolutions to this issue. A simple and effective resolution, and one likely to arrived at by a court or hearing board who considers the election issue, is to hold elections again in the contested regions. Such elections would be conducted pursuant to the conduct as set forth in the June, 2003, Board meeting.

"Another would be to appoint a special panel of three uninterested and uninvolved individuals where each side could make an oral and written presentation. The panel would then make a binding decision as to the impropriety of the election and the remedy. The panel could have a decision by January 30 and all remedies could be completed by the middle of March."

What is Grinder saying? It appears to me that there are a variety of ways he could've found the most recent board of directors election to be flawed, but in the interest of time and money he's stopping short of an exhaustive investigation because he's already found enough of a bylaw problem to warrant triggering a new election.

Grinder also warns against doing anything that's likely to thrust this into California court, and the way to keep that from happening is to seek the obvious remedy: recontest the election, or impanel a group who'll come to that same eventual conclusion, a conclusion which is likely to be arrived at by a court or hearing board who considers the election issue.

What Grinder suggests as a simple and effective resolution would be to hold elections again in the contested regions. Tactically, this would be the remedy most likely to gain a majority of votes, as Jack Weiss' election was not contested. He would not have to recuse himself from voting on this remedy, and the vociferous critic of these election practices would certainly vote to hold the election again.

However, it strikes me as more fair to hold the entire election again, as a flawed election in some regions is a flawed election in all regions.

Now that legal opinions have been sought twice by USAT's board, and have been delivered twice, and in each case they've been critical of the election tactics allowed by a slim majority of the board, this isn't even a close call. It isn't about whether those we've elected are the best candidates. If so, let us just elect them again. No, it's not about people, it's about the credibility of our process. If the process doesn't matter—if only results matter—that's how every dictator rationalizes his hold on power: "Look at what I've done for my people—would anyone have done more?" How we choose our sport's leaders is not a detail. It's more important than the leaders themselves.

Here's the irony. So many board members will have to recuse themselves from this vote (because they were candidates) those who're really going to end up determining where the federation goes from here are three youthful pro athletes who never anticipated casting a vote of this import. They are Eric Bean, Kevin Carter and Susie Gallucci. I don't know any of them, but I keep hearing very good things about Gallucci. She is a captain in the U.S. Marine Corps, and graduated from the University of South Carolina with degrees in marketing and MIS. She's a private pilot, and all this and a top athlete by age-27. So, will our young ones rise to the challenge? I have hope.

But my hope has been dashed before. In my 24 years in triathlon I've become used to pro athletes failing to see the big picture and looking out only for their own short-term interests. Indeed, I've heard from non-elite board members that the three pros in former boards have had a habit of voting on non-elite issues on the basis of what pork the elites will get. I have no way of knowing whether this is in fact true, but I suspect their votes are being courted right now.

As it turns out, this is an important election for the elites. How the USOC views USAT, whether those large grants for pro initiatives keep rolling in, will depend entirely on how professionally USAT comports itself. Plus, make no mistake. Whether this election is recontested under proper rules or not (and I think it should be) last year's was the very last election that will be contested with the abysmal practices that the old board approved. Whomever enters the board from now on will enter knowing how the elites handled next week's vote.

All that said, this has been a good exercise in civics for us all. There are no real villains here. Just strenuous differences of opinion. But there is right and wrong or, if that's too strident a characterization, there are degrees of civility in how our federation's officials behave. Let us hope we choose the more civil approach when the vote takes place next week.