As some Slowtwitch readers already know, I tendered my resignation as USAT board member for the Western Region last week. I did so at USAT’s Fall Board meeting. I would like to explain to my Western Region constituents why, and why now.

As to the timing, I’ll tackle that later. First, the reasons.

When I decided to run for the board I had several things in mind. First, our board was emerging from two years of fractiousness, in which our federation was placed in a sort of receivership—the USOC acting as temporary custodian—and during which time various parties caused the generation of about $300,000 in legal fees. I ran for the board in the hope that our federation’s governance would get off on the right foot, with a few different faces around the table, and a new group dynamic. That required certain people, such as me, to run against those who formerly held positions on the board.

I also felt it important to work toward a resolution of these legal fees and remaining legal questions. To that end I chaired an ad hoc committee tasked only to deal with the resolution of the legal fees outstanding. The majority of these legal bills have been paid or otherwise resolved, with many tens of thousands of dollars in fees owed by either the federation or its board members having been written off. Bills to one legal firm yet remain, and the federation has engaged in a process with which I'm comfortable to liquidate this remaining exposure.

I also thought it necessary to immediately start on the process of hiring an executive director equipped to take our sport and our federation to the next level. I authored a resolution empowering two board members (Susie Gallucci and I) and a third person from the race director community to commence a search. One hundred and eighty candidates and over two hundred man-hours of work later the two final candidates addressed the board at its meeting last week. As to the outcome of this process, it’s most appropriate that I leave any news to USAT to break.

There were other matters important to me. As many readers know, I co-authored a petition with Lew Kidder, and that petition’s question was carried by the members. It was expected, and Lew and I hoped, that the board would take up the petition’s issues and fine tune them, preparing for the membership a ballot question altering several of the petition’s bylaws. Also, we wanted to make sure the board approached the new bylaws in an appropriate posture—that it would seek to implement and improve upon them, not circumvent or ignore them. The board’s work in this regard was superlative, and I hope it is not too much a breach of board confidentiality for me to single out Jack Weiss, Tim Becker, and legal co-chair Mike Highfield for their good work on our federation’s behalf. I’m quite satisfied with the result thus far.

Finally, I’m concerned with what we in the bike biz call our federation’s “head badge.” What does a USAT sanction mean? What is the meaning of the “brand?” I felt that USAT’s sanction ought to mean safer races, and I wasn’t sure it did. To be honest with you, I’m still not sufficiently sure it does. However, I’d like to single out another person, this one a staff member, not yet having completed her first quarter century on the planet. Yet Angela Flannery, USAT’s risk manager, appears to me a quick study and the sort of person equipped to get her arms around the subject of race venue safety. Notwithstanding the curmudgeonly response by certain long time race directors to her accident of youth, she has me convinced that our races will get incrementally safer as time goes on (of course this will shift the onus onto you, the end-user, to pay attention to the sanction emblem, to notice the lack thereof, and to vote with your feet).

One other element of our “brand” has bothered me, and that is our lack of a well-regarded national triathlon championship, along with our lack of a “big picture” approach to this property. Accordingly, I chaired another committee, this with the name, “National Championship Rethink Committee.” Time will tell whether we do in fact produce national championships worthy of our fine sport, but upon my leaving we had a process in place geared toward that end. I can only hope our owned events coordinator, Jeff Dyrek, soldiers on and gives us a nationals we all want to attend. Were I not confident in Jeff’s ability I might’ve stuck it out a bit longer, to my fellow board members’ occasional chagrin.

All the above categories of concern are either fixed to my satisfaction, or are on the way toward a successful resolution. Accordingly I felt my most urgent platform issues were rendered moot. But these aren’t the only reasons I’m leaving the board. If this was the end of the story I’d still be your board representative for seven more months. The above explains why I feel free to leave. Below I'll explain why I'm leaving now rather than later.

As I am the publisher of a magazine devoted to triathlon, there arose a conflict about whether I could continue to cover USAT, especially if such coverage included offering any opinions. The question was, could I be an active publisher and journalist—including writing about USAT—if I were also to sit on USAT’s board? I sought a lot of advice on this, both before and after the election. I heard a number of opinions. Frankly, this is one area in which I was not in much agreement with my fellow board members. They felt a certain way, and their views were defensible. We argued about this, and they chastised me both informally and formally. I don’t blame them a bit. But I don't necessarily agree with them.

As the upcoming USAT election season is approaching, it occurred me that I would write my opinions one way or the other. Would it be best to cause my fellow board members, and USAT staff and owner-members involved in the process, fits of angst because of my dual role of board member and crusader? And, would this be a breach of my duty of loyalty to a non-profit corporation?

I decided the greater good was not to place my fellow board members in a difficult position. Were I to stay on the board, the collegial relationship the board now shares would have been degraded.

I’m reminded of a scene from one of my favorite movies, the Western musical, "Paint Your Wagon" (I am one of this movie’s few admirers). Ben Rumson (Lee Marvin) is asked by his townspeople if he intended to mend his wayward behavior. “Not a chance,” he replied. “And it’s getting worse every day.” I admitted to myself Ben Rumson’s answer nicely described my likely behavior going forward.

One last element must be mentioned. I don’t have the temperament for this job. At the recent board meeting I was asked whether I’d be re-upping for another term of service. I answered in the negative. Board service is very frustrating. As a company owner I was in the habit of fixing problems with immediacy. I surrounded myself with problem solvers, project managers, people who saw the big picture, who had sound judgment, and who enjoyed an eye for excellence. Not so, working on a board. This is not to denigrate those with whom I served. It’s just that on a board you don’t get to pick your soldiers. You inheret them, and they you.

There were two very able commission heads, both from California, attending the recent board meeting. One of them expressed to me his earnest eagerness for the job. Considering my ambivalence for it, the degree to which my own agenda appeared accomplished, and my definite desire to editorially cover the upcoming election comprehensively—to the board’s probable frustration—I decided this was a good time to exit.

I want to thank all who voted for me, and I hope I’m making the right choice. I’m wagering that writing about the upcoming election and its various choices is more needful than sitting mute while on the board. And, of course, I don’t know that I could’ve remained mute. In fact, there’s not a chance, and it’s getting worse every day.