Fwd: No one is talking about a coup

[nmaz...@gmail.com]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Uncle Terry" <uncle...@usa.net>
Date: March 31, 2016 at 10:34:13 GMT+2

Subject: No one is talking about a coup

So I think it's fairly well established that many people are not happy with what they consider insufficient notification about the proposals and being asked for their proxies.  Whether Gus et al should've or could've done it differently is a moot point.  So to step away from that thoroughly beaten horse, let me ask-- why do those proposing these changes need our proxies?

 

Now that I have had a chance to read the proposals, other than a handful of words I might phrase differently, I have no problem with them.  They seem cogent, clearly written, well thought out, and designed to move in a positive direction.  They break down into:

1. Allowing hockey to govern its internal matters, providing it doesn't violate USOA policies (and USOC/legal/moral/whatever).

2. Promote transparency of USOA, including financial disclosures.

3. Introduce reasonable term limits.

4. Rotate the annual Board of Governors meeting among the various regions of USOA (which is apparently already required by USOA bylaws, but had been disregarded) and have the meeting on a weekend and have it not conflict with major championships of the USOA sports.

 

None of these should be controversial.  #1 is something that the creation of the hockey committee (done with the full cooperation of the USOA Board several years ago) was supposed to accomplish.  #2 is just common organizational sense.  #3 is, again, organizational sense.  And #4 is fairly trivial organizational sense.

 

I cannot see why the current Board of Governors or the Executive Committee would have a problem with these proposals.  It certainly doesn't seem like an "us or them" situation. The motions do not try to take anything away from USOA as an organization nor do they attempt to favor hockey over the other USOA sports.  I could see objections if individuals feel they have a right to lifetime positions, or want to exclude others by making meetings difficult to attend.  But I've worked with several of the Board members at times over the years, and I don't believe they think that way.

 

If the current Board can't adopt such measures without extremely good reasons, then that would change my thinking about matters.  That would demonstrate that maybe USOA isn't considering the actual best interests of the organization as a whole or its members.  But I see no reason to suspect that is the case.

 

Thus I can't see why the accumulation of proxies is a big deal.  As I said, it's not "us vs. them".  I would think that the current Board of Governors would concur with the reasonableness of the motions and pass them, without any sort of proxy battle needed.

 

--Terry

Nicole Mazouchova 

USAUWH National Director