Masters chair candidates go on record with Q&A’s
All four candidates for the vacant USATF Masters T&F Committee chair have completed my questionnaires and their answers reflect a wide range of approaches to our problems. All for the good. This election will offer masters delegates to the Indianapolis USATF convention in two weeks plenty to chew over. The seat they’re vying for — George Mathews’ unexpired term — will last only two years. But if those two years see progress, the incumbent chair in 2008 can probably count on a four-year term to follow. You also can go straight to a candidates’ responses by clicking these names: Mark Cleary, Bob Fine, Joy Upshaw Margerum and Gary Snyder. Read ’em and comment!
10 Responses
Bob,
Your qualifications are not to be denied as to your expierience and dedication to the sport! And if elected knowing you personally feel you will do the very best in you endeavors to get the Masters back on the right track in all the areas that need correction. In addition to your achievements in the last 50 years you did however forget to mention the fact that you were a member in high standing of the prestigious N.Y.Pioneer’s for the better part of your youthful years! But after all is said & done You have my vote! Rich Rizzo SFA70 (Sprintforce America)
we have 4 well qualified candidates for an office that seems to chew up and spit out people. I think one must be either an eternal optimist or a glutton for punishment to run for this position.
I hope that the 3 losing candidates will offer their assistance to the winner. Much must be done to both hold on to the masters voice within USATF and to strengthen voice. We need better communications, more funding, strong oversight of national championships, a more forceful and positive voice at WMA, etc. We need to be looking forward and not backward at past “glories”.
Frankly I am not as interested in the past history of the 4 candidates as I am in what they will do to improve masters track and field. The voters need to take into account not only the skills these individuals have but also their ability to lead the organization.
Mary, I ran against George Mathews in 2004 finished second in the voting out of three candidates. I jumped right back in and continued doing the work on the board and supported George these past two years-so win or lose I will still be heavily involved with Masters Track & Field at National and local Association levels.I am committed and fully vested in our program.
I want to address a comment that was directed at me by Bob Fine in the answer to Ken’s first question.I want to dispell a myth that Bob is trying to perpetuate in regard to how I run SO Cal Track Club. Bob states that I am blatantly recruiting all over the country. He then goes on to say that ” though technically legal, evidences a mind-set that completely ignores the main purpose of team scoring the developement of Association clubs”. Let me give you a little background on my club. My club will be 10 years old on March 14th 2007. I have 86 members of which 13 athletes live outside of California. I have been an NCAA Div.I, NAIA and High School coach–if my intent was to have a National recruiting stategy doesn’t anyone believe that I would have 50 or 100 athletes from out of state.I have competed in the last 16 Outdoor Championships and have meet individuals( who have become friends) who did not run for a team and had an interest in our club.If there is nothing going on in that individuals Assocation or they are unattached and approach me and want the support of our club, I am open to giving it. In a few cases people have made friends with some of my teamates and have wanted to join the team. The bottom line is if an athlete is of good character and generally nice and has an interest in our club we do not discourage their membership in our club.We are in the business of helping athletes. I have always followed the rules. That is how we have operated since our inception.Another myth is that we are only an elite Masters club–we are a true developemental club.I coach many novice beginners with our club some are ready to compete in our Nationals in a year or so and some will never compete above local meets, but they are motivated to stay involved by our faster or stonger athletes. We bring athletes to the Nationals every year that are novice or new to our sport and they are very competitive. People want to create contoversy and perpetuate it–I am not one of those people and have never addressed these kinds of accusations before feeling no need to defend myself or my club.Going into this election I felt it was prudent to address this with the Masters Community and clear the air.I hope this answers anyone who had been lead to believe anything other than the truth.If you doubt that my numbers are correct I can have someone from the National office confirm them for anyone interested.
Should a National Chair compete “unattached” during their term of office, and not represent their club during that time?
I don’t want to restrict candidates from applying, or narrow the field of candidates, because maybe the strongest, most experienced candidate gained their organizational abilities competing for a club or presiding over a club–
but it just seems that conflicts of interest would routinely pop up if a National Chair represented a club, especially a high-profile club, and then had to weigh in on matters like team scoring qualifications, site selection for national championships, “national” club affiliation.
I have no quarrel with affiliation “before” being elected National Chair, or “after” the term is concluded, just ‘during”
Bob, maybe I’m missing something here. You say you’re running because two candidates lack experience and another recruits too much.Huh? That’s all about them. Why do you want the job?
You say you’ve “been involved in every major decision.” Good news, bad news, I guess. Thanks for all your service in the past, which is truly impressive, but are you now part of the problem too? Business as usual? Where politics win/rule over individual athletes? Where we re-invent the flat tire instead of get new wheels?
Why can’t we adult athletes make our own choices where we wanna go? We’re gonna go where clubs and associations have something to offer, (i.e., camaraderie, age grouping, competition, positive energy, coaching, etc.) where we give willingly and yet get something back outta it. Instead of criticizing Mark, why not take a look at what the successful programs offer, at what athletes want, and give em that, instead of counting on legislating loyalty.
I agree with Larry’s assessment of Bob Fine’s campaign message.
If Bob really thinks his opponents are not qualified for the job, then he’s in for a thumping. We are very fortunate that Joy, Mark and Gary have offered their services, and their interviews clearly reflect new energy and ideas that are refreshing. Bob’s attititude reflects a degree of arrogance, disrespect and abrasiveness that is not conducive to leading an organization as diverse and multi-opinionated as the masters T&F committee. We need a leader who can find common ground among us, not polarizes us. We need someone who is forward thinking, not stuck in the past. I believe these essential qualities are well represented by Bob’s opponents.
Once again the issue of Association clubs vs. national recruiting has surfaced. Although I would prefer to see Gary Snyder as Masters Chair so he could work his administrative magic on a national scope like he’s done in New England, I must advise Bob Fine that attacking Mark Cleary for “national recruiting” is a poor decision.
I have made these points before and must do so again, that the concept of Association Clubs does not benefit athletes. Not all associations are created equal, in terms of geography, members or clubs. This is particularly true for Master T&F Athletes who often find the only clubs in their Association are LDR and Road Racing clubs, with no interest at all in sprints, middle distance or field events.
Although based in Massachusetts, the Mass Velocity Track Club has many members who have had to switch their Association in order to become officially attached. I frequently “recruit” any unattached Master sprinter because I believe that Associations should serve the athletes and not the other way around. If Mass Velocity has something to offer a Master T&F althete (and I believe we do), I believe they should be free to join, regardless of where in the USA they might call home. I’m dismayed that Bob Fine might attempt to deprive Master athletes of this basic right should he be elected to the Chair position.
I always get a chuckle when I hear Bob Fine use the deliberately ominous sounding term “blatant recruiting” when refering to harmless consentual conversations between grown-ups. Whatever happened to free speech? Has any club member ever approached an athlete with some kind of contract in hand? Does any money change hands? Of course not! We’re just amatuer athletes who are looking for meaningful experiences among our peers and exersizing our right to choose which club fits us best according to USATF rules. It’s silly to exaggerate this as some kind of reprehensible, high stakes corruption of the system. In reality, the behavior of so-called club “recuiters” is not the issue here. The real issue is athletes’ freedom of choice.
Any athlete who considers joining a club outside his/her own association must make an informed decision based on his/her situation and the nature of the club. Obviously that requires some kind of meaningful dialogue with the club. The athlete must carefully weigh the pros and cons of transfering to another association, then seek and obtain permission from both associations involved. This process requires thoughtful consideration, justification, and administrative procedures. In many instances, transfer requests are not approved. But when they are, athletes are and should continue to be, free to represent the club of their choice.
In other words, there is already in place an effective system of checks and balances which minimizes the number of athletes who compete for teams outside their own association. We do not need additional rules, such as Bob Fine’s proposal, to further limit the options of athletes. And we need to get beyond simplistic and inflamatory expressions such as “blatant recruiting” to appreciate all facets of the club choice issue and understand how changing the current USATF rules will, in my opinion, adversely affect athletes.
Can we please get back to real issues and ideas here??? National clubs are a concern to a tiny minority of MTF athletes.
I am distressed that there is so little in the way of substantive ideas in the statements by all four of the candidates. And now we are engaged in the kind of “attack ad” campaigning we saw far too much of prior to November 7.
Mark, you say you have ideas but that we have to wait until the Convention to hear them. Not everyone will be there. Let’s have them now so we can examine them.
Bob, why do you want to be chair other than to block the others who you see as inexperienced or pursuing agendas you don’t like? What’s your positive platform, not your resume of previous involvement?
Joy and Gary, where are your ideas for the future? We need more than cheerleaders. HOW will you support Sacramento and keep MTF on the USATF Board?
As I understand it there are powerful forces with a lot of $ behind them (read the USOC) behind the move to change the USATF Board resulting in the loss of the MTF seat. HOW will you fight to save our seat at that important table given the forces pushing in the other direction? What alternatives do we have? I don’t see this issue addressed in a positive way by ANY of the candidates.
Declining participation and declining opportunities to compete at the local level is an issue for masters athletes around the country. When the National Senior Games T/F events outdraw the USATF National Championships by a huge number every two years and state senior games far outdraw association and regional meets we have serious issues to address. Even worse, in my experience in living in three states in different parts of the country over the past decade, the Senior Games are seeing a decline in participation at precisely the time when more and more baby boomers are entering the 50+ age groups. Do any of the candidates have ideas about how to address this decline in interest? Are other masters sports having similar problems? If so, what does that mean? If not, do they have lessons we can learn?
Let’s get some ideas on the table so we can see what the candidates have in mind for the future! Let’s hear more about HOW they will move from ideas to accomplishments!
Right now, if I have a vote in Indy I’m inclined to vote for “none of the above” based on what I’ve read!
Leave a Reply