Is Mike Rouse the Don Imus of the San Diego-Imperial Association of USATF? Mike had been president of this sunny association only two months when, in a November public meeting, he called a longtime meet and club director a “bitch.” Uh oh. He tangled with the wrong woman. His target was Liz Tate, sister of the late Florence Griffith-Joyner. Her annual Flo-Jo International Youth Club meets have been kind to masters in the past, inviting them to run entry-fee.

Liz didn’t sit still for it, and now storm clouds are gathered over San Diego.
A “grievance panel” met in February with both Mike and Liz — and Mike apologized. But the panel still issued this recommendation: Rouse should be ousted as president and banned from any USATF office for a year.
I didn’t learn about this mess until yesterday. I wrote to Mike, and his email robot replied:

I will be out of the office starting 04/28/2007 and will not return until 05/31/2007. My laptop is SHOT, and is being sent back to Mizuno for replacement. If you need me before Thursday, please call me @ (phone number).

In reply to an email, Liz wrote me:

Mike Rouse called me a Bitch at a Youth USATF monthly meeting on November 21, 2006. Mike Rouse is requesting an appeal from the grievance panel decision. He wants to remain president. Apparently he feels an apology is acceptable and sufficient for his actions.
Indy avoided addressing the issues. Until the situation with Imus, they totally ignored the problem. It was then that (USATF) replied by e-mail. Even still they are not taking any direct action to mediate the situation or recommend how the national governing body for track and field in the USA feels about this situation. They refuse to take a stand for ruling in their bylaws — strange.
Where is the leadership in regards to this situation? Have we as a nation come so far by influence of mass media to a point where we use the word Bitch without consideration to its meaning and implications? I am still in shock and wonder what will the world look like in five years. Who knows, maybe our vocabulary is going through a process of change.

Here’s what Andy Martin of USATF wrote to a bunch of San Diego-Imperial officers, apparently saying, “Ball is back in your court.”

To: USATF San Diego-Imperial Board of Directors
From: Andy Martin
Re: Tate vs. Rouse Grievance
Date: April 9, 2007

I have been asked by several individuals within the association to comment or provide guidance with respect to “next steps” in the ‘Tate vs. Rouse” grievance. My hope was to first conduct a conference call with the two parties so each would be privy to the same discussions and my opinions. One of the parties indicated they did not want to participate on such a call, which is their right and understandable.

In lieu of such a call I have decided to provide in writing to the entire Board, as well as the 2 individuals involved with this situation, what I believe to be 1) a summary the situation, 2) outstanding issues, and 3) “next steps.”

I am using the San Diego-Imperial bylaws http://www.sdusatf.org/bylaws.html (and USATF Regulation 11 http://www.usatf.org/about/governance/2006/ — which is referenced in the San Diego-Imperial bylaws) to base my opinions and suggestions.

I have to remind each of you I am not an attorney. This is not legal advice rather an outsider’s recap of the situation and suggestions from someone who has many years of reviewing, interpreting and utilizing association bylaws. It is my hope that your Board has legal counsel to help you interpret your bylaws and the non-profit laws in California and to provide appropriate counsel to your Association.

My understanding of the situation:

1. At an Association meeting held in the fall a verbal altercation occurred between Mr. Rouse and Ms. Tate.

2. Ms. Tate filed a grievance against Mr. Rouse.

3. The USATF San Diego-Imperial bylaws (Article 14-3) indicate that the President or his/her designee shall use every effort to resolve the Grievance Complaint through informal means….”

4. (Arnie) Robinson was appointed to set up a grievance hearing. The individuals selected to serve on the “hearing” panel were Harold Robinson (Ken note: actually Tolson), Yolanda Stewart, Pat Calloway, and Al Dandridge.

5. On February 20th the four individuals on the “hearing” panel conducted either a mediation session or a grievance hearing (see item # 2 under “Outstanding Issues” below).

6. On March 13, I received a document entitled “Mediation of Complaint by Elizabeth Tate against Mike Rouse” by fax from Mike Rouse and received the same document on April 9 via U.S. Postal Service from Elizabeth Tate. That document is attached to this e-mail.

Outstanding Issues:

1. Based on the “Mediation of Complaint by Elizabeth Tate against Mike Rouse” decision/recommendation document it is unclear to me as to what the intent of the February 20th “meeting” was. Was it a mediation meeting or an arbitration hearing?

It is important to understand that mediation and arbitration are two different processes. In mediation both parties must agree; 1) to attempt to settle the dispute through mediation before beginning the mediation process, and 2) both sides must agree to the “settlement” provisions that have been established during the mediation. Arbitration is like going to court where the decision of the judge or jury is final and binding.

2. If it was a mediation meeting did both parties agree to the decision of the mediators? If it were an arbitration hearing then were steps taken to resolve the situation in an informal manner prior to the hearing? If it was an arbitration hearing then the only concern I have is why the hearing panel included the word “recommend” in its decision and to whom were they recommending it to?

3. Several people have asked me if the USATF San Diego-Imperial Board of Directors needs to approve the decision of the panel that conducted the Feb. 20th meeting. I see nowhere in the Association bylaws (or in Regulation 11) that indicates the Board must approve such a decision (see item #4 below for exceptions).

4. There are two specific provisions in Regulation 11 that allow the USATF Board to impart their authority on a NABR decision.

* USATF Regulation 11-N-1 provides the USATF Board the ability to remand matters back to the NABR if the decision has significant budgetary impact on USATF.

* USATF Regulation 11-N-6 provides the USATF Board the ability to appeal NABR decisions in four specific instances where the decision of the NABR clearly contradicts; federal laws, USATF rules and regulations, IAAF rules and regulations, or other applicable laws.

Next Steps: (again these are my opinion and should be considered only as recommendations not as “being required by the national office”)

1. The Board needs to decide if the meeting that was held on February 20th was intended as a mediation meeting or an arbitration hearing.

2. If it was an arbitration hearing then all parties should be notified of their ability to appeal the decision. The USATF San Diego-Imperial (Article 14-4) bylaws provide the information on appeals.

I hope this information is helpful. It is my sincere hope that the Association administrators can get this situation resolved so that your valuable time can be focused on more productive initiatives and projects.

Andy Martin
USA Track & Field, Inc.
Director of Grass Roots Programs
One RCA Dome, Suite 140
Indianapolis, IN 46225