Campaign Details
By Mike Hurdle
Monday, July 26, 2004
I would like to take a few moments and address some issues that have been raised in the CHO chat box relating to the American Slate of Candidates. A brief history of how the slate was chosen and the timing of how it came to be, along with my personal decision to run, followed by answers to specific questions raised.
The American Slate of candidates were hand-picked by myself for very specifics reasons. 1) For far too long I have witnessed USTHF/USATH handball boards represent one portion of our membership at the expense of another, whether it is West v. East or National Team v. Development. Ever since I have been involved with this sport, which spans almost 20 years, the board has always been politicized and vicious power struggle has occurred. This power struggle has crippled our sport fracturing our handball community and dividing our family against each other. It is time we put an end to this and begin to work towards the overall good of our beloved sport. Each member of the American Slate was selected to give representation of our entire membership. Every segment and every region have representation with the American Slate. REGIONS: Clubs represented from the West – Cal Heat, LA THC; from Central – Houston, Univ of Nebraska; from the Northeast – Garden City; from the Southeast – Rock Handball, Condors, D.C. Diplomats, UNC, SETHC; from the national – USA Deaf. SEGMENTS: Officials – IHF Ref; Players – current & former National Team, Olympians, disabled, foreign, college, & youth; Business Consultants – European leagues and financial analysis (CPAs). The slate represents every region of this country with the purpose of uniting our fractured sport. 2) Each individual brings something unique to the table whether it be financial or athletic and it compliments the other individuals on the American Slate. Some have extensive financial backgrounds while others have extensive handball experience to others that have extensive background in sports administration – each of these individuals add to the value of the team. Just as one does not select 11 quarterbacks to field a football team, one should not select the same generic person to serve on the board. 3) Diversity of opinion. I did not hand select people that agree with my views 100% of the time; I selected people that were passionate about the sport and would focus on the good of handball before their own personal agendas. I expect these fantastic individuals to provide solutions to the problems facing our sport. 4) All of the individuals on this slate are successful business people ranging from CPAs to scientists to engineers to entrepreneurs. It is time for this business to be run as a business, and we will need people with solid financial backgrounds to develop and monitor proper budgets, cash flows, and revenue generation.
The idea of an American Slate of candidates did not come about as a last ditch effort without any forethought or planning. It was envisioned in January 2004. It is true that the actual candidates were not nominated until the last moment before the deadline – however, that had nothing to do with poor planning and everything to do with the USATH established election process. The USATH election process is extremely tainted. It is inherently biased to the incumbent. With a thorough reading of the USATH constitution, I had to minimize the inherent bias as much as possible so as to attempt to level the playing field as much as possible. Not only does the process allow the current executive committee to set the rules for the upcoming election, but they also have exclusive access to the USATH membership list. The current executive committee set the rules so that each candidate can only submit a one-page letter to the general membership. And in this letter, one has the challenge of introducing themselves, their background, their vision, and any contrast with the current administration. How can one possibly do that? Couple that with the fact that the executive committee has access to the membership list, how can the election be fair? They go in to the election process knowing each member, what club they are from, and how many votes are needed to win. This advantage is so monumental that it most likely cannot be overcome by any legitimate challenger.
If I had announced my candidacy to run for president last summer, the current administration could have begun campaigning against me through a variety of mediums and I would have had no ability to campaign in an equal fashion. What benefit does any challenger have to announcing their intent prior to the deadline? It only allows the incumbent more time to campaign prior to the campaign rules taking effect. In other words, the current president could send out monthly update letters claiming what fantastic things are being accomplished, and I, as challenger, would have had no equal venue to campaign against that.
So, the decision was made to wait and see what unfolded through the natural course. It is interesting to note that the current president has issued only one letter to the general membership about the state of U.S. handball in 4 years in office (Dec 2002). However, I have not recently become outspoken on the subject of the failures/shortcomings of our current administration. I have been outspoken for quite some time. For example, I spoke out against the current administration decision to host a National Team try-out for the 2001 World Championship team at the 2000 Tar Heel Invitational in Nov 2000, and then not send a single representative from the USATH Selection Committee to that event. I spoke out against sending high school students to the Men’s Word Championships because they just were not ready to compete against world-class professionals. Our team was humiliated on the world stage. That decision led to the American region losing a qualifying spot for upcoming World Championships (reduced from 4 to 3). I spoke out against the decision to ban foreign players from our National Championships. A decision that was implemented in 2002 and has resulted in the quality of play diminishing to the point that our current president, and the entire executive committee, did not stay and witness the gold-medal match at the 2004 National Championships, which is supposedly the premier match of the year. That decision denies our elite athletes the opportunity to compete against elite foreign players basically for free. I spoke out against the lack of a qualification system for the U.S. National Championships in 2002. Still, one is not in place. I spoke out against USATH’s refusal to allow beach handball to flourish in this country by their insistence to micromanage the sport. I created the first beach handball National Championship tournament in this country in 2000 (20 teams attended), and USATH refused to allow me to continue to grow the sport – instead, insisting that they had to organize it. I spoke out against the lack of an objective standard by which to award development grants, which saw my grant application denied without reason, but witnessed 85% of the grants awarded to board affiliated clubs. I spoke out against Board members being selected as National Team leaders for international trips when other qualified candidates were arbitrarily overlooked. I spoke out when USATH spent $20k to fund an adult men’s club league in New York that failed miserably after one year rather than support an existing league in Atlanta. The league in Atlanta was created and sustained without a single dollar from USATH. And yet, USATH with $20k of funding could not sustain a successful league, which is another example of the current administration’s necessity to micromanage the sport into obscurity. I spoke out when a USATH board member chastised National Team members for not mandatorily “voluntarily” donating their USOC Level 1 grant back to USATH – a practice which borders on illegal since the USOC awards those grants to individuals to assist with living expenses. I spoke out about the lack of a USATH Player Code of Conduct since it is specifically written in the USATH constitution that a player code of conduct will exist and be distributed no less than once per year. The current administration has been in violation of our own constitution for 3+ years. However, throughout all of these criticisms, I kept the discussion within the handball community and never once broached these issues with the USOC. And yet the same cannot be said of our own USATH Executive Committee. I witnessed, on two separate occasions, where members of the USATH Executive Committee raised/filed complaints with the USOC about a local ambassador of our sport and his administration of the Community Olympic Development Program (CODP). Interestingly enough, the USOC sided with the way the CODP was being administered. And what was my reward for this, for speaking out against injustices? I’ll leave you with this simple piece of information and allow you to draw your own conclusions. For the December 2003 USATH Board Meeting, I submitted my name to volunteer to be the chairperson of committee that was vacant; I wanted to do my part and assist USATH develop and grow. I was not even given the common courtesy of a, “Thanks, but no thanks.” I was completely ignored. The position is still vacant to this day.
Some may think I am bitter. No. This is just a base to exemplify why I decided to not announce my candidacy, or of those on the American Slate, until the deadline. An administration that is in violation of its own constitution does not invoke trust that it will not violate campaign election rules or not use USATH proprietary information for personal gain. An administration that cannot be compliant with its own constitution needs to be held accountable and removed.
I will address the specific comments mentioned in the chat box in the comments attached to this article. If any additional questions arise, please post them in the comments to ease in the ability for people to follow the question and answer dialogue.
I would like to end with this final observation. What other candidate has taken the time and effort to publicly post, not only their vision, but how they will accomplish it? Anyone can make generalized statements, such as:
“ over the next four years, we will attempt to accomplish…” Attempt? That’s it?
“Create a focused fund raising effort to become more financially independent of the USOC” How?
“Establishment of at least two leagues in the United States.” How? And why have you not supported the current discussion by local clubs that are striving to create a National handball league?
“I am a firm believer in capitalizing on the use of technology in all areas of our sport.” What does that mean? Who isn’t in favor of that?
Those are just a few of the examples of the generalized and loosely veiled promises that don’t really promise anything. Analyze carefully and assess who is committed to the success of this sport. There are those that want to be judged based on how hard the try, and then there are those they want to be judged on the results they obtain. I am one of the latter.
