For those of you who don’t know me, I’m a lawyer (have not practiced since 1991) and a gym owner and coach for over 25 years, currently coaching women’s levels Xcel through 10. I have served on State and Regional Committees and helped as Region 8 coordinator for the first 10 years of the TOPS program. I’m also a National Instructor for the Risk Management course and the W200 course. Tony asked me to take a look at the Ted Stevens Act.
A quick review of the latest version of the Ted Stevens Act addresses Tony’s question as follows, in section 220522 (a) 11:
An amateur sports organization is eligible to be recognized, or to continue to be recognized, as a national governing body only if it—
…
(11) provides for reasonable direct representation on its board of directors or other governing board for any amateur sports organization that—
(A) conducts a national program or regular national amateur athletic competition in the applicable sport on a level of proficiency appropriate for the selection of amateur athletes to represent the United States in international amateur athletic competition; and
(B) ensures that the representation reflects the nature, scope, quality, and strength of the programs and competitions of the amateur sports organization in relation to all other programs and competitions in the sport in the United States;
That needs a little unpacking: let’s simplify a little:
USAG must provide for reasonable direct representation on its Board of directors for
(1) any amateur sports organization that conducts at least one national gymnastics* meet a year with athletes who are potentially good enough to represent the United States in an international competition (see note 3 below)
(2) any amateur sports organization that conducts a national gymnastics* program (maybe required to be with athletes who are potentially good enough to represent the United States in an international competition, maybe not – see note 1 below)
provided that this organization makes sure it represents its own gymnastics* programs/competitions “in relation to” all gymnastics* other programs/competitions, whatever that may mean.
(*I’m saying gymnastics, but that includes men’s, women’s, rhythmic and T&T)
Some points to note:
1) The section specifically provides for organizations that run meets e.g. NCAA Women, which runs NCAA Nationals, and also for organizations that run “programs” i.e. by implication, things that are not meets. One could construe this with a comma after “conducts a national program” in 11(a) above, and say that the folks with programs, as opposed to meets, have no national proficiency requirement, but I’m not sure that’s what they wanted it to say! It’s more likely that it is meant to include folks running meets and folks who don’t run meets, but that both kinds of organizations must be involved at least once a year with activities that relate to “athletes to represent the United States in international … competition.”
2) Representing the United States in international competition is NOT limited to Olympics or World Championships. It is not even limited to competitions at the national team level! Note that it does not say selected by the national governing body to represent the United States. I know that seems controversial, but the Act is full of details about international competitions, and basically that term refers to competitions held overseas for gymnasts* in which their amateur status will not be compromised, records set can be validated (not applicable to us – it means if you set a new record in the 100 meters it can be validated), attention is paid to rules of, in our case, the FIG if applicable in that meet, qualified judges are used, medical supervision will be available, and safety precautions are taken for athletes and spectators. That literally could be you taking your club to compete in a dual meet with a club in London.
3) Why is note 2 important? It means that the words about “level of proficiency appropriate for the selection of amateur athletes to represent the United States in international athletic competition” may well not mean what you think they mean. They could just mean gymnasts who want to compete overseas – at any level. So the eligible organizations are NOT limited to programs with elite athletes. Which actually would make sense, when one considers that otherwise it only refers to selecting elite athletes, so it would only refer to USAG, and there would be no other organizations to even be considered, and that doesn’t make sense.
4) The last part about representation is problematic. At first glance one thinks it is about to say that the USAG must keep a balance on the Board, so maybe an organization with smaller impact could be judged to need less representation on the Board. But that is definitely NOT what it means, since 11(B) refers back to “any amateur sports organization that –“, and not to the national governing body. So, it says that, in additional to satisfying clause (A), the organization seeking representation on the Board must ensure that ITS OWN representation, presumably when on the Board, will reflect the scope of its programs in relation to all the other gymnastics programs. In short, once on the Board, the YMCA, for example, must balance its representation of its membership by reference to where it stands in the big picture of gymnastics in the entire country. I know, it seems odd, but it is the only construction that can fit the clause as it is written.
5) What is reasonable DIRECT representation? My thought is that direct representation means the organization is on the Board, and group representation (eg three people from the Advisory Council represent all of the others) is not direct. But then they threw in “reasonable”, which applies some modifier. No idea what that could be. Non-voting? That to all intents and purposes means no representation. I think one can certainly argue that 22 different organizations on the Advisory Council cannot have “reasonable direct representation” with only 3 votes, and that any fewer is inconceivable. I know they want a smaller Board, and that may even be a good idea. I’m not at all sure that it can satisfy 36 USC 220522 (11).
6) The act says nothing about the representation of membership on the Board. Nothing. Given the stated goals of the CEO, membership will be pitted in a competition with the Advisory Council for seats on the Board unless something is changed. In my opinion, it would be very unwise to dilute the representation of the membership on the Board.
So, in summary, any organization on the Advisory Council must have reasonable DIRECT representation on the USAG Board if it runs a meet with athletes that could compete overseas, or it has a national program related to athletes that could compete overseas. That’s my take. It’s certainly not a legal opinion, and I will try to take some time to look up and see if there is any caselaw on this issue. Dave Holcomb may have reviewed all of this in the earlier Board reduction.
James Linderholm
