All annual USAT members will get a love note by first class mail in a couple of weeks, and in it you'll find a pair of ballots. I'll explain what these ballots mean, and tell you how you should vote.

In fact, let's get that out of the way first. How should you vote? You'll have a chance to check a box next to my name if you live west of the Rockies. Wherever you live you'll have the right to say YEA or NAY to a proposed set of bylaw changes. The way you should vote depends on how you feel about various issues. "Dear is Aristotle," wrote Peter Abelard 800 years ago. "But dearer still the truth." Best to arm yourself with the truth, and vote your conscience.

Why should you vote to place me on the Board of Directors? In truth, I don't know that you should. I'll do my best to explain the pros and the cons, and then make your choice.

THE CASE FOR A VOTE FOR ME: I view USAT as not more nor less than a California corporation owned by its members. If you've paid your $30 you are one of its 53,000 owners. This federation's business is to perform those basic functions its members consider essential. I'll tell you what I believe those functions are.

First, however, I'll tell you what they are not. USAT does not exist to provide jobs for those who work at USAT's office. Its purpose isn't to provide a place where the unfulfilled can add meaning to their lives by sitting on its board. It does not exist so that people whose favorite word is NO can wrangle themselves positions that allow them to utter that word with impunity. USAT ought not to be a place where $5 million dollars per year is funneled directly from 150,000 age group athletes to 50 elite athletes. The role of USAT is not to justify and perpetuate its own existence, for the sake of its existence. Its job is not to make and warehouse money.

The purpose of USAT is, primarily, to act as an industry organization. USAT can say to an insurance company, "We've got three quarters of a million dollars and we'd like to buy a liability policy." It's hard to say no to that. It's much easier for an insurance company to say no to 500 race directors each with $1500 to spend.

The existence of USAT means triathlon will have one set of well thought-out rules in our sport, and a clearing house for equipping the officials tasked to enforce those rules. Should a race director, or a community, want to stage a triathlon, our federation tells them how to do so most easily, cheaply and safely. Our federation can create a system where the best athletes, pro and amateur, can qualify for world championships. Part of USAT's charter is devoted to the identification and training of elite athletes. The USAT emblem on a race application ought to mean that, on average, this race is safer than a non-sanctioned race.

As federations go, you own a strong one. Your balance sheet shows better than a million dollars in cash and equivalents. This federation sanctions over 1300 races, and not because its the only insurance game in town. Your elites are strong, your races are the best officiated in the world. However...

Cash is sexy. Prestige is sexy. The federation built by others became the playground, and the battleground, of those who abused the members' trust. There is a view that election behavior, and misbehavior, is a peripheral issue. I don't believe that. Board members are temporary. USAT's institutions and processes are permanent. When you collect unsealed ballots, and spreadsheet and archive the details of how members vote, without the members knowledge, there's no excuse for that. My primary interest as a board member is to remind owners and board members that behavior matters, and to help center our federation's needle on True North.

Beyond that, our federation has a few blind spots. We've been an exceedingly profit oriented non-profit. We charge $9 for one-day insurance when the true cost to the federation of that insurance is closer to $2.60 per occurance. We only barely fund our race director conference and our national championships. We gouge our age groupers with inflated prices on uniforms and travel. We only show our sanctioning race directors the "deals" on RD goods and services that our federation's sponsors provide, instead of ferreting out the best deals available. We accept sponsorships that enrich an already rich federation to the detriment of its sanctioning RDs.

One can dispute whether the most important customer of the federation is the athlete or the race director. It certainly is not the sponsor. In general, I favor non-exclusive official suppliers over exclusive sponsors. We ought not to subjugate the best interests of our RDs (who are part of the family) to the needs of sponsors (that are here today and off to NASCAR racing tomorrow).

Our federation is not a place for pork. We've got a duathlon coordinator on staff only, it seems to me, because several of our previous board members were primarily duathletes. I love duathlon. I believe, however, that du and tri ought to be treated equally, and let members vote with their feet.

We ought to find our elites the way we found Sheila Taormina and Andy Potts. Let us find top swimmers who can run, and let us find them post-college. Please let us no longer bribe post-prep athletes away from university careers by waiving Resident Team spots in front of their noses.

The USAT emblem ought to mean safety. Our federation ought to make life easier for RDs, but it ought to require safety. USAT's tradition is to let the RDs do almost whatever they want.

We ought to lower one-day fees from $9 to $7 or maybe even $6. This helps RDs immensely. In return, the federation RDs must remit all one-day moneys collected within 15 days of receiving it. Online registration engines must be willing to remit one-days directly to USAT, or RDs can't use those engines. The federation is a $5 million public company. It must act like one.

Acting like a public company also means disclosing like a public company. No more secrets. No more back-door deals. Financial statements must be disclosed in detail. Here is my challenge to USAT's staff and board: Don't do the deal unless you're willing to have the light of day shined on it.

THE CASE FOR A VOTE AGAINST ME: When asked by Inside Triathlon, "Will you request that USAT cover your legal fees?" one of my opponents, former board member Jim Girand, answered, "Yes. The three of us [Girand, Valerie Ellsworth-Gattis and Diane Travis] will ask the federation to reimburse us for our legal expenses." If you believe these fees, estimated at roughly $100,000 dollars, should be paid to these board members, you should not vote for me. If you believe any of the estimated $250,000 in legal fees run up by the previous board should be paid by the federation, better not to cast a vote for me. My message to board members: Don't exercise hubris and stubborness and expect the members to foot the bill.

If you believe our former executive direct, Steve Locke, should be automatically reinstated as executive director by the new board, best not to vote for me. I believe our federation deserves the best candidate, and should I be on the board Steve will be one candidate of those who'll apply for the job. Also, if you believe that Steve should be banned from consideration, best to vote for someone else in the Western Region. The members deserve board members that harbor no grudges, and are not out to settle personal scores. They deserve the best man or woman for the job, whomever that might be.

If you are mad at the elite athlete board members for voting 3-0 in favor of the Girand/Gattis/Travis bloc, and you want to elect a board member who'll exact revenge against the elites, look elsewhere. Yes, I'd like the elites to place three members on the board who'll work in a collegial fashion. But it's up to the elites to choose their board members, and it's up to the entire board to do its best for the federation.

I've a little something in my platform for everybody to dislike. Best you know it now rather than later.

Finally, as to that other ballot. I and Lew Kidder circulated a petition and gathered the requisite number of member signatures. That petition, which ought to have gone out either within 30 days, or shortly after 30 days, depending on your reading of the bylaws, will finally, apparently, be mailed out almost four months after its submission. What this petition is all about will require a second discussion, and that discussion is forthcoming.