Join/Renew Now

2006 USATF 28th Annual Meeting
Masters Track & Field Committee Minutes

November 30, 2006

Call to Order by Vice Chair Suzy Hess

Delegates At Large
Christal Donnelly
Mark Cleary
Carrol DeWeese
Sandy Pashkin
Barbara Kousky

Active Athletes
1. Marilyn Mitchell
2. David Friedman NJ
3. Eric Braschwitz NC
4. Dr. Harry O. Brooks MA
5. Mary Trotto LI
6. John Head TX
7. Stephen Viegas NE
8. Jerry Wojcik OR
9. Mo Hanett SC
10. John TenBroeck FL
11. Sumi Onodera-Leonard TX
12. Eric Barron SC
13. Sharon Good Potomac Valley
14. Jerry Bookin-Weiner Potomac Valley
15. Tim Edwards
16. Rex Harvey Lake Erie
17. Dave Clingan
18. Bob Weiner Potomac Valley
19. Becky Sisley
20. Phil Byrne
Jerry MacDonald
Suzy Hess

Suzy Hess announced her resignation as vice chair.

Phil Byrne takes over to run the election for Chair of Masters Track & Field

The rules are that each candidate will speak for five 5 minutes.
Bob Fine
Mark Cleary
Gary Snyder

There was a brief Q & A period to each of the candidates after their five-minute presentation. After the first ballot there was a run off between Mark Cleary and Gary Snyder. After the runoff the declared winner and new Masters Chair is Gary Snyder.

Next was the nomination for Vice Chair: Mark Cleary
Jay Mangerum
Mary Trotto
Bob Fine
Carrol DeWeese
Janet McCarty-Smith
Max Hemlin.

On 1st round ballots there was a runoff between Joy Upshaw - Mangerum and Janet McCarty-Smith. The winner and new Vice Chair is Janet McCarty-Smith.

Motion #1: Carrol DeWeese seconded by Bob Fine To appoint Suzy Hess as an active athlete with voting privileges for the convention. Passed

11/29/06 Masters T & F 2:00 pm

Chair of Masters Track & Field, Gary Snyder calls the afternoon session to order.

Parliamentary Procedures by Phil Byrne – Discussed parliamentary procedures according to Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised.

A couple of housekeeping things that Gary mentioned asked that all in attendance with cell phones to please turn them off or place on vibrate. He further asked that any member with a nametag please wear them so that they can be displayed. He asked that any members not officially registered and not wearing a nametag are observers, and should not be participating in the meetings. Further he wanted members of the media to identify themselves so that it is known they are in attendance. He stated that in terms of more substantive procedures with respect to how USATF Masters Track & Field does it’s business that Roberts Revised suggests that in an annual meeting which this is states that additional rules beyond the normal might apply to a monthly meeting for example such as a Rotary club. Additionally there should be an agenda be published which has been done. Depending on the people at the meeting, how long the meeting is and how much business gets done there should be limits on how often and how long people can speak so that other business is done. It is suggested that we do not want to limit anymore than necessary people’s right to be heard. What has been done in the past is limit speaking no more that one-minute and no more that than twice on the same issue and that seems to have worked well. This procedure does constitute a limit on the right to speak and as a working procedure; it needed a 2/3 vote by the simple majority to be approved.

Motion #2: Rex Harvey seconded by To adopt a proposal to adopt the parliamentary procedures as stated by Phil Byrne. Passed

Proposed Rule Changes

Grahm Shirley – Rules Coordinator - Stated there are approximately 108 rule proposals and MTF will need to deal with approximately 20 of them. Some of them are related while others are more complicated. He stated that the rulebook is about 200 pages long and that Masters rules are the same as the rest of track & field with a small number of exceptions in the back. The first rule we need to discuss in the order of the rule book are two related items:

Items #46 and #101 – To add the 44 lb super weight first in the ultra weight pentathlon, and then in the regular ultra weight competition add the super weight to men 60-69 and then to add it to the ultra weight pentathlon as appropriate for different age groups.

After much discussion the question of a motion was entertained about the specific additions as part of the WMA. It was determined that the Executive Committee had already gone through rules, addressed several of these issues and had made recommendations to the committee. When going through these rules it has to be indicated whether or not the specific additions are also a part of WMA and so that we know whether or not we are changing anything internationally. It was explained that the super weight and ultra weights are not defined as being a national level. At that point it was determined that we are in a sense free to do whatever we want without running afoul of anything international. At that point a motion was again entertained to accept or reject item #101.

Motion #3: Carrol DeWeese seconded by Jerry Bookin-Weiner Discussion recommended to add #101by Becky Sisley Amend motion to accept #101. – Passed.

Motion #4: Carrol DeWeese seconded by Jerry Bookin-Weiner To accept both items #46 & #101. Discussion: The motion was amended to accept #101 and we still have the discussion and not accept item #46. Is there an objection to #101which is the addition of the 44 lb weight to the super weights for the men 60-69. Question: Is that for the indoor and outdoor championships? We have to make a distinction between the two. The definition is in rule 332 (g) and we have a table for super weights. Currently men 30-69 throw a 56 lb and at age 70 it drops from 56lbs to 35lbs. This takes ages 60-69 and adds smooth set transition over a decade with the 44 lb super weight. There was an amendment to the rule bringing about a discussion regarding the weights.

Discussion: We decided to start with one item at a time. We started with the 44 lb weight for the men and 20-25 lb weight for the women and dealt with that separately and asked if there were any objections on the men’s side to incorporate a 44 lb weight for 60-69. Currently women from ages 50-79 on the super weight throw a 25 lb weight and at 80 it becomes 20 lbs. The suggested idea was that at age 70 and up should be 20 lbs. The question was asked if there were any objections to that change. This is for women 70-79 to change from 25 lbs to 20 lbs, do we need a second. It has been second. There is an opposition, stating that it should be more uniform with women going to 20 lbs at age 60 instead of 70.

Motion #5: Becky Sisley seconded Carrol DeWeese Change women’s weight to 20 lb for ages 70-79 Passed.

Discussion: Item #46 to have this change incorporated due to the ultra weight pentathlon. The simplest way to say is that for anyone who throws a 56 lb weight in the ultra weight pentathlon the proposal is to incorporate the 44 lb. This called for a motion to accept.

Motion #6: To accept item #46 for discussion Passed

Motion #7: Becky Sisley seconded by Carrol DeWeese To adopt the changes in table 203 in view of the changes of the super weight for the distance. The motion is to approve the submission that had to do with the 44 lb weight which changed and to make sure it is incorporated with the related changes for women. Passed.

While on the ultra weights, we skipped to Item #89 because it was closely related. We want to include the ultra weight as a championship event. There was a proposed motion on item #89. In that case the weight for the ultra weight for the women is about the change for age.

Discussion: Our leaning is to add the ultra weight throw to the National Outdoor weight throw. Currently they conduct two events, the weight throw and super weight throw and it would be adding a third event, the ultra weight throw. It would not be for the large track meets, but the weight throw meets. This would make it a third event. At this time there is no definition in the book as to what the weights are for the ultra weights. They are defined in the pentathlon, but the ultra is three different weights for the ultra weights and nowhere do we take out the one throw in the ultra weight championships. The idea is that if we are wrong, we can fix it so that it will be the lightest of those three that we would be throwing at the weight pentathlon. The ultra weight is not a single weight there are four (4) weights combined. You have the weight throw, super weight, but the ultra is a super weight with three additional weights, figured on a point system like a pentathlon. That is the ultra weight

Motion #8: Becky Sisley seconded by Tim Edwards Make changes in weight tables to incorporate item #89, add ultra weight then to National Championship. After much discussion the decision was made to table the motion on item #89.

Motion #9: Tim Edwards seconded Carrol DeWeese To table item #89. Passed.

Item 59: This item is more to clarification as it relates to the events for which we report as records. There was a submission in 2002 to add the 3000 and the mile because the mile is not the championship event at the event at the outdoors. It was pointed out that we offer the option of conducting either the 1500 or the mile in both the indoors and outdoors. The rules committee felt that it would be understood that both of these should have records. The submission is really to clarify because it seems that there may have been some misunderstanding or a different interpretation. The intent was that we will have records for the 3000, both indoors and outdoors the mile and 1500 both indoors and outdoors and we will keep all of these records even though the meets may differ from that somewhat.

Motion #10: Carrol DeWeese seconded by Ivan Black To adopt item #59 for discussion and the justification is to confirm current practice and to protect the integrity of the race. Passed/Fail ????

Item 84: Relates to maintaining separate records between soft and hard implements. Is there a motion? Question: Do other divisions keep separate records? For example college meets where the throws metal implements indoors? Discussion. Opposition to the motion.

Motion #11: Ray Feick seconded by Rex Harvey To accept item #84 which is to maintain separate records for soft and hard implements. Failed.

Item #85 is to reduce the number of ribbons and so on that we give people, it only goes three deep instead of six people. The reason given is any age division in Nationals and Regionals there are not even six contestants. We reward excellence to the top three and not simply for participation.

Motion #12: Carrol DeWeese seconded by Bob Fine To accept item #85 reduce awards to 3 from 6. After discussion it was suggested that the motion be rejected. The motion was withdrawn.

Motion #13: Carrol DeWeese seconded by Bob Fine Reject previous motion Rejection motion passed.

Item #86 is to remove the indoor and outdoor pentathlons from out of the indoor and outdoor regions and conduct them as separate championships.

Motion #14: Carrol DeWeese seconded by Bob Fine Item #86 to conduct pentathlon as separate championship not during the full championships. Discussion ensued and it was suggested that we table due to more information. The motion was withdrawn, Recommend to table.

Motion #15: Carrol DeWeese seconded by Bob Fine. To table item #86. Passed.

Bill Roe – President USATF: Welcomed the new Masters Chair with a vote of confidence. He discussed the new National Masters News owner and stated the magazine is about to be published with all of the new changes and stated it was a lot of fun doing it. He suggested it is very good and detailed in terms of telling you about how everything had been formulated and gives a bit of history as well. He stated it was a great educational experience for him. He stated he really enjoyed putting the book together. He offered a question and answer period and there were none.

Item #87 to take the weight throws and super weight throws to move into Regional and Association Meets from the list of optional events to mandated events. For example: The following events shall be held hammer throws, weight throws, super weight throws along with all of the other contested events.

Motion #16: Jim Hite seconded by C. Christopher Item #87 – Make the ultra and super weight throws a mandatory part of association and regional championships.

Motion #17 to reject – passed Item # 90: Scoring of meets not to count team entrants. We want to separate meets. The rationale being that scoring is done solely for the purpose of determining club champions, there is no reason to score athletes who don’t belong to a club.

Motion #18: Becky Sisley seconded by Jim Hite To accept item 90. Failed.

Motion #19: Becky Sisley seconded by Jim Hite To accept item 90 as amended. To accept the second part of item #90 clarifying combined scoring of teams men and women. Passed.

Item #91 for purposes of club scoring no performances with less 65% age graded performance standard not award points toward club championships, to retain their finished place, but not be awarded points for their efforts.

Motion #20: Carrol DeWeese second by Joy MacDonald Scoring 65% age graded performance not to be counted towards team scoring at National Championship. Failed

Item #92 – Residency requirements to belong to Association

Motion #21: Bob Fine second by Carrol DeWeese To accept item # 92 Failed

Item #93 – Awards and places for relay teams given regardless of make up, i.e., club team – ad Hoc.

Motion #22: Becky Sisley seconded by Rex Harvey To accept the motion. Rationale: Awards are given for relay team performances at National team championships shall be determined by time, regardless of type relay defined by the following rules. Rationale: Currently we have club teams and then depending on what happens to another item we have 9 club teams. More people have said let’s run a relay. Right now we score those as two separate sets of teams and give separate awards. We need to address the definition of relay teams first. We are asking that we incorporate them Failed.

Recommendation: To separate records and competition shall be maintained in the relays for (1) club teams and (2) teams of any other composition. To be taken to the Rules Committee.

Motion #23: Carrol DeWeese seconded by Bob Fine. To accept the change. Passed

Item #94 – Running timed finals in certain races at championship.

Motion #24: to reject the item. Rejected

Item #95 – Relates to relay teams removed name “ad Hoc from non-club.

Motion #25: by Becky Sisley seconded by ??? Motion to accept the item for discussion with the deletion of the note. Passed

Item #96 National Championships related 2/3 of athletes advanced to finals shall be US citizens.

Motion #26: Carrol DeWeese seconded by Bob Fine to accept the item for discussion. Passed

Item # 97 – To change “27 hurdles to 30.”

Motion #27: to reject item for discussion. Rejected

Item # 98 –change hurdle specs

Motion #28: To table Withdrawn

Item #99 –To form rules from WMA

Motion #29: Carrol DeWeese seconded by Isaac Black to accept for discussion. Passed

Item #31

Motion #30 to reject since #99 is another version and that motion passed. Withdrawn

Item #100 – Withdrawn as it is unnecessary because we (USATF Masters) are following WMA, this not a rule change. Item #107 –

Motion #31: Carrol DeWeese seconded by Mark Cleary. “Anytime where championship patches appear in rules this should be a masters exception.” Passed

Item #53 & #55 -

Motion #32: by Dave Clingan seconded by Jerry Becker-Weiners to accept. Passed

12/1/06 8:00 am

Budget -Joy MacDonald

2007 – $61,400. The actual budget is same as in 2006. Meeting later today to determine why we did not get this promised increased.

Motion #33: by Carrol DeWeese seconded by Ivan Black To accept this reported as written. Passed

Combined Events - Jeff Watery
Indoor - 3/4/07 Carthage College, no site for 2008. Outdoor is set for 6/9-10/07. Sandy Pashkin

– Heptathlon and decathlon record applications received for the first time.

Motion #34: Rex Harvey seconded by Bob Fine Keep records until National Convention for vote on delegates for heptathlete and decathlete women. Passed

Site Selection Bids
The outdoor bid presentation for 2009 are as follows:
1. Clermont, FL.
2. Southern Cal/Fleet Feet, CA
The winner is Florida. There was no indoor bid for 2009.

Committee Reports

Championship Games Committee by Carrol DeWeese
This committee asked for ideas of how we should or could improve or change anything from the games committee. We met for the local organizing committee for Maine. We have yet to have the normal meeting that we will have with Boston. It is expected to deliver better than last year. We encouraged input from Masters Track Committee. The committee composition is Jim Hite, Carrol DeWeese, Lynn Kratak, Becky Sisley, and Rex Harvey.

Masters Invitational Program by Mark Cleary
The meets hosted this year were the National Indoor Championships and we had the 200m events this year. It was kind of the year of the sprints this year. We do have some events that are fixtures at other meets that we have adopted. The events do not change from year to year, but the high profile event that the indoor, open and outdoor open championships, those do get reshuffled or reselected each year. We can give input but we cannot push the issue at some of the meets that now prefer the event and that is what they have had and we have adopted and pulled it into the program. There are also other invitational events that go on for years like the Penn Relays that are not officially part of the program but there is an extension of it that precede the program. The indoor nationals are 200m for men and women. The Melrose games want to give special kudos to Mary Rosado and Jim Riley, who worked on getting the 4x400 for clubs back in and will be an event for 2007.

The 2006 Outdoor National Championship had 100m event for men and 400m for women. In the 100m Willie Gault set a very impressive M45 world record of 10.72, which is right at what the young 40-world record. At Mount Sac Relays we had the invitational 800 m in both. For the events we do hold we post the criteria online where athletes can see the next event that is going to offered, those are set individual events that come. They can see what the criteria are. At the Drake Relays we had a mile for bid, it was difficult to get it back in, we had a new meet director and it took some doing to get that back and we have still have not heard from them as to whether we will have it in 2007as an event. For 2007 the proposed events submitted at the Indoor Nationals we are still waiting to here from Stephanie Hightower and John Chappel for approval. We do have a place on the National website for Masters Invitational Program to see results from past events and see the criteria for upcoming events. The proposed events for 2007 at the indoor nationals are reverting back to the distance from sprints last year. We have Jim Sorenson turning 40 in the spring who ran an equivalent to a 402 and a 403-mile last year as a 39 year old. So his role is make the four-minute barrier. This should appeal to several 45 year olds that set records in that race as well. At the end of his report there was a brief question and answer from the floor.

Site Committee by Tim Edwards
Standing in for Ken Weindall. Our report will consist of the list of where we will be going for next year and the year after. The indoor championships will be held in Boston, the outdoor will be in Orono, Maine, the indoor decathlon will be Kinosha, Wisconsin, the decathlon, and the heptathlon in Birmingham Alabama, the weight and super weight in Seattle and the weight pentathlon in Spokane. In 2008 the outdoor championship will once again be in Boston, outdoor in Spokane, indoor heptathlon in Kinosha, weight and super weight in Seattle, the weight pentathlon is open and the decathlon, heptathlon in Kinosha, Wisconsin. After his report there was a brief QA.

Awards Committee by Phil Byrne
First of all he thanked the committee members for their time. The activities that were undertaken a couple of days ago, just briefly. I would like to thank the committee. We would like to thank for the work done on the rankings, which is database for the awards committee. They have 25,000-30,000 line items they have interfaced by the time we are finished the indoor and outdoor season. They boiled that down to a list of about 3500 line items and from this the top athletes are taken from the 10-12 awardees for each age group. There was a new policy that was enacted by the MTF last year that requires that anyone eligible for an award must a USATF member. The other new policy from last year had to do with only including marks that were made in sanctioned meets, which is likely more complicated than it might sound. The problem could be that the meet names are stated differently. An example is it could be the East Region Masters Championship or Eastern Region Masters or Regional, etc. There were a lot of permutations and combinations in the rankings database. The awards do not say it exactly the same way as the USATF website has it, and when we check whether it is sanctioned we might get a non-hit. There were about 50 different meets that were included in the rankings but one of the columns asked if a meet was sanctioned or not. Of 50 meets, one did get a sanction that may or may not have changed the rankings.

There were age grading standards that were developed in 1994, they were revised and updated on a normal eight-year schedule in 2002. Those new standards did not get fully disseminated and implemented while others were still not ready until 2003 and 2004. Until we got into the Masters Athlete of the Year award in late September, or early October, they were changed again this year. There are new age-graded standards, which did not change a whole lot in this mid cycle revision, but they are different and we suspect some are not the latest numbers. The fourth thing there will be no corporate sponsor for the athlete of the year award. There will be an award, there will be no corporate name attached to it. Finally there is a new logo, which can be used in the certificates and plaques for our awards. There seems to be problem is dealing with the elite athletes and some them are 30-34 age group who have a mix of open athletes, Olympians, masters, semi masters or sub-masters. We require that they compete in a masters meet or a masters event, such as an all comers meet in order to be eligible for our awards and it is not easy to determine what some of these meets are. Because of these discrepancies it may be easier to start these awards at age 35. WMA says masters’ start at 35 and many cases we do not have a qualified candidate when we get down to those who really are competing as a master in 30-34 age group. Several years including this year there is no award for those. There is a suggestion that this be discussed at this time. The floor was opened for comments or questions.

Motion #35: Becky Sisley seconded by Suzy Hess To drop 30-34 age group from awards as athlete of year. Passed

Report 2007 Outdoors Championship: Report given on the 2007outdoor Championship Meet to be held in Orono. Flyers were handed out detailing information on the year’s meet. There was also a brief question and answer period from the floor.

Meet Manual by Becky Sisley – Reported the Meet Manual is on the website and is downloadable. The cost was approximately $200 for everything. Questions were taken from the floor.

Report Women’s Pentathlon Study - The WMA has an issue of whether the women’s outdoor pentathlon be changed and may even the indoor? The concern has been primarily about the hurdles. They are difficult to do and some countries have replaced unofficially the sprints for the hurdles, just like they do in Canada and may be even Australia. This body approved a motion that there would be an ad Hoc committee specifically for the purpose of looking at the event in the women’s pentathlon. In addition to the future of the hurdles there is an issue of why the women’s indoor and outdoor pentathlon is exactly the same and the men’s indoor and outdoor different. There is no indication that they have to be different, but why do they have to be done exactly the same for indoor and outdoor? The appointed committee will consist of Christal Donaly and Joy MacDonald, Phil Byrne and Mary Trotto. A survey was developed and given to all of the pent athletes at Boston, Charlotte and other competitions. A vote was taken as to whether you would you like to see the outdoor pent have different events than the indoor pents? There were 7 yes 9 no and 2 abstentions. The big issue is should the women masters be different than open athletes, right now the open women have the same as the indoor and outdoor so that is a technical issue. The second thing was should the shot be the outdoor event to be changed to a different throwing distance? In other words should it be a longer throw because it is outdoors? Yes 5, No 11. Would you be in favor of changing the hurdles to a sprint? 2 Yes 2 and 16 No. This was deemed most important because this was the issue that was brought up at WMA, those in favor, 2 yes and 16 no for the indoor pent and for the outdoor pent to change. The people who would be representing the five events in their order for Women’s Outdoor asked this question. The only event that was listed by more than 3 was the shot put.

A recommendation was made based on the survey and experience of the combined event athletes 1) that Masters committee support the condition that the high hurdle event should be in the indoor and outdoor pent. 2) That further discussion be held regarding the possible substitution of the javelin and the substitution of the shot in the outdoor pent and 3) that the integrity of importance regarding the exact same events of open and masters athletes be further discussed. After the report there was a brief question and answer period.

Report Indoor 2006 and 2007 John Oleski
This report will consist of 2006, 2007 and a bit of 2008.

The 2006 Masters Indoor Championships are held at the Reggie Lewis Track & Athletic Center in Boston at the Boston Community College at the end of the month for 2006. This is the 9th time since 1997 that the Masters Indoor Championship has been held at the Reggie Lewis Center and the 10th time overall that it has been held in Boston. It was held at MIT in 80s. The co-directors are Steve Vitones who is the managing director for the New England Association and Reed Neff who until recently served as our Master’s Chair. There were more than 700 participants; the main hotel was the Boston Westin. Some of the outstanding issues were that we did have the 27-inch hurdles available, WMA standard for the F-60 and the M-80 16 meter indoor hurdles. The masters’ chair took personal responsibility for modifying some of the hurdles.

Looking forward to 2007, we have a new Masters chair Carroll Blake, who is a very talented M-55 long sprinter, 400 and 800 m runner and sometime 200 m runner. He was not able to make it to this annual meeting. The 2007 meet will be March 23 –25, 2007 also at the Reggie Lewis Center. There will be a welcoming dinner on Thursday at the Tucci Italian Restaurant as it has been for a number of years. This is an event that attracts about 450 people and still functions as the welcoming dinner for those other than the hosts of the New England Association but for the pent athletes who are coming in to compete. There has been a suggestion that we have some other social event reception and one of the suggestions to see if there was an interest of a buffet dinner at the Reggie Lewis Center on Saturday night. Another alternative would be at the hotel. The question was asked of feedback by a show of hands of those interested in something worth exploring something the athlete would be interested in. There was some discussion and it was determined that this might be worth exploring at other venues as well for those athletes who do not know about Thursday night before the meet. Most of the information regarding the 2007 championship will be on the website by mid December. Our website is

Just a look forward to 2008 we do not have a new hotel identified yet and that could be problematic because our event just happened to be converging on major conventions in Boston on those dates. The dates are set as always in March.

Report – North American Bid Bob Fine
The North American Region of WMA has had the last three championships in Latin America, Puerto Rico and Guatemala. The purpose is to build up the program and it has succeeded very well. The result has been in the sense that Canada and the United States are starting to have a reduced number of delegates. Be that as it may there is a now a very strong feeling that it should be held either in Canada or in the United States. Florida made this bid back in September. We sent the information; we had posted it in the National Master’s News and for any other groups that wanted to sponsor it here in the United States. We are asking that you vote for it in North America. I do not know what other bids will be made. Nova Scotia will possibly be making a bid and that is the only information we have at this time. The other problem is that the bid must be submitted by January 20, 2008. This is an international championship and the procedure is if that this committee agrees that we must go to all board of directors for them to approve and at that time we can make the bid. After that it will be voted on.

Motion #35: Stan Cohen second by Jerry Bookins-Weiner “This committee approves bid subject to the approval to be presented to joint track & field and LDR to move forward. Passed

The National decathlon and heptathlon and ____ decathlon will be held in T________, Alabama on June 9-10, 2007.

2007 Budget Report by Gary Snyder
Joy explained why we thought we were getting $25,000 because of the membership restructuring. There was a some interaction between our the USATF treasurer, Ed Koch who explained our budget assumptions and what became clear is that they have a line item of approximately $100,000 at the general competition level. They do not give at Masters level. It was determined that there should be more involvement at our level. We need a further understanding of the $100,000. We have approximately 4,000 to pay the vendors and this is included in their overall budgets. That is one item they want to take over. They want to incorporate this into the IT system. This is considered double funding. The chair was allowed to go over the six critical items and submit them. The critical items consisted of a TV plan we need at least $1,500 and don’t have a much in the way of a diversity program, such as training, etc. This item has not be budgeted for.

The rest of the budget descriptions were discussed. We are under funded for these items: Games Committee - $6,000 legal fees – we balanced the budget by moving the surplus fees over for the most part. We are under funded for team managers to go to WMA there is a $6,000 cost, a pay raise for the committee board who have not had a raise in 12 years, so we are giving ourselves a 50% raise that cost is $2,400, for a $1,000 for extension of coverage to a local regional and international event. The real jeopardy item is skill assessment and we need $1,000 more for records and of course the diversity issue. The budget is around $18,000 and we are not anticipating that much to Masters track & field. We will likely do the double budgeting for 2007 for both committees. MTF was told that we were entitled to a percentage based on the overall increase. We recognize that $100,000 is the line item for general competition. This has not been broken down and will require more discussion.

2:00 pm Joint T & F – LDR Meeting

WMA Report – Marilyn Mitchell
I went to several regional championships this summer including Poland, then Guatemala, and Brazil. Most of the places found the women and men very friendly and particularly in the Spanish speaking countries were not getting any communication back. We would ask them about the womens pentathlon and never get an answer. There was somewhat of a language barrier but we were able to overcome that. Secondly, WMA officers were very eager to develop better relationships with the United States.

We talked about the doping issues in the United States and many foreign officials and athletes found it very difficult to understand why a rich country as rich as ours was not spending money for drug testing. We explained our structure and the fact that our government does not support us financially. This subject will be discussed as it comes up in the future.

Masters LDR – John Boyle (outgoing chair)

John announced the agenda for Masters LDR and gave a very brief synopsis. It follows: Marilyn on her report on WMA, Chuck is going to give a report on international LDR and then we will have a report by National Masters News, then Norm is going to come up and do the Masters Hall of Fame. We are going to talk a little bit about the championship then Bob Fine is going to address the championship and then we are going to open the meeting to common concerns and probably any business from the floor. Since LDR did not announce an agenda prior to this meeting, the question was asked by the chair if there questions any additional items they feel they needed to know about.

12/2/06 10 am General Meeting

Gary Snyder calls meeting to order at 10:26 am

The first thing we were to work on this session is the budget and the election of the WMA delegate for Italy. There was a discussion on the budget for Masters and what follows is the fact that MTF & LDR will probably work on a double budget.

Motion #36: Rex Harvey seconded by Marilyn Mitchell
That the Exec Board have the authority to award 2009 Indoor Championship Passed

Report on 2006 Indoor Championship by Carrol DeWeese
There was an unofficial report on attendance being up. We have had a number of challenges in Charlotte. The biggest thing that happened is that we got the competition. We had much larger numbers than in the past. We had numbers up over 25% and various field events and across the board than in previous years. Even the running events were good. Because of the numbers we did not provide enough medical personnel. We were shut down by direct heat, by inclement weather and because of some other situations we had to shut down the meet for a time. We were able to make it work and had an extraordinarily good meet.

Old Business:

Motion #37: That the games committee, officials committee and all of those involved with the national masters championship in 2006, in particular George Matthews, be given all appreciation for everything that was done. Passed

Ray Fieck – In 2006 the ultra weight pentathlon was approved as a championship event. This has not happened.

In 2004 in Portland Ken Weinbold presented the Ultra Weight Pentathlon. This body approved that as a National Event. The minutes were not printed. Yesterday when item #89 was presented, it had the ultra weight as a single event. We do not know how they got that terminology, but it was really supposed to be the ultra weight pentathlon championship. We agreed in 2004 to wait the two years and then present it today for yesterday and then become a national championship in 2007. That did not happen and we would like the body to reconsider approving that as an ultra weight pentathlon championship. After much discussion it was determined that we table this discussion because of the details just presented so that it can come back to the rules committee in two years. It was determined that the submission for ultra weight as a “single” event was a typo and should have been “championship” event. We are asking for a technical correction to the rules committee.

Motion #38: Bob Fine second by Tim Edwards To accept the ultra weight pentathlon as a national championship event. Passed

Elections for WMA delegates that will also serve as North American delegates.
1st awards recognition was not received at the Awards Banquet or written on program.

Bob Fine 12
Christal Donaly 8
Mary Trotto 3
Jerry Donaly 7
Carroll DeWeese 11
Robert Thomas 3
Marilyn Mitchell 8
Bill Collins 12
Mark Cleary 7
Jeff Brower 10
Ivan Black 3
John Oleski 6
Dave Clingan 9
Sumi Ornodero-Leonard

Mens Delegates
Bob Fine 12
Carroll DeWeese 12
Bill Collins 11

Women’s Delegates
Christal Donaly 8
Mary Trotto 3
Sumi Onadera-Leonard alternate

Jeff Brower - Hurdles rule change proposal. We did not come to a consensus. Hurdlers are split on this issue, there is no determination on the split either way; example, no 50% or 70% feel another way. It was determined that we need to gather more data. It was also determined that this body will be forced to make a decision with the next two years for the upcoming rules year. Handouts were given to the body to facilitate in the education and decision making process.

Bill Collins – Thank all of us for the vote to award him as athlete of the year.

Strategic Plan Report - Mike Henley -
First of all we need a skills survey, which will all us to determine what we are good at. We do not at this time have the funds for the survey, but it is in the plans for the future. The executive will be discussing this later to come up with a recommendation.

Restructuring of USATF status report – A survey came out that recommended that each of the committees make a recommendation in terms of what they would like to see in terms of restructuring. The distribution of information will be made available and there will be opportunities for opinions well known.

Website Report –Jeff Brower – USATF is managed by multiple web masters. Early last year we pulled some of the Master’s directories. It was determined that the pages are not being updated. Therefore pulled some data enabling some portion to be updated. It is assumed that this has been done to other portions of the website. In the future updates will be made by the Masters webmaster. A committee has been formed to discuss the improvements, Jeff Brower, Dave Clingan, and Andy Hecker.

Craig Masback addresses the committee.
We welcomed the CEO of USATF, Craig Masback to speak. He stated he came to congratulate all of us for the vitality of masters in part represented by the fact that we have a lot of people interested in leadership. He stated he realizes it does not always make for a friendly meeting, but it shows a lot of interest, a lot of talent. He stated that we as an organization and a masters group that the meetings are positive.

He noted that when he spoke on Wednesday he had anticipated on a victory in the area of legislation. Because of what transpired in the discussion regarding the internet he was not in a position to try and describe the precise aspect of that day. He also stated he was aware of the timing in wanting to articulate what the disagreements and what we think the potential or opportunities are within the internet. He again noted that the interests of points of view have not been voiced before. He said felt we could take an incremental approach in the life plan of the internet. From an organizational standpoint we are somewhat inconsistent with his kind of USA track & field. We have seen any number of so-called solution providers come to us and we have had some tremendous changes in technology. We made the decision early on that we were not going to align with any particular solution provider and make our sport and our constituent groups conform to their model. So we are going to condense functionally on the basis of what we need. He spoke about events, how we have missed some opportunities commercially because people could have given us functionality that could have served us previously. As it stands now we may get some cash from some groups that said they had some cash at the time that have long ago gone out of business and taken their technology with them. What it does mean is that what we do functionally has created work for our community because they were created for our community by his staff. Some things are slower than we would like and we are not always as responsive as people would like and there are some limits. We now have a fundamental base in this particular area and he felt very confident that in the next few months this is going to allow us just leapfrog ahead. He indicated this would be in addition to not only our fellow NGBs and others that are listed in the Olympic world but a number of professional sports as well. We are going to really change the way we utilize the internet to serve our most important public and the larger community.

Mr. Masback stated that this is a learning process for him and it is not what he was trained to do at USATF from a technical prospective. The short story in all of this is that we combined with masters several years ago to try to market our television aspects and what that has evolved is an attempt to show you that we are focused on our internet opportunities. Rather than speaking as a single sport to the world we wants to help enhance it. We have been keeping it frequent and that has really fundamentally changed the access that we have and the kind of people we can speak with. He stated he is optimistic about what we are going to be able to do. He stated there are going to be more resources, more capability, more people that will either work for us, work on behalf of us, or outside of us and we are going to need you. Part of the reason people are excited about working with us is that they see us for what we are selling ourselves as which is this incredible untapped resource. He told us that the passion we exhibit represent are really what they want to help us gain a better level of communication with a certainty.

Where is the extra money we are going to need, more upon membership fee going up? He stated that he would rather that Andy Martin answer the question and give precise details, but not a single dollar of the membership fee increase is going to elite athletes. A 100% of it is going to the grass roots. There was a brief question and answer period concerning that issue.

The question was asked about sponsorship on the Association level and this is his response: He stated that Associations are separate entities in terms of how they are constituted legally. He was not sure why we should think that any agreement automatically extends to them. He stated we have a couple of issues about finding a sponsor and at issue frequently why don’t we have and the national office has it. “I can tell you that you may want to suggest, recommend, negotiate and say we would appreciate the courtesy of being able to run it by VISA, there is no chance that VISA is ever going to be a sponsor of a local association, I can absolutely, positively guarantee that.” Another scenario would be maybe we can do a blanket sponsorship. Maybe we could go to VISA and say a couple of our associations may have the opportunity to have some local support with some local program initiatives. We would then ask that on a blanket basis approve this sort of thing and they could even say yes. “He stated that in all honestly it would never happen.” I think that is an issue we would like to address a little more.

The question was asked: What are the chances of the executive board potentially being restructured out of existence? “I think formally by virtue of what might be the structure none of us know, let’s be honest. I don’t participate in the restructuring and we have a long, long way to go.” It is inconceivable that the grass roots community will not be well represented on the board. He stated maybe not a Masters or an LDR person, but it will be well represented and held accountable. He stated that beyond that what we have talked about briefly and what we have done in this organization does not happen at the board level. An effective a representative for you, your past chair, George was a very effective board member who was respected within the board, chose to speak at critical times and did well in that regard. I challenge to name somebody at the board level. What gets things done is having a good list that is very communicated and firmly advocated for with Andy, the staff and I. If there is a budgetary aspect to advocating vis-à-vis the budget process, that is what gets things done. If you feel you are getting screwed, if the board is done right and we are following the model of the USOC at least in the perception of what the restructuring committee is trying to do, if they follow that model appropriately, no one will have consistent based voice. Everyone on the board will be in their activities on board acting with the best interest of the organizations not representing their constituent groups.

New Business

Report by Christal Donaly

This is a request to add the rule women’s decathlon & heptathlon to WMA. If they add the women’s decathlon, they would have to take the heptathlon out. I was asked to send the result that USATF request WMA to recognize the women’s decathlon as described in the outdoor USATF rules and women’s indoor heptathlon as described in rules of USATF as an official event. It is further resolved that the USATF secretary shall note it by the WMA secretary of this resolution prior to January 1, 2007.

We would like to add women’s decathlon and indoor heptathlon to the WMA. The WMA refuses to recognize women’s decathlon and indoor heptathlon as an official event.

Motion #39: Steve Cohen seconded by Mary Trotto To present this toWMA. Passed

5. National Championship results posting
Listing for foreign athletes

Motion #40: Mary Trotto second by none. That non-American athletes results be posted below the American athletes in any National Championship event. Withdrawn.

6. Jeff Davison – Who is interested in moving in the direction of having a shuttle relay exhibition event at the 2008 outdoor championships? 7. Andrew Cameron – Discussed a concern about info on internet records being secure. We are going in the direction of coming up with a method of collecting archive data and protecting information such as records, photos, and anything having to do with masters track. We need some form that will preserve them. End of Meeting

Executive Committee Meeting

Gary Snyder – Stated that was no particular set agenda we are waiting for Andy Martin to explain budget issues. We want to know the maximum number of dollars we can get. We at this time do not have to have a plan as to where we would use the money. We would like to know what is available so that we can properly allocate the funds. There were additions to minutes of meeting at Charlotte. We accepted the minutes of the previous meeting with additions. The additions are as follows: 1. Need updated copy of rules. 2. An amendment for operating rules that address changes in composition of the executive committee. 3. Standing committees and the fact that we now have three standing committees and have not had people in those positions in three or four years and we want to change them. 4. Diversity committee –MTF – LL committees need proposals by end of September. 5. Composition of Executive Committee. How many active athletes can be voting members of MTF committee? Andy Martin arrived to give us the process in which to distribute funds for committee projects.

Here is the brief synopsis of his report: The MTF executive board appealed the budget and when it was discussed, it was explained for example that according to the fee restructuring that it was contemplated that our budget would receive a budget of 25%. We asked him to please give us the status at this time. What is expected from MTF?

Andy: First of all I owe everyone on the committee an apology for not communicating coming into the annual meeting about this process. I think ultimately it is going to be a good process because it takes that money away from the budget process and puts it more into a grant process. It is ear marked specifically for the purpose it is supposed be used for, committee projects, specifically committee viable projects. I think this committee is light years ahead of any other committee that I have seen in that you actually have a strategic plan and that is something that creates a viable project. So, that is sort of the way this is going to work with the incremental membership fee. There was $100,000 as part of the final proposal that went to the floor that would be specific to committee projects and basically it is a little bit refined from the original proposal that went out because the original proposal that went out last year was with a $40.00 membership. So obviously coming back to $30.00 was taken into consideration. What I am happy to announce is that is somewhere between $20-25,000. I have to fine tune or pencil it a little bit in the process. Really what I want to do is work with your executive committee on really identifying what the line item plans are and what you want to spend that money on so that we can make sure we are not duplicating efforts.

Gary: We are now double budgeted, as we have a line item and it is in the money that you then budgeted.

Andy: There are things for instance marketing. We have a marketing budget through this membership fee increase where we are going to go out and market task specifically sports specific championships. We want to help create brochures to go out and reach into the Masters community to where we might be unable get. That is why we need to work together on this, but yes, there is between $20-25,000 in the additional revenue for you for next year and I think Joy and yourself and I could work together.

Q: Where did you come up with $100,000? Did it drop out of the sky? That may not be all of the money that is coming in from that particular area, (increase in memberships fees).

Answer: Basically we are projecting that there is going to approximately $300,000 in incremental revenue and that is earmarked for structure improvements, and marketing and with $100,000, there are four categories, I don’t have them with me. Basically if you look at the pamphlets there are four categories. 1) Infrastructure improvement, 2) Marketing and branding, 3) Members benefits improvements, 4) Sports committee budgets and $100,000 in each of them but one of them is a lot less.

Q: What is the percentage of MTF.

A: We had 30,000 adult members last year and we have been able to identify that 8,500 in their membership records were MTF athletes. It was a long process that systematically went through and if they were specific to MTF or RW and were obviously over the age of 35 they got tagged as MTF. If they only had an LDR membership they were allocated to LDR, obviously there was a lot of cross over and it literally just split that down the middle because it became impossible to determine an individual’s possibly being able to benefit by this.

Q: The additional $20-25,000 is that just for our committee or is that to be combined with Masters LDR.

A: No, Masters LDR is separate.

Motion #41: Jerry Donaly seconded by Stan Cohen Move to approve the provisional budget until which time we get a final agreement. Then we will present a new budget and then vote on the budget by conference call, email, etc. and then give up the authority to spend the money under specific line items voted on. Passed

Restructuring: Gary Snyder reported that what Andy said basically was that the proposal by the US Olympic Committee was not going to hurt us. He stated that someone from the overall committee is going to represent all of the interests. A potential proposal was made about a year ago and this has been discussed with other members Sandra Patrick Farmer, Ed Koch, and others. He stated that there seemed to be some general consensus that the professionals have their own means, they bring money from the Olympics sponsorships and they also have legitimate concerns. In the general proposals the outline was since they already are a corporation, and already in USATF accept the concept of high performance and others, that they should have whatever structure satisfies them and the USOC. The rest of the structure in my opinion should basically remain the same. We need to have a negotiating position and if the youth, associations and the masters as a group join together, we control what goes on in this organization. I think there is enough feeling among enough delegates that that could possibly happen. From a fall back position, we need start to investigate other potential alternatives, not to use them but to indicate that if we are going to be pushed out one way or another we have other alternatives. One is to consider going on our own, go to AAU, or go to the Senior Games, we are not saying of these things should be done.

With the chair and the committees permission I would be glad to contact those masters governing bodies that are not affiliated as we are but they are national governing bodies and are English speaking group, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all of them are basically independent. There is the idea that from a financial standpoint we can do better on our own. We do not want to leave USATF because of caring about the sport, but I think we do more for the sport than they are doing for us. They need us and I am concerned with the overall position.

A recollection is that under the acts of congress back in the late 70s saying we will go somewhere else mandated USATF. We can do that but the masters program will continue whether we are a part of USATF or not until congress changes that act.

Restructuring is a very difficult area and we cannot be cavalier about this. The consensus is what the decision that the board will be composed of. Keep in mind a portion of which will be non-USATF members. It will be set up like a corporate board, people from outside of the organization that help organizations run and they make executive decisions. They (USATF) seem to be headed in that direction. A small board is more in line as a not-for-profit or whatever type organization similar to USATF. Other athletic organizations have boards that are not composed of internal people like we are. I think that is what Craig is more familiar with. What is against that is this urgent need to be directly at the table. This is nowhere near in results; it will not happen next year or the year after. I think there is a ground swell of opposition to it, I think Youth has more leverage than we do, a lot more than we do in this area I have not been able to caucus with them and chat about this. We certainly cannot run out alone and try to oppose this. However, there is no harm in exploring this. There is some danger if people know who you are. I think it would be a wrong tactical move right now and to start poking around without essentially any information or white paper or requirement or anything, direction, authorization, call it what you like or being a rebel right now. I would categorize any attempt at going out of this room and starting to poke around. Since I was voted in by you and it will come back to me. No one is going to go out on their own and start doing anything. If someone is going to poke around I want to know what they are doing, I want to know what the schedule is, I want to know who you are talking to and I want to know what you are doing.

Motion #42: By Bob Fine and seconded by Stan Cohen: To Contact Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Australia to determine what their structure has been relative to WMA and relative to their national governing body. Passed

Additions continued read by Lester Mount: Becky’s addition to the Charlotte minutes.
1. Skills survey in conjunction to the strategic plan Dexter McCloud volunteered to develop the survey.
2. Contract a coordinator in addition to the championship site committee. In view of problems associated with this and previous meets it is felt that there should be a specific person on the championship site selection committee designated to coordinate information in services related to housing and transportation.
3. Status report ad Hoc committee – A survey has been conducted and the results will be presented at the convention, the issues are possibly dropping the hurdles.
4. Regional and National entry forms from USATF – The discussion included cost of the mailings, mailings being received after the entry deadline and limited information about the Charlotte meet on the entry forms. Becky Sisley volunteered to develop a proposal regarding marketing our outdoor regional and national championships.

Motion #42: Bob Fine seconded by Accept to minutes to Charlotte. Passed

Strategic Plan
Right now the plan itself is complete.
1. Skill survey
2. Diversity
3. Finances
4. Marketing
5. Grass Roots
6. Programs
7. Clubs
8. Associations
These are the critical areas and within these areas we have a breakdown to get to what is important. We need a better grasp on the whole plan to cut it down to some document that we can implement.

Site selection: We never finished talking about site selection has not been finished and I have not appointed anyone. I have some strong thoughts about the site selection process. I am very interested in site selection.

Strategic Plan: Discussion by Becky Sisley: I think there needs to be some clarity about three different items. The relationship of the survey. Dexter volunteered to do a skills survey. I don’t think he understood, he was not involved in Strategic Planning meeting at all, I don’t think he understood what the rule with developing the skills survey, there may have been some confusion between diversity and what he was doing, because he was appointed as the diversity chair. I think their understanding is really important. The two committees are different, but there still may be part of the strategic plan. We may need a different person to do the skill survey that will be willing to do a prospectus.

Move to close the Open Meeting Closed Open Meeting Closed

Closed meeting of Executive Board.

Nike Hershey Garden of Life Chobani UCS Gatorade NCSA Phoenix KT St. Vincent Normatec