[미국스포츠 계 청렴성회복(Committee to Restore Integrity) 특별위원회 미국올림픽위원회(USOC)에 제시한 12개 권고안내용요약 및 추이]
*순서:
가. 미국 스포츠 계 청렴성 정상화 추진 팀의 12개 권고사항내용 발췌
나. 청렴성 정상화 추진 팀(Team Integrity)의 구체적인 요구 및 촉구사항
다. USOC 신임사무총장(CEO) Hirshland 의 2가지 중심목표와 추진실적
라. Cory Gardner 상원의원의 USOC구조개혁 법안 발의
마. 미 상원 재정분과위원장의 USOC대한 선수관련 질의 서 및 USOC의 초기대응
바. 미국 스포츠 계 청렴성 정상화 추진위원회의 12개 권고사항 원문사본
*내용:
1. 미국 스포츠 계 청렴성 정상화 추진 팀의 12개 권고사항내용 발췌
미국 스포츠 계 청렴성회복 특별위원회(The Committee to Restore Integrity)가 미국올림픽위원회(USOC)에 가맹경기단체의 권력구조를 변경함으로써(by altering the power-structure of the national governing body) “800만 명 이상의 미국선수들을 성적, 신체적, 정서적 학대로부터 더 확실히 보호받도록 고안된 12개 권고안”(12 recommendations designed to "better protect more than eight million young athletes from sexual, physical and emotional abuse")을 제출하였다고 1월24일 자 외신이 보도하였습니다.
그와 같이 제안된 해결책(the proposed solutions) 내용을 살펴보면 기존 가치관을 선수우선주의 사명으로 교체함으로써(by replacing it with an "athletes first" mission) “돈과 메달지상주의” 및 “선수무시 정서 문화”철폐를 기치로 내세우고(seek to abolish the "money and medals" and "anti-athlete" culture) 있다고 합니다
그러한 권고내용은 최근 1월16일Sarah Hirshland USOC 사무총장(Chief Executive)과 USOC뉴욕시 사무실에서 가진 회동에 따른 후속조치(a follow-up to a meeting with chief executive Sarah Hirshland at the USOC's offices in New York City on January 16)인 셈인데 각각의 권고안은 이날 논의 되었다고 합니다.
최근에 있었던 Ropes& Gray 조사 및 미 의회 분과위원회 보고서(a Congressional House subcommittee report)에서 USOC에게 요구한 바 있는 선수학대 및 구조조정과 연계하여 선수들의 이익과 복지우선정책을 겨냥한(to address athlete-abuse and a re-organisation that puts athletes' interests and their well-being first) 심오한 문화적 변화(called for profound cultural changes to the USOC)를 촉구하였다고 합니다
USOC에 대하여 ‘청렴성 정상화 추진 팀’(Team Integrity)로 약칭되는 스포츠 계 청렴성회복 특별위원회(The Committee to Restore Integrity)는 “현재 USOC집행이사회 멤버들이 동 보고서가 집중 조명한 바 있는 USOC정책방향 제고움직임이 일어나지 아니하므로(after "the current USOC Board members did not move to re-consider USOC policies that the reports highlighted") 해결방안제공에 박차를 가한 것(stepped in to offer solutions)이라고 언급하고 있다고 합니다.
동 해결방안을 살펴보면 USOC의 개편(re-organising the USOC)과 미연방법령 중 법인에 대한 시행령(corporate enforcement of federal law) 및 USOC에 반대하여 행동하는 대상들에게 계속 발휘되어 온 보복성 행위의 결과로 인한 내부고발자 보호규정 설치(establishing whistleblower protection as a result of "continued retaliation" against those who come forward against the USOC) 촉구사항들이 포함되어 있다고 합니다.
추가적으로 ‘청렴성 정상화 추진 팀’(Team Integrity)은 독립적인 감찰관 실 신설(the creation of an independent Office of Inspector General)과 선수옹호실(an athlete advocate office) 신설뿐만 아니라 선수에게 불리하도록 소송에 참여해온 법률사무소들과 해당 변호사들과의 연결고리단절(as well as the USOC severing ties with all law firms and lawyers that have engaged in anti-athlete litigation )을 촉구하였다고 합니다
“청렴성 정상화 추진 팀(Team Integrity)은 성실하게 작성한 자체 권고안을 제출하여 USOC가 선수중심 방향에 입각하여 즉각적으로 기존 망가뜨려진 문화를 재 정립함으로써 모든 선수들의 학대와 착취행위를 현격히 줄일 수 있을 것이라고 믿고 있는 바 부디 신속하고 단호히 전진하도록 할 것”("Team Integrity submits its recommendations in a good faith effort to have the USOC immediately fix its broken culture and promptly and decisively move forward in an athlete-centered direction in which we believe will result in reducing the abuse and exploitation of all athletes.")을 1978년 스포츠 법령(Sports Acts)을 설계입안자들 중 한 명이자 종종 선수를 대표하여 온 변호사인(one of the architects of the Sports Act in 1978 and a lawyer frequently representing athletes) 올림피안인 Ed Williams가 언급하였다고 합니다.
그는 “우리가 USOC사무총장 및 집행이사회로부터 우리가 제안한 각각의 권고내용에 대하여 긍정적인 반응을 요구하였으며 학수고대하고 있음” ("We have asked for and look forward to receiving a positive response from the chief executive and the Board with respect to each of our recommendations.")이라고 덧붙였다고 합니다.
2. 청렴성 정상화 추진 팀(Team Integrity)의 구체적인 요구 및 촉구사항
Nancy Hogshead-Makar is among a group of Olympians calling for change in the USOC ©Getty Images (미국 여자 올림피안 겸 여성 챔피언(Champion Women) 단체 사무총장(chief executive)직을 맡고 있는 Nancy Hogshead-Makar/출처: insidethegames)
미국 여자 올림피안 겸 여성 챔피언(Champion Women) 단체 사무총장(chief executive)직을 맡고 있는 Nancy Hogshead-Makar는 “Ropes & Gray 보고서에 기술된 USOC의 엉망진창 우선순위 실태에 대하여 청렴성 정상화 추진 팀은 느낌표 그 이상에 관심을 가지고 임하고 있다”("Team Integrity is interested in far more than putting exclamation points on the USOC's upside-down priorities described in the Ropes & Gray report)라고 언급하였다고 합니다.
계속되는 그녀의 발언내용입니다:
A. "Instead, our recommendations would change the structure and governance of the USOC. (대신, 우리의 권고내용들은 USOC의 구조조정과 지배구조변화를 가져올 것임)
B. "These recommendations are designed to re-orient the USOC down a new path, to protect athletes from all forms of exploitation and abuse, and to truly make the USOC an 'athletes first' organisation.” (이러한 권고내용은 USOC가 새로운 길을 모색하는데 방향을 재정립하고 모든 유형의 착취와 학대로부터 선수들을 보호하고 진정으로 USOC를 선수우선의 조직으로 탈바꿈하도록 하는데 그 취지가 있다고 할 수 있음)
2019년 1월 초 청렴성 정상화 추진 팀(Team Integrity)은 USOC집행이사회 및 고위지도부 거의 완전한(신임 사무총장 Sarah Hirshland제외?) 총사퇴를 요구한 바(called for the "near complete" resignation of the USOC Board and senior leadership) 있다고 합니다
이러한 총사퇴 요구는 USOC와 미국 체조협회가 미국 여자 체조 前 팀 닥터인 Larry Nassar 가 수백 명에 달하는 선수들에 대한 성폭행을 방치한 상태였으며 그에 대한 의혹이 불거졌을 당시 적절한 후속조치에 실패하였음을 선언해 준Ropes & Gray 보고서가 나온 후 발생한 촉구 행위(declaring that USOC and USA Gymnastics had facilitated former USA Gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar's abuse of hundreds of athletes and had failed to act when the allegations against him emerged)로 알려지고 있습니다.
청렴성 정상화 추진 팀(Team Integrity)은 대부분의 USOC집행이사회 멤버들과 고위직 지도부 인사들에 대한 사퇴 요구가 아직도 유효하다(this call to remove most of the USOC Board and its senior leadership still stands)고 주장하고 있다고 합니다
다음은 청렴성 정상화 추진 팀(Team Integrity)은 성명을 통하여 “USOC가 자체구조개혁 불가방침을 거듭 고수하고 있다”("The USOC continues to demonstrate that it cannot reform itself)고 밝혔다고 합니다.
3. USOC 신임사무총장(CEO) Hirshland 의 2가지 중심목표와 추진실적
지난 주 Sarah Hirshland USOC사무총장(CEO)는 ‘선수에게 힘 실어주기(empowering athletes) 및 ‘성폭력 없는 환경창출’(creating an environment free of abuse)라는 두 가지 방침이 그녀의 중심목표(two of her central aims in the role)라고 주장한 바 있다고 합니다
그녀의 이 같은 선언은 USOC사무총장 재직 6개월을 맞이하여 New York Times지와의 질의응답 인터뷰(the declaration in a question and answer session) 를 통해 발표된 것이라고 합니다
미국골프협회 수석 광고책임자(chief commercial officer)였던 Hirshland은 지난 2018년 7월 USOC사무총장으로 취임한 바 있습니다.
그녀가 취임한 첫 몇 개월 간은 고역이었는데(challenging) 그 당시 USOC는 그녀의 취임 전 발생한 Nassar 성 추문으로부터의 후유증에 몸살을 앓고 있던 기간(with the USOC still dealing with the fall-out from the Nassar scandal) 이었다고 합니다
이제까지 그녀의 가장 큰 결정사항들 중(among her biggest decisions to date) 하나는 체조에 대한 위기대응 방침으로 성 추문으로 얼룩진 미국체조협회의 USOC가맹 체조종목 관할 경기단체 자격 인증 박탈조치 착수(the commencement of steps to revoke the scandal-hit USA Gymnastics' recognition as the national governing body for the sport over its response to the crisis)였다고 합니다
4. Cory Gardner 상원의원의 USOC구조개혁 법안 발의
Cory Gardner 콜로라도 주 상원의원은 USOC조직구조를 연구검토 할 16명으로 구성된 특별위원회 설치하는 것(would establish a 16-member commission to study the structure of USOC)을 기조로 한 법안을 도입하여(introduced legislation) 채택되면(if adopted) 가동할 것이라고 합니다.
동 특별위원회 구성멤버들은 체육분야, 옹호전문분야 또는 코칭 등에 경험을 필요로 하며(required to have experience in athletics, advocacy, or coaching) 16명 중 절반인 8명은 올림픽 및 패럴림픽 참가경험이 있는 선수들로 구성될 것(half of which would be comprised of Olympians or Paralympians)이라고 합니다.
특별위원회 위원들은 USOC이사회에 다양한 구성원들로 포진할 것인지 여부결정(reportedly determine whether USOC’s board includes diverse membership)과 기존 라이선스 와 기금운영 계획을 비롯하여 각 종목 별 가맹경기단체들에 대한 관리감독 및 올림픽 및 패럴림픽 미국유치노력에 대한 검토작업을 수행 할 것(review existing licensing and funding arrangements, oversight of sports' National Governing Bodies, and efforts to take the Olympic and Paralympic Games to the United States)으로 보도된 바 있습니다.
동 특별위원회는 이러한 검토작업 수행 후 최종 검토보고서에 진상조사결과와 결론도출내용 및 권고내용들을 포함하여(with their findings, conclusions and recommendations) 미의회에 제출할 것(then submit a final report to Congress)이라고 합니다.
다음은 미 의회 스포츠 법령 개정 발의에 대한 청렴성 정상화 추진 팀(Team Integrity) 성명서 내용 추가분입니다:
A. "Team Integrity also supports the bill Senator Cory Gardner proposed, that would establish a blue-ribbon committee to re-write the Sports Act." (청렴성 정상화 추진 팀은 미국 스포츠 법령을 개정하기 위해 엄선되어 설치될 특별위원회 가동을 발휘한 Cory Gardner상원의원의 제안된 법안 또한 지지하는 바임)
B. "We are hoping that it can be accomplished much faster than the 16 months proposed. (우리는 이러한 법안이 제시된 가동기간인 16개월 보다 훨씬 더 이른 시기에 완수될 수 있을 것으로 희망하는 바임)
C. "The number of Team Integrity members, including Olympians, Paralympians and their coaches, elite athletes, sport leaders, sexual abuse organisations, the Army of Survivors and other victims of sexual abuse in sport, continues to grow." (청렴성 정상화 추진 팀 멤버들은 올림피안들, 패럴림피안들과 그들의 코치 진, 엘리트 선수들, 스포츠지도자들을 비롯하여 생존자 군단 및 다른 스포츠 성폭력의 피해자들을 포함하고 있는데 동 그룹의 숫자가 계속 증가추세에 있음)
5. 미 상원 재정분과위원장의 USOC대한 선수관련 질의 서 및 USOC의 초기대응
미국 상원 재정분과위원장(the chairman of the US Senate Committee on Finance) 인 Charles Grassley는 선수들을 성폭력 등으로 보호하기 위한 USOC의 업무에 대하여 일련의 질의를 하였다(asked a series of questions about the USOC's work to protect athletes from abuse)고 보도된 바 있습니다.
이러한 질의내용은 서한형식으로 Hirshland USOC사무총장(CEO)에게 발송되어 밝혀졌다(outlined in a letter sent to Hirshland)고 합니다
다음은 이에 대한 USOC대변인 Patrick Sandusky의 성명을 통한 답변내용입니다:
A. "We welcome Senator Grassley’s interest in athlete safety and look forward to providing more information on our efforts." (우리는 Grassley상원의원이 표명해 준 선수들에 대한 안전문제에 관심을 가져 준 것을 환영하며 이와 관련 우리의 노력에 대한 더 많은 정보를 제공해 줄 요량으로 있음)
B. "Congress has an important oversight role to play in Olympic and Paralympic sport and continued collaboration with our partners in Government is crucial to serving healthy and successful athletes." (미 의회는 올림픽 및 패럴림픽 스포츠에 있어서 중요한 관리감독 역할을 담당하고 있으며 정부 내 우리의 동반자 부서들과 지속적인 협업이야말로 건전하고 성공적인 선수 지킴이 임무에 중차대하다고 생각하는 바임)
6. 미국 스포츠 계 청렴성 정상화 추진위원회의 12개 권고사항 원문사본
US Team Integrity Recommendations
THE COMMITTEE TO RESTORE INTEGRITY TO THE USOC; OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN “ATHLETES FIRST” OLYMPIC COMMITTEE Page 1
THE COMMITTEE TO RESTORE INTEGRITY TO THE USOC
OUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO CREATE AN ATHLETES FIRST CULTURE AT THE U.S. OLYMPIC MOVEMENT
JANUARY 21, 2019
Introduction
The Committee to Restore Integrity to the USOC appreciates that the CEO of the USOC, Sarah Hirshland, reached out and met with representatives of Team Integrity when she was in New York City on January 16, 2019.
The Ropes & Gray and House Subcommittee Reports laid bare the USOC’s broken culture, one that put “money and medals” ahead of athlete safety and welfare, many of them children.
The USOC has responded that it will reorient itself to put “Athletes First.”
Our aim with these suggestions is to assure that “Athletes First” is not just a public relations slogan, but that the necessary culture-shift is manifested by embedding it into the structure and governance of the organization.
The departures of Scott Blackmun and Alan Ashley did not magically change the culture of the USOC.
Other incremental changes are not appropriate with the momentous changes called for in the two Reports.
What is needed now are concrete and demonstrable changes to the structure and governance of the USOC to send a clear message that the U.S. Olympic movement is no longer operating “business as usual.”
We discussed and now submit the following twelve proposals.
They are designed to reorient the USOC down a new path, to empower athletes and to truly make the USOC an “Athletes First” organization.
Team Integrity is looking forward to a response regarding each proposal, and further discussions with the USOC on these and other recommendations.
1. THE OLYMPIC MOVEMENT CAN ONLY PROTECT ATHLETES BY SHIFTING POWER, REQUIRING THE FOLLOWING GOVERNANCE CHANGES:
a. PROVIDE FOR DIRECT ATHLETE REPRESENTATION ON THE USOC BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
Remarkably, the elected-athletes that make up the AAC do not have the right to appoint representatives to the USOC Board.
Worse, there is no requirement that the USOC or NGBs listen to anything the AAC says or does.
The USOC cannot become an athlete-centric organization without direct representation on the Board, chosen by the AAC.
Recommendation:
Revise the USOC Bylaws and the Sports Act to provide for direct representation of individuals to the USOC Board by the AAC.
The Corporation should not choose who will represent the athletes.
THE COMMITTEE TO RESTORE INTEGRITY TO THE USOC; OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN “ATHLETES FIRST” OLYMPIC COMMITTEE Page 2
b. DESIGNATE 50% OF THE USOC BOARD SEATS FOR ATHLETES
The Sports Act, written in 1978, represented a compromise between the power professional athletes enjoyed – 50% voting rights, labor law, union rights – as contrasted with NCAA athletes, who had zero voting rights.
Olympic Athletes were supposed to get 20% voting power on Boards and Committees.
Unfortunately, the USOC and NGBs diluted even this 20% power over time.
Often the NGB picked the athletes for their Boards and Committees, rather than the AAC or the athletes voting from the sport.
In addition, the 20% rule still allows the Corporation to ignore the athlete voice.
The 20% figure is out of step with the change in athlete-status; Olympians have been professional athletes since at least 1992, but no changes were made to the Sports Act to reflect this new reality.
Recommendation: Olympics athletes, as professionals, should constitute 50% of the USOC and NGB Board and committees.
c. REMOVE THE TEN-YEAR RULE TO BE CONSIDERED AN “ATHLETE.”
The Sports Act specifies that an “Athlete”, eligible to serve on the AAC, is either actively engaged in amateur athletic competition, or has represented the United States in international amateur athletic competition within the preceding 10 years.
With these restrictions, USOC staff complain that it is hard to find athletes that will perform the required duties of AAC membership.
Competing athletes often cannot meet the demands of being a world-class athlete and live up to the expectations of AAC membership.
Athletes that have finished competing are typically behind the personal and professional curve as compared with their peers and are playing “catch-up” with new family and career demands.
The ten-year rule means the AAC members are inherently young as compared with executives they are negotiating against.
Practically, most athletes have aged out of being able to represent their peers before their 35th birthday.
Some sports will get better, more sophisticated representation than others.
Female gymnasts have the youngest average ages, and are therefore unlikely to rise to AAC leadership, while Equestrian, Shooting and Cycling could potentially have 60 year-old representatives.
Eliminating the 10-year rule will greatly expand the potential pool of candidates for AAC membership, will put all sports on an equal footing, will allow for more experienced and knowledgeable representation, and allow for equal bargaining between the USOC and athletes.
d. COMPENSATE ATHLETE REPRESENTATIVES
In addition to being young, AAC members are uncompensated, unlike the corporate employees.
This puts athletes at an enormous bargaining disadvantage, in terms of preparation time and focus.
USOC staff is well-compensated; athletes working for the movement should also be compensated.
THE COMMITTEE TO RESTORE INTEGRITY TO THE USOC; OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN “ATHLETES FIRST” OLYMPIC COMMITTEE Page 3
e. ESTABLISH A 2-4 YEAR FIREWALL BETWEEN SERVING ON THE AAC AND EMPLOYMENT AT THE USOC, NGBs, AND THE U.S. CENTER FOR SAFESPORT
A recurring issue has been athletes that are angling to work for the USOC get their toe in the door via the AAC.
These athletes have created, and continue to create, conflicts for the AAC, when they do not want to take positions that would not be well-received by the Corporation.
If athletes are on the AAC as a doorway into working for the corporation, they are unable to be good advocates for athletes.
Recommendation: Athletes looking for long-term employment in the Corporation should either refrain from representing athletes on the AAC, or be required to refrain from corporate-employment for two-to-four years.
The firewall should similarly apply to those corporate employees wishing to work for the U.S. Center for SafeSport.
f. PROVIDE THE AAC WITH PROFESSIONAL STAFF
The chair of the AAC has no lawyer, no advisors, no secretary, no research assistants to perform the duties of being the voice of America’s Olympic and Paralympic athletes. Such assistance is warranted and should be provided.
2. ATHLETES MUST BE AFFORDED BETTER WHISTLEBLOWER AND RETALIATION PROTECTIONS.
The threat of retaliation is so strong that over 25 athletes have told us that they cannot publicly sign on to Team Integrity’s petition, not because they are not fully in accord with our goals and strategies, but because of the backlash and retaliation that they’ve witnessed or experienced by the USOC and NGBs.
A parent told us that when they participated in a formal complaint, they jeopardized their child’s opportunity to participate in the Olympic Games.
Some sports exploit subjective criteria for Team Selection procedures, making the athletes obedient and compliant, or else risk not making the Olympic Team.
The AAC and its Chair, Han Xiao, have spoken with USOC leadership about the seriousness of this concern.
Recommendations: The USOC must adopt whistleblower protections against retribution and retaliation against athletes or their representatives who complain of unfair treatment by NGBs.
In addition, the USOC can be a leader in the Olympic movement in this area by making amends for the retaliation athletes and others suffered during the Blackmun era.
3. THE USOC MUST COMPEL NGBs TO COMPLY WITH THE SPORTS ACT AND USOC BYLAWS.
The USOC does not require its member NGBs to comply with the “mandatory requirements” of NGB membership set forth in the Sports Act and the requirements laid out by the USOC’s own bylaws and policies.
Scott Blackmun and the USOC failed and refused to bring “Section 8” enforcement proceedings against known non-compliant NGBs.
Rather, the USOC required athletes and their parents / supporters to retain counsel to bring “Section 10” enforcement proceedings against their non-compliant NGBs.
Although compliance with all the Sports Act/ THE COMMITTEE TO RESTORE INTEGRITY TO THE USOC; OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN “ATHLETES FIRST” OLYMPIC COMMITTEE Page 4
USOC Bylaws/ Policies are important, many of them are specifically designed to protect athletes from abuse.
Recommendations: Reinstate the Membership and Credentials Committee, or the equivalent thereof, comprised of representatives from the NGBC and AAC, along with staffing from the USOC, including those from the Audit Division of the USOC, to review and compel NGB compliance.
When necessary, promptly commence enforcement proceedings under Section 8 of the USOC Bylaws if and when more informal processes are not successful in obtaining compliance.
4. THE USOC MUST PROVIDE ATHLETES WITH THE SAME DUE PROCESS REQUIREMNTS THAT IT MANDATES NGBs PROVIDE ATHLETES.
The Sports Act requires the USOC’s member NGBs to provide “fair notice and opportunity for a hearing” before denying athletes the opportunity to participate in amateur athletic competition.
However, the Sports Act presently does not impose those same due process requirements on the USOC itself; and the USOC has surprisingly taken the position that it is not itself required to provide the due process to athletes that it is obligated to mandate its member NGBs provide athletes.1
1
For more on this topic, see our Legal Memo Team Integrity sent to the USOC, “New Power Plays Against U.S. Olympic Athletes” November 12, 2018, submitted again, simultaneously with these Recommendations.
Recommendations: Revise the Sports Act and USOC Bylaws to require the USOC to provide athletes the same due process requirements NGBs are required to follow in Section 220522(a)(8) of the Act.
Revise the Sports Act and USOC Bylaws Due Process requirements so that the provisions apply beyond the athlete’s opportunity to compete; specifically, that Due Process applies to all athlete-abuse issues.
5. THE USOC MUST PROTECT AMERICIAN ATHLETES’ OPPORTUNITY TO COMPETE.
Section 9.1 of the USOC Bylaws reads, “[the USOC] shall, by all reasonable means, protect the opportunity of an amateur athlete to participate if selected (or to attempt to qualify for selection to participate) as an athlete representing the United States…” Under Scott Blackmun, the USOC refused to follow this corporate Bylaw.
Instead, the USOC left it to the athlete to protect their rights under the Sports Act. Athletes alone had to file a Section 9 Complaint and proceed before the American Arbitration Association.
The USOC gives the NGBs money for defense lawyers, but offers the athlete no legal counsel for these complicated hearings.
Even if the athlete prevailed, the athlete could not recover attorneys’ fees at the conclusion of the arbitration.
The athlete would just get what they should have received initially, but they are now significantly poorer. Moreover, there was no protection from retaliation during the arbitration; (see #2 above.) America has lost some of its best talent to resolvable conflicts.
This obligation to enforce its duties under Article 9.1 should also extend to the protection of all athlete-abuse issues (see #4 above).
Recommendation: The USOC must weigh in on the side of the athlete to protect their opportunity to compete and other rights, and comply with its own Bylaw
9.1. This is an THE COMMITTEE TO RESTORE INTEGRITY TO THE USOC; OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN “ATHLETES FIRST” OLYMPIC COMMITTEE Page 5
“Athletes First” Bylaw, and is specifically intended to protect athletes from abuse and from arbitrary and wrongful actions of an NGB denying an athlete the opportunity to compete.
6. CREATE AN ATHLETE ADVOCATE POSITION, WITH STAFF.
Congress created the Athlete Ombudsman position in 1998 amendments to the Sports Act to provide independent advice on their rights.
But the office has been coopted by the Corporation; it no longer serves to advocate for athletes. To our knowledge, the current Ombudsman’s office has not mediated any conflicts for athletes.
As described in #4 above, individual athletes do not have access to independent, professional USOC-paid attorneys that are available to advise and represent them when there is a conflict with the Corporation or their NGB.
To state the obvious, there are times when the interests of the Corporation and the athletes, as a group, diverge.
The AAC also needs professional representation, on par with the representation that the Corporation receives.
Accordingly, the AAC and individual athletes should have access to a professional USOC-paid attorney available to advise and represent them, independent of the USOC and without a fee.
This way, athletes will not be dependent on finding legal counsel willing to donate their services on a pro bono basis to represent them in matters against attorneys paid by USOC-financed NGBs.
Recommendation: The Sports Act should be revised to provide for a new position with staff, an Athlete Advocate office, to provide confidential legal advice to the AAC and to athletes, to advocate on their behalf and represent athletes when appropriate, including adversarial proceedings to protect the rights granted to them under the Sports Act and/ or the USOC Bylaws and policies.
7. ESTABLISH AN OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL.
Up until now, the USOC has largely been dependent on the direction it takes from the good judgment of its paid leadership and volunteer Board. That model failed under Scott Blackmun, as detailed by the two Reports.
Blackmun convinced the Board that the USOC could not help athletes in conflict with their NGBs, an indefensible position that was never true.
Just the opposite; Congress and the corporate Bylaws mandated that the USOC to protect athletes. In addition, the Board was not critical or independent enough in its own thinking to provide the necessary oversight of the CEO.
Finally, the staff was either not willing or strong enough to stand up to the CEO. Sometimes this was true because the staff were the beneficiaries of the doubling and tripling of salaries, the largess that resulted from of the culture of using the five-rings for self-enrichment.
Other times, staff learned not to oppose the CEO because the costs were too high; staff were retaliated against or marginalized for doing so.
Recommendation: Congress should provide for greater oversight through the creation of an Office of Inspector General for the USOC.
The Integrity Committee endorses and advocates the creation of an Office of the Inspector General concept as set forth in the written testimony of THE COMMITTEE TO RESTORE INTEGRITY TO THE USOC; OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN “ATHLETES FIRST” OLYMPIC COMMITTEE Page 6
Han Xiao, the elected Chair of the AAC, in his submission of written testimony to the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on July 24, 2018.2
2 Han Xiao, Chair of the Athletes’ Advisory Council, Written Testimony before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance and Data Security, Strengthening and Empowering U.S. Amateur Athletes: Moving Forward with Solutions, Available at: https://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/senate-commerce-subcommittee-issues-testimony-from-athletes-advisory-council#.XEEq4lVKipo
3 Id., p. 5.
“….Congress should establish an autonomous authority to receive complaints confidentially, investigate facts, and report on necessary corrective action for the USOC, NGBs, and other actors within the Olympic and Paralympic movement, such as the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and the U.S. Center for SafeSport. The role of this authority would be like that of an Office of Inspector General that would oversee a federal or state agency. While the Inspector General would communicate with the USOC, ideally the position would report to the Senate Commerce Committee and the AAC, rather than directly to the USOC. Most of the same qualifications, authorities, and responsibilities outlined in the Inspector General Act of 1978 and subsequent amendments in 2008 should also apply to this new office.
Congress may wish to further examine some of the key questions regarding who appoints the Inspector General, what authorities are given to this position, and the reporting mechanisms for the position.
One potential model, for example, would have the Inspector General appointed and removed by the Chair of a separate Senate committee, most likely the Senate Judiciary Committee, and require the Inspector General to report on its operations to the Senate Commerce Committee on an annual basis. I would be happy to have follow-up conversations with appropriate members and staff to discuss these specifics.
The benefits of the establishment of an Inspector General’s Office would include, but not be limited to:
Preserving the anonymity of athletes raising legitimate concerns about their NGBs and the USOC; thereby providing protection for whistleblowers;
Allowing for the investigation of other issues that arise outside the protections afforded by the Sports Act;
Assisting in proactively identifying issues within NGBs and the USOC, including possible corrective actions;
Contributing to more routine and proactive oversight of the USOC and the entire Olympic and Paralympic system;
Improving the athletes’ and the American public’s trust in USOC and NGB governance;
Reducing legal costs for all parties due to the reduction in necessary Section 10 hearings and their binding arbitrations when the Inspector General intervenes.”3
AAC Chair Han Xiao then went on to highlight additional reasons why this office would be wise in other parts of his testimony.
THE COMMITTEE TO RESTORE INTEGRITY TO THE USOC; OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN “ATHLETES FIRST” OLYMPIC COMMITTEE Page 7
8. REVISE CURRENT AAA ARBITRATION PROCUDURES.
The AAA dispute resolution procedures called for in the original Amateur Sports Act of 1978 have been so eroded over the years that arbitration is no longer a reasonable recourse for athletes for a prompt, economical and just resolution of athlete disputes.
Athletes can no longer file in any Regional Office of the AAA;
AAA filing fee has been vastly increased;
Arbitrators are now placed by the AAA in its pool of arbitrators who have zero experience, expertise and / or knowledge of the Sports Act and USOC Bylaws; and
Arbitrators are now permitted to charge their regular hourly or daily rates, as opposed to receiving a modest honorarium for the honor and privilege of donating their services to a good cause.
Accordingly, arbitration costs are far beyond the means of the vast majority of American athletes. Repeated pleas to the USOC and to the AAA by outside lawyers, including us, to remove these barriers have gone unheeded.
Recommendations: The USOC must engage the AAA to roll back to the original agreement between the USOC and AAA whereby the AAA would provide its dispute resolution services in exchange for the AAA having the privilege to make known for its own advertising purposes its close association with the USOC.
A modest filing fee for athletes;
Arbitrators who are knowledgeable of the provisions of the Sports Act, the USOC bylaws and policies, who have had direct professional experience in working with the same,
Arbitrators who can be trusted to apply the rules and law on an impartial basis; and
Arbitrators who would be willing to serve as arbitrators, not for their normal hourly or daily fees, but rather for a modest honorarium for the honor and privilege of donating their services to a good cause.
The current AAA process no longer serves America’s athletes. If these costs and expertise issues cannot be resolved with the AAA, another dispute resolution mechanism must be created.
9. CONSIDER ADDITIONAL BYLAW AMENDMENTS.
Separately, and as discussed at the meeting between representatives of the Integrity Committee and CEO Sarah Hirshland on January 16, 2019, the Integrity Committee will provide a number of proposed amendments to the USOC Bylaw for consideration, including proposed amendments which would, if adopted, improve the dispute resolution process and require enhanced financial and operational transparency by NGBs and the USOC.
Among the changes is the current Bylaw which provides that only a UOSC Board member is permitted to even submit a proposed amendment to the USOC Bylaws.
Recommendation: The USOC Board of Directors should consider Bylaw amendments proposed by the Committee to Restore Integrity to the USOC. THE COMMITTEE TO RESTORE INTEGRITY TO THE USOC; OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN “ATHLETES FIRST” OLYMPIC COMMITTEE Page 8
10. THE USOC MUST CUT TIES WITH ANTI-ATHLETE LAW FIRMS, INCLUDING THOSE THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE NASSAR COVER UP.
The USOC hires law firms that have been consistently “Anti-Athlete;” firms that represent USOC-financed NGBs on a regular basis. These law firms have been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, to oppose athlete complaints and sexual abuse cases. As we discussed in our meeting with Sarah Hirshland, at best, these lawyers prolong and unnecessarily complicate fairly standard conflicts between athletes and their NGB. They charge millions of dollars to delay and obfuscate the conflict.
The law firms are economically incentivized to be anti-athlete, particularly in Section 9 and Section 10 complaints. Their clients – the NGBs and USOC – do not pay for the athlete’s attorney fees, they do not have to take their loss into account when coming up with remedies. These law firms therefore intentionally delay and extend procedures to deplete and exhaust athletes’ means, and patience.
This tactic regularly results in athletes dropping out of the matter, and many times, also of the sport. America has lost many talented athletes because of NGBs’ and USOC’s legal representation strategies. In our meetings with Sarah Hirshland, we discussed how that in every other civil rights context, that the defendant pays if the victim “substantially prevails on the merits” and how fee-shifting can keep defense lawyers in check with resolving meritorious complaints quickly and reasonably.
The USOC sponsors Seminars that teach lawyers how to defeat an athlete’s Section 9 and Section 10 complaints. The seminar programming is one-way; the USOC does not invite the lawyers who regularly represent athletes Section 9 and Section 10 complaints. Moreover, athletes on the AAC believe the cost of putting on these seminars is charged as part of the “80% of funding goes to support athletes.”
Even worse, among the firms that the USOC invited to attend its most recent legal seminar in November 1-2, 2018, were lawyers from a law firm which was known by the USOC to have participated in the Nassar cover-up in July 2015.
Recommendations: In a new “Athletes First” USOC, the USOC must evaluate its legal posture towards athletes; the USOC must not associate with law firms that have an anti-athlete bias. The USOC must not retain or seek legal advice from law firms that are known to regularly represent NGSs in opposition to athlete Section 9 and 10 Complaints.
The USOC must cease sponsoring legal seminars that are not consistent with the USOC’s “Athletes First” mission.
The Integrity Committee will assist the CEO in identifying the applicable law firms.
Remove from the USOC website the names of lawyers and law firms listed as available to assist athletes in dispute resolution that are known to oppose athletes in Section 9 and 10 proceedings.
The USOC should pay for athletes’ attorney’s fees if the athlete “substantially prevails on the merits” – the legal standard for every other type of civil right. THE COMMITTEE TO RESTORE INTEGRITY TO THE USOC; OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN “ATHLETES FIRST” OLYMPIC COMMITTEE Page 9
11. THE USOC’S CURRENT STAFFING SIZE AND COMPENSATION LEVELS MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER NON-PROFITS.
The number of USOC staff and their pay scales are bloated and inconsistent with the Olympic movement, non-profits, and especially as compared to the amounts paid to athletes. Most of America’s most elite athletes are paid less than a janitor working for the USOC. While all Olympic athletes not competing for the NCAA have been professional athletes since at least 1992, the USOC budgeting process did not significantly change to take into account the abandonment of the “amateur” status.
Most non-profits staffing levels and compensation are constrained by the watchful eye of its donors. But most of the USOC’s money does not come from private donations; it is from television, licensing and sponsorships. So the normal brake on bloat and inflated salaries does not apply to the USOC. Further justifying an Inspector General position; the new money that has flowed into the USOC has gone to staff’s pockets, rather than to athlete’s, as set forth on the USOC’s 990s.
The Olympics and the values they represent are some of the most prestigious world-wide; working for the USOC should be regarded as a privilege and honor, much the same way that working as the Secretary of a government Agency, as a Congressional staffer or as an Assistant United States Attorney. Team Integrity members work pro bono to assure that an abusive culture does not derail the ideals associated with the five-rings. Most athletes believe the sacrifices they make are worth it, in part, to be associated with these values. Non-profits and governmental entities, coupled with institutions of enormous stature, are typically not where people go to work to get rich.
Recommendation: The CEO must take a hard look at staffing levels as well as levels of compensation, especially at the senior staff level. The USOC, as a non-profit, cannot, and should not, be expected to compensate its employees at the levels in the private for-profit corporate sector. Moreover, any pay should be benchmarked against what the USOC is paying its athletes, who are also professionals.
12. THE CEO MUST CONSIDER PERSONNEL CHANGES.
Representatives of the Committee to Restore Integrity to the USOC met and spoke privately with CEO Sarah Hirshland at its January 16th meeting in New York City to discuss the immediate need to address staff members who have a demonstrable history of acting inconsistent with any “Athletes’ First” cultural change. The CEO owes it to athletes to promptly dismiss those who participated and reinforced Blackmun’s USOC failed culture. Others who are unwilling to demonstrate a firm commitment to an “Athletes’ First” culture should also be dismissed. Any reluctance to take such actions on account of a possible short-term loss to the USOC of the institutional knowledge and expertise of these individuals does not, and will not, outweigh the continuing harm that will result to athletes and the USOC from their continued employment by the USOC. These athlete-antagonists on USOC/ NGB staff are well known to Team Integrity and, to some extent, are also identified in the Ropes & Gray Report. Simply put, there can be no USOC cultural turnaround with the continued employment of these individuals by the USOC, or a CEO who fails to act in such circumstances. THE COMMITTEE TO RESTORE INTEGRITY TO THE USOC; OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN “ATHLETES FIRST” OLYMPIC COMMITTEE Page 10
Thank you again for meeting with us and considering these ideas and proposals as a follow-up to that meeting. As discussed, we look forward to your response to each one either positively, negatively, or take the position that the USOC would remain neutral on that issue. Again, we sincerely hope that you will respond positively, and that in addition, you will take the opportunity to give us your vision of the new Olympic movement.
Respectfully submitted,
The COMMITTEE TO RESTORE INTEGRITY TO THE USOC
Edward G. Williams and Nancy Hogshead-Makar, Co-Chairs
egwilliams@somlaw.com hogshead@championwomen.org
*References:
-insidethegames
-The Committee to Restore Integrity to the USOC 권고사항 원문
-각종 외신 참조 발췌
