USA Swimming has laid out its plan to find a new CEO, saying that they are revisiting the same pool of “world-class candidates” that the previous process produced as well as “refresh the candidate pool”. The statement comes in light of last week’s news that the organization’s initial choice, Chrissi Rawak, withdrew from the job after a SafeSport complaint was uncovered.
A statement sent to membership and stakeholders on Wednesday afternoon, signed by Board of Directors Chair Chris Brearton and Vice Chair Natalie Coughlin, says that they have “the utmost confidence in the staff of USA Swimming to continue to advance the organization’s strategic priorities with interim leadership as we move forward.”
The process, including Rawak’s resignation, have been cloaked in secrecy, including USA Swimming initially citing “personal reasons” before releasing more information after SwimSwam confronted them with knowledge of the allegations.
Insiders, however, have painted a picture where Rawak was a targeted choice from the early stages of the process guided by a very small minority of the board. The finalists for the job included three women and one man, including interim CEO Shana Ferguson. The other candidates besides Rawak and Ferguson had little-or-no connection to the sport. One source hypothesized that this was done intentionally to emphasize Rawak’s candidacy.
On Monday morning, the male candidate was the front-runner for the position, and as of Monday morning the board intended to engage that candidate. Key stakeholders in the sport have put pressure on the board to start the process over, however, and Wednesday’s statement seems to split the difference between the two camps.
By Wednesday afternoon, that had changed, and sources tell SwimSwam that the board had shifted its focused from the other three initial candidates.
A USA Swimming spokesperson confirmed that they were considering candidates beyond the initial pool, though they declined to comment on prior candidates. The spokesperson says that NU Advisory Partners, the search firm engaged to identify candidates, has continued evaluating the talent pool even as the rest of the process progressed.
The statement also says that the Task Force assigned to identify and vet candidates is being “reconstituted.” The statement does not lay out where this process might be different after the troubling outcome of the last process, though they did say that they expect the second round to be shorter because they are able to reuse materials from the first round like job descriptions and interview questions.
USA Swimming also says that the search for the National Team Managing Director, which has a more immediate impact on the elite levels of USA Swimming, is “ongoing” and that they do not expect the CEO rerun to impact that process.
USA Swimming’s Full Statement is Below:
USA Swimming members,
We want to take a moment to update you on USA Swimming’s CEO search process in light of last week’s news. While these developments were disappointing for us all, we have the utmost confidence in the staff of USA Swimming to continue to advance the organization’s strategic priorities with interim leadership as we move forward. Among those is the ongoing search for the National Team Managing Director, which is progressing well. We do not expect the process to be impacted.
The Board understands this is a crucial time for USA Swimming and our sport as we prepare for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.
We have reactivated the search process for a permanent CEO and are moving forward with the urgency, thoughtfulness, and care this moment demands. The search is not starting from scratch, and we are continuing this process with the benefit of even more insight into our organization and what our sport needs at this time.
Following the news last week, the Board immediately reconstituted the Task Force that led the search process last year. We deeply appreciate the Task Force as they quickly resume their work and bring their wide-ranging experience to bear. The Task Force led an inclusive process that benefitted from members’ deep understanding of what the swimming community believes is needed in its next leader.
During the initial search, we identified numerous world-class candidates. We will revisit some outstanding talent from the initial search and refresh the candidate pool to ensure we find the best leader to take USA Swimming forward. Our focus remains on selecting a CEO who fits the profile that resulted from the Task Force’s listening tour– a transformational and visionary leader who can fully harness the opportunities of this particular moment for our sport in the United States.
While this process is ongoing, the Board will continue to update stakeholders about these important leadership roles and share major updates as appropriate. Thank you for your understanding, continued support, and dedication to USA Swimming, our sport, and our athletes.
All the best,
Chris Brearton
USA Swimming Board ChairNatalie Coughlin-Hall
Wait, so the people who apparently had a predetermined candidate (with a few others looked at) that turned out to be the wrong person are going to be put in charge of the process again? I’m not talking about the BOD (although ultimately I am), but the search committee? Let’s get the band back together for round two? I get that we need someone in place with us hosting the Olympic in a few years but please tell me that some changes are going to be made for this search. Based on the little details in Braden’s reporting, I have no confidence we’ll get a better result.
It’s my understanding the SafeSport allegation came after the person was named as the new CEO. If that is really the case, then I don’t see how you could blame anyone involved in the search.
The argument here seems to be about the elevated nature of Mrs. Rawak’s candidacy. Perhaps the committee, with the search firm’s help, would accept anonymized profiles and written responses to general questions, then score them on a rubric. That’s just one idea to reduce potential bias – I’m sure there are other good ideas.
As for the Safe Sport complaint made after the announcement, I’m not certain how that could be avoided without releasing the names of the finalists beforehand. Many candidates would not like that (to not alert their current employer, for example) and I’m not sure of the legality anyway. Maybe a question the committee could ask is “how would you respond to a safe sport allegation being… Read more »
How much are the paying the search firm?
Couple hundred thousand
The number 500K was floating around at their September Business Meeting. I don’t know if that’s accurate, but when the board doesn’t really disclose financials, it’s hard to know what is true and what is a rumor mill product.
Search firms typically charge between 25 and 35% of the first year’s salary, which was targeted for this job to be 500-600k, but was almost surely higher for Rawak. You can expect NGBs to overpay, because that’s what they do, but 500k would be a painful overpayment, if true.
Not sure what a round 2 would trigger.
I didn’t hear any rumors on how much they were being paid, but I can try to find out.
Doing the math using 25%, the first year salary is expected to be $2 million or more? Around twice the amount they were paying Hinchey? Damn. If that’s the case, hire me, and I’ll quit six months in — long before I can screw things up too bad.
The listed salary range was 500-600k.
But when you have a captive board member, you can expect special favors.
Swimswam knows who it is, but they don’t want to say it. Should I?
Ah. I thought he meant that they were going to pay the search firm $500k, which was 25% of the future CEO’s salary.
I’m intrigued by the captive board member, as I’m sure everyone else is now. Go ahead and say it. Doesn’t affect me at all.
Hoping to clear up the confusion: “industry standard” is 25-35% of first year salary. I haven’t heard the $500k number, but that would be way more than 25-35% if true.
<insert ND joke here>
USAS BOD hits the road for another round of interviews�
&ct=g
Huge Natalie C fan….. but, do we really want a 42 yo who only retired from swimming 11
Years ago co-chairing this committee?
Best swimmer may not be best choice for this job. All the failings of USA swimming are ultimately the fault of the Board.
So you’d rather have a bunch of old out of touch folks? That’s the model that has gotten us into trouble to three decades!
This is such an odd comment. Are you saying a 42yr old doesn’t have the experience to judge who will be a good fit? Or a woman? Or someone who spent a long time training and competing at the top level?
How did gender come into this?
Yeah I don’t understand it either. Is 11 years too long out of the sport or not long enough? (It’s really only been 8.5 years since her last major meet, she swam at Trials in 2016). Is 42 too old or not old enough? Do any of those things make her more or less qualified than the current BOD chair?
I’m trying to understand your comment, Truth. Is 42 too young or too old? Is retiring 11 years ago too short a period – should the Board be considering only those candidates who retired 20 or 30 years ago? How is the date of retirement even relevant? On the other hand, I’m pretty sure that everyone agrees with you that the best swimmer wouldn’t be the best choice for the job of committee co-chair – in any case, I don’t think either McIntosh or Marchand is interested at this point, and neither is American and so there’d be a conflict of interest.
I’m guessing Natalie was very committed to swimming, and has only had 11 years of business experience. There are many great choices which much more business experience to co-chair this
When looking at the board, there are some stronger members and some very weak ones. We should only have strong board members. Bio’s should be more focused on work experience and less who as a volunteer official for their kids meets
Find me one metric USA swimming is succeeding in? It’s not hiring a ceo. It’s not finance. It’s not marketing or recruitment.
I don’t want to disrespect any of the volunteer board members, but at some point our kids and our athletes deserve better. ( or to mention… Read more »
Your point about the age makes no sense. 42 is plenty old enough to be qualified. As far as Natalie Coughlin and the many other board members who are former elite swimmers, it does make you wonder whether they’re prioritizing that experience over managerial/executive expertise. Maybe swimswam might write something up at some point about exactly who is on the board and what their qualifications are? You would hope they’re all up to the job, but trusting USA swimming is tough lately.
All of the failings of USA Swimming are on the CEO. We’re not talking about a publicly traded company where the Board is compensated and relatively involved in strategy/operations.
“On Monday morning, the male candidate was the front-runner for the position, and as of Monday morning the board intended to engage that candidate…”
But then he demanded more money, because he knew the pickle they were in now. Look, these CEO types have an ego and probably don’t like being the second choice. Oh, I wasn’t good enough the first time? Well that’s gonna cost you. There’s no way any of the original finalists will accept that job without demanding an exorbitant sum at this point.
And every day they don’t extend an offer to Shana Ferguson and expect her to keep running their clown show in the interim is an absolute slap in the face. I don’t know… Read more »
Okay, fine. I’ll do it.
These emails are so lame with the phrasing they use. “We have the utmost confidence…” yada yada.
well guess what, literally nobody has the “utmost confidence” in USA swimming until people in charge do a better job so everything in these emails just comes off fake, cringe, or whatever negative word you want to use.
keep sending the emails though (popcorn gif)
POPCORN GIF!