Skiing Official Dissatisfied With Schiller Report

An independent counsel’s investigation of U.S. Olympic Committee executive director Harvey Schiller was incomplete, the head of U.S. Skiing said Friday.

The counsel’s report, made public this week, concluded Schiller used poor judgment on several occasions that resulted in violations of the USOC’s statement of principles. The USOC’s executive committee took no action against Schiller, a former commissioner of the Southeast Conference.

Howard Peterson, executive director of U.S. Skiing, was dissatisfied with the investigation because it failed to show Schiller’s knowledge of dealings that led to the resignation of former USOC President Robert Helmick, who was found guilty of violating USOC bylaws.

Peterson said the investigation also was lacking because it did not explore allegations that sexual harassment charges made by several USOC-employed women were mishandled by Schiller and others.

Mike Moran, director of USOC public information, denied Friday that Helmick disclosed his dealings to Schiller, and that the executive director allowed it to continue. Also, Arnold Burns, a one-time U.S. deputy attorney general, said he was satisfied that USOC officials had fully cooperated with his investigation although he was unable to address allegations involving sexual harassment.

Last September, U.S. ski officials’ publicly charged Schiller of improprieties such as requesting ski passes and equipment from national governing bodies. Burns’ report was the result of those charges.

Peterson said he was happy many charges were found to be true but disagreed with the report’s conclusions that Schiller was unaware of Helmick’s activities. He said written statements made by USOC officials indicate Schiller, and others, knew what Helmick was doing.

John Krimsky, a USOC deputy secretary general, said in a Sept. 18 news conference in Colorado Springs, Colo., that Helmick discussed his dealings with Schiller and in one instance, Krimsky.

Krimsky concluded that those discussions were not considered proper disclosure under USOC policy.

Burns’ failure to examine the harassment allegations stemmed from legal obstacles. The employee’s wrongful termination suit was settled out of court, and one provision of the settlement was that the former employee would not discuss his allegations.

The USOC refused to release him from that obligation.