|
As Carl presents the situation, I don't see any ethical issues. That is, in my humble opinion, nobody involved did anything that should be considered "unethical" or "wrong" - not Hector, not the board, and not Carl.
Why? We have a "governing body" (the State Board) instituting a rule and delegating the authority to "suspend" the rule to a "subordinate" governing body (the local Association Board).
We have an individual subject to the rule (Hector) petitioning the local board for an "individual suspension".
The board had an open discussion among the board members regarding the merits of the petition (I'm assuming that Carl wasn't the only one who offered "points of consideration" on the merits) and then held a vote (by secret ballot). The board then made a decision to grant the petition based on the majority position on the question.
As a result of the board decision, Carl decided to resign from his position on the board.
There is nothing unethical about any of this.
Now, if any of the board members received any "personal consideration" for voting as they did, that would be unethical.
If Hector misrepresented his reasons for not attending either of the clinics, that would be unethical.
If any outside party threatened or offered inducements to any of the board members in an attempt to influence their vote, that would be unethical.
There are any number of things that may have occurred which are in fact "unethical" - but none of us (with the possible exception of Carl) have any evidene that anything unethical did occur.
The facts that Hector had plenty of notice regarding the requirement, chose not to request an exception until after he had failed to meet the requirement, and failed to meet the requirement as a matter of personal choice (rather than as a result of factors which were beyond his control) would certainly make me very unsympathetic to his request and would lead me to vote as Carl did.
A number of posters seem to hold the opinion that it was, at least in some sense, "wrong" for the board to grant an individual exception to the rule or somehow "unfair" to the other umpires.
I think it depends on the purpose of the rule. Because "rules" are not "ends" in and of themselves. Good or bad, they are always intended to serve some other purpose.
In this case, I think the purpose of the rule is to enhance quality rather than to ensure fairness.
Specifically, it's to enhance the quality of umpiring during the state playoffs by making sure that all of the umpires receive training in the proper rotations and areas of responsibility while part of a three or four man crew when they may more typically work in a two man crew during the regular season.
Good idea, good rule.
Imagine that Hector is the best umpire in the association.
He has more experience than any other umpire in the association with "large crew" mechanics (his are flawless), the excellence of his umpiring only seems to improve under the additional pressure of the playoffs, and his presence on a four man crew actually appears to bolster the confidence and performance of the other three umpires.
Over the years, he has selflessly donated countless hours of his own time to help less-experienced umpires improve their abilities, has developed innovative training materials & techniques, and has in many ways acted as an unofficial "ambassador" for the association, invariably in a way that reflected positively on the association.
Would it better serve the purpose of the rule to strictly enforce it, or grant an exception to it?
Put another way, suppose it was "Carl Childress" instead of "Hector" petitioning for the exception? Would your opinion on the question change?
Of course, it's also possible that Hector's umpiring is average at best, he really needs work on his large crew mechanics, he doesn't care enough to invest the time to improve, he's a self-centered individual who always thinks the rules don't apply to him, and he's the favorite son of an overindulgent father who happens to own the company that five of the board members depend on for their employment.
Were this the case, the board's decision would clearly be "improper".
But, considering and granting an exception to this rule is a very different matter from "selective enforcement" of the rules in a baseball game. Fairness is an inherent part of the purpose of those rules, and "making exceptions" tends to violate that purpose.
I don't know why the majority of the board decided to approve the exception. As Carl presented it (not in any way suggesting he misrepresented it), I would have voted to deny the request.
Finally, there is the question of Carl's decision to resign from the board as a result of the board's decision on this question.
I don't feel that I have any "standing" to judge Carl's decision, but since he asked for opinions, I'll offer mine.
When a person accepts a position on the board of directors of an organization, he does so with a certain understanding (whether explicit or not) of the organization's purpose and objectives. I believe it is a very good thing for there to be a diversity of opinions and backgrounds among the members of a board, and that vigorous debate among the members on controversial questions is a good indicator of the "health" of the board. It is also unrealistic for any member to believe that his position will "carry" on every question.
However, when a member believes that a decision of the board is destructive to what he understands the objectives of the organization to be, he has a difficult decision to face. He may remain a member and try to change it from within. However, if the board makes a decision that is too far removed from his understanding of the purpose of the organization and the principles by which it ought to be governed, then he may be better off in simply removing himself, thereby making it clear that he does not endorse the board's decision.
JM
|