Quote:
Originally posted by Carl Childress
Quote:
Originally posted by cbfoulds
Quote:
Originally posted by Carl Childress
2. The secret ballot turned out to be meaningless. During the discussion, one Board member argued for the exemption. Four members spoke vehemently against it. In the end four voted against it.
|
YoHo! This, in my profession, is what we call strong circumstantial evidence; or, to quote H.D. Thoreau: "a fish in the milk".
I'm inferring:
A) "The Fix" was in before the meeting started;
B) Carl, you know EXACTLY why the exemption was granted, and it has nada to do with Hector's truthful, but irrelevent, excuse [more likely H3's "big dog politics"];
C) Your resignation [and considering same to be a matter of ethics] has a lot more to do with A & B than the actual granting of an exemption to Hector.
Normally, I'd agree w/ others that a resignation "on principle" because you lost a vote over the Board doing something stupid is a bit of an overreaction. In this case, maybe not. In any case, H3 is, as usual on matters of Umpire Assn politics, dead-on: it was probably smart, at minimum.
|
1. It's apparent that you are not familiar with the Mexican-American culture. There was no "fish in the milk." Down here, if you don't want your opinion known, you keep your mouth shut. That way, you don't wind up on the dinner plate instead of in the goblet.
Your "inference" that there was a fix is an amazing feat, even for someone in your profession. A "fix" implies (my inference) that you're convinced some of the Board members are dishonest. I reject that jaded - and unsupported - "inference." Dumb, yes. Crooked, no.
3. Finally, I take even greater offense at this comment of yours: "C) Your resignation [and considering same to be a matter of ethics] (my emphasis) has a lot more to do with A & B than the actual granting of an exemption to Hector."
Apparently, you didn't (or can't) read the subject of this thread.
|
Uh, Carl?
1) Dead right: I know squat about that culture. The 5 members of the Board who voted for the exemption are from that culture, and my inferences are not much good: I admit that w/o hesitation.
2) [Ya' didn't number this one, but it fits] "Up here" [I ain't from Chicago] "The Fix" means the
debate is irrelevant - the case has aleady been decided & the votes counted in advance of the meeting [unofficially, you understand; but quite definitely counted]. It does not imply that those voting are dishonest or "corrupt"; quite the contrary. "The Fix" cannot work unless those involved have sufficient integrity to keep their committments to vote a certain way. This inference of mine is also probably invalid if the culture is such that those with an open mind would remain resolutely silent in the face of debate, rather than let anything about the direction of their possible opinion become known.
3) My inference #3 was based upon the 1st 2, and the seeming over-reaction of resigning in the face of losing this vote [which, after all, is provided for in the state rules], and the information inferred from the [to me] apparent "fish in the milk". Big-dog politics, while certainly annoying, is hardly an issue of conscience for most of us. Similarly, the Board deciding that a "requirement" is not, well, required after all, is not normally considered a matter calling into question the Board's integrity. Yet you chose to resign over it.
Lastly, I really did not mean to give offense, and I am genuinely sorry that I did. However, I DID, in fact, read, quite carefully, both the subject matter and the substance of this thread; and I gave particular attention to your posts in it, since that is where all of the actual "information" necessarily must be found. If anyone impugned the integrity of your Board members, it was not I. YOU captioned this thread "An ethics problem?". Maybe I misread your intent, but it seemed that you were concerned about someone's ethics, and since you resigned in protest of the vote, it appeared that the vote was the ethical issue you were concerned about.
Long story short, I publicly apologise to you and your now-former collegues on your Board for any offense my post gave or any implication of lack of integrity caused by my cultural ignorance. My only real defense is that I also clearly did not understand what you were seeking by way of comments and input.
[Edited by cbfoulds on Apr 15th, 2005 at 05:20 PM]