|
Thu Apr 14, 2005, 11:03am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I lost my mother almost 4 years ago (april 30). I always set aside a portion of the day to celebrate her life. I have had a game on 4/30 the last 2 years. I celebrate doing something she was proud of me for. She would not want me to hide away on that day every year. I'm not saying hector is wrong, I have a friend who refuses to work at all on Sunday. NO matter what no Sundays! So to each his own. Carl, "we have to stand for something, or we'll fall for anything."
|
|
Thu Apr 14, 2005, 12:23pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tough decision
Quote:
|
|
Thu Apr 14, 2005, 12:23pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
GOOD JOB CARL.
You don't suspend rules after the fact. This official had plenty of time to notify the Board of his greiving Sundays. (Two of them in a row?) He waited to after the fact. When it was probably obvious that you were'nt going to play his games, he then offered his letter of whinning to a Board of 5 spinless, ball-less, kiss-*** members and 4 men with integrity. I bet if a playoff game is held on Sunday , he will be there. This weasle, (gentlemen is to good a word), is typical of todays society. Rules are made for everyone, BUT them. For two years he was well aware of what dates he would be greiving on, and waited to after the fact to tell everyone. Sorry that his relative died, but his inabilty to attend the clinic and further ignorance of getting an excuse before hand , deserves NO SYMPATHY, whatsoever. It is not as though you quit the Association, but it is very obvious that they gave you a position, direction and authority, but NO support. Why, as others have suggested here, would you want to continue to be their "village idiot". Your a stand up guy Carl, and I for one, support the stand that you took.
|
|
Thu Apr 14, 2005, 07:34pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Interesting
Carl, you always challenge us. As a professional ethicist, I feel called upon to toss my hat in this ring.
I'm not sure that I know enough about the case you describe to determine whether I would have done as you did. The state allowed local groups to make exceptions, and yours did following a duly cast ballot, and so procedurally nothing seems to be amiss. So far, no dramatic action seems in order. Still, the procedure might have been corrupted, if the board voted based on their relationship with the umpire rather than on the merits of his case for an exception. To know this, I would have to know the board members and umpire as well as you do. One of the considerations is surely the precedent that this decision sets. Requiring a mechanics clinic ahead of playoff work is a reasonable requirement, and you don't want to undermine that. But that's just one of the considerations. You also don't want your board to acquire the reputation of being harda$$es who ignore the legitimate concerns of its membership. And I agree with the posters who urge caution when dealing with others' grieving practices. One of the best points so far was this one: the mechanics clinic is required, so if an umpire chooses to do something else instead of attending the clinic, then the board should honor his choice and not assign him playoff work. This reasoning might have been decisive for me, had I been on the board, but it would also depend on the level of the umpire and his knowledge of the requisite mechanics. I can imagine a case with a hard-working, thoroughly knowledgeable umpire who is a good association-citizen and just can't make the clinics. Again, I don't know enough about the individuals involved to sort this out. I think that there is a scenario of corrupt board members that would justify resigning from the board. But you know those folks pretty well, right? If they were corrupt, would you have joined the board in the first place? You might, if you were doing your part to improve the quality of the board... so this point is not decisive either. On the other hand, an honest disagreement about whether this strange case counts as an exception for purposes of getting this umpire into the playoffs would not, I think, justify resigning. Perhaps you could tell us a little more?
__________________
Cheers, mb
|
|
Thu Apr 14, 2005, 08:45pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting
Quote:
These clinics were scheduled more than three months in advance. We never heard anything from "Hector" until he failed to make the play-off list. The Board members decided for whatever reason to allow him to evade the long-established policy. We announced the clinics at every meeting and emphasized there would be no exceptions. But there was one. In good conscience I could not serve on a Board that would turn its back on a rule of procedure. Since I posted my first message, five of the umpires who were left off the list because they did not attend the training have demanded their names go onto the list. One senior official, who missed both clinics while calling D1 double-headers, informed the Board president that he would sue if his name is not sent to the coaches on Friday. To all: I appreciate your comments. I am convinced the road I took was the right one.
|
|
Thu Apr 14, 2005, 09:11pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
Thu Apr 14, 2005, 10:39pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Papa C:
As a Preacher I hate it when things are scheduled on Sundays. (I think it would be better served to not have both clinics on Sunday, but that is up to your organization.) But given all the facts I would support any decision you felt was best for you and your organization. While the board acted within their parameters I too think they erred in their decision. The exceptions should be based on extreme circumstances not routine. "Hector" had ample time before the clinics to voice his concern. Since it was a State wide mandate I assume there were other 3/4 clinics across the state he could have attended. Doesn't sound to me like he exhausted all his avenues to become eligible before asking for an exception. I sympathize with "Hector" and respect the decision he and his family have made to remember a loved one, but to expect another organization to revolve around that decision is unrealistic. If you believe there should never ever be given and exception, then I believe you are wrong. But to the contrary the impression from your posts seemed to indicate that you were more concerned with the future chaos the board's decision will have within the group since it was not based on an extrem mitigating circumstance but one which pales in comparison. To that I believe you are right on track. If your decision to resign from the board gets the membership to reevaluate who they have elected to the board and seek to replace the ones who make decisions for the group more on emotion than through bylaws then you have done the right thing. Losing such a valuable member as yourself from the board may be impetus the membership needs to right a sinking ship. You have my best wishes my friend.
|
|
Fri Apr 15, 2005, 05:35am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Carl:
'Hector' had a decision to make and did. You stood up for what you believe in and I admire that. Since he couldn't attend the mechanics clinics, I'll assume he never works games on Sundays, either? If that's true, then I respect how he commemorates his loss. However, that doesn't relieve him of his responsibilities to your association if he expects to be a playoff umpire. Too many people who choose to work in an environment that has an established set of rules & requirements believe that these requirements don't apply 'to them'. These rules are there to benefit the entire association. They can be made flexible but should not be altered for any one individual. To quit your board over this demosntrates how strongly you feel. There are a lot of opinions here but the one that should matter most comes from the guy in the mirror. IG3
|
|
Fri Apr 15, 2005, 07:48am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Carl;
I have six thoughts on your situation, most of which have already been stated. For those that do not know me, I have intricate knowledge of association politics, having been an assignor for many years. 1. Hector was probably lying or at a minimum, he did not give you the whole truth. I cannot tell you the number of times that umpires use death of loved ones as excuses for not fulfilling their commitments. On more than one occasion, I have had umpires who used the excuse of death of their father/mother etc. as an excuse for turning back a game. Only problem was, they had used the same excuse for the same relative two or three years ago. (I kept records and quoted back to them the dates that they had used those excuses.) They would then ho and hum and then say it was their father-IN-LAW or some such garbage. 2. If Hector was telling the truth, he would have come to you prior to the clinics to gain his exemption. An after-the-fact excuse is generally a lie or the actions of an extremely irresponsible person. 3. Why was your board voting by secret ballot? Roberts Rules of Order state that secret ballots should only be used for elections. Rules or policy should always be by open ballot. An elected board of governors should never have a secret ballot for any purpose. Even the US Senate, with all its shenanigans, has never tried to have a secret ballot. Elected board members and senators must be accountable to the electorate and how can one be accountable if his votes are secret. 4. In most officials associations, one set of rules applies to the big dogs and another stricter set to the little dogs. I would guess that Hector is a big dog. 5. I am not sure that I would have resigned since resignations should be reserved for matters of principle. This is big dog politics, not ethics. However... 6. Your resignation may have been an asute political move. Your board sewed to the wind and is now reaping the whirlwind with others insisting on claiming the same exemption. Your resignation will leave you as the knight riding to the rescue should the board be unable to control the dragon that they have unleashed. Peter
|
|
Fri Apr 15, 2005, 08:14am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
1. Hector would not make up a story about the death of any family member, not even a cuñado (brother-in-law). The evidence comes partly from my knowledge of him but mostly from my knowledge of the culture. His sister died; our association sent a wreath more than two years ago. My point was never that Hector should be deprived of the remembrance ritual, only that during a period of 20 weeks or so when he knew the clinic dates, the time of the family meeting could have been shifted to allow him to make both "services." 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.
|
|
Fri Apr 15, 2005, 08:35am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
Fri Apr 15, 2005, 08:57am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
Fri Apr 15, 2005, 10:05am
|
|||
|
|||
|
things Ive learned
Since my move to higher baseball (read this as non-youth ball) there are many things I have learned from being associated with my chapter...
First some chapter rules.... No member will be assigned games without paying yearly dues. No games will be assigned prior to the weekly meeting. All games are assigned at the weekly meeting. Playoff and championship game assignments will be based on merit and evaluation. all of which have turned out to be only randomly enforced...its the politics of the chapter, in which you can choose to go along with or, in my case, change from within as the secretary of the chapter. I wish you would have stayed as VP Carl....you are more of a deterrent inside the executive committee than you will be outside of it.....
|
|
Fri Apr 15, 2005, 04:16pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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]
|
|
Fri Apr 15, 2005, 04:28pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The subject of the thread was "An ethics problem?" That is: Is it an ethics problem at all? I never said the action of the Board was unethical. Certainly, mine was not. I was seeking the opinions of others on that "subject." BTW: The only other times the exemption has ever been granted by our chapter is for illness certified by a physician. The clinic comes about three weeks before play-off season, so we've put reliable play-off umpires on our list even though they were absent. This year, though, we provided TWO clinic dates to make life easier for our candidate umpires.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
