Yesterday, I was in the midst of a situation, and I'd like some advice, feedback, input, etc.

When I returned to my Association after four years in retirement, they returned me to my office: Vice-President. Our constitution makes the VP the Training and Program Director. The president appointed to me other old job, Rules Interpreter.

We're approaching play-off time, and tomorrow we have to submit the names of our officials who are members in good standing.

The State Board several years ago, while I was a member, adopted a rule that no umpire could be accepted for playoffs without attending a three- and four-man clinic. (The schools in my area <i>always</i> use four.) A local chapter could suspend the rule, if it chose.

On 5 January, the calendar of events and meeting dates was given to every umpire. The Board set two dates for the 3/4 clinic: 3 and 10 April. An umpire who wanted play-off games had to attend one.

Each clinic was three-and-a-half hours, complete with drills: We used runners, a varsity coach hit fungos to outfielders, and we drilled/drilled/drilled. Last night at our regular meeting, each umpire, even those who did not attend the training, received a 10-page handout, which I wrote, outlining our coverage.

One of last year's play-off umpires did not make either clinic. Last night at the Board meeting he presented a letter asking to be excused from attendance; he wanted his name back on the list. He pointed out that he didn't attend events on Sundays because of a family matter. His sister had died, and everyone gathered on Sunday to commemorate/remember the event. His sister died more than two years ago.

I argued that a family meeting such as that could be moved earlier or later, especially since two years had passed for a healing to take place.

I argued that every person who attended the clinic would now be open to the charge of being stupid: Why go out next year and spend more than four hours getting to, staying in, and coming from a clinic? Oh, the rule says you won't be in good standing. It does? It didn't say that for Hector (I'll call him).

I argued that baseball umpires should, more than most officials, believe in the rule of law. We operate by the rules, I said.

I argued that the list of umpires who missed the clinic included more than 20 former playoff umpires. If you return this umpire to the list, you will have to return them all, I said.

We voted by secret ballot. The vote was 5-4, and Hector is now a certified play-off umpire.

I immediately resigned my position on the Board.

The president of the chapter informed me by email this morning that I was still the rules interpreter - if I wanted it.

What, if anything, did I do wrong?

Carl,
 

Being a stand-up guy is sometimes difficult.

You have based your entire private and professional life around "doing what is right", so I ask:

What is the "right thing" to do?

I think you pretty much nailed the correct procedure.

Your group folded like a wet tent when the rubber hit the road.

So let's try to make this an umpiring analogy:

Did they "get the call right?"

Five of them think so . . .

Did they "misapply a rule?"

Looks like it.

Can this be protested to a "higher authority?"

Doubtful.

Sooooo, what should you do?

Simple. Let your ego go, decide how you can do the MOST GOOD for your umpiring group.

We don't always win all battles. I would like to see you concentrate on winning the war.

Take a deep breath. Count to 21 (I know you can do that since you have ten fingers, ten toes and are a prick) and decide what best completes your legacy within Texas baseball.

Of course this is just an opinion and like all a$$holes I have plenty of those.

QUOTE: " . .On 5 January, the calendar of events and meeting dates was given to every umpire. The Board set two dates for the 3/4 clinic: 3 and 10 April. An umpire who wanted play-off games had to attend one.

I argued that a family meeting such as that could be moved earlier or later, especially since two years had passed for a healing to take place.


I immediately resigned my position on the Board. . . . "
End Quote.

First of all EVERYONE was given a choice of two dates to attend. They only had to make one to qualify. That seems very clear as criteria for the circumstances based on board rules. If an umpire wants to do play-off games, he must attend one.

My point of contention would have been with your argument about changing the dates of the family meetings and it having been two years since the passing of his family member. Everybody deals with those kinds of situations differently. Some people grieve for years and some move on in days. I would not judge the time frame or his commitment to " healing ".

Now, having said that, this umpire has a clear choice. He could either do play-off games, or, he can attend his family meetings. That is not your problem. That is his. Everybody has issues which cause us to make choices about our lives. His choice was to attend his family meeting forgoing the opportunity to attend the mandatory clinic needed to do play-off games. So he made his choice. The fact he now regrets his choice is, again, not your problem. I agree 100% with your attitude that if you change the rule for one, you must change it for all. IMHO he is out. I support your decision to resign ( although it is certainly their loss ) and to abide by your principles. Is it right to cut someone else out who did attend the clinics to make a place for this umpire? Not IMHO.

Ultimately - right call on your part, your partner ( the board ) let you down.

I admire a man willing to stand up for his principles. You did nothing wrong here. Your board caved, and should be ashamed.

(I might also note - was this family meeting that he had to attend a full 8 days long (covering both clinics)? Or did he have a tire blowout and have to save a life at an accident on the other day?)

<b>"The State Board several years ago, while I was a member, adopted a rule that no umpire could be accepted for playoffs without attending a three- and four-man clinic. (The schools in my area always use four.) A local chapter could suspend the rule, if it chose."</b>

There's the crux. A local chapter could suspend the rule, and it appears that is what yours did for Hector. They were within their rights, whether you or I consider it right.

Your resignation, in my opinion, was an over reaction to a board vote. It resembles an "I get what I want or I'm going home" attitude.

If you feel that strongly, you should work to get rid of the loop hole.


[Edited by GarthB on Apr 14th, 2005 at 11:31 AM]

your position is unassailable, well done. Unfortunate that your board does not share your ethics, but that cannot have come as a complete surprise.

Your resignation makes a statement....you'll have to weigh the continued good/training against the resignation, but I would not condemn you for staying out.

I can see both sides of this. But now that you've resigned, you've lost the one voice in nine that you had on the board of directors.

When you are part of a group that votes, you won't always have the vote turn out the way you want it. You had three other people vote your way. All you can do is try to work within the system and continue to do what you do.

It seems to me that "Hector" is trying to play you and the board. If he had three months to bring this up before the scheduled dates and did not request an excusal in advance, then he should not be allowed to umpire in the playoffs.

The fact is that there were two dates. If attending the training was important to him, he almost certainly could have schedules his family meeting for earlier or later in the day. But the excuse for missing the training is secondary. He absolutely should have addressed this before missing the training. If he had, he would have known that he was either, 1)excused or 2)not excused and then he could have made an informed decision as to what he wanted to do.

By requesting a "bye" after the fact puts the board in an akward position which is exacerbated by his heart tugging excuse. Quite honestly, I am having trouble believing it. If they meet every Sunday to commemerate his sisters lose, they have serious issues. That not withstanding, if they do it every week he could have either rescheduled or missed one if the training was that important to him. If they were commemerating the anniversary of her death, he had two different weeks to choose from and one wouldn't have conflicted.

Bottom line is that this should have been addressed prior to the training. Since it wasn't, he did attend, so he doesn't get playoff games. That sends a message to the membership that the training IS in fact mandatory and it should be noted to the membership that these matters need to be addressed BEFORE the fact, not after.

And what is up with the "secret vote"? Debate it and stand up for your beliefs instead of hiding behind a secret ballot. Geez!

<b>"He pointed out that he didn't attend events on Sundays because of a family matter. His sister had died, and everyone gathered on Sunday to commemorate/remember the event. His sister died more than two years ago.

I argued that a family meeting such as that could be moved earlier or later, especially since two years had passed for a healing to take place."</b>

Everyone "heals" and honors their loved ones differently. I have a dear friend, who still, five years after his wife passed away, takes a yellow rose to her grave and then has breakfast at their favorite restaurant every Sunday. Nothing interferes with this routine.

We need to accept the possibility that not everyone reacts to loss as we do. Unless you have evidence that Hector was really at the beach throwing back brews on Sunday, I don't believe you should have challenged his practice.


[Edited by GarthB on Apr 14th, 2005 at 11:45 AM]

I want to add that I personally wouldn't have resigned over it. Better to be on the board and affect change than to be powerless to do anything constructive.

Garth,
I agree that everyone heals differently and if your friend or anyone feels that strongly about that, then good for them and I wish them well in their healing process.

But if that is your choice to have nothing interfere with your ritual, accept the consequences of those actions. That's all.

Bravo, Carl! You stand up for what you believe in. I agree, this person had more than enough options open to him. We all have to deal with these things and sometimes we have to give something up. Why is he so special that he gets to work along side those who took the time to get the clinic? This guy will probably be the one who blows the call that kills the game, too!

Kaliix, I agree completely. And if Carl had made that argument, I would have agreed with him on that as well. Instead, he made a value judgment of Hector's grieving process. I don't believe that was right.

Garth,
Agreed.

Tough decision
 

I'm sure that was a tough decision to resign but you have to stand for what you think is correct.

The umpire in question had plenty of time to let the board know that he would be out that day and he didn't.

That IMO disqualifies his excuse. If he thought enough about wanting to umpire in the playoffs, he should have thought about it before the event had happened.

Also, he had two dates of which to attend. What was his reason for missing on April 3?

I don't know the man, I'm sure you do, but it seems like he was trying to pull something on the board, and I'm sure that had something to do with your decision.

I think you made the "right call" in your decision about the man being able to umpire in the playoffs.

Thanks
David

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."

Re: Tough decision
 

David: As I undersand, the family has a sort of "service" <i>every</i> Sunday.

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.

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?

Re: Interesting
 

More information is not going to help.

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.

As Carl presents the situation, I don't see any <i>ethical</i> issues. That is, in my humble opinion, <b>nobody</b> involved did <b>anything</b> 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, <b>that</b> 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 <b>may</b> have occurred which are in fact "unethical" - but none of us (with the possible exception of Carl) have any evidene that anything unethical <b>did</b> 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 <b>misrepresented</b> 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 <b>destructive</b> 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

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.

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

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

Peter: I appreciate your thoughtful response. I have two points I should make:

1. Hector would not make up a story about the death of any family member, not even a <i>cuñado</i> (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 <i>voted</i> 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: "<b>C) Your resignation <i>[and considering same to be a matter of ethics]</i></b> (my emphasis)<b> has a lot more to do with A & B than the actual granting of an exemption to Hector.</b>"

Apparently, you didn't (or can't) read the subject of this thread.

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.....

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]

Apology accepted.

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.

I personally disagree with the board's ruling. Not because the rules were not in place to make that decision, because this particular umpire could not make time to attend a camp. That is just being lazy and his excuse is not good enough. That being said, I would not have resigned over this issue. It is just one issue. You did not compromise you integrity to make this decision. You did not violate any ethics code to come to that decision. If the vote was that close it was clear that not everyone signed off on this decision. Maybe when this is discussed at a later date, you can make your opinion known and help change it. I would not retire and let this kind of issue go. I would work to work hard to make sure this kind of thing does not happen in the future.

Now that you have retired, you might not be in the same position to help change the rules for this kind of thing. Of course you can complain, but you have no vote. Or your vote is diminished by not sitting in a position of authority.

Sitting on boards or positions of authority myself, I do not agree with every single decision made with my organizations. But I can still have a bigger say sitting in those positions then not sitting in those positions.

Peace

Mr. Rutledge: I resigned only. I did not retire, and I'm still the rules interpreter.

I'm on my way out the door for a large-school showdown between two teams tied for first in the conference. I have the plate. I always have the plate.

I meant "resigned" from your position. Either way, I would not have quit from any position over this one issue. Especially when that issue is more about procedure and rules that can be changed.

Peace

Re: Re: Interesting
 

This IS new information (I think): the board had announced that there would be no exceptions.

In hindsight, perhaps you would agree that such an announcement was not wise. In politics (in the broad sense, including association politics) and ethics both, rules are typically general rather than universal. That is, they allow exceptions.

You have allowed medical exceptions in the past, and scheduled 2 meetings this year so that if a guy were sick on one weekend he could still attend the other. But then: what if one of your best were sick for 10 days over both clinics? Maybe you'd like to make an exception?

One reason that exceptionless rules are unwise is that usually we are not smart enough to imagine all of the possible exceptional cases in advance.

If I might make a suggestion: rather than disallow exceptions, you might announce that exceptions will be considered only prior to the clinics, and only upon submission of documentation of the reason for not attending. Such a policy, in conjunction with providing alternative clinic dates, would discourage and deter requests for exceptions without ruling them out in advance.

None of this addresses the specific case of Hector. I take it that this is all blood under the bridge at this point. I am sure that I don't know enough about Hector or the people involved to say anything helpful about the specific case. Others have pointed out that Hector might be lying, or might be taking advantage of status in the association, but then the case would be easy, since we could say that even on the merits the case shouldn't have been an exception. Assuming that Hector had a genuinely good case for an exception points up the badness of the "no exceptions" rule.

You say you resigned because your conscience dictated allegiance to the procedure. Fair enough. There is a point at which one might say: we said no exceptions, and even if that was a mistake (note to next year's board), we must stick to that for the sake of credibility.

On the other hand, if an exceptionless rule WAS a mistake, does it serve justice and fairness to insist on enforcing the mistaken rule?

These discussions usually generate a lot more heat than light. The main reason I think that the exceptionless rule is a mistake is that it might force you to choose between goods: credibility and (let's assume) fairness to Hector. If Hector's request were on the up-and-up, then that's in fact the choice you confronted.

No doubt you'll gain perspective on this issue with time.

That's where they always stick guys that can't get up to third :)

Dagnabit!
 

Rich you beat me to it!

I was going to say, "in my area CC, we always place the least competent umpire of the crew on the plate in big games, less likely his performance will bite your crew in their collective butts!"

Re: Dagnabit!
 

Well, we'd like you and Rich to hustle down here and try out for our association. We're short umpires for our Freshmen and JV games.

Seriously, I don't understand the comment, even in jest. Rich, you put at the plate the guy who can't get to third? Our plate umpire covers third in several instances: bases empty triple, R1 and ball go to third on a base hit, R2 tags on a fly and goes to third, R2 goes to third on a throw across the infield, and (optional) R2 goes to third when F1 picks off and the throw goes into the outfield.

Of course, if your comments related to a four-man crew, you're entitled to your opinion. We use two-man crews until the play-offs, when we'll switch to four. Our last district games are played on 3 May this year.

We don't decide where the umpires go; that's the province of the coaches. They flip a coin, and the winner picks where the series starts. Almost all choose to start away, so they get the double-header on their field. That toss also sets the umpires: The "losing" coach wins second and the plate. The "winning" coach gets third and first. We rotate once for the second game. PU goes to third, etc.

If there's a third game, (always immediately after the first), they flip again. We have had instances where the plate umpire of the second game is chosen also as the plate umpire of the third game. The coach who lost the first toss wins the second. He gets to choose whether he wants the second-base umpire to have to plate. I've had that double-header twice in thirty years.

Umpires aren't assigned until the state tournament, where there are four schools in each division competing for the championship.

It appears that our coaches are somewhat less cavalier about who calls the plate than is obviously the case in your areas.

<b>"If there's a third game, (always immediately after the first), they flip again."</B>

And what, then the second game is played after the third? Only in Texas.

Well, gosh, Ben, I thought the context would be clear, especially to an English teacher. That section of my post deals explicitly with the status of the umpires for the double-header. If the teams split the first two games, then....

I'll explain it so you'll understand that we in Texas count the same way you guys in Washington do.

The third game [of the series] is played immediately after the first game [of the double header]....

If the winning coach wants the plate umpire from the second game [of the series] to call the plate in the third and deciding game, there's no day off: The third game is played immediately after the first [of that day].

Ya think?

[Edited by Carl Childress on Apr 16th, 2005 at 02:27 PM]

And you think your original post made that clear? I don't about where Ben is, but it didn't read clear in Spokane. Maybe Ben, if he is an English teacher, understood it better than us non-English teachers.

I had a little trouble with your syntax, but....

Still, I understand: When you're talking to an English teacher, you're a "non-English teacher." When you're talking to a rat, you're....

You made a different claim just one month ago on 16 March. Let me quote Garth Benham from the thread: "Pickoffs from the windup": <font color=maroon><b>I am a substitute teacher. I am not the type, however, who babysits. I do not show videos or supervise study halls. I work only for those teachers who know that I will work continue the education of their students. I am endorsed to teach music, social studies and English.</font></b>

And golly, Mr. Benham, <i>you</i> are Ben.

Re: Re: Dagnabit!
 

My original comment was completely in jest, but obviously you are short a sense of humor. Big surprise, there.

I don't care how you folks choose your playoff umpires. It's obvious the rats run the show where you live and you are (talent and experience aside) the beneficiary of such a system. I could come down there and be the best technical umpire around, but without such familiarity I'd be sitting home come playoff time.

Believe it or not, regional umpires are hired by the teams where we live and, GASP, we decide as a crew who's working what position. If a coach ever tried to tell me who was going to work the plate, I'd probably start laughing and ask him if he was already trying to work ME.

I don't work freshman and JV games, sorry. Can't help you.

<i>"I am a substitute teacher.</i>

That is true. And I do carry those endorsements. But you as an English teacher, more than most, know the difference between a substitute teacher and an English teacher. English teachers, at least in Washington and most other states, have degrees in English, I do not. I have an "Endorsement" than allows me to sub. And you will, or rather could, if you were so inclined, note that I was careful NOT to claim to be an English teacher. Any real
English teacher would have been able to see that in my orignal post. I suppose, I could attempt to make it more clear, if necessary.

You have such a need to be correct, Carl, you'll probably pronounce them one and the same. However, I have never claimed to be an English teacher, not to you and definitely not to a Rat; and, in fact, I am not.

And, by golly, my name is not Ben. I have no idea to whom you speak when you speak to Ben. If you wish to address me, I have a name.

[Edited by GarthB on Apr 17th, 2005 at 01:27 AM]

Oh boy!!

Sometimes these threads go rapidly from informative to infuriatingly childish. Large egos with thin skins. I shake my head and smile.

Mike

Ok, "teacher of English," then.

There's no difference. You were "lording" it over the poor old coach.

Typical!

Re: Re: Re: Dagnabit!
 

Don't come to the Rio Grande Valley then. Those are the only games <i>we</i> assign. All other games are filled by the draft. Throughout the state, both coaches must agree <i>in advance</i> on the umpires. In every sport, not just baseball.

But considering your attitude about coaches, we wouldn't let you call an eighth-grade game. Too much potential for permanent harm to our kiddos.

Your (and your compadres') comments about coaches are ridiculous and self-serving nonsense. If just one coach in our area heard such comments, you would never work again. Not here. Not at any level.

I wonder if that would be true in Wisconsin.

What a crock!

If YOU take after someone, that's ok. How if I make a compliation of all your nasty posts?

When I refuse to allow your crud to go unnoticed, you respond like a teenage girl on her first date.

Amazing!

Typical!

Jesus, Carl, get real. I sure called that one didn't I. I predicted you needed to be right so bad you would pronounce an English teacher and a substitute teacher as one and the same.

I am not an English teacher. I am not a teacher of English. I do not hold a degree in English. And folks like you make me very happy about that. You are not that stupid so you must be intentionally dishonest.

I did not use my endorsement to lord it over anyone. In that post I was making the point that people should prepare for their jobs, what ever that job is. Specifically I was addressing the issue of some coaches being in charge of a team of young people with out having any idea of the rules of the game.

Look, if you really have the need for everyone to think you're right all time, I'll just give you this blanket admission for future reference:

<i>I, Garth Benham, do hereby swear and affirm that Carl Childress is always correct in any issue, discussion, disagreement, philosophy whether he has freaking clue of what he is talking about or not and whether or not he is being honest or not. Be it known by all persons that they should accept his word on everything and it matters not what anyone else thinks or believes. <b>Carl is God.</b></i>

Carl managed to respond to your post before you even wrote it. He must be God.

The difference, Carl, is that I did not twist something you wrote and claim you said something which you did not.

<i>
I, Garth Benham, do hereby swear and affirm that Carl Childress is always correct in any issue, discussion, disagreement, philosophy whether he has freaking clue of what he is talking about or not and whether or not he is being honest or not. Be it known by all persons that they should accept his word on everything and it matters not what anyone else thinks or believes. <b>Carl is God.</b></i>

Hey Carl here is one thing that was not mentioned. You said Hecotr was a playoff umpire previously. I am taking it he called the playoffs in the last 2 years. Did he manage to make one of the clinics then to earn said playoff spot(s)? Did he use this same method to get out of it? Or did he have another family member that died some years before? If the answers are yes, no and no then you are 100% right in your arguements, to which I say you are anyways. Would I have resigned? No but you are more old schoool then I.

A good question. In the last two years (when I was in charge) our "clinic" was indoors, during a regular meeting. Those are on Wednesday nights.

The umpires received my call for an actual "clinic" with resigned good humor: "Carl's at it again." Still, we had 117 paid members this year; only 33 (now 34) bothered to certify for the play-offs.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dagnabit!
 

I wonder if I care. I wonder why I respond to you, as well.

But, what the heck.

You have no clue what I'm like on the field. Sure, the stories about rats make for the most entertaining stories just like your stories about the Old Smitty. But the Old Smitty is an entertaining device you use to make a point whereas me calling a coach a rat is "my attitude about coaches."

Maybe we should look at the Old Smitty as you disrespecting people who choose to umpire youth sports. Maybe you are undermining the officials and contributing to the declining sportsmanship. Even I wouldn't claim something so ridiculous.

Why don't you go find yourself a clue? Why don't you recognize that it may just be the same damned thing?

I've worked 13 games so far this season (we start late up in the north). Each coach has been greeted by name (I find their names on the Internet before going to the game) and shown the utmost in respect by me and by my partners. Only one rat in the bunch and he was treated extremely well until he got himself ejected. I don't put the coaches on any pedestal, though. They're just coaches just like in their eyes we're all just umpires. Apparently you see coaches as "higher on the food chain" to us mere umpires. Sorry, the day I'm in a system where I have to show the proper deference is the day I pack it in for good.

My partners (yes, we pick who we work with, and I work with good umpires) and I don't take innings or games off and we work hard every game. If a coach doesn't want to hire us for whatever reason here, that's OK. I have more games than I know what to do with and there are one or two schools who won't have me back (in basketball, actually) and there are 1-2 schools where I will not work by choice. The system is what it is.

Enjoy your system in the Rio Grande Valley. As someone who's wife has lived in McAllen, I guarantee it will be a cold day in, well, the Rio Grande Valley before I ever live there. But I've been successful in six states working in different systems -- why couldn't I succeed anywhere?

And remember -- all this started because you couldn't understand a little one-line joke I made in a previous post.

Edited to add: A friend has pointed out that you probably COULD understand the joke, but you just chose not to. I would have to agree. Too bad.


[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Apr 17th, 2005 at 01:23 PM]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dagnabit!
 

I am glad to see that someone is admitting the "rat" stories are for entertainment and do not represent the umpire's attitude toward a coach. It is the first I've read of that, though. Your <i>compadres</i> always seem so serious. One of your friends called coaches "sleazy." I prefer the term "competitive." I like coaches. If it weren't for them — even the bad ones — a lot of kids would sit around doing nothing constructive.

Finally, you of all people know that irony and homor are the hardest discourses to recognize on the internet. I apologize for not picking up on your one-liner.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dagnabit!
 

That may have been me, I don't remember, but there ARE sleazy coaches and there are competitive coaches. All coaches, however, if they are doing their job, are lobbyists and are working everything, including the umpire, in an attempt to get an advantage for their team, deserved or otherwise. That makes them and what they say during a game, untrustworthy, or Rat-like.

<b>I like coaches. If it weren't for them — even the bad ones — a lot of kids would sit around doing nothing constructive.
</b>

Or, having the times of their lives playing on the corner sandlot across from the P&C with no b!tchy parents living through their kids and no coaches yelling at them "get your head out, what are you, retarded?"

Just them, Jimmy "mouse" Knauss, Gary, Jay, Alan, Denny, Johnnie, Larry, Donnie, Lann, Billy, Greg and Artie... playing ball until the street lights come on and then hightailing it for home on their bikes with the glove dangling from one handle bar, a bat held by index fingers as it lays across both handle bars and a ball in a pocket.

Man, I'm old.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dagnabit!
 

Coaching is a job. Umpiring is a job. Conflict is a necessary intersection of the two. What annoys me is when they act like the rodents we talk about on the Internet.

I had a college coach come out twice on me yesterday -- actually each one came out once.

First time was on a balk. Did I eject the coach for arguing a balk or warn him to get off the field? No. He asked and I told him why the balk was called (the pitcher came set and after doing so moved his glove forward -- a start-and-stop hard to see from the first base dugout, but painfully obvious to F6 who told me on the pitching change that this pitcher does that all the time) and he made a change. As always, I headed to the outfield for the change and that was that.

Second time was when a batter may have been hit in the box with a batted ball but (1) we didn't see it and (2) the batter didn't react as if he'd been hit. We only work 2-man in WI for D-III games, so I was pretty well straightlined in C. I can only call what I see. Coach wasn't happy, I met him halfway and told him that had I seen it I would've killed it immediately, which is what my partner told him as well, but he was encouraged to come out and talk with me so he did. He still wasn't happy, but I'm still not convinced we actually missed it.

Oh, but here's a little rat story just to keep on topic:

First game I was working the plate. Every play at first base the first base coach would yell SAFE right at the time the play at first was happening. Yes, this was a college game and I think this was a player or grad assistant coaching first. Partner didn't say anything because there were no truly close plays during the game.

First whacker I get the second game, runner's out by about a quarter-step. I hear the coach yell SAFE and I call the runner out. The runner turns around to argue/question the call and I turn myself away from unneeded confrontation. Once the batter was out of there, I called out to the coach and told him that I didn't need any help. He asked what I meant, and I clarified.

We were close enough to the dugout that one of his teammates/players said, "You better be careful -- if you two get into it, I got 10 bucks on the umpire." Of course I laughed -- once my back was turned.

And one more light bit before I take a nap with my now 3-month old daughter: An inning of two later, we had an attempted steal of second. R1 tried to slide headfirst, but did more of a belly-flop onto second base and broke his nose, shattering his Oakleys.

Players and coaches were trying hard not to laugh as, apparently, this has happened before. Pitching coach says, "He's a real piece of work" while laughing. Almost immediately, Queen's "We Will Rock You" plays on the loudspeaker and when the line "blood on your face" played I wondered if they had it queued up on purpose. When the head coach came out the first thing he told the kid was that he may be able to get Oakley to get him a new pair of glasses. Then he asked about the nose.

When I was 9 years old, back in 1978, I played in a league in my hometown during the summer. There were 10 teams in this league played on a small diamond that seemed big at the time.

The teams were run by 12 year old captains, chosen by the two adults that ran and umpired the league. By the time I was 13 they stopped umpiring and had, you guessed it, 13 year olds like me umpiring. They'd be there to supervise only. So my first umpiring experience was in 1983 as a 13-year-old calling balls and strikes on my schoolmates. Even then I had a generous strike zone.

The captains made all the decisions for the teams -- who played, pitched, batting orders, pitching changes, etc.

It was the most fun I ever had. I will admit, we didn't learn much those years about the fundamentals of baseball, but who cares?

Carl,
 

Just a couple of observations...

You definitely like being right/correct. You pride yourself on it and you do a good job at being correct. However, there will always be dissenting opinions and they may be as worthy of consideration as your own.

I don't know the full situation.

There is surely a reason that your association requires an umpire to attend one of the clinics - probably to ensure that umpires assigned to post season games know the proper mechanics. I would guess that Hector knows the proper mechanics and has previously met the requirement. So I can see how a reasonable board member could vote in favor of the exemption. Personally, I think I would have voted with you against such an exception to the rule. (There was a requirement and Hector did not meet it. And, we have plenty of umpires that did meet the requirement who can work the post season games.) But I can see how one might see Hector's as a reasonable request.

You took a very strong stance that an exemption should not be allowed. I feel like you resigned because the board did not fully agree with you. Thank-goodness the Justices of the Supreme Court don't work this way - we'd be down to Judge Roy Bean after just a few decisions and dissenting opinions.

I feel you were correct - an exemption should not have been allowed. It creates a bad scenario as evidenced by the other umpires that subsequently also filed for an exemption given that one was granted for Hector.

I don't feel you should have resigned - you are not soley responsible for the board's decision. And the board's decision does not directly reflect your character. I feel your resignation may have been compulsive due to your nature to be correct and your likely desire to subsequently be proven correct by the board. The board did not fully agree with you, hence you may have felt that they said you were wrong.

Again, I don't know the full situation. But it seems that you have taken the board's action too personally.

Carl, I have intended no offense and only hope that I have inspired you to reflect a bit less emotionally (just my perspective). I know you will continue to due a great job in all other aspects of your life and officiating. My best to you.

[Edited by DownTownTonyBrown on Apr 17th, 2005 at 04:35 PM]

.....
 

I tried several years ago when the CC/Freix flame wars were going on to ask for someone to be the bigger man and give it up. I guess Freix took his toys and went home but CC is still at it.

I respect the heck out of Carl for his knowledge and experience. He was great to work for when I wrote over on the paid portion of the site and given the right circumstances I would consider going back (I think Roland's got things covered for a while :)). But the constant back and forth just wears me out.

What did we do before the internet? Well, we missed out on a lot of information, some good sharing of info from across the US, and a lot of pointless bickering. I guess 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

Lawrence

Carl,

In your very own original post you asked for advice, feedback, and input. When they gave it to you, you felt they were criticizing you.

You also asked in your original post "what if anything did I do wrong?". When they posted what, in their opinion, you did wrong, you again felt they were criticizing you.

If you don't want people to tell you that your wrong, don't ask for advice, feedback or input.

Why not go back read the thread. You'll see my comments were to the old gang of rat haters, whom I knew would pop up with nasty comments and a poster whose point I misread - and later apologized.

"They"?

Nonsense.

You stated your position on the issue and then the vote was 5-4 against your position. Close call, judgement rules, as it does on the field. The only thing I think you did wrong was resigning from the board, which leaves you out of future position discussions and votes. No way to make a difference if you don't have a vote. What if every member of Congress resigned the first time the vote did not go with the position they argued for?

I appreciate your opinion. Several others echoed that advice. But when I taught logic, we'd call your final question a "false analogy." Being a member of a baseball Board of Directors is not even remotely similar to being an elected US congressman.

I've been on that Board for nearly 30 years. I've lost countless votes. I never resigned.

I've won more than I lost. Obviously, in my mind, this vote was crucial to determining whether I could work with those umpires.

We announced as a Board there would be no exceptions. Then, at our first opportunity, we granted an exception.

Sorry, that's just not my cup of tea.

Thanks for taking time to post an answer to my question.

If, in your mind, this vote was crucial to determine whether you could work with those umpires, then you did not need to ask the opinion of others. Your mind was set on a path. Why was this situation different than the others on which you were outvoted over the past 30 years?

Then I think we'd all be a lot better off.

DG: I asked "the opinion of others" after the fact. I've discovered that most of the posters thought the Board was wrong and that many agreed with my resignation.

But I can't help you if you don't see the distinction between <i>this</i> lost vote and my previous lost vote, when the Board decided not to increase the training hours required of rookie umpires.

I agree, the Board was wrong, and it was a 5-4 vote, so there were 4 who agreed. I don't agree with the resignation, as I stated earlier. This leaves you out of future discussions and votes. I also don't see why you would want to remain as rules interpreter for an association that has 5 Board members you don't agree with.

There's no vote on what a "rule" means in our chapter. This way, I know the interpretation extant will be correct. There shouldn't be any politics connected with: Define the time of the pitch in the wind-up position.

Carl,

I commend you for being a stand-up guy. Far too often boards become a good-ole-boy network where the "executives" decide what rules to enforce based on who is involved. Odd how these associations stress consistency of mechanics on the field and ignore them in a meeting room. I believe we lose a lot of good, young talent due to the BS and Politics of associations.

I predict your association will eventually come around, see the error of their decision, and ask you back onto the board. Until then, know that you accurately applied the rules. You're probably feeling less pressure than the 5 who ignored them.