An ethics problem?

[Carl Childress]

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 always 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?

[Tim C]

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.

[officialtony]

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.

[mcrowder]

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?)

[GarthB]

"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."

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]

[LMan]

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.

[Rich]

Originally posted by GarthB
"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."

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 a "I get what I want or I'm going home" attitude.

If you feel that strongly, you should work to get rid of the escape clause.

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.

[Kaliix]

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!

[GarthB]

"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."

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]

[Kaliix]

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.

[Kaliix]

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.

Originally posted by GarthB
"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."

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

[ozzy6900]

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!

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Kaliix
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.

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.

[Kaliix]

Garth,
Agreed.

Originally posted by GarthB

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.

[David B]

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