Local politics blues

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

Input is one thing. Acting on that input is another. We all get a lot of the former - but the latter...?

That was my point. Having a conversation is not equal to having input. It is only input if the conversation has an impact on the decision which follows.

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

That was my point. Having a conversation is not equal to having input. It is only input if the conversation has an impact on the decision which follows.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Coaches talk to us during the game. Do they have input on your calls?

Not the same thing. Assignors talk to coaches for different reasons. They may talk to them to identify a problem and maybe to then follow up on that information themselves. A court official does not have the same working relationship.

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

In the sense that if they want to call an assignor and make comments, they can - but very seldom does that have any appreciable effect on who gets what playoff games and where. And they certainly aren't casting votes or filling out ballots, or hiring officials directly like apparently happens where you folks are. That's the point I was trying to make.

All I am saying in your example they have input. That does not mean the impact of that input is great or that their influence is even significant. It just means they have some say and it is up to the assignors to decide how much influence they ultimately at the end of the day. I would suspect it only goes so far by assignors that have an officiating background.

Peace

[Brad]

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

you seem to think that you are entitled to games just because you have reached a certain level.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion. I don't assume I'm entitled to anything. However, I did work to attain certain achievements.

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

face it, when regimes change, so does the balance of power, whether it is officiating, business, or politics.

I don't liken a non-profit organization to a "regime" and disagree that it should be run like one.

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

btw you sued because you didn't get your way or felt you were not treated fairly, how did the lawsuit turn out? sounds like your group lost which indicates things were satisfactory in the eyes of the law

No, we sued because the board of directors of the organization were not following the own organizations constitution, procedures and policies. If they had, there would have never been a lawsuit.

Also, your second statement is laughable. You must have never been involved in a lawsuit or the law at all to believe that a court's ruling, or a lawsuit not winning equals everything was "satisfactory in the eyes of the law".

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

must be a very nice view from your tower

Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

you seem to think that you are entitled to games just because you have reached a certain level.

Also, I do think that members or an organization should be treated fairly based on what the organizations leaders have said they would do. There was a system in place to assign games. That system was manipulated so as to "punish" those that the board of directors did not like. That's not being fair -- it's being vindictive.

I still worked plenty of games. I was in a position where I was working a good lower-level college schedule as well as for two different D1 supervisors at the time. That was one of the reasons that I was able to put my name on a lawsuit. It was not a surprise that the leadership manipulated schedules -- that's why the majority of the organization just went along with it ... most are too scared to stick their neck out and put their name on the line, knowing that there will be payback.

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

you think that you could remain neutral toward someone you do not care for?

As far as my dislike for that person, possibly not. However, I hold the policies of an organization in higher regard than my own personal viewpoints.

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

you would not take care of the people who supported you over the ones that didn't?

It was not the president's place to "take care" of anyone as it relates to scheduling games in an organization with well over 500 members. The president is not in charge of scheduling. However, he used his influence and intimidation with members to get his way ... like a petulant child, rather than dealing with things like a rational adult.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I was at the October 2009 meeting in Houston where Tony was spewing fire and brimstone. A few years later and it's a decidedly different tune.

Still up on YouTube for everyone's enjoyment!

Tony Timmons - UIL - YouTube

A really funny part of the video is when James Batiste walks up to Tony Timmons and whispers in his ear that he is being videotaped. Really shows Batiste's mindset -- he did and still does a lot of stuff in secrecy.

And, BTW, I was the one videoing it from my phone ... not for any nefarious reasons either -- a couple of my friends weren't able to make the meeting and I wanted them to be able to see and hear for themselves what Tony said.

Many of his statements were entered into TASO's lawsuit against the UIL (which is still ongoing I believe) ... That's what happens when you shoot off at the hip and act like such a big shot.

In Texas we have a phrase for people like that: All hat and no cattle!

[JRutledge]

And this is why organizations should get away from assigning and let a conference to schools do it themselves. If someone does not like you or treat you fair, you can go elsewhere.

Again that is why I am blessed to be in our system. It might not be perfect, but I can work in many places.

Peace