The good news is that Steve has committed to doing this again next year. And so I start thinking about next year. So on Monday morning, first thing I do is send off an email to Libby.
In this email I do two things. First, I suggest a schedule of practices and games that is somewhat between last season’s all games and this season’s 2 and 1. The schedule I suggest is:
Week 1 - Practices (Like this year)
Weeks 2-5 Two games and one practice (Like this year)
Weeks 6-9 Switch to practicing once every other week (Creating two extra games)
Week 10 - Games
Week 11 - Playoffs
The idea being that additionally in Weeks 10 or 11 there could be a rain makeup day as well.
This schedule would actually create 3 extra games as it would eliminate a second practice that came in Week 2. Further the idea of doing a rain make up day in Week 10 or 11, and if there are no rainouts using that as a practice day instead, seems like something that would be nice. We had more rainouts this year then last, but it seems like acknowledging that games will be canceled in the schedule seems like a wise move.
Now while that’s the bulk of the email, the second line (after thanking her for her work) read “As an FYI, I am planning on sending letters to the Park District Commissioners, which while touching on a couple of other areas, is focused on the idea of keeping kids from the same grade together for the two years they are in Triple A, Majors, or Pony"
Now, I’m not sure if I had mentioned this before, or not, but Libby has an “auto response” which sends you an email saying that she got your email and will get back to you with-in 24 hours. If you recall she basically ignored several emails from Steve and I so that was a complete joke. However, out of courtesy, I did wait 24 hours before sending off my letter to the Park District Commissioners, with a CC to the Executive Director of the Park District. That email reads as follows:
Dear Commissioner (Insert Commissioner’s name here),
My name is Barkeep49 and I am would like to take this opportunity to give you some feedback on the Boys Majors (5th and 6th grade) baseball program. For the last two seasons I have coached, along with my friend Steve XXXX, a team in the league. While we are far too young to have any children play we do it because we enjoy working with youth and think baseball is fun.
The idea that playing sports should be fun is a philosophy that is certainly embraced by the Park District staff. This combined with the idea that each player should have the opportunity to grow their skills, forms the backbone of the Majors’ philosophy, in accordance with the Park District’s overall goals. The staff have done an excellent job of setting up a league which promotes these ideas. Perhaps the staff’s strongest moment came when they discovered that several coaches were not following rules regarding playing time. They took immediate and swift action to address the problem.
Unfortunately, other communication was not always so swift. From our own experience, and from talking to others, Steve and I know that emails were often ignored. At one point we even requested a meeting with a Park District staff member and gave several times which would work. This email was one of several that were ignored.
One area where feedback has not been ignored, however, is in the attempt to put together fair teams. This has proven to be a problem, we know, not just in Majors but in Triple A and Pony as well. I have seen this first hand, with our team last year having a third of the players on the team play travel baseball and our team this year which did not have nearly the same strength in our best players. In several nearby suburbs the Park Districts and Athletic Associations have found a solution to this problem which also fits in perfectly with the Park District’s philosophy.
The idea is that players of the same grade move up together as a team with-in a league. So, for instance, the players we have who are 5th graders this year would be the 6th graders on our team next year. They would be joined by kids who are 4th graders this year and who would come from many different Triple A teams. This provides numerous benefits with only a few drawbacks. First, it rewards coaches who invest time in developing all players’ skills. For instance, this year we had a player who wanted desperately to play catcher, but whose skills were lacking. Throughout the season Steve and I worked with this young man so that by the end of the season he was able to be a productive catcher for us. I know that next year, when he is in 6th grade, he will be a regular catcher for whatever team he is on. While I can’t wait to see how he catches next year when we play his team, I have to admit that it is frustrating to know that some other team is going to benefit from the hard work we have done this year.
Furthermore, time is wasted every year getting to know our players. While under the plan you would still have to get to know half a team (or slightly more if some players didn’t return to the league) this is far more manageable then trying to learn the skills and talents of a full roster. Just as important as our getting to know the players, is the players getting to know each other. This speaks to one of the drawbacks of this system. Players would not meet as many kids as before. While having the opportunity to meet different kids is important, more important is the relationship that the players form once they’ve met. It can take a full season for a squad to come together as a team, even when teamwork and team comrade is a major focus. Therefore, by the time they come together, and start to form meaningful relationships, the season is over and they might not see some of these peers again until high school. It seems like it would be far more rewarding to know that the peers you have met and grown to like are going to be your teammates again come next spring. Also by having half of your squad return, it encourages leadership. The 6th graders already know what the expectations of the coaches are and can help set the right tone for the younger players.
The other major potential criticism of this system is that some players would still have 2 coaches as the coaches move up in leagues with their children. Even this is not as bad as it first seems, as there are quite a few siblings who are 2 years apart (on our team alone there were 4 different kids who had a sibling two grades younger than them). With many coaches coaching in multiple leagues this means that as one child graduates to the next league, the coach could simply stay with the same team as a younger child would join it. Furthermore, even if a player had two different coaches, they are no worse off then they are today, while still experiencing many of the same positive social and leadership aspects that this program would offer.
I thank you for your time and consideration by reading this letter and also thank you for the jobs you do in helping Highland Park have such an excellent recreation program.
Sincerely,
Barkeep49
Now if you remember, this email came about because of a conversation I had with Kevin, a park district employee. He had told me about the idea of keeping kids on the same team, I liked it, and he told me it was the Park District Commissioners who vetoed the idea. I didn’t really know what to expect after sending this letter. I am very familiar with how a local school district operates, and letters such as mine are generally sent to the circular file.
I sent this letter at around 7:30 AM, before I left for work. By 12 o’clock I had received 3 replies. By 4:30, 4 of the 5 Commissioners, plus the Executive Director, had sent me replied. What was interesting was that the Commissioners focused on. In a 900+ word letter I spent 56 words on lack of response from Libby which so irked me and Steve. But yet that was the point that all of the board members latched onto in their responses. It was very interesting.
Of the responses, I liked the Executive Director’s the best as he was the only one to address the letter in a holistic sense. He promised that he would get back to me soon with a longer reply and that the email would be passed on to the staff.
Overall I am quite pleased with the response I’m getting. And then I get the phone call. I’m driving in my car so I don’t see the caller id before picking it up and so I am a little surprised when I hear the voice of Libby’s boss, Michael. The email has been forwarded to him and he would like to have a meeting along with “Dave”. I have no clue who “Dave” is so I ask Michael and he asks someone what Dave’s title is before telling me that he doesn’t know Dave’s title but Dave is his boss. OOOOOOOOK then.
So thinking this over, I ponder what this meeting is going to be. I feel confident heading into it, but have no clue what they’re going after. Someone suggests that perhaps they’re building up a case against Libby to try and fire her. That thought makes me uncomfortable. Someone else suggests that they’re going to be very annoyed with me. I partially think this too, and so I print out all the correspondence Steve and I had with Libby this year and focus on what I feel the strongest points of the proposed system of keeping teams together are.
The day of the meeting comes. I go to the Park District Head Quarters not really knowing what to expect. When I get to the center no one really knows where Dave is, and since Michael’s office is in a different building, it’s very unclear where the meeting is. So I sort of loiter around in the sports wing hoping it’s the right place to be. Normally this wouldn’t be a big deal as I would just whip out my phone and play some Tetris, but my phone’s battery is nearly dead and I don’t want to risk it dying on me. A few minutes after the time we were supposed to meet, Michael comes out and escorts me into a conference room.
It’s the moment of truth. Dave, will be joining us shortly, but Michael kicks off the meeting without him. I can see in front of him a little sheet with Pro and Con written and things written beneath it. Sure enough he kicks off the meeting discussing the idea of keeping kids on the same team. I can tell right off the bat that he’s not going for it. Now mind you, this means I was a bit misled as I was informed by Kevin that the staff was behind it but it was the commissioners who put the kibosh on it.
Now either Michael is worn down or he’s not my greatest fan. I’m choosing option B. However, a few minutes into the meeting, Dave comes in and the whole tenor changes. When it was just Michael and I it was polite but there wasn’t any real excitement. Dave makes it clear right off the bat that he was just blown away by the fact that Steve and I volunteer our time. While Michael was just talking about the idea because he had to, Dave was more interested in discussing the idea. And in the end their opinion didn’t change.
Their essential argument was this: it would cause nearly as many problems as it would create. What I failed to take into account in my initial email was pushy parents. Basically their argument was that if a team was bad in the first year, they would demand to have their child moved in the second year. And if they didn’t like the coach they would demand to be moved in the second year. This being the city that it is, the Park District would basically have to accede to the request, as well. They also said, at first, that it wouldn’t make for “fairer” teams in terms of talent allocation, but I think I won them over on that point.
While most of the meeting was spent on the idea of keeping the players on the same team, we did touch the area of communication. Basically Michael said that he wished he had been made aware of the issue. In retrospect I wish we had done this and conceded that this was a fair point and agreed to do this in the future. The reason we didn’t is the comments we’ve heard about Michael not really caring about the things that go on. However, that’s not really an excuse and was a definite mistake on our part. However, this was not a huge focus of the meeting, which is just as well. What was a big focus was the main thrust of my letter, and Dave’s love fest for me and Steve.
So in the end, the meeting didn’t accomplish what I had hoped. Sure they claim that they would discuss it again in the spring, but I don’t really think that they’ll do anything. But I’m very happy with it anyway. Very happy. First, regardless of how they put together the teams for next year, I have a feeling that Steve and I will not have a crappy team. Frankly, though, that’s the least of it. My biggest problem this season was feeling marginalized. Perhaps, this wasn’t entirely fair as Libby was more dropping the ball universally. But from the start of the season when up until 10 days before the first practice, Steve and I weren’t even sure if we were going to have a team to a coach, to the way Libby ignored us all season, to the fact that we couldn’t get the same weather updates and mailings, was all very frustrating. And I think that this whole affair will ensure that Steve and I won’t be casually pushed aside. Short of some kind of major safety issue, I also can’t see the need to ever contact the board again, which is a good thing.
And so thus ended the little post season excitement (a better word then drama). In my wrap up post I am going to take a sort of look at the season as a whole and judging my own performance. Thanks for the patience you’ve had, both in general, and for reading through this post.
No comments:
Post a Comment