RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => Texas Topics => Topic started by: texnewref on May 02, 2011, 11:51:42 AM
-
This is the original proposal that was agreed upon between Castleberry and Timmons and then rejected by the TASO Board.
Proposed TASO – Football AGREEMENT with the UIL
1. After becoming an approved member of TASO, all TASO-Football members wishing to officiate UIL football games will then register their status as a TASO-Football official active member with the UIL. The UIL will not charge any registration or membership fee. However, the UIL may require payment for its costs associated with certain specific expense items relating to particular costs such as background check, etc. The UIL will not charge any such fee without first notifying the TASO-Football board. The UIL will give an explanation of charges if fees are assessed.
2. Social security numbers will not be required by the UIL as part of the registration process.
3. The UIL will not provide the list of the names of registered officials to any third party vendors or other outside parties unless legally required to do so.
4. TASO-Football and the UIL will work in conjunction with each other to develop an official “Football Chapter Application” to be filled out by chapters whose members wish to officiate UIL-sanctioned contests. Such application will not require payment of any costs or fees and the privacy issues relating to individual member registration will also apply to the Chapter Application. The UIL agrees to accept all currently recognized TASO-Football chapters.
5. The UIL will require that any official who works a UIL-sanctioned football game must be an active member of an approved local TASO-football chapter and the TASO state organization. The UIL will not seek to register non-TASO members as football officials.
6. TASO will operate as an independent trade association and all members of TASO-Football are not employees of TASO. Further, TASO-Football members registered with the UIL will not be considered or treated as employees of the UIL. All members of TASO-Football will accept assignments from a designated TASO-Football assigning authority as independent contractors. As independent contractors, the UIL may not mandate a particular uniform or tool of trade not approved by TASO-Football, or otherwise seek to in any way treat TASO-Football members as employees or violate their status as independent contractors. TASO-Football will change its uniform requirements to allow UIL commemorative caps to be worn during State Championship games (if provided) and will require them to be worn.
7. Neither the UIL nor TASO-Football will create or approve any new football chapters unless there is sufficient evidence that the current chapters in the area in question are not adequately covering the school districts with which they have agreements. If it is determined that a new chapter is needed, that chapter must apply and be approved by both TASO-football and the UIL.
8. The UIL agrees that it will not in the future seek to affiliate a non-TASO football chapter with the UIL as long as TASO-Football complies with the agreement finalized between TASO-Football and the UIL. If the UIL believes that TASO-Football is in breach of the final agreement, the UIL will be required to give specific written notice of any alleged breach and will provide TASO-Football with an adequate opportunity to cure. Any disagreements regarding such breach or cure will be submitted to a neutral arbitrator for resolution.
9. TASO-Football along with the UIL and its member schools agree to fully follow the compensation schedule provided for in Section 1204 of the UIL Constitution.
10. The UIL will continue to use NCAA football rules, including UIL exceptions, for all games.
11. The UIL Legislative Counsel and its member schools have the sole authority to set the contest rules for the games in which they participate.
12. The TASO-Football board of directors will be restructured so that every approved chapter will have a voting representative on the TASO-Football board. The UIL Director of Officials will continue to be an Ex-Officio (non-voting) member of the TASO-Football Board of Directors and there will be up to three (3) TASO-Football members on the UIL football board. Those non-voting members will be the TASO-Football president and two other TASO-Football members appointed by the UIL Director of Officials.
13. TASO-Football will continue to hold its individual members and chapters accountable for their actions. When a UIL member school files a complaint and it is determined a violation has occurred, TASO-Football will inform the UIL of the disciplinary action imposed on the individual(s) and/or chapter(s) with the understanding that the specifics of the discipline will be held in confidence and no UIL member school will know the details of any action that was taken. The UIL will not be notified when a member or chapter is disciplined for a violation not concerning the UIL or one of its members. However, in such instances, TASO-Football may notify the UIL if needed. TASO-Football may also notify the UIL of disciplinary actions taken against TASO-Football member(s) and chapter(s) for incidents involving UIL member schools when no official complaint was filed. The Disciplinary process and procedures implemented by TASO-Football will be the only disciplinary process that TASO-Football members will be required to submit to. However, the UIL may revoke the UIL registration of a TASO-Football member for a violation of registration or a provision of Section 1204. Furthermore, when a UIL member school files a complaint with the UIL, such complaint shall also be sent to the TASO office. In addition, the UIL will support any disciplinary action taken by TASO-Football against a member or chapter as long as the member or chapter was given due process and appeal, pursuant to the TASO By-Laws.
14. TASO-Football members will file UIL incident reports in a timely manner on the UIL website. A copy of the incident report will automatically go to the proper UIL and TASO-Football designees.
15. TASO-Football may purchase rulebooks from the UIL at the UIL’s cost plus a nominal fee for processing, shipping and handling. TASO-Football will notify the UIL as to the number of rulebooks it will need on or before March 15 and is responsible for accepting and paying for all rulebooks ordered.
16. TASO-Football will continue to be the sole provider of rules and mechanics training and testing materials for its members. The UIL will have access to member test results in a pass/fail format.
17. To avoid any future litigation between the parties, both parties agree that a process for dispute resolution will be created that provides for a process to resolve any future disagreements or misunderstandings and that will provide for an arbitration process to resolve any future problems.
18. This document contains the basic terms of the agreement between the UIL and TASO-Football. These terms will be incorporated into a formal written agreement that will be signed and approved by TASO-Football board and the UIL Executive Director. The formal agreement will be prepared and implemented in such a way that it will be binding and enforceable. Both TASO-Football and the UIL will take whatever action is required to amend their bylaws or Constitution and Contest Rules (if so required) to accommodate the effectuation of this agreement. This agreement will not be considered final until such formal agreement has been executed by both TASO and the UIL.
19. Upon final execution of the formal agreement – the parties will file a joint stipulated agreement with the court to advise the court that by agreement of the parties, TASO-Football officials will no longer be subject to the injunction currently in place.
-
I think a more accurate statement would be that parts of it were requested to be modified by the TASO Football Board. It should also be pointed out the document had not been approved by TASO, TASO Football Div, the UIL, the Legislative Council, or the attorneys (or anyone else who might have had a legitimate claim to a "right of review".) It was a great starting document that showed some significant coordination between 2 individuals doing what they thought was best for their respective organizations. But it was never likely going to be a final agreement.
-
I think a more accurate statement would be that parts of it were requested to be modified by the TASO Football Board. It should also be pointed out the document had not been approved by TASO, TASO Football Div, the UIL, the Legislative Council, or the attorneys (or anyone else who might have had a legitimate claim to a "right of review".) It was a great starting document that showed some significant coordination between 2 individuals doing what they thought was best for their respective organizations. But it was never likely going to be a final agreement.
^flag
Well put! But my real concerns are about how cozy Cooper and the :!# Dancing Monkey are; especially if they're busy bartering some kind of independent "agreement" between the two of them that they think they can go back and "sell" to their respective organizations. My question is did TASO State ever give its express permission to Cooper to go out and effect some kind of TASO agreement with the Manor Road Crowd and, if so, exactly how much power did TASO actually extend to Cooper in trying to achieve this? In my heart, I truly can't believe that that ever happened. Is anyone out there in the "know" about this? z^
-
I also find it interesting that the first post ever by txnewref was this document??? Can anyone else confirm that this is the document? No offense txnewref but I don't trust anyone.
I am glad TASO turned down this document/registration process.
-
Donald Trump has his team of crack investigators enroute to find out if it is authentic. ;D
-
Here is the final proposal.
Proposed TASO – Football AGREEMENT with the UIL
1. After becoming an approved member of TASO, all TASO-Football members wishing to officiate UIL football games will then register their status as a TASO-Football active member with the UIL. The UIL will not charge any registration or membership fee. However, the UIL may require payment for its costs associated with certain specific expense items relating to particular costs such as background checks, etc. The UIL will not charge any such fee without first notifying the TASO-Football board. The UIL will give an itemized explanation of charges if fees are assessed.
2. Social security numbers will not be required by the UIL as part of the registration process.
3. The UIL will not provide the list of the names of registered officials to any third party vendors or other outside parties unless legally required to do so.
4. TASO-Football and the UIL will work in conjunction with each other to develop an official “Football Chapter Application Information Form” to be filled out by chapters whose members wish to officiate UIL-sanctioned contests. Such application information form will not require payment of any costs or fees and the privacy issues relating to individual member registration will also apply to the Chapter Application Information Form. The UIL agrees to accept all currently recognized TASO-Football chapters.
5. The UIL will require that any official who works a UIL-sanctioned football game must be an active member of an approved local TASO-football chapter and the TASO state organization. The UIL will not seek to register non-TASO members as football officials.
6. TASO will operate as an independent trade association and all members of TASO-Football are not employees of TASO. Further, TASO-Football members registered with the UIL will not be considered or treated as employees of the UIL. All members of TASO-Football will accept assignments from a designated TASO-Football assigning authority as independent contractors. As independent contractors, the UIL may not mandate a particular uniform or tool of trade not approved by TASO-Football, or otherwise seek to in any way treat TASO-Football members as employees or violate their status as independent contractors. TASO-Football will change its uniform requirements to allow UIL commemorative caps to be worn during State Championship games (if provided) and will require them to be worn.
7. Neither the UIL nor TASO-Football will create or approve any new football chapters unless there is sufficient evidence that the current chapters in the area in question are not adequately covering the school districts with which they have agreements. If it is determined that a new chapter is needed, that chapter must apply and be approved by both TASO-football and the UIL. TASO-Football and the UIL will work in conjunction to create an application for a new chapter.
8. The UIL agrees that it will not in the future seek to affiliate a non-TASO football chapter with the UIL as long as TASO-Football complies with the agreement finalized between TASO-Football and the UIL. If the UIL either party believes that TASO-Football the other party is in breach of the final agreement, the UIL such party will be required to give specific written notice of any alleged breach and will provide TASO-Football the alleged breaching party with an adequate opportunity to cure. Any disagreements regarding such breach or cure will be submitted to a neutral arbitrator for resolution.
9. TASO-Football along with the UIL and its member schools agree to fully follow the compensation schedule provided for in Section 1204 of the UIL Constitution.
10. The UIL will continue to use NCAA football rules, including UIL exceptions, for all games.
11. The UIL Legislative Counsel and its member schools have the sole authority to set the contest rules for the games in which they participate.
12. The TASO-Football board of directors will be restructured so that every approved chapter will have a voting representative on the TASO-Football board. The UIL Director of Officials will be an Ex-Officio (non-voting) member of the TASO-Football Board of Directors and there will be up to three (3) TASO-Football members on the UIL football board. Those non-voting members will be the TASO-Football president and two other TASO-Football members appointed by the UIL Director of Officials.
13. TASO-Football will continue to hold its individual members and chapters accountable for their actions. When a UIL member school files a complaint and it is determined a violation has occurred, TASO-Football will inform the UIL of the disciplinary action imposed on the individual(s) and/or chapter(s) with the understanding that the specifics of the discipline will be held in confidence and no UIL member school will know the details of any action that was taken. The UIL will not be notified when a member or chapter is disciplined for a violation not concerning the UIL or one of its members. However, in such instances, TASO-Football may notify the UIL if needed. TASO-Football may also notify the UIL of disciplinary actions taken against TASO-Football member(s) and chapter(s) for incidents involving UIL member schools when no official complaint was filed. The Disciplinary process and procedures implemented by TASO-Football will be the only disciplinary process that TASO-Football members will be required to submit to. However, the UIL may revoke the UIL registration of a TASO-Football member for a violation of registration or a provision of Section 1204. Furthermore, when a UIL member school files a complaint with the UIL, such complaint shall also be sent to the TASO office. In addition, the UIL will support any disciplinary action taken by TASO-Football against a member or chapter as long as the member or chapter was given due process and appeal pursuant to the TASO-Football By-Laws Operating Procedures.
14. TASO-Football members will file UIL incident reports in a timely manner on the UIL website. A copy of the incident report will automatically go to the proper UIL and TASO-Football designees.
15. TASO-Football may purchase rulebooks from the UIL at the UIL’s cost plus a nominal fee for processing, shipping and handling. TASO-Football will notify the UIL as to the number of rulebooks it will need on or before March 15 and is responsible for accepting and paying for all rulebooks ordered.
16. TASO-Football will continue to be the sole provider of rules and mechanics training and testing materials for its members. The UIL will have access to member test results in a pass/fail format.
17. To avoid any future litigation between the parties, both parties agree that a process for dispute resolution will be created that provides for a process to resolve any future disagreements or misunderstandings and that will provide for an arbitration process to resolve any future problems.
18. This document contains the basic terms of the agreement between the UIL and TASO-Football. These terms will be incorporated into a formal written agreement that will be signed and approved by TASO-Football board and the UIL Executive Director. The formal agreement will be prepared and implemented in such a way that it will be binding and enforceable. Both TASO-Football and the UIL will take whatever action is required to amend their bylaws or Constitution and Contest Rules (if so required) to accommodate the effectuation of this agreement. This agreement will not be considered final until such formal agreement has been executed by both TASO and the UIL.
19. Upon final execution of the formal agreement – the parties will file a joint stipulated agreement with the court to advise the court that by agreement of the parties, TASO-Football officials will no longer be subject to the injunction currently in place.
20. Where in conflict, the provisions of this agreement shall supersede any conflicting language in Section 1204 or any UIL Constitutional Provision or Rule.
-
Any outcome that doesn't remove the schools/coaches from the assignment process is a missed opportunity and a failure. Testing for competency, and "accountability" are issues that can be addressed, and the UIL can have their fee schedule. But, you gotta get schools/coaches out of the assignment process. Permanent improvement will not happen until that is accomplished.
-
Donald Trump has his team of crack investigators enroute to find out if it is authentic. ;D
^flag
So long as they strictly stay away from looking for things like "birth certificates!" z^
-
I also find it interesting that the first post ever by txnewref was this document??? Can anyone else confirm that this is the document? No offense txnewref but I don't trust anyone.
I am glad TASO turned down this document/registration process.
No offense taken. I found them online at http://www.sfachapterfootball.com/notices.html
-
Any outcome that doesn't remove the schools/coaches from the assignment process is a missed opportunity and a failure. Testing for competency, and "accountability" are issues that can be addressed, and the UIL can have their fee schedule. But, you gotta get schools/coaches out of the assignment process. Permanent improvement will not happen until that is accomplished.
This is a fight for survival as an independent association not an opportunity to "air dirty laundry". You don't "gotta get" coaches out of the assignment process. If local boards feel that is the best way to meet the needs of their members and schools by having picks or not having picks for that matter, then who are you or me or UIL to say any different?
I am not saying I disagree with you just that this is not the time or the place to have the conversation.
-
Cooper is a member of our chapter and that document has been on the site for a couple of months now. Our chapter website may not be the best, but it is now full of lots of good information for officials.
-
Any outcome that doesn't remove the schools/coaches from the assignment process is a missed opportunity and a failure. Testing for competency, and "accountability" are issues that can be addressed, and the UIL can have their fee schedule. But, you gotta get schools/coaches out of the assignment process. Permanent improvement will not happen until that is accomplished.
It appears someone didn’t get the games they wanted at the picks!
-
Txnew: You really MUST be a newbie. You are way off track re Macman. Suggestion...hold your fire until you really know who your target is.
And for what its worth, I get some of the best games in my Chapter and I also would like to see coaches out of the equation.
-
Txnew: You really MUST be a newbie. You are way off track re Macman. Suggestion...hold your fire until you really know who your target is.
And for what its worth, I get some of the best games in my Chapter and I also would like to see coaches out of the equation.
If it’s such a failure why do chapters keep doing it? How about a suggestion on how to fix it?
-
Same reason why so many folks on welfare never get off of it. It is so ingrained that many Chapters and coaches automatically balk at changing. How many years have you been doing this and in how many chapters? About the only folks who like the current system are those who know they are getting games thanks to certain coaches that they would not get if let up to the Chapter. We need to be independent of the coaches and of the UIL.
-
Actually I’ve been calling for 24 years in 4 chapters. I’ve seen games assigned and picked. The good assigned games were given to board members and their ole buddies. And lots of times they were in over their head. After all these years I’m still looking for a method that is fair to everyone.
-
Back to the topic at hand
How is this proposal so bad? It needs some clean up of language and some items but I think it a good starting document. Although it is not unlike similar proposed by TASO to UIL but DR. B said no.
We are going to have to work with UIL like it or not. I just do not want them completely running the show as they do not have our interest at heart.
-
If it’s such a failure why do chapters keep doing it? How about a suggestion on how to fix it?
Say, you're not from around here, are ya?
It is UIL policy - not a TASO or Chapter choice. And the UIL are the contestants. For the contestants to pick their officials is akin to a citizen picking the police officer that will be on duty at a given time. And a defendant picking his judge and jury. I trust you can see the confict of interest. That's how it has ALWAYS been in the UIL. But, for about four decades, things were copacetic, because the UIL leaders knew they needed, and therefore supported, SFOA/SOA/TASO, and worked hand-ih-hand together with SFOA/SOA/TASO. Due to that support, SFOA/SOA/TASO tolerated the UIL assignment system. But, now that the UIL support has vanished, it is time to break the chain. That will take at least some legal action, if not legislative. And we know that some form of both are already taking place. TASO leaders must take this opportunity to remove coaches and schools from the assignment process (more likely a legislative action). Yes, we'll still have to deal with the in-house cronyism issues, But, A) it isn't like this is a phenomenon that would only exist after the schools/coaches are out - it already exists, B) it isn't like that can't be addressed by having a TASO-wide assignment policy that addresses the number of assignments per week and per school, regular season and post-season, for all officials, and each chapter having an assignmnent committee that oversees the assignment secretary.
There's more, like "accountability," but I'll leave that to another time.
-
Yes I am from around here and was member when we were SOA. I do not doubt what you say, but I’m not familiar with a UIL policy that says TASO chapters have to have coaches pick session. Have always thought this was a chapter decision but that officials must be agreed upon by both schools. Are we talking about the regular season? Can you cite the policy where there has to be a pick session for officials and point me in the right direction? Again I’m not saying we should be under the UIL and as you said, they don’t have our best interest at heart.
-
I may be wrong, but I think we are talking (and confusing) about 2 very different things:
-- a draft/coaches selection assignment process vs. a secretary or board based assignment process; and
-- the coaches ability to scratch officials or the ultimate ability to approve the ones that work.
The former is based on what chapters and their local schools do/want. The latter is based on UIL policy.
At the very least, be clear about whether you are talking about a local assignment process or the UIL policy.
-
Coaches selections is a chapter by chapter policy, not a TASO or UIL policy or mandate. At one time I compiled a list of how each chapter in the state does their assignments, by assignment committee, etc, by coaches selections, or by computer generation. I will have to see if I can find that.
Austin has the most unique system, although I believe it has changed a bit since I was in the that chapter. It was all done by computer so there was no accusations of unfairness, although some officials complained about their ratings by the supervisor of officials. Regardless of how the assignments are made, coaches always have the "right" to refuse an official.
As long as the coaches in your area are happy with what you're doing, have at it. I say that although I'm not a fan of coaches selections either.
-
Why would the part of every Chapter having a Vote be crossed out..???? hEaDbAnG
-
Why would the part of every Chapter having a Vote be crossed out..???? hEaDbAnG
As it is currently structured the "Districts" try to have about the same amount of officials. If each chapter has a vote North Texas (nothing against them at all) with @80 officials would have the exact same vote as Houston with about 900 officials. A little disparity.
Current system may not be the best but not really that bad.
-
I noticed that too. Also, after looking at the Chapter website, the phrase "The UIL agrees to accept all currently recognized TASO-Football chapters" is crossed out too. But it's not reflected on the post. I'm wondering about both.
-
Every Chapter having 1 vote is supremely unfair to those Chapters with several hundred members compared to those with less than a hundred. As I understand it, the Districts were roughly configured such that tehre was close to the same number of officials represented in each District.
-
Wow, I thought TASO folks knew the system, but apparently some don't. OK, the UIL's policy is really simple - the opposing participants must agree on the officials. Without getting into specific words, that's about it. There is no actual requirement for UIL participants to use TASO, or any trained or qualified official(s). If I heard it once from Bailey Marshall, Bill Farney, and, yes, Charles Breithaupt, I heard it a dozen times: coaches can use their grandmothers, if they both agree. During the Marshall-Farney years, though, they made sure that schools used TASO officials, or had a darned good reason to use someone else (which, because of their support for TASO, was very, very rare, if it ever happened).
In theory, this mutual agreement concept would assure impartiality. In theory.
How does it work in practice? Assignment practices vary widely across the state. In some areas, the vast majority of assignments are made by the chapter assignor, based upon scratch and/or preferred lists from the soliciting participant. In many cases, the visiting team may not have been consulted, because it knows they have the same ability - they'll get the officials from their home (or preferred) chapter. This is the informal, "you use your officials - I'll use mine," principle. But any visiting team can certainly insist on giving their approval. Some (many?) of those same chapters may also have to accept assignments made directly by coaches. They coach(es) will either contact the officials directly, request specific officials from the chapter, or go through some sort of 'draft' process. This more direct system is what some chapters have to use for the vast majority of their assignments. If there is a chapter anywhere in Texas that has the ability to make all of its assignments without any form of influence from the participants, I'm not aware of it, and it would certainly be an aberration. Even then, any time one of the participants decided to exercise its UIL-given right to 'agree' to the officials, the chapter would have to accommodate. There are probably a bunch of other permutations, but the bottom line is that the participants have the right to select (hand-pick, in many cases) the officials that work their games.
So, how do officials react when they know a coach has the ability to pick him/her, or not pick him/her? In the perfect world, they don't react. They work with absolute impartiality, regardless of the circumstances, or possible repercussions.
But this world isn't perfect.
There have been, and, undoubtedly, still are, individuals that would at least make sure they didn't upset certain coaches (by, at a minimum, not enforcing sideline decorum, uniform/equipment rules, etc.), if not downright made sure those participants were successful.
Officials are the entire justice system for sporting events. They are the police, the prosecutors, the judges, the juries, and the penal officers, all wrapped up in one package. Give me an example of any other justice system in civilized, democratic societies that allows its citizenry to choose, by any method, the police officers that will be on duty at a given time; or allows defendants to choose their prosecutor, judge, or jury; or allows inmates to choose their warden. The conflict of interest is staggering.
The only time participants don't have the official ability to select their officials is when they can't mutually agree. Then the two participants turn to the UIL to secure an assignment. In those cases, the UIL will contact some other chapter, and will ask that chapter for a crew, usually with some form of qualification (i.e., only Division 1, or a certain racial mix, etc.).
Solution: By whatever process (courts, Legislature, or simple capitulation by the UIL), the participants must be removed from the assignment process. Any participant that needs officials may contact any chapter of its choice, and request a crew for a specified assignment, and the chapter will provide a crew (based upon the TASO-wide assignment policy previously mentioned). Note: the "assignment policy" could allow for a certain amount of pre-season 'scratches;' say, a number not to exceed 5% (negotiable) of a chapter. But no specific requests, no 'preferred' list, and no in-season (including post-season) scratches without the participant going through some sort of formal grievance process.
As far as I know, the UIL system is the only one that allows this. The NCAA, the NFL, MLB, the NBA, the NHL - none of them let participants select their officials. It is time to put a stop to it in Texas.
-
Great post. I have worked in a chapter with and without crews. With a pick system and with a secretary/board assignment system. All have their pluses and minuses, but I think the most important thing is to get the coaches out of the process.
Still not sure how it would work, but we really need a system of evaluation that is implemented TASO wide so that officials can be evaluated and told what they need to do to get better. We also need to limit the amount of experience on a crew. I understand that it is great to work with a crew full of Div 1 guys, but think about how much better our younger officials would become if they were allowed to be on a crew with more experienced guys. It would strengthen crews overall and provide for an easier transition process when the older Div. 1 guys hang it up.
-
Great post. I have worked in a chapter with and without crews. With a pick system and with a secretary/board assignment system. All have their pluses and minuses, but I think the most important thing is to get the coaches out of the process.
Still not sure how it would work, but we really need a system of evaluation that is implemented TASO wide so that officials can be evaluated and told what they need to do to get better. We also need to limit the amount of experience on a crew. I understand that it is great to work with a crew full of Div 1 guys, but think about how much better our younger officials would become if they were allowed to be on a crew with more experienced guys. It would strengthen crews overall and provide for an easier transition process when the older Div. 1 guys hang it up.
I do not want to be on a crew of old officials. I get more out of the fellowship from officials my age on my crew then I would if I had to spend my Friday nights with older more experienced football officials. Dont underestimate this intrinsic value. They dont have the same life problems and officiating problems that I have. I am sure they would object from a youngen coming in and interupting their way of doing things that have worked for them for so long.
I would be in favor of a week 2 or 3 crew switch where you switch U or HL from one crew to another crew to see what best practices they can provide the new crew and what best practices they can take from the crew they worked with back to their home crew. An exchange program for lack of a better term would help get the same type of benefits I believe you are looking for. Hmmmmm I like this idea I may put it out at a meeting eventually.
-
I do not want to be on a crew of old officials. I get more out of the fellowship from officials my age on my crew then I would if I had to spend my Friday nights with older more experienced football officials. Dont underestimate this intrinsic value. They dont have the same life problems and officiating problems that I have. I am sure they would object from a youngen coming in and interupting their way of doing things that have worked for them for so long.
I would be in favor of a week 2 or 3 crew switch where you switch U or HL from one crew to another crew to see what best practices they can provide the new crew and what best practices they can take from the crew they worked with back to their home crew. An exchange program for lack of a better term would help get the same type of benefits I believe you are looking for. Hmmmmm I like this idea I may put it out at a meeting eventually.
Sounds like our system in Dallas. Crews must be reformed every two years and have a strict count they must adhere to that does not allow all Divisions 1's, or all Division 3's. What you end up with a lot of time is "senior" crews of 4 very experienced D1's with a Div 3 or 4 on the crew for a few years. By forcing the crews to reform every year with the numbering restriction, you force crews to bring in young officials for training and development.
-
Sounds like our system in Dallas. Crews must be reformed every two years and have a strict count they must adhere to that does not allow all Divisions 1's, or all Division 3's. What you end up with a lot of time is "senior" crews of 4 very experienced D1's with a Div 3 or 4 on the crew for a few years. By forcing the crews to reform every year with the numbering restriction, you force crews to bring in young officials for training and development.
What I did not like about that system was that there was a back in requirement of adding up to no more then 12. I am a 2 and everyone else on my crew is a 3. Where do you think the big crews would go to get their new members? That would have left me with all of the dreads of Div 1's to choose from and I would rather get a 5 or a 4 then some of them. I tried to meet them half way with a friendly ammendment that no one could loose more then 1 person from their crew in any year but the people who were pushing the rule did not go for it.
Does it bring in young officials or new officials? There is a big disconnect between young officials and new officials in chapter vernacular. There are few quality young officials (I define that as under the age of 40 and a division 3 or better and on a crew). New officials are anyone that has been officiating for less then 5 years IMO. So the question to you is are the young officials that are coming in under the age of 40 or are they another guy in their 60's that got started officiating later in life. I would be interested to hear more about that dynamic.
-
What I did not like about that system was that there was a back in requirement of adding up to no more then 12. I am a 2 and everyone else on my crew is a 3. Where do you think the big crews would go to get their new members? That would have left me with all of the dreads of Div 1's to choose from and I would rather get a 5 or a 4 then some of them. I tried to meet them half way with a friendly ammendment that no one could loose more then 1 person from their crew in any year but the people who were pushing the rule did not go for it.
Does it bring in young officials or new officials? There is a big disconnect between young officials and new officials in chapter vernacular. There are few quality young officials (I define that as under the age of 40 and a division 3 or better and on a crew). New officials are anyone that has been officiating for less then 5 years IMO. So the question to you is are the young officials that are coming in under the age of 40 or are they another guy in their 60's that got started officiating later in life. I would be interested to hear more about that dynamic.
I have been in Dallas for 20+ years and was here for the implementation of the crew system, so I also have seen both coaches drafts and Board assignments. Lots of guys in the late 20's and early 30's on crews. Generally, anybody that starts after the age of 50 is going to have a hard time moving very far up.
-
Every Chapter having 1 vote is supremely unfair to those Chapters with several hundred members compared to those with less than a hundred. As I understand it, the Districts were roughly configured such that tehre was close to the same number of officials represented in each District.
I understand numbers have power however Its like being a Republican in San Fransico . A member of a small Chapter has no voice. Other than for the principle of it Why would a small chapter even take part in the process. Just call Houston and find out how its gonna be. (no disrespect houston your just the biggest chapter I know of )
-
The small chapters DO have a voice. They are banded together with a few other small ones and exercise their voice through that District. There are no small Chapters in Houston's district. So you do not compete with them.
-
I started up a new crew this year. In essence I am a 2 just shy of 1. The rest of my crew are 3's and 1 - 4. Though short on paper experience I would put these guys up mechanically and professionally against many of the "seasoned vets". Nonetheless, I can almost guarantee that the picks for our intial years will be very slim if any to say the least. It is the committment and dedication for the long haul that I selected these "quality" individuals. I have been on crews with coaches' picks and seen the politics associated with board assigns. I too have noticed chapters require a revamping of a crew makeup after a period of time. I applaud this as an opportunity for lower division memebers. I thought perhaps the 5A/4A games could be coaches picks and the remainder on a lottery crew basis with a coach pick for a particular crew count as that selection for that particular round in those divisions and TAPPS. But what do I know?? ^no
-
The small chapters DO have a voice. They are banded together with a few other small ones and exercise their voice through that District. There are no small Chapters in Houston's district. So you do not compete with them.
Come on Mikey. If memory serves me correct, the “Big 5” were invited to the September 2010 meeting with the UIL. I don’t remember the district reps being there to represent the smaller chapters. Yeah I know, 4 days wasn’t enough notice for all to get there.
-
There were no decisions to be made at that meeting or votes to be taken. There was no need for every Chapter to be individually represented. The organization as a whole was represented and there would have had to have been formal votes by District Reps before anything could be done. Just like the "agreements" you posted a few days ago. Do you want to say the "agreement" was flawed because it was worked out by only one person from a small chapter? I don't say that. What I say is that when the "agreement" was taken for an official approval, all Chapters were represented and had a voice in the proceedings.
TASO FB has several committees which can make recommendations for changes. Those committees do not automatically include reps from all chapters or all size chapters. But whatever the committee comes up with has to be agreed on by the organization as a whole through our elected reps.
-
No, I’m not saying the agreement was flawed at all. Other than a few word changes I thought it was excellent and showed lots of time and hard work went into its preparation. It appeared to be win-win deal for us. I think that adding #20 was the killer. Without #20, I think we would have had a deal. IMO
-
Under Dr Farney, the original proposal might have been acceptable. Unfortunately that was before some UIL folks said and did some things that caused us to no longer be able to just accept "they would do the right thing". The agreement left some things open that, if we trusted the UIL, would be no problem. But without that basic trust, things had to be spelled out.
-
Yes there is a trust issue with the UIL. If you keep messing with the snake he’ll bite you. But we (TASO) haven’t exactly upheld our end of the bargain in the past. My thoughts are that football has but other sports haven’t. Maybe it’s time for football to make a jump and form our own organization separate from the others? Just thinking out loud!
-
As much as I don’t trust the UIL, I really don’t trust Fitch either. I think his concerns are naturally for his pay check and not in the official’s best interest.
-
It was NOT Fitch who asked for the changes to the "agreement". In fact, he played a minor role during the TASO FB board's review of the document.
-
I never said he had anything to do with the agreement. I’ve known Mike for years and with him it’s always been about Mike.
-
You started this thread (for whatever reason) on the proposal. When you were told the reason for some of the changes were due to current lack of trust in UIL you came back slamming MF. If you just want to slam him then why not bring it up on its own instead of trying to tie him to the proposal.
-
Glad you cleared that up. Now we know he DID have a role in the agreement, regardless of how small. And what was your role in composing or editing of the agreements?
-
Zippo
-
At this time it doesn't matter who had a role. But I would still like to know why the phrase "The UIL agrees to accept all currently recognized TASO-Football chapters" is crossed out?
-
TEXNEWREF, were you at the FebruaryTASO FB board meeting? If you were then you know exactly how the proposal was changed. It was brought to the board and the BOARD as a whole made the changes, not one individual and certainly not Mike Fitch....If you werent at the board meeting, I was and I can tell you for a FACT that is how it was done. The agreement was presented and the board heard a few things in it that it couldnt in good faith agree too. I have known Mike Fitch for 20 years and I can tell you that in that time, it HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT MIKE FITCH.....never has been and never will be.....get your facts straight before you start making accusations on here.....
-
TEXNEWREF, were you at the FebruaryTASO FB board meeting? If you were then you know exactly how the proposal was changed. It was brought to the board and the BOARD as a whole made the changes, not one individual and certainly not Mike Fitch....If you werent at the board meeting, I was and I can tell you for a FACT that is how it was done. The agreement was presented and the board heard a few things in it that it couldnt in good faith agree too. I have known Mike Fitch for 20 years and I can tell you that in that time, it HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT MIKE FITCH.....never has been and never will be.....get your facts straight before you start making accusations on here.....
Known him since intramural ball in college (more than 20 years, but I ain't sayin' how much) - NEVER, EVER been about him. He's the right man for the job.
-
OK you guys have known Mike longer than I have. I’ve only known him about 15 years. I’m not sure what accusations or slam I made about him, other than saying I don’t trust him. I never said he was good or bad in the agreement debate. Over the years you formed your opinion of him and I, as others formed mine. I believe I have the right to my opinion, whether you agree or not.
-
There were no decisions to be made at that meeting or votes to be taken. There was no need for every Chapter to be individually represented. The organization as a whole was represented ...
This post speaks volumes as to the "Big 5's" attitude about the smaller chapters - No need for every chapter to be represented since we "Big 5" were there - The organization as a whole was represented since we "Big 5" were there. I've said many times before that a large part of the fight against the UIL has to do with the "Big 5's" fear of losing the strangle hold they have on the rest of the state. It's a shame some from smaller chapters are buying into the propaganda - rest assured small chapters - this fight is not about you - its about the largest chapters maintaining their monopoly.
-
Sometimes I wonder if you even have a clue what you are talking about.
The"Big 5" did not make any decision. The proposal was presented to the TASO board which is elected by all TASO members.
-
This post speaks volumes as to the "Big 5's" attitude about the smaller chapters - No need for every chapter to be represented since we "Big 5" were there - The organization as a whole was represented since we "Big 5" were there. I've said many times before that a large part of the fight against the UIL has to do with the "Big 5's" fear of losing the strangle hold they have on the rest of the state. It's a shame some from smaller chapters are buying into the propaganda - rest assured small chapters - this fight is not about you - its about the largest chapters maintaining their monopoly.
Cry me a river all of you... If you think the UIL will not be run by the big 5 you are sadly mistaken. If you think the UIL gives 2 hoots about officials you are sadly mistaken. Why dont you propose a way to fix the problem that is financially feasible if it is such a problem? I wonder what group is bigger Houston or the rest of TASO minus the Big 5? IF you do not want to be strangled then create a crew that is worthy enough to call high level games and the coaches will find you. Fix what you can control, look in the mirror first.
-
This post speaks volumes as to the "Big 5's" attitude about the smaller chapters - No need for every chapter to be represented since we "Big 5" were there - The organization as a whole was represented since we "Big 5" were there. I've said many times before that a large part of the fight against the UIL has to do with the "Big 5's" fear of losing the strangle hold they have on the rest of the state. It's a shame some from smaller chapters are buying into the propaganda - rest assured small chapters - this fight is not about you - its about the largest chapters maintaining their monopoly.
"Stranglehold" ???? WTF??? Why not just come out and say it. You are bitter because you think the majority of playoff games are worked by larger Chapters. WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS AD NAUSEUM...If you have more members or you service an area with more schools shouldn't the percentage of games you receive be more???
Smaller chapters service smaller numbers of schools. How many smaller chapters compete against larger chapters for schools to cover??? And how many smaller chapters can even dare go out and try to get a larger coverage area knowing they have a very limited number of officials available? What percentage of guys in a smaller chapter gets 5 or more varsity games a year? What percentage of guys in a larger chapter gets 5 or more varsity games in a year? It is a much smaller number than in the smaller chapters. Is that fair?
You are buying into the UIL "bribe" that all chapters will receive state championship games (which is not even possible!!) Ask some of the basketball guys how that worked for them.
-
"Stranglehold" ???? WTF??? Why not just come out and say it. You are bitter because you think the majority of playoff games are worked by larger Chapters. WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS AD NAUSEUM...If you have more members or you service an area with more schools shouldn't the percentage of games you receive be more???
Smaller chapters service smaller numbers of schools. How many smaller chapters compete against larger chapters for schools to cover??? And how many smaller chapters can even dare go out and try to get a larger coverage area knowing they have a very limited number of officials available? What percentage of guys in a smaller chapter gets 5 or more varsity games a year? What percentage of guys in a larger chapter gets 5 or more varsity games in a year? It is a much smaller number than in the smaller chapters. Is that fair?
You are buying into the UIL "bribe" that all chapters will receive state championship games (which is not even possible!!) Ask some of the basketball guys how that worked for them.
Heck of it is Mike, the chapter Cooter is in worked two State Finals this last year and has worked State Finals nearly every year for the last 10 years of so.
Not sure what his beef is but he has been one to bow to UIL from the beginning of this deal.
-
This post speaks volumes as to the "Big 5's" attitude about the smaller chapters - No need for every chapter to be represented since we "Big 5" were there - The organization as a whole was represented since we "Big 5" were there. I've said many times before that a large part of the fight against the UIL has to do with the "Big 5's" fear of losing the strangle hold they have on the rest of the state. It's a shame some from smaller chapters are buying into the propaganda - rest assured small chapters - this fight is not about you - its about the largest chapters maintaining their monopoly.
I'm from a small chapter and I don't see any problem with the "Big 5" meeting. As long as the information is communicated back to each chapter that is fine. If you were the UIL and seen that only the "small 5" were meeting that would not be showing them much muscle but when you see the "Big 5" then that would make me a little nervous if I were UIL because there is no way the UIL could takeover anything if the "Big 5" are banding together. There is no monopoly. If you go back an look at last years playoff games you will see that Houston had the most and that a vast majority of those were between the schools they cover in the regular season. You take those schools out of the picture and Houston is left with no more playoff games than one of the "small 5" chapters.
-
This post speaks volumes as to the "Big 5's" attitude about the smaller chapters - No need for every chapter to be represented since we "Big 5" were there - The organization as a whole was represented since we "Big 5" were there. I've said many times before that a large part of the fight against the UIL has to do with the "Big 5's" fear of losing the strangle hold they have on the rest of the state. It's a shame some from smaller chapters are buying into the propaganda - rest assured small chapters - this fight is not about you - its about the largest chapters maintaining their monopoly.
So this is going to denigrate into a us vs them issue? Last I looked we are all part of the same organization. We all share the success when a member does well and we bear the burden when a member screws up. I am from the smallest of the "Big 5" and we have been under represented in play off games for a few seasons. Instead of blaming big 'ol "H" town our BOD looked within to see what we are missing and what we can do to make ourselves more appealing to other schools. We have revamped training and communication and our expectations of our membership. Face facts, when a majority of games are played in one or two areas it stands to reason those area chapters are going to work most those games. I would expect with gas prices and the budget crunch you are going to see even more of this in the coming season. Life ain't fair, sometimes you have to work a bit harder to overcome your starting position. Last I looked our football division is headed up by a "small" chapter guy, we have a system in place that is truly represents each member equally. To paraphrase Ben Franklin," Either we all hang together or surely we will all be hung together".
-
Training has greatly improved. Yes communication has improved from years past, but it’s still not where it needs to be. Why was it that I had to post the proposals and TASO didn’t? What was there to hide? They are pretty straight forward. Most of the TASO information we get from this site and not from TASO. All I keep hearing is “BUSINESS AS USUAL”. And that is exactly where we are as far as communication, business as usual.
-
Perhaps because the "proposals" were never anything more than a draft and perhaps because neither TASO nor TASO FB agreed to them. We members do not need to see every document or proposal that is created by another member. The better question is why did anyone think the proposal warranted publication?
-
So this is going to denigrate into a us vs them issue? Last I looked we are all part of the same organization. We all share the success when a member does well and we bear the burden when a member screws up. I am from the smallest of the "Big 5" and we have been under represented in play off games for a few seasons. Instead of blaming big 'ol "H" town our BOD looked within to see what we are missing and what we can do to make ourselves more appealing to other schools. We have revamped training and communication and our expectations of our membership. Face facts, when a majority of games are played in one or two areas it stands to reason those area chapters are going to work most those games. I would expect with gas prices and the budget crunch you are going to see even more of this in the coming season. Life ain't fair, sometimes you have to work a bit harder to overcome your starting position. Last I looked our football division is headed up by a "small" chapter guy, we have a system in place that is truly represents each member equally. To paraphrase Ben Franklin," Either we all hang together or surely we will all be hung together".
Exactly!
For years there has been envy from one chapter to the next. Some is geographical, Amarillo may not get called to work a game in Houston because of travel expense and no one in Houston knows anything about them.
Instead of complaining about "big chapters" vs " small chapters" get off your butt and try to help your chapter get better. You may not work the big game but s omeone in your chapter may get the chance.
Being jealous of what another official, crew, chapter gets is counter productive.
-
Perhaps because the "proposals" were never anything more than a draft and perhaps because neither TASO nor TASO FB agreed to them. We members do not need to see every document or proposal that is created by another member. The better question is why did anyone think the proposal warranted publication?
From the site where I found the proposals it states “TO REVIEW THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS EDITED BY THE TASO-FOOTBALL BOARD AND RESUBMITTED TO TONY TIMMONS WHO DID NOT ACCEPT ITS TERMS”. It looks it was more than just a draft.
-
Heck of it is Mike, the chapter Cooter is in worked two State Finals this last year and has worked State Finals nearly every year for the last 10 years of so.
Not sure what his beef is but he has been one to bow to UIL from the beginning of this deal.
I guess we all have our reasons for either supporting or not supporting UIL - huh Rick???
-
It was a document that was being worked out and negotiated before it could be submitted officially to TASO and UIL. It never got to that stage. Businesses and organizations often try to work out agreements informally before formal submission. This was no different.
-
I guess we all have our reasons for either supporting or not supporting UIL - huh Rick???
Yeah, I do not trust UIL. They have personally screwed me before.
Why do you not trust TASO who you could vote for (which is another subject of apathy we have)
-
"Being jealous of what another official, crew, chapter gets is counter productive."
Too bad that stuff can not be carved away from our rankls.
Someone said it best before me. Look what you and your local organization can do better. Before you cast stones look in your own mirror and get to work. Then your crew look in the mirror. After that get bigger and truly help your local chapter. I can tell you know the vast majority of officials regardless of TASO or UIL slants do not do this and never will.
-
Why do you not trust TASO who you could vote for (which is another subject of apathy we have)
Crew Chiefs that are caught soliciting (for a 3rd time) - and not punished (a letter in the file, excuse me) - one of the state championships I think?
Varsity Assigning Secretary that gives himself playoff games - EVERY WEEK - no recourse - other than a newly formed hand picked committee for "integrity."
TASO Football Pres arrested in a state park (on television) for lewd and salicious behavior.
No background checks - probably because of the previous bullet
**but we've heard all this before.
Then we get a good FB Pres that tried to negotiate a settlement - and because he is from a small chapter and does not kiss the Big 5 butt - they vote him down - or as one put it "a shot across his bow so he knows where the bread is buttered." Castleberry will never be accepted or respected as FB pres because he is not from the 5.
Some of the reasons I don't trust TASO - you asked.
-
Who do you think elected Cooper? ? ?
Most of the issues you cite just shows YOUR chapter did not take care of business.
And re the background check...your comment is as ignorant as Rep Gallego's. Plenty of folks have squeeky clean records before their first offense. Backgrd checks will NEVER stop or catch them. (And I am one who is in favor of having them)
-
And re the background check...your comment is as ignorant as Rep Gallego's. Plenty of folks have squeeky clean records before their first offense. Backgrd checks will NEVER stop or catch them. (And I am one who is in favor of having them)
Are you serious? And you are in law enforcement? Most crimes are committed by repeat offenders - but because some might not have a record before they committed a crime we should not run checks? Really? Are you aware of convicted felons in your chapter? I am aware of a felon in mine - on a crew. Yet TASO is reluctant to run background checks.
-
Until a person commits an offense they have no record. How would a check have prevented us from having a person as president who gets arrested? ? If you have a known felon habve you reported it to TASO?
-
Castleberry due to be@ our Houston chapter meeting Monday night...Perhaps live Q & A
hEaDbAnG
-
Crew Chiefs that are caught soliciting (for a 3rd time) - and not punished (a letter in the file, excuse me) - one of the state championships I think?
Varsity Assigning Secretary that gives himself playoff games - EVERY WEEK - no recourse - other than a newly formed hand picked committee for "integrity."
TASO Football Pres arrested in a state park (on television) for lewd and salicious behavior.
No background checks - probably because of the previous bullet
**but we've heard all this before.
Then we get a good FB Pres that tried to negotiate a settlement - and because he is from a small chapter and does not kiss the Big 5 butt - they vote him down - or as one put it "a shot across his bow so he knows where the bread is buttered." Castleberry will never be accepted or respected as FB pres because he is not from the 5.
Some of the reasons I don't trust TASO - you asked.
Sounds like you need to run for office in your chapter and clean things up................................. I really do not believe the secretary "gives" himself games. Does he work them, yes but if the crew is selected it is selected. Does there need to be a limit on games per week, maybe.
Crew chief solicitation, bring it up in an open meeting and air the laundry. Maybe what you consider solicitation may be authorized chapter school visits during the alloted time.
Like I said earlier, maybe you do not know what you are talking about. Again for another time "the big 5" had nothing to do with the proposal between Cooper and Timmons. That was a TASO board function. The only thing "the Big 5" did was attend an impromptu meeting with UIL to basically tell them their position. Get your facts straight.
-
Crew Chiefs that are caught soliciting (for a 3rd time) - and not punished (a letter in the file, excuse me) - one of the state championships I think?
Varsity Assigning Secretary that gives himself playoff games - EVERY WEEK - no recourse - other than a newly formed hand picked committee for "integrity."
TASO Football Pres arrested in a state park (on television) for lewd and salicious behavior.
No background checks - probably because of the previous bullet
**but we've heard all this before.
Then we get a good FB Pres that tried to negotiate a settlement - and because he is from a small chapter and does not kiss the Big 5 butt - they vote him down - or as one put it "a shot across his bow so he knows where the bread is buttered." Castleberry will never be accepted or respected as FB pres because he is not from the 5.
Some of the reasons I don't trust TASO - you asked.
16,000 members in TASO there are going to be people who make bad decisions and bad people no matter what position they hold if any. If you look at the numbers the percentage of incidents is pretty small. It would be nice if everyone acted with integrity on both sides of the issue. Three years ago TASO's state leadership investigated a report of soliciting games that was substantiated and those members were removed from their leadership position and given a life ban from holding office. BTW a chapter member is who "blew the whistle". I know of members who could teach school but can not officiate because TASO will not clear them until their probation (DUI) is cleared. No we do not have a background check because 1.) like many other contractors we are not mandated to have one, we are never alone with a student athlete. (Unlike band contest where often a student and a judge are alone in a closed room without supervision) 2.) because no one has ever decided who will bear the cost. Face it background checks are a false flag, non-issue. I do not know of any member who is opposed to submitting to a background check. Been through them before, another one won't hurt; In all those cases the cost is borne by the "employer".
Since you brought it up, I think many of us who voted for our current president have been disappointed in some of his actions. His first memo to the membership sounds more like a UIL official than an elected president, he takes in upon his self to begin negotiations without any discussion with the rest of the elected membership, the counsel of our legal representation and our lobbying representation. Some would say this is a bit of an arrogant approach or at least comes across as " I am smarter than you, so I will make this work." All of this at a time when we have the UIL pinned down in court. This has nothing to do with the chapter he comes from so don't insult all of us who voted for him but are somewhat disappointed in his actions.
Coot, I understand there are issues with TASO those we (members) can fix. With the UIL, a state agency, you have two choices... quit or shut up and take it.
-
16,000 members in TASO there are going to be people who make bad decisions and bad people no matter what position they hold if any. If you look at the numbers the percentage of incidents is pretty small. It would be nice if everyone acted with integrity on both sides of the issue. Three years ago TASO's state leadership investigated a report of soliciting games that was substantiated and those members were removed from their leadership position and given a life ban from holding office. BTW a chapter member is who "blew the whistle". I know of members who could teach school but can not officiate because TASO will not clear them until their probation (DUI) is cleared. No we do not have a background check because 1.) like many other contractors we are not mandated to have one, we are never alone with a student athlete. (Unlike band contest where often a student and a judge are alone in a closed room without supervision) 2.) because no one has ever decided who will bear the cost. Face it background checks are a false flag, non-issue. I do not know of any member who is opposed to submitting to a background check. Been through them before, another one won't hurt; In all those cases the cost is borne by the "employer".
Since you brought it up, I think many of us who voted for our current president have been disappointed in some of his actions. His first memo to the membership sounds more like a UIL official than an elected president, he takes in upon his self to begin negotiations without any discussion with the rest of the elected membership, the counsel of our legal representation and our lobbying representation. Some would say this is a bit of an arrogant approach or at least comes across as " I am smarter than you, so I will make this work." All of this at a time when we have the UIL pinned down in court. This has nothing to do with the chapter he comes from so don't insult all of us who voted for him but are somewhat disappointed in his actions.
Coot, I understand there are issues with TASO those we (members) can fix. With the UIL, a state agency, you have two choices... quit or shut up and take it.
:bOW :thumbup tiphat: yEs:
-
Crew Chiefs that are caught soliciting (for a 3rd time) - and not punished (a letter in the file, excuse me) - one of the state championships I think?
Varsity Assigning Secretary that gives himself playoff games - EVERY WEEK - no recourse - other than a newly formed hand picked committee for "integrity."
TASO Football Pres arrested in a state park (on television) for lewd and salicious behavior.
No background checks - probably because of the previous bullet
**but we've heard all this before.
Then we get a good FB Pres that tried to negotiate a settlement - and because he is from a small chapter and does not kiss the Big 5 butt - they vote him down - or as one put it "a shot across his bow so he knows where the bread is buttered." Castleberry will never be accepted or respected as FB pres because he is not from the 5.
Some of the reasons I don't trust TASO - you asked.
This is not (or rarely) a TASO issue -- this is a Chapter issue. People need to have in place a solid policy and Ethics Committee to handle all violations, whether it is solicitation or morality issues. We have suspended persons for soliciting -- first offense. We have suspended officials for other issues. All you need to do is be a chapter of character. We also have policies that prohibit assigning board member from putting themselves into a playoff games. These are chapter issues, not TASO driven. Soliciting with the UIL may only get worse since they have no policies in place to deal with it, or any other issue.
-
From the site where I found the proposals it states “TO REVIEW THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS EDITED BY THE TASO-FOOTBALL BOARD AND RESUBMITTED TO TONY TIMMONS WHO DID NOT ACCEPT ITS TERMS”. It looks it was more than just a draft.
The site you are quoting from was a Chapter site which may or may not reflect actual TASO or TASO FB statements. Chapter websites are not "blessed" by TASO so they can post what they want. It may or moay not always be accurate.
I have heard from someone close to the Board that the agreement was never even voted on by the FB board. All they voted on was whether or not it should be presented to the FB chapter presidents and secretaries who were meeting with the board later. The whole thing was a work in progress that never got out of that stage.
-
The website is the chapter website for the chapter Castleberry is a member. I would think he has seen the site and knows whats on it!