Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
City by the Lake.org, The Voice of Michigan City, Indiana _ City Sports _ Parks Dept suspends two coaches
Posted by: southsider2k7 Sep 22 2008, 12:07 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=17479&TM=48389.91
QUOTE
Coaches suspended from parks activities
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - Two coaches have been suspended from Michigan City Park & Recreation youth activities and the Baseball Player's Association for one year.
The suspensions were effective Aug. 7.
Then-Michigan City Park Superintendent Darrell Garbacik suspended youth travel baseball head coach Scott Kaletha and assistant coach Mike Schwanke. They have requested separate closed appeal hearings with the park board.
The hearings have been scheduled for Thursday, Oct. 2, following the park board meeting. Kaletha said he looks forward to the opportunity to meet with the park board.
"The suspension was handed down on the opinion of one person," Kaletha said, referring to Garbacik. "He's the one who did this so-called investigation. I'm very confident that the truth will come out and the suspension will be overturned. I will have statements and witnesses that will refute the opinion of the superintendent."
Garbacik suspended the coaches for allowing inappropriate language to be used by adults and boys on teams under their direction. The language was apparently directed. They also were cited for ignoring ethics codes. They have denied any wrongdoing.
Garbacik's decision came after a two-month investigation that started with complaints a 12-year-old baseball player was being harassed. The boy's parents contacted Garbacik in June after finding out their son was being called names such as "gay, fag, homo and queer" by other players.
Kaletha told Garbacik he was aware of the comments, but called it "joking and humor" and "just boys being boys."
Both coaches said the comments had been made for some time, but they denied participating in the harassment. However, Kaletha said he often engages in name-calling with players and said it was a common practice among coaches when he was a young player to use words such as "homo and fag."
Garbacik said, "I explained to the coach that in today's society, one's personal orientations, religious beliefs, etc., are protected and nothing to ever joke about."
Kaletha defended himself, saying he hadn't done anything wrong and didn't feel the language and behavior was wrong.
According to Garbacik, the harassment began after Kaletha and some boys drove by and allegedly saw the targeted boy and another boy wrestling with each other. After Kaletha and the boys saw the two wrestling, rumors began that the wrestling took place in the nude, an account that was never substantiated.
After that, Kaletha and the boys began joking about what they supposedly saw, and the harassing behavior continued at baseball events and elsewhere.
Garbacik said he asked adults who were involved with youth sports for their observations about Kaletha. The consensus was that Kaletha generously volunteered his time and is good at teaching fundamentals, but acts as if "his way is the only way, and he doesn't care what anyone else thinks."
While Garbacik was still conducting his investigation, Kaletha and Schwanke were ejected from a June Baseball Player's Association tournament for 9-year-old baseball players in Warsaw, Ind.
Garbacik attended the BPA Indiana State Tournament game there, during which Kaletha and Schwanke yelled at officials and accused members of the opposing team of intentionally hitting their players with pitches and running into them on bases. Schwanke was ejected first, Garbacik reported, causing Kaletha to begin "a tirade of arguing with the umpires." After ignoring a warning to stop his behavior, Kaletha was ejected as well.
In Garbacik's report, the coaches reportedly told their players to throw at Warsaw players, and that Kaletha and Schwanke challenged the opposing coaches to a fight.
In a subsequent meeting with the coaches, Garbacik said he asked if they read the Lakefront Little League Code of Conduct and the BPA Harassment Policy. Kaletha reportedly said all coaches violate the codes, and the BPA umpires were at fault for letting the game "get out of hand."
"The head coach (Kaletha) has in fact changed his accounts and versions," Garbacik said in his report, "and I believe has intentionally and methodically tried to sway and mislead others to join his cause for his sole and personal benefit, while not taking the best interest of young participants into account."
Schwanke was suspended for knowing about and participating in the harassment.
Park Board Attorney Patrick Donoghue said the coaches are entitled to bring their own attorneys to the Oct. 2 appeal hearings, but must let the park board know in advance in order to arrange legal counsel for park department employees.
The Park Board will act as a neutral observer during the hearings, which will be recorded by a court reporter, Donoghue said. The park board will announce its decision about the suspensions during the next public board meeting following the hearing.
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - Two coaches have been suspended from Michigan City Park & Recreation youth activities and the Baseball Player's Association for one year.
The suspensions were effective Aug. 7.
Then-Michigan City Park Superintendent Darrell Garbacik suspended youth travel baseball head coach Scott Kaletha and assistant coach Mike Schwanke. They have requested separate closed appeal hearings with the park board.
The hearings have been scheduled for Thursday, Oct. 2, following the park board meeting. Kaletha said he looks forward to the opportunity to meet with the park board.
"The suspension was handed down on the opinion of one person," Kaletha said, referring to Garbacik. "He's the one who did this so-called investigation. I'm very confident that the truth will come out and the suspension will be overturned. I will have statements and witnesses that will refute the opinion of the superintendent."
Garbacik suspended the coaches for allowing inappropriate language to be used by adults and boys on teams under their direction. The language was apparently directed. They also were cited for ignoring ethics codes. They have denied any wrongdoing.
Garbacik's decision came after a two-month investigation that started with complaints a 12-year-old baseball player was being harassed. The boy's parents contacted Garbacik in June after finding out their son was being called names such as "gay, fag, homo and queer" by other players.
Kaletha told Garbacik he was aware of the comments, but called it "joking and humor" and "just boys being boys."
Both coaches said the comments had been made for some time, but they denied participating in the harassment. However, Kaletha said he often engages in name-calling with players and said it was a common practice among coaches when he was a young player to use words such as "homo and fag."
Garbacik said, "I explained to the coach that in today's society, one's personal orientations, religious beliefs, etc., are protected and nothing to ever joke about."
Kaletha defended himself, saying he hadn't done anything wrong and didn't feel the language and behavior was wrong.
According to Garbacik, the harassment began after Kaletha and some boys drove by and allegedly saw the targeted boy and another boy wrestling with each other. After Kaletha and the boys saw the two wrestling, rumors began that the wrestling took place in the nude, an account that was never substantiated.
After that, Kaletha and the boys began joking about what they supposedly saw, and the harassing behavior continued at baseball events and elsewhere.
Garbacik said he asked adults who were involved with youth sports for their observations about Kaletha. The consensus was that Kaletha generously volunteered his time and is good at teaching fundamentals, but acts as if "his way is the only way, and he doesn't care what anyone else thinks."
While Garbacik was still conducting his investigation, Kaletha and Schwanke were ejected from a June Baseball Player's Association tournament for 9-year-old baseball players in Warsaw, Ind.
Garbacik attended the BPA Indiana State Tournament game there, during which Kaletha and Schwanke yelled at officials and accused members of the opposing team of intentionally hitting their players with pitches and running into them on bases. Schwanke was ejected first, Garbacik reported, causing Kaletha to begin "a tirade of arguing with the umpires." After ignoring a warning to stop his behavior, Kaletha was ejected as well.
In Garbacik's report, the coaches reportedly told their players to throw at Warsaw players, and that Kaletha and Schwanke challenged the opposing coaches to a fight.
In a subsequent meeting with the coaches, Garbacik said he asked if they read the Lakefront Little League Code of Conduct and the BPA Harassment Policy. Kaletha reportedly said all coaches violate the codes, and the BPA umpires were at fault for letting the game "get out of hand."
"The head coach (Kaletha) has in fact changed his accounts and versions," Garbacik said in his report, "and I believe has intentionally and methodically tried to sway and mislead others to join his cause for his sole and personal benefit, while not taking the best interest of young participants into account."
Schwanke was suspended for knowing about and participating in the harassment.
Park Board Attorney Patrick Donoghue said the coaches are entitled to bring their own attorneys to the Oct. 2 appeal hearings, but must let the park board know in advance in order to arrange legal counsel for park department employees.
The Park Board will act as a neutral observer during the hearings, which will be recorded by a court reporter, Donoghue said. The park board will announce its decision about the suspensions during the next public board meeting following the hearing.
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Sep 22 2008, 12:27 PM
Kaletha condemns himself. As the High Priest said, "What need have we for witnesses?" Instead of 'fessing up, he tries to justify his own boorish behavior, and possibly even illegal behavior, in the usual smooth-cortexed way, viz., by claiming that it is OK because everyone does it.
Posted by: Dave Sep 22 2008, 06:03 PM
It seems to me that these morons (Kaletha and Schwanke) are exposing the Parks department, the city, and thereby every taxpayer in the jurisdiction to some serious liability for harassment. One year suspension? Not enough. How about permanent suspension until they demonstrate a serious adjustment in attitude?
Posted by: krk Sep 22 2008, 09:28 PM
I can't imagine being a parent. It seems like constantly negotiating a mine field of idiocy.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Sep 23 2008, 07:05 AM
QUOTE(krk @ Sep 22 2008, 10:28 PM) 
I can't imagine being a parent. It seems like constantly negotiating a mine field of idiocy.
And that's just the parents
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Sep 23 2008, 08:45 AM
Very good letters to the ND today, esp. by the school counselor.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Sep 23 2008, 08:52 AM
QUOTE(Roger Kaputnik @ Sep 23 2008, 09:45 AM)
Very good letters to the ND today, esp. by the school counselor.
Its too bad the ND has quit publishing them on-line.
Posted by: JHeath Sep 23 2008, 10:32 AM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=75&ArticleID=17511&TM=45057.7
QUOTE
9/23/2008 11:00:00 AM
Ban name-calling coach
I've just finished reading the front page of Sunday's paper. I was furious. How can Mr. Kaletha claim he's done nothing wrong, yet he admits he's engaged in name calling with youth players under his charge?
I guess in the last 20+ years something has changed drastically. When my son was playing, his coaches not only taught the fundamentals but they helped the boys grow without name calling.
To Rudy Kohn, Bud Andrisko, Bob Sutherlin and Jim Dolembo, I offer an honest and heartfelt thank you. To Mr. Kaletha, I hope that after the hearing on Oct. 2 you are banned PERMANENTLY from coaching any type of youth sports.
Philip E. Weiss
Michigan City
Ban name-calling coach
I've just finished reading the front page of Sunday's paper. I was furious. How can Mr. Kaletha claim he's done nothing wrong, yet he admits he's engaged in name calling with youth players under his charge?
I guess in the last 20+ years something has changed drastically. When my son was playing, his coaches not only taught the fundamentals but they helped the boys grow without name calling.
To Rudy Kohn, Bud Andrisko, Bob Sutherlin and Jim Dolembo, I offer an honest and heartfelt thank you. To Mr. Kaletha, I hope that after the hearing on Oct. 2 you are banned PERMANENTLY from coaching any type of youth sports.
Philip E. Weiss
Michigan City
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=75&ArticleID=17510&TM=45057.7
QUOTE
9/23/2008 11:00:00 AM
Calling kids names is bullying
In response to "Coaches suspended from park activities" about the young man who was called names and the coach who wrote it off as "kids will be kids", I was extremely upset by the ADULT bullying behavior. As an elementary counselor in our school system, I teach anti-bullying lessons to my Springfield children. State law requires that I do and I feel it is extremely important.
First step is to ask the person to stop. When this doesn't happen I tell my students to tell an adult and add that they tried to stop the behavior, so it is not tattling. But if we continue to have adults that ignore, condone and maybe even agree with this behavior (as the coach did) it only gets worse.
There are colleges that refuse admittance because of bullying behaviors like this. I wonder how this coach would feel if he were the parent of a child that was experiencing this type of behavior directed toward his son. The perception of kids being kids or boys being boys just having a little fun probably would not be one that he held.
There are a number of things teammates can do while on the field or in the dugout to have fun, but to verbally abuse a teammate when he is obviously upset about the comments is deplorable and shows the lack of caring and compassion that this coach has toward lesser ability endowed children under his care.
I'm glad this has come out in the open so maybe interventions can done for this coach, and clinics regarding bullying should be offered.
Debra Carpenter
Michigan City
Calling kids names is bullying
In response to "Coaches suspended from park activities" about the young man who was called names and the coach who wrote it off as "kids will be kids", I was extremely upset by the ADULT bullying behavior. As an elementary counselor in our school system, I teach anti-bullying lessons to my Springfield children. State law requires that I do and I feel it is extremely important.
First step is to ask the person to stop. When this doesn't happen I tell my students to tell an adult and add that they tried to stop the behavior, so it is not tattling. But if we continue to have adults that ignore, condone and maybe even agree with this behavior (as the coach did) it only gets worse.
There are colleges that refuse admittance because of bullying behaviors like this. I wonder how this coach would feel if he were the parent of a child that was experiencing this type of behavior directed toward his son. The perception of kids being kids or boys being boys just having a little fun probably would not be one that he held.
There are a number of things teammates can do while on the field or in the dugout to have fun, but to verbally abuse a teammate when he is obviously upset about the comments is deplorable and shows the lack of caring and compassion that this coach has toward lesser ability endowed children under his care.
I'm glad this has come out in the open so maybe interventions can done for this coach, and clinics regarding bullying should be offered.
Debra Carpenter
Michigan City
Posted by: southsider2k7 Sep 23 2008, 10:46 AM
Ah, nice letters. Glad to see they updated the site with them today!
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Sep 23 2008, 10:58 AM
Amen, amen!
Posted by: digger262 Sep 23 2008, 02:36 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k7 @ Sep 22 2008, 02:07 PM)
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=17479&TM=48389.91
I graduated from Elston with Scott Kaletha in 1987 and played on many of the same teams as him. There was only 1 coach I recall using the names he says were used and that coach was asked to leave the school system.
I knew Scott pretty well and at one time considered him a friend. I haven't spoken to him since our 10 year reunion but it sounds like he hasn't changed(grown up) a bit since high school.
Posted by: Ang Sep 23 2008, 03:43 PM
I knew Scott growing up as well and agree with Digger
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Sep 24 2008, 07:20 AM
You gotta get Mr. Iacovetti's letter in the ND on the thread. He goes on about what a great guy Kaletha is, but he never speaks to the admissions Kaletha has made.
Kaletha condemns himself, as has been noted.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Sep 24 2008, 09:11 AM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=75&ArticleID=17534
QUOTE
Never heard Kaletha downgrade kids
I am responding to the article about coach Scott Kaletha written by Laurie Wink ["Coaches suspended from parks activities," Page A1, Sunday]. Laurie, what tabloid are you trying to get a job with because you're a terrible reporter? Mike Schwanke doesn't even coach the 9 and under travel team, nor was he in Warsaw, Ind., that weekend. I know this because I am a coach of that very same 9U travel team, which my son played on.
I was there that weekend so let me see if I can help you with your story that I'm assuming Mr. Darrell Garbacik helped you with. By the way, Mr. Garbacik was in attendance that weekend with his wife and two sons. One son played for our team. That part of the story you have correct.
This is what happened. We had a runner on first. Pickoff play at first, runner dives back in safely. While the first baseman was holding his glove on the runner's back, he steps on the runner's hand causing the runner to move his hand and then be called out by the umpire. The kid had cleat marks in his hand. Dirty play? Yes, it was to everyone who saw it. Darrell Garbacik, however, was in the parking lot, nowhere to be seen.
Then a couple of our kids were hit by pitches - I'm talking rib thumpers. A total of four kids were hit. All four kids were coaches' kids. Just a coincidence? I don't think so.
Now you accuse him of wanting to start a fight with the opposing third base coach, who earlier in the year at a tournament at Patriot Park was overheard telling his parents that people from Michigan City were pieces of s---. Darrell knew about those things the other coach said. Did he choose to do anything about it, seeing that he is the state president for the Baseball Players Association, which sponsors travel ball tournaments? No. That has to fall under the very same code of ethics that he chose to throw in Scott Kaletha's face.
Back to the third base coach, I was in the dugout when this very same coach offered to take a different Michigan City coach "out to the parking lot to settle this" (not Schwanke as you reported). Scott Kaletha wasn't even involved in that conversation with that coach. I know because I was five feet away in the dugout, not 50 feet away next to Darrell.
Next, how could he tell our pitcher to throw at the opposing team's players when he was already ejected and not allowed on the field? It was a team from Granger, not Warsaw, as you reported. Good job, Laurie.
I have coached the last two years with Scott Kaletha with Darrell Garbacik standing right next to us for those two years. For the last two baseball seasons, I have heard Darrell talk about what a great coach Scott is. I have never once heard Scott downgrade a kid in any way. He is a great teacher of Michigan City youth sports who donates probably 10 months a year volunteering as a coach. The man has a special passion for teaching kids.
As for that Warsaw tournament, I feel he was protecting his players. I stand behind him 100 percent.
I have 29 kids on a Pop Warner football team that absolutely love this man including my son.
Here lies the problem. That very same Warsaw tournament, Darrell's kid was benched for the last day of the tournament. Darrell along with his wife were making snide remarks in front of the other parents about their son's lack of playing time.
In my opinion, it has become personal between Darrell and Scott. Funny thing is, I chose to bench his son following his play from the day before, when Scott was not in attendance.
Darrell, enjoy your new job, I'm not sad to see you go because I think you're a spineless snake. As for you, Miss Wink, go get a job with a tabloid paper, you're missing your calling.
Mike Iacovetti
Michigan City
I am responding to the article about coach Scott Kaletha written by Laurie Wink ["Coaches suspended from parks activities," Page A1, Sunday]. Laurie, what tabloid are you trying to get a job with because you're a terrible reporter? Mike Schwanke doesn't even coach the 9 and under travel team, nor was he in Warsaw, Ind., that weekend. I know this because I am a coach of that very same 9U travel team, which my son played on.
I was there that weekend so let me see if I can help you with your story that I'm assuming Mr. Darrell Garbacik helped you with. By the way, Mr. Garbacik was in attendance that weekend with his wife and two sons. One son played for our team. That part of the story you have correct.
This is what happened. We had a runner on first. Pickoff play at first, runner dives back in safely. While the first baseman was holding his glove on the runner's back, he steps on the runner's hand causing the runner to move his hand and then be called out by the umpire. The kid had cleat marks in his hand. Dirty play? Yes, it was to everyone who saw it. Darrell Garbacik, however, was in the parking lot, nowhere to be seen.
Then a couple of our kids were hit by pitches - I'm talking rib thumpers. A total of four kids were hit. All four kids were coaches' kids. Just a coincidence? I don't think so.
Now you accuse him of wanting to start a fight with the opposing third base coach, who earlier in the year at a tournament at Patriot Park was overheard telling his parents that people from Michigan City were pieces of s---. Darrell knew about those things the other coach said. Did he choose to do anything about it, seeing that he is the state president for the Baseball Players Association, which sponsors travel ball tournaments? No. That has to fall under the very same code of ethics that he chose to throw in Scott Kaletha's face.
Back to the third base coach, I was in the dugout when this very same coach offered to take a different Michigan City coach "out to the parking lot to settle this" (not Schwanke as you reported). Scott Kaletha wasn't even involved in that conversation with that coach. I know because I was five feet away in the dugout, not 50 feet away next to Darrell.
Next, how could he tell our pitcher to throw at the opposing team's players when he was already ejected and not allowed on the field? It was a team from Granger, not Warsaw, as you reported. Good job, Laurie.
I have coached the last two years with Scott Kaletha with Darrell Garbacik standing right next to us for those two years. For the last two baseball seasons, I have heard Darrell talk about what a great coach Scott is. I have never once heard Scott downgrade a kid in any way. He is a great teacher of Michigan City youth sports who donates probably 10 months a year volunteering as a coach. The man has a special passion for teaching kids.
As for that Warsaw tournament, I feel he was protecting his players. I stand behind him 100 percent.
I have 29 kids on a Pop Warner football team that absolutely love this man including my son.
Here lies the problem. That very same Warsaw tournament, Darrell's kid was benched for the last day of the tournament. Darrell along with his wife were making snide remarks in front of the other parents about their son's lack of playing time.
In my opinion, it has become personal between Darrell and Scott. Funny thing is, I chose to bench his son following his play from the day before, when Scott was not in attendance.
Darrell, enjoy your new job, I'm not sad to see you go because I think you're a spineless snake. As for you, Miss Wink, go get a job with a tabloid paper, you're missing your calling.
Mike Iacovetti
Michigan City
Posted by: Ang Sep 27 2008, 02:53 PM
I moved this thread to the City Sports topic. I feel it belongs here instead.
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=75&TM=60394.98
QUOTE
9/26/2008 11:00:00 AM Email this article • Print this article
Kaletha loves all kids he coaches
I am saddened about the article in Sunday's paper ["Coaches suspended from parks activities"]. I have known Scott Kaletha for many years. Our boys go to school together and are teammates. In the years that Coach Kaletha has been coaching my son, never have I heard him ever downgrade any child. It is a great disappointment that anyone would try to keep him from coaching. It is what he loves and he does it well.
My son isn't playing for Coach Kaletha this year in football because Coach Kaletha cared enough about my son to get everything out of football, and talked to him about staying down a division because of his size and knew it would be a wonderful opportunity for my son and the team he is on now. If it wasn't for Scott my son would have never played football and now it is Cody's love.
So to all the ones who want to judge Scott and write negative things about him, maybe you should get to know him and his family before you start to judge him. There are two sides to every story. Maybe you should hear his side before writing.
It is only going to hurt the kids in our community if you ban Coach Kaletha, not anyone else. He loves all of these kids as his own. I wish there were more people in our community like Scott Kaletha and his wife who give the kids 110 percent of themselves. Thanks, Scott and Gina, for everything you have done for our family and our community.
Debbie Bush
La Porte
Kaletha loves all kids he coaches
I am saddened about the article in Sunday's paper ["Coaches suspended from parks activities"]. I have known Scott Kaletha for many years. Our boys go to school together and are teammates. In the years that Coach Kaletha has been coaching my son, never have I heard him ever downgrade any child. It is a great disappointment that anyone would try to keep him from coaching. It is what he loves and he does it well.
My son isn't playing for Coach Kaletha this year in football because Coach Kaletha cared enough about my son to get everything out of football, and talked to him about staying down a division because of his size and knew it would be a wonderful opportunity for my son and the team he is on now. If it wasn't for Scott my son would have never played football and now it is Cody's love.
So to all the ones who want to judge Scott and write negative things about him, maybe you should get to know him and his family before you start to judge him. There are two sides to every story. Maybe you should hear his side before writing.
It is only going to hurt the kids in our community if you ban Coach Kaletha, not anyone else. He loves all of these kids as his own. I wish there were more people in our community like Scott Kaletha and his wife who give the kids 110 percent of themselves. Thanks, Scott and Gina, for everything you have done for our family and our community.
Debbie Bush
La Porte
QUOTE
9/27/2008 11:00:00 AM Email this article • Print this article
Kaletha pushes, makes me better
I am 12 years old and have been playing football for five years. Coach Kaletha helped coach my team my first three years. He also has coached me many times in basketball. He may push me hard and sometimes I really get mad at him, but in the end it always pays off and I'm glad I did it. He is just trying to make me better. Coach Kaletha is one of my favorite coaches and when I visit his house he treats me like family.
Richard Mitchell
Michigan City
Kaletha pushes, makes me better
I am 12 years old and have been playing football for five years. Coach Kaletha helped coach my team my first three years. He also has coached me many times in basketball. He may push me hard and sometimes I really get mad at him, but in the end it always pays off and I'm glad I did it. He is just trying to make me better. Coach Kaletha is one of my favorite coaches and when I visit his house he treats me like family.
Richard Mitchell
Michigan City
QUOTE
9/27/2008 11:00:00 AM Email this article • Print this article
Coaches must give positive life lessons
After reading the story on the suspended coaches in Sunday's paper, I am extremely saddened by what these young people, their parents and the officials have endured. As the mother of a son who absolutely loved playing sports as a child/young man, I remember several extraordinary coaches who had great influence on him, both for the game fundamentals and the positive life lessons, none greater than Coach Greg Mumma, who coached my son, Derrick, in La Porte Little League. He made a huge difference in my son's life - both on and off the field - by the example he gave while on the field.
What many adults often forget is that this is truly more than just a game; it is an opportunity to shape these young people into remarkable citizens while sharing love and passion for the game. No coach is perfect, and there is always a possibility for error, but NO coach who thinks this type of behavior is acceptable, or refuses to take responsibility for disobeying the rules to protect children, should be coaching. Children, as we see by the example in this article, act out what is lived before them.
Had an ethical coach heard anyone making degrading comments of any kind toward another player he/she would have stopped play, addressed the issue, and awarded consequences where appropriate. In no way would they have joined in on this form of hate and ridicule. The significance of one abusive comment or action toward a child left unaddressed has the potential to emotionally scar children for life (both those who endure it and those who hear it), no matter how many positive attributes the marked child may truly have.
We should never allow anyone who behaves in the manner described in this article be in a position with such great responsibility. If you are a coach or a child mentor in any area, seriously ask yourself and reflect on why you want to be involved. If your answer is for any other reason except to "share in, teach, and try to improve the lives of the children around you in a positve way," I suggest that you find a different hobby.
If you know a coach or mentor with great integrity, thank them often for the gift they freely offer. If I could have one moment to talk to coach Mumma, I would again thank him for making such a difference in my son's life. And if I could, I would wish Derrick a happy 27th birthday today (Sept. 24). You see, both Coach Mumma and Derrick are now with God, taken from us far too soon in different ways. I will not forget the integrity and passion for the game that coach Mumma had or the positive lessons Derrick learned under his guidance. I will never forget the joy Derrick felt when playing ball. If I close my eyes I can still see the smile on his face as he rounds the bases and the high fives received from a coach whose smile was just as wide. If I could, I would thank them both for the many summers filled with great baseball memories.
My prayer for all concerned: First and foremost, justice MUST be served! Children must be protected.
In addition it is my prayer that responsibility be taken, forgiveness offered, healing realized, and may these children find great mentors who truly love the game and who realize the awesome responsibility entrusted to them as they teach more than just a game. Play ball and make great memories!
Marcia Lashua
Hickman
La Porte
Coaches must give positive life lessons
After reading the story on the suspended coaches in Sunday's paper, I am extremely saddened by what these young people, their parents and the officials have endured. As the mother of a son who absolutely loved playing sports as a child/young man, I remember several extraordinary coaches who had great influence on him, both for the game fundamentals and the positive life lessons, none greater than Coach Greg Mumma, who coached my son, Derrick, in La Porte Little League. He made a huge difference in my son's life - both on and off the field - by the example he gave while on the field.
What many adults often forget is that this is truly more than just a game; it is an opportunity to shape these young people into remarkable citizens while sharing love and passion for the game. No coach is perfect, and there is always a possibility for error, but NO coach who thinks this type of behavior is acceptable, or refuses to take responsibility for disobeying the rules to protect children, should be coaching. Children, as we see by the example in this article, act out what is lived before them.
Had an ethical coach heard anyone making degrading comments of any kind toward another player he/she would have stopped play, addressed the issue, and awarded consequences where appropriate. In no way would they have joined in on this form of hate and ridicule. The significance of one abusive comment or action toward a child left unaddressed has the potential to emotionally scar children for life (both those who endure it and those who hear it), no matter how many positive attributes the marked child may truly have.
We should never allow anyone who behaves in the manner described in this article be in a position with such great responsibility. If you are a coach or a child mentor in any area, seriously ask yourself and reflect on why you want to be involved. If your answer is for any other reason except to "share in, teach, and try to improve the lives of the children around you in a positve way," I suggest that you find a different hobby.
If you know a coach or mentor with great integrity, thank them often for the gift they freely offer. If I could have one moment to talk to coach Mumma, I would again thank him for making such a difference in my son's life. And if I could, I would wish Derrick a happy 27th birthday today (Sept. 24). You see, both Coach Mumma and Derrick are now with God, taken from us far too soon in different ways. I will not forget the integrity and passion for the game that coach Mumma had or the positive lessons Derrick learned under his guidance. I will never forget the joy Derrick felt when playing ball. If I close my eyes I can still see the smile on his face as he rounds the bases and the high fives received from a coach whose smile was just as wide. If I could, I would thank them both for the many summers filled with great baseball memories.
My prayer for all concerned: First and foremost, justice MUST be served! Children must be protected.
In addition it is my prayer that responsibility be taken, forgiveness offered, healing realized, and may these children find great mentors who truly love the game and who realize the awesome responsibility entrusted to them as they teach more than just a game. Play ball and make great memories!
Marcia Lashua
Hickman
La Porte
QUOTE
9/27/2008 11:00:00 AM Email this article • Print this article
City has many great coaches
One of the most important lessons anyone can teach kids is to be accountable for their own decisions. The coach quoted in Sunday's article is wrong to blame the umps for letting him make a bad choice. Parents should know that this article does not represent the experience of our family with Lakefront Little League (or previously Trail Creek League.)
Our boys have played ball for many outstanding coaches; the Webbs, Steve Thomas, Jim Rubino, Dan Grams, Pat Nevorske, Adam Parkhouse and his brother, and recently coach Ettinger and his staff in Lakefront 10 and under.
These are a few of many great coaches and I'm sure I left out several. All these people were also volunteers who dedicated a lot of time. More importantly, they made a personal choice to treat their team with patience and dignity. Guess what? They won a whole lot of games as well. It would be great to see a front page article highlighting a positive local role model.
Kate Komay
Michigan City
City has many great coaches
One of the most important lessons anyone can teach kids is to be accountable for their own decisions. The coach quoted in Sunday's article is wrong to blame the umps for letting him make a bad choice. Parents should know that this article does not represent the experience of our family with Lakefront Little League (or previously Trail Creek League.)
Our boys have played ball for many outstanding coaches; the Webbs, Steve Thomas, Jim Rubino, Dan Grams, Pat Nevorske, Adam Parkhouse and his brother, and recently coach Ettinger and his staff in Lakefront 10 and under.
These are a few of many great coaches and I'm sure I left out several. All these people were also volunteers who dedicated a lot of time. More importantly, they made a personal choice to treat their team with patience and dignity. Guess what? They won a whole lot of games as well. It would be great to see a front page article highlighting a positive local role model.
Kate Komay
Michigan City
QUOTE
9/27/2008 11:00:00 AM Email this article • Print this article
Kids don't need coaches to play
Regarding the recent spate of letters about problems in youth baseball leagues: I propose that kids take matters into their own hands. Believe it or not kids, baseball is a fun game. Ask your grandparents how they came to love the game, and they're not likely to mention coaches, leagues, umpires, supervisors or any of the things that your parents seem to obsess about each summer. They just found an empty field, split up into teams, and played. You can do it too (at least I don't think they've outlawed this yet).
Pick out one of the many empty ball fields in our city next summer, and just start playing. You and your friends. No umpires; make up rules as you go along, if you like. If there's a dispute, one of you is likely to just take off, possibly taking the ball with him. This is OK. You're kids. It's not the same as adults displaying this kind of behavior, and through it all, some of you are likely to actually learn something about the correct ways of dealing with problems, personalities, etc. This is called maturing. It's actually easier when certain adult types aren't around (I won't accuse any of them personally, except to say they tend to be coaches).
Always remember, it's a kid's game - even professional ballplayers will tell you that - and you have a right to love it.
Have fun!
Randon Ton
Michigan City
Kids don't need coaches to play
Regarding the recent spate of letters about problems in youth baseball leagues: I propose that kids take matters into their own hands. Believe it or not kids, baseball is a fun game. Ask your grandparents how they came to love the game, and they're not likely to mention coaches, leagues, umpires, supervisors or any of the things that your parents seem to obsess about each summer. They just found an empty field, split up into teams, and played. You can do it too (at least I don't think they've outlawed this yet).
Pick out one of the many empty ball fields in our city next summer, and just start playing. You and your friends. No umpires; make up rules as you go along, if you like. If there's a dispute, one of you is likely to just take off, possibly taking the ball with him. This is OK. You're kids. It's not the same as adults displaying this kind of behavior, and through it all, some of you are likely to actually learn something about the correct ways of dealing with problems, personalities, etc. This is called maturing. It's actually easier when certain adult types aren't around (I won't accuse any of them personally, except to say they tend to be coaches).
Always remember, it's a kid's game - even professional ballplayers will tell you that - and you have a right to love it.
Have fun!
Randon Ton
Michigan City
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Sep 29 2008, 09:52 AM
There is a ton of sense in that last letter.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Oct 7 2008, 08:16 AM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=17780&TM=36782.79
QUOTE
No hearing for coaches yet
Parks wants session this month.
MICHIGAN CITY - The Michigan City Park Board has not yet been able to set a hearing date for the appeals by two youth baseball coaches, following a request for postponement of the hearings that had been scheduled for Thursday.
Park Board Attorney Pat Donoghue said the coaches are now being represented by attorney Chris Willoughby, who contacted him to request more preparation time.
"I think it's necessary to clear the issues up as soon as possible," Donoghue said, "but it would be somewhat reckless to deny the request. It's in everyone's best interest to get the matter over as soon as possible."
Head baseball coach Scott Kaletha and assistant coach Mike Schwanke have requested separate closed hearings regarding their one-year suspensions from Michigan City Park & Recreation youth activities and the Baseball Player's Association.
The suspensions were made by then-Michigan City Park Superintendent Darrell Garbacik, effective Aug. 7.
Park board members were asked to review available dates during the weeks of Oct. 13 and Oct. 20. Noting that the coach hearings had been postponed twice already, Tom Milcarek asked whether the board could communicate a "three strikes and you're out" policy to prevent having the postponements continue indefinitely.
The board voted to have Donoghue convey the message to Willoughby.
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Parks wants session this month.
MICHIGAN CITY - The Michigan City Park Board has not yet been able to set a hearing date for the appeals by two youth baseball coaches, following a request for postponement of the hearings that had been scheduled for Thursday.
Park Board Attorney Pat Donoghue said the coaches are now being represented by attorney Chris Willoughby, who contacted him to request more preparation time.
"I think it's necessary to clear the issues up as soon as possible," Donoghue said, "but it would be somewhat reckless to deny the request. It's in everyone's best interest to get the matter over as soon as possible."
Head baseball coach Scott Kaletha and assistant coach Mike Schwanke have requested separate closed hearings regarding their one-year suspensions from Michigan City Park & Recreation youth activities and the Baseball Player's Association.
The suspensions were made by then-Michigan City Park Superintendent Darrell Garbacik, effective Aug. 7.
Park board members were asked to review available dates during the weeks of Oct. 13 and Oct. 20. Noting that the coach hearings had been postponed twice already, Tom Milcarek asked whether the board could communicate a "three strikes and you're out" policy to prevent having the postponements continue indefinitely.
The board voted to have Donoghue convey the message to Willoughby.
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Oct 7 2008, 08:43 AM
Like I said, Kaletha condemned himself with his own pie-hole.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Oct 23 2008, 11:58 AM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=18318&TM=50746.12
QUOTE
City wants improved conduct in youth sports
Council hopes resolution will 'support a positive culture.
MICHIGAN CITY - On Tuesday - while the Michigan City Park Board was hearing appeals from two suspended youth sports coaches - the Michigan City Council unanimously approved a resolution for a community strategy to improve conduct in youth sports.
The resolution was introduced by councilmembers Joe Doyle and Bob McKee, both of whom have been members and served as presidents of the Park Board. Doyle credited Jeremy Kienitz, city recreation director, for the idea of a community-wide strategy and Doyle agreed it was a way to raise the standard of conduct for those involved in youth sports.
McKee said inappropriate conduct at youth games is not a problem confined to Michigan City, but something happening nationwide.
"It's important that we support a positive culture," McKee said. "Anything that's a positive move to the culture of youth sports is a positive move for the community."
Council President Ron Meer said, as a parent, he's seen situations with profanity and abuse of children. He also spoke out against the favoritism that results in some kids playing a lot more than others.
"When they get to the high school level, it takes away from the team concept," Meer said. "What we want is fair and equal treatment."
The council also had a second reading and public comment hearing on an ordinance to adopt a code of ethics for city government and to create an ethics advisory board. Councilmember Pat Boy introduced the ordinance, along with Joe Doyle and Bob McKee, and said the council had been working on it since 2004.
At that time, the Quality of Life Council for Northwest Indiana was recommending all municipal governments adopt an ethics code to standardize policies for city employees regarding areas such as nepotism and conflicts of interest.
Councilmembers approved an amendment that prevents persons who have served on a governing board or commission of an agency to apply for a job or contract with that agency for 180 days after the involvement ended.
The ethics ordinance is up for the third and final reading at the Nov. 5 council meeting. The ordinance will become effective 45 days after it is signed by Mayor Chuck Oberlie.
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Council hopes resolution will 'support a positive culture.
MICHIGAN CITY - On Tuesday - while the Michigan City Park Board was hearing appeals from two suspended youth sports coaches - the Michigan City Council unanimously approved a resolution for a community strategy to improve conduct in youth sports.
The resolution was introduced by councilmembers Joe Doyle and Bob McKee, both of whom have been members and served as presidents of the Park Board. Doyle credited Jeremy Kienitz, city recreation director, for the idea of a community-wide strategy and Doyle agreed it was a way to raise the standard of conduct for those involved in youth sports.
McKee said inappropriate conduct at youth games is not a problem confined to Michigan City, but something happening nationwide.
"It's important that we support a positive culture," McKee said. "Anything that's a positive move to the culture of youth sports is a positive move for the community."
Council President Ron Meer said, as a parent, he's seen situations with profanity and abuse of children. He also spoke out against the favoritism that results in some kids playing a lot more than others.
"When they get to the high school level, it takes away from the team concept," Meer said. "What we want is fair and equal treatment."
The council also had a second reading and public comment hearing on an ordinance to adopt a code of ethics for city government and to create an ethics advisory board. Councilmember Pat Boy introduced the ordinance, along with Joe Doyle and Bob McKee, and said the council had been working on it since 2004.
At that time, the Quality of Life Council for Northwest Indiana was recommending all municipal governments adopt an ethics code to standardize policies for city employees regarding areas such as nepotism and conflicts of interest.
Councilmembers approved an amendment that prevents persons who have served on a governing board or commission of an agency to apply for a job or contract with that agency for 180 days after the involvement ended.
The ethics ordinance is up for the third and final reading at the Nov. 5 council meeting. The ordinance will become effective 45 days after it is signed by Mayor Chuck Oberlie.
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Oct 25 2008, 09:04 AM
I actually saw a lawnsign in support of the coach!
Posted by: southsider2k7 Oct 28 2008, 10:57 AM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=18469
QUOTE
Board overturns coaches' suspensions
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
Split vote means Kaletha and Schwanke can continue volunteering
MICHIGAN CITY - The Michigan City Park & Recreation Board by a 2-2 vote Monday night overturned the one-year suspensions of two youth baseball coaches.
Park Board attorney Pat Donoghue said the board was required to make a decision when the coaches chose to appeal their suspensions imposed by former park department superintendent Darrell Garbacik. The one-year suspensions were imposed effective Aug. 7 following a two-month investigation. Garbacik looked into allegations the coaches were targeting one player and encouraging other players to call him a "homo, fag, queer" and other derogatory terms. The coaches allegedly encouraged the name-calling and participated in it themselves.
Donoghue said the burden of proof in the appeals hearings was on Garbacik.
"He had to convince the Park Board that he's right," Donoghue said.
Garbacik attended Monday's meeting and would not comment on the decision, other than to say, "I'm shocked."
The split vote reflected divided public opinion about head baseball coach Scott Kaletha and assistant coach Mike Schwanke.
Board member Phil Freese made a motion not to approve Schwanke's suspension. Freese and board member Bryant Dabney voted for the motion, while members Phil Latchford and Tom Milcarek voted against it. On a motion not to approve Kaletha's suspension, Freese and Dabney again voted in favor of the motion and Latchford and Milcarek voted against it.
The votes came after an Oct. 21 appeal hearing during which park board members heard more than nine hours of testimony and cross-examination by those in favor of the coaches' suspensions and those opposed.
They also considered exhibits and took notes during the hearing.
The suspensions would have prevented Kaletha and Schwanke from participating in Michigan City Parks & Recreation youth activities and the Baseball Player's Association. Attorneys Elizabeth Flynn and Christopher Willoughby of Braje, Nelson & Janes represented both coaches at the appeals hearing. Kaletha did not want to comment after the park board decision and referred questions to Willoughby, who said he preferred to comment at another time.
Latchford said at the beginning of the meeting a motion must receive three votes to pass. He also said the board members wouldn't take questions on their votes. Once the decision was made, the public was allowed to comment.
Family members of the reportedly targeted boy were upset. The boy's mother asked board members to explain their decisions. Board Latchford refused to discuss specifics, but explained the decision-making process.
"We listened to nine hours of testimony, reviewed all exhibits carefully and each made a decision based upon that testimony," Latchford said.
The boy's father said he coached with Kaletha for three years and said boys were quitting baseball and football so they wouldn't have to play for him. Kaletha also is a coach for Michigan City Pop Warner football.
The father admonished board members, saying they have hurt Michigan City kids.
"I did what I was supposed to do, Darrell (Garbacik) did what he was supposed to do, but you didn't do what you were supposed to do," he said.
Likewise, Mary Frazee, who attended the meeting, said, "I just think it's a shame it's come down to not being about children."
David Spangler, speaking in favor of Kaletha and Schwanke, said, "Thank you for reinstating these fine coaches. I've coached with Scott Kaletha for eight years. Thank you for righting this wrong."
Latchford concluded the meeting by saying, "It's been a long, laborious process for everyone involved."
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
Split vote means Kaletha and Schwanke can continue volunteering
MICHIGAN CITY - The Michigan City Park & Recreation Board by a 2-2 vote Monday night overturned the one-year suspensions of two youth baseball coaches.
Park Board attorney Pat Donoghue said the board was required to make a decision when the coaches chose to appeal their suspensions imposed by former park department superintendent Darrell Garbacik. The one-year suspensions were imposed effective Aug. 7 following a two-month investigation. Garbacik looked into allegations the coaches were targeting one player and encouraging other players to call him a "homo, fag, queer" and other derogatory terms. The coaches allegedly encouraged the name-calling and participated in it themselves.
Donoghue said the burden of proof in the appeals hearings was on Garbacik.
"He had to convince the Park Board that he's right," Donoghue said.
Garbacik attended Monday's meeting and would not comment on the decision, other than to say, "I'm shocked."
The split vote reflected divided public opinion about head baseball coach Scott Kaletha and assistant coach Mike Schwanke.
Board member Phil Freese made a motion not to approve Schwanke's suspension. Freese and board member Bryant Dabney voted for the motion, while members Phil Latchford and Tom Milcarek voted against it. On a motion not to approve Kaletha's suspension, Freese and Dabney again voted in favor of the motion and Latchford and Milcarek voted against it.
The votes came after an Oct. 21 appeal hearing during which park board members heard more than nine hours of testimony and cross-examination by those in favor of the coaches' suspensions and those opposed.
They also considered exhibits and took notes during the hearing.
The suspensions would have prevented Kaletha and Schwanke from participating in Michigan City Parks & Recreation youth activities and the Baseball Player's Association. Attorneys Elizabeth Flynn and Christopher Willoughby of Braje, Nelson & Janes represented both coaches at the appeals hearing. Kaletha did not want to comment after the park board decision and referred questions to Willoughby, who said he preferred to comment at another time.
Latchford said at the beginning of the meeting a motion must receive three votes to pass. He also said the board members wouldn't take questions on their votes. Once the decision was made, the public was allowed to comment.
Family members of the reportedly targeted boy were upset. The boy's mother asked board members to explain their decisions. Board Latchford refused to discuss specifics, but explained the decision-making process.
"We listened to nine hours of testimony, reviewed all exhibits carefully and each made a decision based upon that testimony," Latchford said.
The boy's father said he coached with Kaletha for three years and said boys were quitting baseball and football so they wouldn't have to play for him. Kaletha also is a coach for Michigan City Pop Warner football.
The father admonished board members, saying they have hurt Michigan City kids.
"I did what I was supposed to do, Darrell (Garbacik) did what he was supposed to do, but you didn't do what you were supposed to do," he said.
Likewise, Mary Frazee, who attended the meeting, said, "I just think it's a shame it's come down to not being about children."
David Spangler, speaking in favor of Kaletha and Schwanke, said, "Thank you for reinstating these fine coaches. I've coached with Scott Kaletha for eight years. Thank you for righting this wrong."
Latchford concluded the meeting by saying, "It's been a long, laborious process for everyone involved."
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: Dave Oct 28 2008, 12:59 PM
I find I can't react properly to this without using swear words.
How exactly are the Park Board members selected, and what would be the best way to get the Neanderthals out of that body?
Posted by: JHeath Oct 28 2008, 01:04 PM
Before you get too riled, please remember that there are always 3 parts to every story...each side has their own versions, and then the truth.
I'm not sure of everything that happened here, but I can tell you that what the reporter News-Dispatch printed when they broke the story was mostly incorrect and unfounded. I'm sure that she was given bad info, and that this is not the norm, but it sure did a lot of damage for Mr. Kaletha.
For the record, I've seen him on the baseball field with his team when he brings them out to assist with my Challenger Little League at the end of the season for the last 2 years. He displayed nothing but respectful, and encouraging behaviors there.
Posted by: MC Born & Raised Oct 28 2008, 01:26 PM
QUOTE(JHeath @ Oct 28 2008, 02:04 PM)
Before you get too riled, please remember that there are always 3 parts to every story...each side has their own versions, and then the truth.
I'm not sure of everything that happened here, but I can tell you that what the reporter News-Dispatch printed when they broke the story was mostly incorrect and unfounded. I'm sure that she was given bad info, and that this is not the norm, but it sure did a lot of damage for Mr. Kaletha.
For the record, I've seen him on the baseball field with his team when he brings them out to assist with my Challenger Little League at the end of the season for the last 2 years. He displayed nothing but respectful, and encouraging behaviors there.
I can tell you that there was ample testimony given that would have warranted upholding the suspension. For the life of me I can't figure out what happened here.
I'm sure Mr. Kaletha was respectful when participating in Challenger activities and the fact remains that Scott is a capable coach, but multiple lines were crossed with regard to his travel team and even on the Lakefront draft night. The board's decision is, quite frankly, shocking and in at least one instance blatant cronyism.
I'd like to say a lot more about this, but I feel like I shouldn't. I'll end with this: I don't think youth baseball in Michigan City is in a better place today than it was yesterday. There's a big mess that's gonna need sorting out here in the near future, I suspect. The fallout from this isn't over.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Oct 28 2008, 01:38 PM
Cronyism, aka, business as usual in MC.
At any rate, being a fan of baseball, I think this may be the deathblow to MC baseball. It is already reeling from the behavior of parents and coaches, and now the "commissioner's office" says it is all ok. I am glad that Phil and the other guy voted the way they did, but I am embarrassed for the other two.
Posted by: MC Born & Raised Oct 28 2008, 01:41 PM
QUOTE(Roger Kaputnik @ Oct 28 2008, 02:38 PM)
Cronyism, aka, business as usual in MC.
At any rate, being a fan of baseball, I think this may be the deathblow to MC baseball. It is already reeling from the behavior of parents and coaches, and now the "commissioner's office" says it is all ok. I am glad that Phil and the other guy voted the way they did, but I am embarrassed for the other two.
Phil Latchford and Tom Milcarek upheld the suspension while Phil Freese and Bryant Dabney voted to overturn it. I want to make sure everyone knows exactly who voted where.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Oct 28 2008, 02:12 PM
Yes, make it personal. Phil Freese and Bryant Dabney are personally saying that the coaches' behavior is fine with them and an acceptable way
to raise up the next generation. They are wrong.
Posted by: Ang Oct 28 2008, 02:21 PM
If we keep going at this rate, there will be no more youth sports in MC before too long.
Posted by: MC Born & Raised Oct 28 2008, 03:35 PM
The thing is, Jenny's right. There are three sides to every issue, but this seemed so clear-cut to me. I mean, he doesn't even really deny that any of the accused behavior went on. He feels like it's OK. Well, it's not and SHAME on Freese and Dabney for condoning it. Dispicable.
It takes a lot to get me fired up, but this really, really, really irritates me on a LOT of levels.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Oct 29 2008, 11:02 AM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=75&ArticleID=18474&TM=47408.29
QUOTE
Kaletha teaches 'do it right'
Watching the "head hunt" of Mr. Kaletha was typical Michigan City politics. There is no injustice to the kids of Michigan City.
Mr. Kaletha teaches kids to be winners. Some may not like his technique, but he teaches you listen and learn and do it the way it's designed.
It was an honor to have him coach my son in Pop Warner. He and his volunteer staff are role models - nothing but the real deal.
This man does many great things for our youth that they will never realize until they're much older.
He may seem emotional at times but he just wants the young men and women to do it right, and if they do they will win more than they lose. They accomplished that in Pop Warner going undefeated!
I hope to see you coaching next year, Mr. Kaletha. My son will be there to learn and take another challenge. Congratulations on your victories - you and your staff deserve it.
Roger Willoughby
Michigan City
Watching the "head hunt" of Mr. Kaletha was typical Michigan City politics. There is no injustice to the kids of Michigan City.
Mr. Kaletha teaches kids to be winners. Some may not like his technique, but he teaches you listen and learn and do it the way it's designed.
It was an honor to have him coach my son in Pop Warner. He and his volunteer staff are role models - nothing but the real deal.
This man does many great things for our youth that they will never realize until they're much older.
He may seem emotional at times but he just wants the young men and women to do it right, and if they do they will win more than they lose. They accomplished that in Pop Warner going undefeated!
I hope to see you coaching next year, Mr. Kaletha. My son will be there to learn and take another challenge. Congratulations on your victories - you and your staff deserve it.
Roger Willoughby
Michigan City
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=75&ArticleID=18473
QUOTE
Shame on Park Board for keeping coaches
Shame on those who decided to allow these coaches to continue to abuse young boys ["Board overturns coaches' suspensions," Page A1 Tuesday].
In case you can't remember, these "men" admitted to the name calling (including participating in it), stating that it's normal boy behavior.
But you are supposed to be adults. And how sad is it that Michigan City is going to allow this to continue. Was there not a meeting recently, the same night as the original hearing, declaring that there would be a code of ethics in Michigan City?
Obviously these coaches are excluded from the rules.
I hope the parents of young boys take a deep look at what is going on in this town and really think about whether they want their kids to participate in it.
Many people wrote in saying what "outstanding" men these coaches are, but, remember, they admitted to participating in this bullying.
I cannot believe that one of the board members who voted in favor of the coaches actually works with kids with problems. I wonder how many of those kids had been bullied.
Shocked in Michigan City
Kathy Berk
Michigan City
Shame on those who decided to allow these coaches to continue to abuse young boys ["Board overturns coaches' suspensions," Page A1 Tuesday].
In case you can't remember, these "men" admitted to the name calling (including participating in it), stating that it's normal boy behavior.
But you are supposed to be adults. And how sad is it that Michigan City is going to allow this to continue. Was there not a meeting recently, the same night as the original hearing, declaring that there would be a code of ethics in Michigan City?
Obviously these coaches are excluded from the rules.
I hope the parents of young boys take a deep look at what is going on in this town and really think about whether they want their kids to participate in it.
Many people wrote in saying what "outstanding" men these coaches are, but, remember, they admitted to participating in this bullying.
I cannot believe that one of the board members who voted in favor of the coaches actually works with kids with problems. I wonder how many of those kids had been bullied.
Shocked in Michigan City
Kathy Berk
Michigan City
Posted by: ANH27 Nov 2 2008, 12:52 PM
What is Michigan City doing to correct this obvious mistake?
Kaletha and Schwanke admitted to everything! They NEVER ONCE denied the allegations - they merely defended themselves.
I would suggest writing to the Mayor, the Parks and Recreation Department, and the News Dispatch. If that doesn't work then the 'City by the Lake' might as well become the 'City at the Bottom of the Lake' for all it will be worth.
This is sick and wrong and a disservice to EVERY child interested in youth sports in Michigan City and to every coach and parent that has dedicated their time and efforts in an attempt to improve the lives of area youth.
Posted by: JHeath Nov 2 2008, 03:14 PM
QUOTE(ANH27 @ Nov 2 2008, 12:52 PM)
What is Michigan City doing to correct this obvious mistake?
Kaletha and Schwanke admitted to everything! They NEVER ONCE denied the allegations - they merely defended themselves.
I would suggest writing to the Mayor, the Parks and Recreation Department, and the News Dispatch. If that doesn't work then the 'City by the Lake' might as well become the 'City at the Bottom of the Lake' for all it will be worth.
This is sick and wrong and a disservice to EVERY child interested in youth sports in Michigan City and to every coach and parent that has dedicated their time and efforts in an attempt to improve the lives of area youth.
Do I agree with everything that happened? No. But I do believe there is a lot more to the story than what's being told. Personally, I believe they should have been dealt with separately, and in different ways.
Posted by: MC Born & Raised Nov 2 2008, 05:31 PM
QUOTE(JHeath @ Nov 2 2008, 03:14 PM)
If you can show me an accurate, unbiased report of everything that happened, I'd support you in your opinion. However, there were a LOT of factual inaccuracies in the initial article in the News-Dispatch. For example, I don't think that Kaletha was at that event in Warsaw as was reported. It was Schwanke.
Umm, with respect, I'm pretty sure that's not correct.
Regardless, in any case -- be it criminal or one like this -- "accurate, unbiased reports" are rarely available and folks are left to make decisions based on witnesses and whatever evidence might be available. In this case, at least with respect to the harassment of a young boy, the accused doesn't even deny that it ever took place and chocks it up to a typical, "boys being boys" attitude. The problem, of course, is Kaletha isn't supposed to act as "one of the boys," rather as a responsible adult charged with caring for, instructing and mentoring young children. That is where there has been a repeated and well-documented breakdown and where Kaletha is severely derelict of his duties to the children he was entrusted with.
You're right that these cases should have been handled separately, but I believe the combining of the two was at the behest of their attorneys.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Nov 3 2008, 08:04 AM
See Post #2 above.
Posted by: JHeath Nov 3 2008, 09:44 AM
Post #2:
QUOTE(Roger Kaputnik @ Sep 22 2008, 12:27 PM)
Kaletha condemns himself. As the High Priest said, "What need have we for witnesses?" Instead of 'fessing up, he tries to justify his own boorish behavior, and possibly even illegal behavior, in the usual smooth-cortexed way, viz., by claiming that it is OK because everyone does it.
Posted by: krk Nov 3 2008, 03:11 PM
Kaletha told Garbacik he was aware of the comments, but called it "joking and humor" and "just boys being boys."
Both coaches said the comments had been made for some time, but they denied participating in the harassment. However, Kaletha said he often engages in name-calling with players and said it was a common practice among coaches when he was a young player to use words such as "homo and fag."
Garbacik said, "I explained to the coach that in today's society, one's personal orientations, religious beliefs, etc., are protected and nothing to ever joke about."
Kaletha defended himself, saying he hadn't done anything wrong and didn't feel the language and behavior was wrong.
It would have looked better for Camp Kaletha if a statement would have been issued addressing this portion of the article. The fact that he/his representation never addressed the statements and all of the supportive Kaletha letters sent to the ND (mostly written by friends, their children, his coaching staff, his sister in law and his niece) didn't address these specific statements seems to indicate they are not addressing them for a reason.
If he didn't say these things, I would like to apologize for my mullet comment in another post. If he did say these things, the mullet comment stands. 
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Nov 3 2008, 03:34 PM
QUOTE(krk @ Nov 3 2008, 03:11 PM)
Kaletha told Garbacik he was aware of the comments, but called it "joking and humor" and "just boys being boys."
Both coaches said the comments had been made for some time, but they denied participating in the harassment. However, Kaletha said he often engages in name-calling with players and said it was a common practice among coaches when he was a young player to use words such as "homo and fag."
Garbacik said, "I explained to the coach that in today's society, one's personal orientations, religious beliefs, etc., are protected and nothing to ever joke about."
Kaletha defended himself, saying he hadn't done anything wrong and didn't feel the language and behavior was wrong.
It would have looked better for Camp Kaletha if a statement would have been issued addressing this portion of the article. The fact that he/his representation never addressed the statements and all of the supportive Kaletha letters sent to the ND (mostly written by friends, their children, his coaching staff, his sister in law and his niece) didn't address these specific statements seems to indicate they are not addressing them for a reason.
If he didn't say these things, I would like to apologize for my mullet comment in another post. If he did say these things, the mullet comment stands.
Indeed, if he did not say these things or anything like them, then I too apologize for believing the worst; If he did say them, then my comments stand.
Posted by: Ang Nov 3 2008, 08:35 PM
QUOTE(MC Born & Raised @ Nov 2 2008, 04:31 PM)
Umm, with respect, I'm pretty sure that's not correct.
Regardless, in any case -- be it criminal or one like this -- "accurate, unbiased reports" are rarely available and folks are left to make decisions based on witnesses and whatever evidence might be available. In this case, at least with respect to the harassment of a young boy, the accused doesn't even deny that it ever took place and chocks it up to a typical, "boys being boys" attitude. The problem, of course, is Kaletha isn't supposed to act as "one of the boys," rather as a responsible adult charged with caring for, instructing and mentoring young children. That is where there has been a repeated and well-documented breakdown and where Kaletha is severely derelict of his duties to the children he was entrusted with.
You're right that these cases should have been handled separately, but I believe the combining of the two was at the behest of their attorneys.
Well said!
Posted by: eric.hanke Nov 5 2008, 02:03 PM
Anyone looking for a team oriented, parent drama free sport should give serious consideration to the Michigan City Soccer Club.
I have volunteered as a coach for many years with the MC Soccer Club. The program is awesome. The teams are setup so each player plays a minimum of 1/2 of each game. The skills, rules, and field sizes scale for each age group. They begin at 5 and under.
There is even a soccer program for special needs children.
What an awesome all around sport!
Spring signups have not yet begun, but you can get more information online at http://www.mcsoccerclub.com.
Also feel free to PM me. I am a "Licensed" Indiana Youth Soccer Coach.
All 4 of my children have played in the league at one time or another.
Eric Hanke
Posted by: southsider2k7 Nov 6 2008, 12:46 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=18708&TM=49448.66
QUOTE
Council questions coaches' reinstatement
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - The reinstatement of youth baseball coaches Scott Kaletha and Mike Schwanke as the result of a tie vote by the Park Board on Oct. 27 could be on shaky ground.
Ron Meer, Michigan City Common Council president, opened Wednesday's meeting by asking council attorney Jim Meyer to request copies of transcripts from a nine-hour appeal hearing from the Park Board, as well as any minutes of meetings and all policy, rules and other documents pertaining to the original suspension.
"We weren't privy to the nine-hour hearing and want to know if it was legitimate or not," Meer said. "If those epithets were used (by the coaches), there is no excuse for someone being reinstated."
Meer asked that all council members receive copies of the pertinent documents. If, after studying the material, the council doesn't agree with the Park Board decision and finds fault with the coaches' behavior, Meer said they would consider passing a resolution asking Mayor Chuck Oberlie to have board members Phil Freese and Bryant Dabney removed from the board for voting to overturn the suspensions.
Former park department superintendent Darrell Garbacik imposed one-year suspensions on Kaletha and Schwanke on Aug. 7 following a two-month investigation. Garbacik looked into allegations the coaches were targeting one player, encouraging other players to call him a "homo, fag, queer" and other derogatory terms.
Christopher Willoughby of Braje, Nelson & Janes represented both coaches at the marathon appeals hearing and was at the council meeting to address the members.
"I'm here to publicly commend the Park Board members for their decision," Willoughby said. "I want the public to understand that each of those gentlemen (board members) was nothing but respectful. They asked thoughtful questions, and they did consider the evidence."
However, council member Bob McKee said a number of issues surrounding the decision are "disturbing."
"First of all, it has come to my attention that one of the members voting to overturn the suspension was a self-described best friend of one of the individuals suspended," McKee said. "It is clear to me that this was a conflict of interest that should not have been allowed to take place."
McKee also questioned the appropriateness of having Willoughby representing the suspended coaches. He also serves as president of the Lakefront Little League, the same one Kaletha and Schwanke coach in. And, he said Garbacik had to be his own attorney at the hearings, which "ended up being more like a formal trial in a court of law."
When the coaches filed their requests for appeals, park board attorney Pat Donoghue said the board was required to make a decision about their suspensions. Donoghue said the burden of proof in the appeals hearings was on Garbacik.
"He had to convince the Park Board that he's right," Donoghue said.
That didn't sit well with McKee, who said a tie vote should have resulted in upholding the suspensions rather than overturning them.
"To have the park board attorney declare that the suspension was overturned is simply wrong," McKee said. "There is not a single ounce of logic that would allow for the suspension to be overturned based on a failed motion and a 2 to 2 vote. It is not right."
q
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - The reinstatement of youth baseball coaches Scott Kaletha and Mike Schwanke as the result of a tie vote by the Park Board on Oct. 27 could be on shaky ground.
Ron Meer, Michigan City Common Council president, opened Wednesday's meeting by asking council attorney Jim Meyer to request copies of transcripts from a nine-hour appeal hearing from the Park Board, as well as any minutes of meetings and all policy, rules and other documents pertaining to the original suspension.
"We weren't privy to the nine-hour hearing and want to know if it was legitimate or not," Meer said. "If those epithets were used (by the coaches), there is no excuse for someone being reinstated."
Meer asked that all council members receive copies of the pertinent documents. If, after studying the material, the council doesn't agree with the Park Board decision and finds fault with the coaches' behavior, Meer said they would consider passing a resolution asking Mayor Chuck Oberlie to have board members Phil Freese and Bryant Dabney removed from the board for voting to overturn the suspensions.
Former park department superintendent Darrell Garbacik imposed one-year suspensions on Kaletha and Schwanke on Aug. 7 following a two-month investigation. Garbacik looked into allegations the coaches were targeting one player, encouraging other players to call him a "homo, fag, queer" and other derogatory terms.
Christopher Willoughby of Braje, Nelson & Janes represented both coaches at the marathon appeals hearing and was at the council meeting to address the members.
"I'm here to publicly commend the Park Board members for their decision," Willoughby said. "I want the public to understand that each of those gentlemen (board members) was nothing but respectful. They asked thoughtful questions, and they did consider the evidence."
However, council member Bob McKee said a number of issues surrounding the decision are "disturbing."
"First of all, it has come to my attention that one of the members voting to overturn the suspension was a self-described best friend of one of the individuals suspended," McKee said. "It is clear to me that this was a conflict of interest that should not have been allowed to take place."
McKee also questioned the appropriateness of having Willoughby representing the suspended coaches. He also serves as president of the Lakefront Little League, the same one Kaletha and Schwanke coach in. And, he said Garbacik had to be his own attorney at the hearings, which "ended up being more like a formal trial in a court of law."
When the coaches filed their requests for appeals, park board attorney Pat Donoghue said the board was required to make a decision about their suspensions. Donoghue said the burden of proof in the appeals hearings was on Garbacik.
"He had to convince the Park Board that he's right," Donoghue said.
That didn't sit well with McKee, who said a tie vote should have resulted in upholding the suspensions rather than overturning them.
"To have the park board attorney declare that the suspension was overturned is simply wrong," McKee said. "There is not a single ounce of logic that would allow for the suspension to be overturned based on a failed motion and a 2 to 2 vote. It is not right."
q
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Nov 6 2008, 01:21 PM
Outrageous.
Posted by: Ang Nov 6 2008, 02:13 PM
I am just glad that a blind eye has not be turned toward this situation. Kudos to McKee and crew for not letting this rest!
Posted by: digger262 Nov 6 2008, 03:55 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k7 @ Nov 6 2008, 02:46 PM)
"First of all, it has come to my attention that one of the members voting to overturn the suspension was a self-described best friend of one of the individuals suspended," McKee said. "It is clear to me that this was a conflict of interest that should not have been allowed to take place."
I've been wondering about this. Bryant Dabney and Kaletha were the starting backcourt for the Red Devil hoops team at one point. I'm not sure if they were good friends or not but I'm guessing this is who the quote referred. That being said, I know Bryant to be a very upstanding individual. I also know Garbacik to be questionable sometimes.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Nov 6 2008, 04:18 PM
Well, Mr. Kaletha has testified that he says wildly inappropriate things to children in his care. That really should have settled the matter.
Posted by: ANH27 Nov 6 2008, 08:32 PM
QUOTE(Roger Kaputnik @ Nov 6 2008, 04:18 PM)
Well, Mr. Kaletha has testified that he says wildly inappropriate things to children in his care. That really should have settled the matter.
Amen to that!
It is my understanding that the initial issue was about inappropriate language that was directed at children.
Kaletha himself admitted it was true ("just boys being boys") and it was then the circus that is Kaletha and his cohorts came to town and kicked up so much dust that it seemed the original issue was lost in the confusion.
Bottom line –Using language like that in front of children is wrong.
To specifically direct it at a child that you are supposed to be instructing should be criminal.
The coaches admit they used this language and that they found it humorous to the News Dispatch and to the Parks Department (among others).
The case should have been closed then.
The fact that Mr. Dabney was on the voting board and has a friendship with Kaletha (has or had) should have disqualified him from the start.
In all fairness to both sides Mr. Dabney should not have participated in this hearing.
Mr. Willoughby is another individual that should have stepped out.
I may be missing something, but how can a person work essentially work for the City and then fight the City? How could that be anything but a conflict of interests?
I understand that his support is in the Kaletha/Schwanke court, and he is entitled to support whichever side he chooses, but representing them in this instance still seems wrong.
Does anyone know if the records from this hearing at the Park Department have been made public?
Posted by: krk Nov 6 2008, 10:29 PM
Just curious: How does one obtain the position held by Kaletha? 
Posted by: digger262 Nov 7 2008, 07:44 AM
Lots of conflict of interest in this, but Garbacik son played on Kalethas team and was bench by Kaletha shortly before this too. Garbacik should not be involved either.
Posted by: JHeath Nov 7 2008, 09:01 AM
QUOTE(krk @ Nov 6 2008, 10:29 PM)
Just curious: How does one obtain the position held by Kaletha?
Which position?
Posted by: krk Nov 7 2008, 09:08 AM
QUOTE(JHeath @ Nov 7 2008, 10:01 AM)
Which position?
The coaching position referred to in this controversy.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Nov 7 2008, 12:24 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=18738
QUOTE
PARK BOARD: SUSPENSIONS STAND
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - In another surprising turn of events, the Park Board on Thursday reversed its Oct. 27 stand on the appeals of suspended youth baseball coaches Scott Kaletha and Mike Schwanke, ruling the original suspensions would stand.
"It's done," board president Phil Latchford said to the question of whether further appeals would be offered to Kaletha and Schwanke.
Park Board Attorney Pat Donoghue took the blame for incorrectly saying the burden of proof for the suspensions rested with former park superintendent Darrell Garbacik, rather than with the coaches who filed the appeals.
Kaletha and Schwanke were hoping the board would overturn a one-year suspension imposed on them Aug. 7 following a two-month investigation by Garbacik into charges the coaches created a hostile environment for one young player, in particular by encouraging other players to call him names such as "homo, fag and queer."
A special Oct. 27 Park Board meeting, following an earlier nine-hour appeal hearing, resulted in a 2-2 tie on a motion not to uphold the suspensions. Board members Phil Freese and Bryant Dabney voted in favor of the motion while Latchford and Tom Milcarek voted against it. Donoghue advised the board a tie vote meant the Garbacik suspensions were no longer in effect.
On Thursday, Donoghue said attorney John Espar contacted him to suggest he review Robert's Rules of Order, considered the standard for conducting official meetings. The conclusion was that if a motion doesn't get a majority vote, it fails.
"The question was should (the board) reverse the action of the superintendent," Donoghue said. "The superintendent's decision must stand."
Donoghue issued an apology to all persons affected.
"I am sorry," he said. "This is a correctable error. I recommend the chair (Latchford) should reverse the prior ruling and rule that because of the tie votes, the suspensions of both coaches must stand."
Latchford chose to reverse the prior ruling.
"No one in the community can feel good about this," Latchford said. "The Park Department mantra has always been to try to do the right thing. Correcting the ruling of Oct. 27 is the right thing to do."
He opened the meeting to public comments, and Christopher Willoughby, an attorney with Braje, Nelson & Janes, took advantage of the opportunity to object. Willoughby represented both coaches at the appeal hearing and accused the Park Board of succumbing to political pressure in deciding to change the ruling.
"I am dumbfounded how a city corporate counsel (Espar) has dictated how the meeting should run when your own counsel set the rules for how it would run," Willoughby said.
Kaletha was at the meeting and argued the Aug. 7 suspension letter he received from Garbacik specified the right to appeal the decision and, he said, spelled out how to go about it.
"The burden was on Darrell Garbacik, it was not on me," Kaletha said.
Willoughby and Kaletha waited through the entire board meeting until the public comments portion, when they chose to take up the suspension issue again.
"There's nothing in here about abiding by Robert's Rules of Order," Kaletha said, referring again to the letter about appeals. "I'll tell you right now that this is nothing shy of small-town politics."
On Wednesday, the Michigan City Common Council expressed concern about the Park Board decision to overturn the suspensions. Council President Ron Meer asked council attorney Jim Meyer to request copies of transcripts from a nine-hour appeal hearing and other documents pertinent documents. Council members were prepared, if necessary, to ask Mayor Chuck Oberlie to remove the board members who voted to overturn the suspensions made by Garbacik.
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - In another surprising turn of events, the Park Board on Thursday reversed its Oct. 27 stand on the appeals of suspended youth baseball coaches Scott Kaletha and Mike Schwanke, ruling the original suspensions would stand.
"It's done," board president Phil Latchford said to the question of whether further appeals would be offered to Kaletha and Schwanke.
Park Board Attorney Pat Donoghue took the blame for incorrectly saying the burden of proof for the suspensions rested with former park superintendent Darrell Garbacik, rather than with the coaches who filed the appeals.
Kaletha and Schwanke were hoping the board would overturn a one-year suspension imposed on them Aug. 7 following a two-month investigation by Garbacik into charges the coaches created a hostile environment for one young player, in particular by encouraging other players to call him names such as "homo, fag and queer."
A special Oct. 27 Park Board meeting, following an earlier nine-hour appeal hearing, resulted in a 2-2 tie on a motion not to uphold the suspensions. Board members Phil Freese and Bryant Dabney voted in favor of the motion while Latchford and Tom Milcarek voted against it. Donoghue advised the board a tie vote meant the Garbacik suspensions were no longer in effect.
On Thursday, Donoghue said attorney John Espar contacted him to suggest he review Robert's Rules of Order, considered the standard for conducting official meetings. The conclusion was that if a motion doesn't get a majority vote, it fails.
"The question was should (the board) reverse the action of the superintendent," Donoghue said. "The superintendent's decision must stand."
Donoghue issued an apology to all persons affected.
"I am sorry," he said. "This is a correctable error. I recommend the chair (Latchford) should reverse the prior ruling and rule that because of the tie votes, the suspensions of both coaches must stand."
Latchford chose to reverse the prior ruling.
"No one in the community can feel good about this," Latchford said. "The Park Department mantra has always been to try to do the right thing. Correcting the ruling of Oct. 27 is the right thing to do."
He opened the meeting to public comments, and Christopher Willoughby, an attorney with Braje, Nelson & Janes, took advantage of the opportunity to object. Willoughby represented both coaches at the appeal hearing and accused the Park Board of succumbing to political pressure in deciding to change the ruling.
"I am dumbfounded how a city corporate counsel (Espar) has dictated how the meeting should run when your own counsel set the rules for how it would run," Willoughby said.
Kaletha was at the meeting and argued the Aug. 7 suspension letter he received from Garbacik specified the right to appeal the decision and, he said, spelled out how to go about it.
"The burden was on Darrell Garbacik, it was not on me," Kaletha said.
Willoughby and Kaletha waited through the entire board meeting until the public comments portion, when they chose to take up the suspension issue again.
"There's nothing in here about abiding by Robert's Rules of Order," Kaletha said, referring again to the letter about appeals. "I'll tell you right now that this is nothing shy of small-town politics."
On Wednesday, the Michigan City Common Council expressed concern about the Park Board decision to overturn the suspensions. Council President Ron Meer asked council attorney Jim Meyer to request copies of transcripts from a nine-hour appeal hearing and other documents pertinent documents. Council members were prepared, if necessary, to ask Mayor Chuck Oberlie to remove the board members who voted to overturn the suspensions made by Garbacik.
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Nov 7 2008, 01:01 PM
Yes! Yes! Yes!
Good for Phil Latchford for reversing the initial ruling.
Posted by: Ang Nov 7 2008, 01:03 PM
QUOTE
On Wednesday, the Michigan City Common Council expressed concern about the Park Board decision to overturn the suspensions. Council President Ron Meer asked council attorney Jim Meyer to request copies of transcripts from a nine-hour appeal hearing and other documents pertinent documents. Council members were prepared, if necessary, to ask Mayor Chuck Oberlie to remove the board members who voted to overturn the suspensions made by Garbacik.
So, in order to keep their positions on the board they quickly decided to uphold the suspension? What I see here is two people who really didn't see anything wrong with this situation, yet caved when the pressure was on in order to keep their board positions. IMO they should still be ousted.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Nov 7 2008, 01:05 PM
QUOTE(Ang @ Nov 7 2008, 01:03 PM)
So, in order to keep their positions on the board they quickly decided to uphold the suspension? What I see here is two people who really didn't see anything wrong with this situation, yet caved when the pressure was on in order to keep their board positions. IMO they should still be ousted.
As I understand it, the vote did not change, but the President reinterpreted what their vote meant. Instead of a tie going to change the status quo, a tie meant that the status quo was kept. The vote had to be 3-1 to overturn. A tie was a good as a majority no vote.
Posted by: digger262 Nov 7 2008, 01:14 PM
QUOTE(Ang @ Nov 7 2008, 03:03 PM)
So, in order to keep their positions on the board they quickly decided to uphold the suspension? What I see here is two people who really didn't see anything wrong with this situation, yet caved when the pressure was on in order to keep their board positions. IMO they should still be ousted.
While I'm not sure which side I fall on, since I haven't seen anything official, only what the News Dispatch reported and rumors, I'm curious on what grounds you would 'oust them'? Because they have bad opinions? Are these elected or appointed positions? If elected, then unless they have done something illegal, I see no way of 'ousting them'. If appointed, then perhaps the appointer(Oberlie?) could and perhaps should do that.
Now, if it came out in the 9 hour hearing that Kaletha and Schwanke in fact did approved of the name calling and don't deny encouraging it, then I could see your point(though I still don't know how you 'oust them'). But unless someone on this board what at the hearing and knows facts, isn't it all conjecture?
Posted by: MC Born & Raised Nov 7 2008, 01:33 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k7 @ Nov 7 2008, 01:05 PM)
As I understand it, the vote did not change, but the President reinterpreted what their vote meant. Instead of a tie going to change the status quo, a tie meant that the status quo was kept. The vote had to be 3-1 to overturn. A tie was a good as a majority no vote.
You are correct. The Park Board attorney, Pat Donoghue, incorrectly stated on the night of the vote that a majority vote was needed to uphold the suspensions. This bothered me immensely on that night and I'm glad that his error was pointed out.
The action in question was a standing suspension of the two coaches. The motion, therefore, was to overturn the suspension and THAT required a majority. When the vote was a tie, the motion fails and the earlier action carries. How this was missed in the first place is well beyond me, but as Donoghue said, it's a correctable error and it's good that he admitted this ridiculous mistake.
Posted by: Ang Nov 7 2008, 03:05 PM
QUOTE(digger262 @ Nov 7 2008, 12:14 PM)
While I'm not sure which side I fall on, since I haven't seen anything official, only what the News Dispatch reported and rumors, I'm curious on what grounds you would 'oust them'? Because they have bad opinions? Are these elected or appointed positions? If elected, then unless they have done something illegal, I see no way of 'ousting them'. If appointed, then perhaps the appointer(Oberlie?) could and perhaps should do that.
Now, if it came out in the 9 hour hearing that Kaletha and Schwanke in fact did approved of the name calling and don't deny encouraging it, then I could see your point(though I still don't know how you 'oust them'). But unless someone on this board what at the hearing and knows facts, isn't it all conjecture?
Well, for one thing, the two in question are friends/acquaintances of the coaches. To me that looks like personal bias and a conflict of interest. Second, if in fact what they said was true (and by Kaletha's own admission it was), the board members are condoning that type of behavior by voting to dismiss the suspensions.
For those two reasons alone, as I see it, the two members in question are not viable members of the Park Board and should be removed. But that's just my opinion. I do not know either of the gentlemen personally so I am going only by what is in the paper and rumor mill. However, I DO know Scott Kaletha personally and in my experiences with him, it would not suprise me in the least that the allegations are true.
Posted by: dante' Nov 7 2008, 07:48 PM
I have coached teams (basketball & baseball) against Kaletha and have had nothing but bad experiences every time. A couple of things that have been lost in this incident is the fact that Kaletha has stated to the Park Department that "all coaches violate the code of ethics." It has been reported that Kaletha violated 12 of the 18 rules of the Coaches Code of Ethics. The second thing is, Kaletha was thrown out of a 9 and under travel baseball game for instructing his pitcher to intentionally bean (throw at) a member of the opposing team. Kaletha also challenged the coach from that opposing team to "meet him out in the parking lot." All this happening in front of 9 year old boys. Is this really someone that we want instructing our children?
Posted by: JHeath Nov 7 2008, 11:14 PM
QUOTE(dante' @ Nov 7 2008, 07:48 PM)
... Kaletha also challenged the coach from that opposing team to "meet him out in the parking lot." All this happening in front of 9 year old boys.
Did you actually witness this? If so, where?
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 8 2008, 09:17 AM
[font=Times New Roman][size=7]
Until now, Scott Kaletha and Mike Schwanke have not spoken to the "press" at the advice of counsel. Our collective thoughts were that no comments would be made until the so-called process ran its course and both sides were actually made public. A common sense approach. Apparently, those with the power of the pen are only interested in one side. Unsure of whether their story will be publicized with as much fervor as Ms. Wink has published others, if at all, following is a "Letter to the Editor" that was submitted to The ND:
Unlike most who have expressed an opinion in this matter, we have seen all of the evidence regarding the suspension of two local coaches. We are the lawyers who represented the coaches at the recent park board hearing and want to take the opportunity to suggest that the public has not heard all of the evidence. As many may recall, after a nine hour hearing, these coaches were reinstated. Nevertheless, at the most recent meeting of the park board, the suspensions have now been “upheld” because of what was deemed an error in the procedure that was established by the former park superintendent, Darrell Garbacik. Interestingly, there was no problem or objection to the procedure before or during the hearing. The procedure was only questioned after the outcome of the hearing was deemed unpopular to individuals who are unfamiliar with all of the facts. What justification could there be for changing the rules after the process is complete and a decision was rendered?
There is much sentiment regarding Scott Kaletha and Mike Schwanke “just doing the time”, but this matter has become about much more than simply coaching youth baseball, an activity that both coaches cherish and do very well. What the general public is not aware of is that Garbacik spoke to Scott’s employer about this matter and Scott was denied a different employment opportunity as a result of the allegations and a newspaper article. The irresponsible newspaper article made it appear as though Scott Kaletha personally admitted to engaging in inappropriate acts when, in fact, the article simply quoted portions of Garbacik’s thirty-seven page “confidential” report. Scott has never admitted to engaging in the behavior that he is accused. The article was confusing to anyone who was not familiar with that report and the statements actually made to Garbacik. As a result, the reputations and livelihoods of these coaches have been compromised.
At the hearing, the Coaches presented forty-eight affidavits in support of them and their position. They also presented the testimony of five coaches and a parent who had direct knowledge of the allegations contained in the report. Many other potential witnesses were turned away because of time constraints. The affidavits and testimony directly disputed items and statements in Garbacik’s report and the specific allegations made by complaining party. The methodology in preparing the report was questioned and contradicted in many places. Issues of bias and personal involvement were raised to question the integrity of the allegations. The coaches, under oath, testified that neither engaged in the inappropriate behavior attributed to them.
The evidence showed that there was a long history of differences between Scott and the father of the alleged victim thereby providing a reason for the accusations. The alleged victim and most of his teammates were never interviewed by Garbacik. The evidence showed that despite the allegations by the parents of this victim they allowed him to continue to play for and be coached by Scott and Mike. Additionally, Garbacik continued to coach with Scott on a different team after these alleged statements came to light. Why would any parent or superintendant allow these coaches to continue to coach if the evidence actually supported the allegations?
There is more to this situation than was outlined in the newspaper and the fallout that has occurred as a result of it. There is evidence that exists that strongly supports that these coaches did not do what they are accused of doing. In fact, there is strong evidence that suggests that had this matter been properly investigated the coaches would not be suffering this unjust outcome.
Elizabeth Flynn
Christopher L. Willoughby
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 8 2008, 09:34 AM
As for comments regarding my representation of the coaches and my involvement with Lakefront Little League ("LLL"), once again, there is no conflict. The underlying accusations involved BPA travel baseball, which is not LLL. BPA is a separate sanctioning body for competitive baseball, and Darrell Garbacik served as the State Director of that association while serving as MCPR Super. LLL is the recreational baseball league. Common sense would dictate that if there was a conflict that I would have to recuse myself from wearing some hat. I have attempted to clarify this point as late last Thursday night's Park Board meeting, but Ms. Wink didn't find the explanation as newsworthy as Mr. McKee's defamatory cheapshots the night before.
It is a shame this community has been reduced to tearing others down because of lack of information or blatant misinformation.
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 8 2008, 09:43 AM
dante':
Attached are copies of Affidavits signed by the umpires that called the 9U game Darrell Garbacik and Ms. Wink reported about.
Attached File(s)
Affidavits.BPA_Umpires.pdf ( 99.84k )
Number of downloads: 486
Posted by: krk Nov 8 2008, 10:20 AM
With all of the hoopla, why didn't somebody in Camp Kaletha address the most inflammatory issue very early on in this situation? The focus has been on everything else, leaving the public to believe the worst. A clear statement denying the accusations surely couldn't have made the situation worse.
Posted by: JHeath Nov 8 2008, 10:50 AM
QUOTE(krk @ Nov 8 2008, 10:20 AM)
With all of the hoopla, why didn't somebody in Camp Kaletha address the most inflammatory issue very early on in this situation? The focus has been on everything else, leaving the public to believe the worst. A clear statement denying the accusations surely couldn't have made the situation worse.
I'm sure that "Camp Kaletha" was making an attempt at keeping what was supposed to be confidential information as just that...confidential.
Posted by: Dave Nov 8 2008, 10:52 AM
QUOTE(krk @ Nov 8 2008, 10:20 AM)
With all of the hoopla, why didn't somebody in Camp Kaletha address the most inflammatory issue very early on in this situation? The focus has been on everything else, leaving the public to believe the worst. A clear statement denying the accusations surely couldn't have made the situation worse.
No kidding. A simple statement to the effect of "I've never called any of the kids on any of my teams anything derogatory or anything that could be reasonably construed as derogatory. Any coach who did such a thing should be banned, but that would not be me," would have shown this thing in a totally different light.
Though I suppose the parties in question could still do that. Have they?
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 8 2008, 10:59 AM
Unfortunately, there have been many attempts to set the record straight, but the story is apparently not as interesting with statements from Scott and Mike. Scott attempted to make a statement to Ms. Wink at last Thursday night's Park Bd. meeting, but she was clearly not interested given her decision to not write about his statement.
Posted by: JHeath Nov 8 2008, 11:27 AM
So you're telling us that not only did Ms Wink get her facts and quotes from a "confidential" report, oen that she was most likely not supposed to have, but that she also skewed her facts, and now is seemingly uninterested in reporting the full story (both sides).
It's unfortunate that this is having an effect on other aspects of Mr. Kaletha's life...such as his employment.
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 8 2008, 11:52 AM
It is unquestionable that Ms. Wink's initial article was indeed based on Garbacik's "confidential" report. The Park Board's attorney has stated that the report was "confidential" and only given to the parties (Scott, Mike, and the complaining parents) and internal staff. Scott and Mike have not provided copies of the report to anyone other than their attorneys.
At the time of her initial "story", Ms. Wink didn't receive any quotes from Scott or Mike other than the following from Scott, "The suspension was handed down on the opinion of one person" (referring to Darrell Garbacik)......."He's the one who did this so-called investigation. I'm very confident that the truth will come out and the suspension will be overtuned. I will have statements and witnesses that will refute the opinion of the superintendent." Since that time, I have yet to see an article addressing "their side" by her.
Posted by: krk Nov 8 2008, 12:44 PM
I wonder how many requests for a "their side" article would it take for the ND to comply?
WHO WANTS TO FIND OUT? 
Posted by: MC Born & Raised Nov 8 2008, 01:11 PM
Wow. So much to say ...
For one, as outlined by CLW above, I'm not sure that an attempt at a park board meeting to inject comment into a story constitutes "many" attempts. My understanding of that word may be off, but I doubt it.
Two, the affidavit from the umpire saying he never saw Kaletha instruct a boy on his team to throw at a boy from the other team is hardly convincing. Just because he didn't witness it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Third, lamenting that Ms. Wink obtained information from a "confidential" report is akin to complaining that your spouse found out you were cheating by checking your e-mail. She wasn't supposed to see it, so it doesn't count or something? Come on.
Lastly, and as CLW well knows, this matter definitely does involve Lakefront Little League as the coaches have been suspended from all Parks and Recreation activities, which was supposed to have included LLL, though I'm sure the future of that relationship is now in serious jeopardy, yet another sad byproduct of the circus this has been turned into.
Once again, in Michigan City, adults screw everything up and the kids suffer. What a shame.
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 8 2008, 01:43 PM
QUOTE(MC Born & Raised @ Nov 8 2008, 01:11 PM)
Wow. So much to say ...
For one, as outlined by CLW above, I'm not sure that an attempt at a park board meeting to inject comment into a story constitutes "many" attempts. My understanding of that word may be off, but I doubt it.
Two, the affidavit from the umpire saying he never saw Kaletha instruct a boy on his team to throw at a boy from the other team is hardly convincing. Just because he didn't witness it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Third, lamenting that Ms. Wink obtained information from a "confidential" report is akin to complaining that your spouse found out you were cheating by checking your e-mail. She wasn't supposed to see it, so it doesn't count or something? Come on.
Lastly, and as CLW well knows, this matter definitely does involve Lakefront Little League as the coaches have been suspended from all Parks and Recreation activities, which was supposed to have included LLL, though I'm sure the future of that relationship is now in serious jeopardy, yet another sad byproduct of the circus this has been turned into.
Once again, in Michigan City, adults screw everything up and the kids suffer. What a shame.
The attempt to speak to Ms. Wink was an example of the attempts that have been made. Nonetheless, why wouldn't everyone be interested in hearing all sides unless they have become personally vested in only one side? My understanding is that our local publication is interested in reporting the news, all sides, not just a preferred version. I hope that happens.
As for the comments regarding Scott allegedly instructing one of his players to throw at a boy from another team (or condoning such a thing), these umpires never witnessed it and there is no one that can say otherwise because it did not happen. The father of the boy that was allegedly instructed to hit an opposing player testified at the Park Bd. hearing that Scott never gave or condoned such an instruction. He should know, he spoke to his son. As I believe you are aware, there are many more affidavits and witnesses that addressed all of the underlying issues, and there was an overwhelming amount of evidence presented at the hearing to directly refute Garbacik's report as well as that of the allegations of the complaining parents.
As for the "confidential" aspect of the report, your analogy is off base to say the least. I guess my ultimate point is that it is easy to hide behind that veil of confidentiality without having any confrontation to challenge the assertions of one side. Why not speak to those named in the report?
If you are attempting to discuss the alleged conflict for me, there isn't one because the allegations involved BPA. I agree that there is some potential fallout involving LLL to the extent that MCPR no longer wants to partner with LLL, but let there be no question that LLL is a separate entity. Utimately, there is no doubt that decisions must be made regarding MCPR activities given the MCPB's recent decision......a point that has been acknowledged by all involved all along.
Lastly, I disagree with your "Once again, in Michigan City" comment. It seems to me that these types of responses are from those that would rather complain than be part of the solution. This entire scenario should be a wake-up call to all of us involved in youth sports, and we should work together for the benefit of the youth of this community. How we do that I guess is the ultimate question, but I know that banning these two coaches isn't the answer. No one is perfect, but they do not deserve the result they have received. Unfortunately, politics has taken over.
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 8 2008, 01:57 PM
QUOTE(MC Born & Raised @ Nov 8 2008, 01:11 PM)
Wow. So much to say ...
For one, as outlined by CLW above, I'm not sure that an attempt at a park board meeting to inject comment into a story constitutes "many" attempts. My understanding of that word may be off, but I doubt it.
Two, the affidavit from the umpire saying he never saw Kaletha instruct a boy on his team to throw at a boy from the other team is hardly convincing. Just because he didn't witness it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Third, lamenting that Ms. Wink obtained information from a "confidential" report is akin to complaining that your spouse found out you were cheating by checking your e-mail. She wasn't supposed to see it, so it doesn't count or something? Come on.
Lastly, and as CLW well knows, this matter definitely does involve Lakefront Little League as the coaches have been suspended from all Parks and Recreation activities, which was supposed to have included LLL, though I'm sure the future of that relationship is now in serious jeopardy, yet another sad byproduct of the circus this has been turned into.
Once again, in Michigan City, adults screw everything up and the kids suffer. What a shame.
What role did you have in the appeal process or hearing?
Posted by: MC Born & Raised Nov 8 2008, 08:03 PM
QUOTE(CLW28 @ Nov 8 2008, 01:57 PM)
What role did you have in the appeal process or hearing?
Sorry, should have identified myself. I think most of the regulars here know I'm Adam Parkhouse. And if they didn't before, there it is.
I have to say something here: I think it's highly regrettable this has turned as ugly as it has, really for everyone involved.
Regardless of what I think actually happened here, which is pretty well-documented, I really do want everyone to remember that there are children involved. That's what I meant by the "adults screw everything up" comment. It just seems like this kind of bickering and in-fighting happens all too often and it really does get tiresome. The whole reason I became involved with LLL or Trail Creek before that or even Angels in the Field briefly before that was I wanted to try and to my part to support these programs despite not having any children of my own. And with the exception of Angels, which I know Jenny continues to do a wonderful job with and the program is growing, all I see in these other organizations is adults that either can't get along or have a constant difference of opinion that manifests itself negatively around the kids in some way.
So, Chris, I think that I am someone that wants to and is trying to be a part of the solution. There are some other people involved in this case that I used to think the same about. Now I'm not so sure.
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 8 2008, 08:59 PM
QUOTE(MC Born & Raised @ Nov 8 2008, 08:03 PM)
Sorry, should have identified myself. I think most of the regulars here know I'm Adam Parkhouse. And if they didn't before, there it is.
I have to say something here: I think it's highly regrettable this has turned as ugly as it has, really for everyone involved.
Regardless of what I think actually happened here, which is pretty well-documented, I really do want everyone to remember that there are children involved. That's what I meant by the "adults screw everything up" comment. It just seems like this kind of bickering and in-fighting happens all too often and it really does get tiresome. The whole reason I became involved with LLL or Trail Creek before that or even Angels in the Field briefly before that was I wanted to try and to my part to support these programs despite not having any children of my own. And with the exception of Angels, which I know Jenny continues to do a wonderful job with and the program is growing, all I see in these other organizations is adults that either can't get along or have a constant difference of opinion that manifests itself negatively around the kids in some way.
So, Chris, I think that I am someone that wants to and is trying to be a part of the solution. There are some other people involved in this case that I used to think the same about. Now I'm not so sure.
As I thought. If the other members and guests on this site and the public in general only knew more. I used to think the same as well.
I am truly astounded that only one side of this story is acceptable around here. How do you plan to help resolve this matter?
Posted by: JHeath Nov 8 2008, 09:20 PM
QUOTE(jt246 @ Nov 8 2008, 03:52 PM)
POST DELETED BY ADMINSTRATOR
JT, I'd be very cautious about posting this kind of information, as namecalling as false allegations are known to cause problems. I do not know the Deveraux family, as I'm not involved in any of the teams they've had kids on or in Pop Warner. But this kind of accusation isn't fair...no matter which side you're on.
Posted by: dante' Nov 8 2008, 09:37 PM
Sounds like sour grapes from Camp Kaletha. We didn't hear from them when the appeal went their way but now that the correct decision was made by the Park Board, their attorney resorts to posting comments on a blog. How unprofessional is that? Doesn't Willoughby have an ambulance to chase.
Posted by: JHeath Nov 8 2008, 09:45 PM
QUOTE(dante' @ Nov 8 2008, 09:37 PM)
Sounds like sour grapes from Camp Kaletha. We didn't hear from them when the appeal went their way but now that the correct decision was made by the Park Board, their attorney resorts to posting comments on a blog. How unprofessional is that? Doesn't Willoughby have an ambulance to chase.
I'd just say that they want to tell their side...and tehy aren't getting a fair shake anywhere else. Why not post it here? Sounds like someone else just wants to keep the other side quiet, IMHO.
Posted by: JHeath Nov 8 2008, 10:14 PM
QUOTE(MC Born & Raised @ Nov 8 2008, 08:03 PM)
Sorry, should have identified myself. I think most of the regulars here know I'm Adam Parkhouse. And if they didn't before, there it is.
... The whole reason I became involved with LLL or Trail Creek before that or even Angels in the Field briefly before that was I wanted to try and to my part to support these programs despite not having any children of my own. And with the exception of Angels, which I know Jenny continues to do a wonderful job with and the program is growing, all I see in these other organizations is adults that either can't get along or have a constant difference of opinion that manifests itself negatively around the kids in some way.
Hey, Adam...we'd take you back in the "Angels" program in a second (although, now we're just called the Lakefront Little League Challengers). Just say the word.
You & your Mrs. have an open invitation.
Posted by: MC Born & Raised Nov 8 2008, 10:36 PM
QUOTE(CLW28 @ Nov 8 2008, 08:59 PM)
As I thought. If the other members and guests on this site and the public in general only knew more. I used to think the same as well.
I am truly astounded that only one side of this story is acceptable around here. How do you plan to help resolve this matter?
Because I was involved in the case, journalistically I can no longer be a part of producing copy related to this matter. That's called ethics. When you need to recuse yourself from a matter, you do so.
Posted by: ANH27 Nov 8 2008, 11:12 PM
QUOTE(jt246 @ Nov 8 2008, 03:52 PM)
POST DELETED BY ADMINISTRATOR
Wow - once again the original issue seems to be getting buried.
For a group professing (Camp Kaletha(for want of a better term)) to dislike 'mud slinging' so much, there is sure a lot of it going on here.
The above accusations are documented? There is rock hard proof to back up all of these statements? Reports have been filed? Witness statements were taken? The proper authorities stepped in took the necessary actions when these wrongs were being committed?
Because if not, then I don’t see how much validity all of the other statements made (by Camp Kaletha) to the tune of "One sided reporting" and “Shouldn’t believe everything you read” and CLW28’s statement “It is a shame this community has been reduced to tearing others down because of lack of information or blatant misinformation.“ should be given. None, I’d have to say.
It just seems to me from these recent posts that they at Camp K are just as guilty if not more so of doing the exact same thing to others that they are accusing others of doing to them.
I always thought two wrongs didn’t make a right…
Posted by: MC Born & Raised Nov 9 2008, 03:06 AM
QUOTE(jt246 @ Nov 8 2008, 10:47 PM)
POST DELETED BY ADMINSTRATOR
I hope you're not questioning my volunteerism. I could sit here and list the things I've done that I'm proud of, but it's not relevant. I've worked just as hard as most of the other people that have been involved in these same organizations and that's actually one of the reasons why this has me in a stir. I'm sure with Mr. Willoughby still in charge of LLL, my status with that organization is now very much over, all the more reason why he should have recused himself from these proceedings. But, oh, wait, this has nothing to do with LLL. Sorry, forgot. In that case, I can't wait to get back to work next spring. I'll be waiting by the phone.
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 9 2008, 07:23 AM
QUOTE(MC Born & Raised @ Nov 9 2008, 03:06 AM)
I hope you're not questioning my volunteerism. I could sit here and list the things I've done that I'm proud of, but it's not relevant. I've worked just as hard as most of the other people that have been involved in these same organizations and that's actually one of the reasons why this has me in a stir. I'm sure with Mr. Willoughby still in charge of LLL, my status with that organization is now very much over, all the more reason why he should have recused himself from these proceedings. But, oh, wait, this has nothing to do with LLL. Sorry, forgot. In that case, I can't wait to get back to work next spring. I'll be waiting by the phone.
Adam:
The point of my postings is that there is another side to this whole scenario and for some reason there is no interest in that side. I am not asking that anyone take Scott and Mike's side as the only version either. But when the Park Board ignores its own rules (after the initial outcome was determined) and a newspaper that is supposedly interested in all sides will not even acknowledge the other side, what is one left to think? There are many references to it being "well documented" that these coaches did what they are accused of. Everyone should know that there is overwhelming documentation that indicates they did not. So, where do we go from here? Do I post all of that documentation on this site?
Even in today's editorial, there is reference to the Park Board looking to their attorney after the 2-2 vote for direction or clarification. The fact is, when Garbacik sent the suspension letters on Aug. 7th, he also provided the appeals procedure to Scott and Mike. Within those procedures, it specifically states that a 2-2 tie means the appeals are granted---that is regardless of the motions made. Despite the spin that being put out there now, Roberts Rules of Order do not apply by default. A governing body has the power to adopt its own rules, and RR of Order are not mandated. The Park Board was aware of the procedure all along, nothing changed!!
I, for one, have not questioned your past involvement. However, any reference to me being "in charge" is an insult to the other Bd. members and an unnecesary cheapshot. As for LLL, you may or not be aware, but that Bd. has always taken the position that the underlying issues with the MCPR would be considered after the appeals process ran its course and those members such as Jeremy, Scott, and I would, of course, have to recuse ourselves from any decisions. I know it seems like splitting hairs, but there are distinctions between the entities. Nonetheless, I do know that LLL has and will continue to work to have a great program for all of this community's children.
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 9 2008, 07:45 AM
QUOTE(MC Born & Raised @ Nov 9 2008, 03:06 AM)
I hope you're not questioning my volunteerism. I could sit here and list the things I've done that I'm proud of, but it's not relevant. I've worked just as hard as most of the other people that have been involved in these same organizations and that's actually one of the reasons why this has me in a stir. I'm sure with Mr. Willoughby still in charge of LLL, my status with that organization is now very much over, all the more reason why he should have recused himself from these proceedings. But, oh, wait, this has nothing to do with LLL. Sorry, forgot. In that case, I can't wait to get back to work next spring. I'll be waiting by the phone.
Also, if I would have recused myself at the MCPR hearing, which was NOT necessary at the time (but, I agree, will be necessary at LLL's meeting concerning this matter), I would not have been able to personally witness your testimony change during that same hearing..........as you went from stating that you heard Scott make a direct, derogatory comment to then conceding that you made a leap in your interpretation of what was said!!
Posted by: southsider2k7 Nov 9 2008, 08:41 AM
Well this has become an interesting hotbed of activity. First of all I would like to welcome all of our new voices to the site.
Secondly I do want throw out there that the one "rule" I do have is that we avoid personal attacks if at all possible. Allegations to the case are one thing, calling people an ambulance chaser are another. Please do not include those type of things here.
Thirdly, as many of you have observed by now, this board is open format. Unlike other forms of media, we are not bound by time constraints, size constraints, editors, advertisers, etc. If you have a story that you want to fully tell that you feel has not been vetted, feel free. I love to hear both sides of a story, as I do believe that an educated public is the best kind. I would love to hear "the other side of the story" in this specific case.
Forthly, my question personal question on this situation would be very simple. Do the coaches involved deny or accept the allegations of sexual orientation epitaphs being used and/or accepted in these settings.
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 9 2008, 09:02 AM
QUOTE(southsider2k7 @ Nov 9 2008, 08:41 AM)
Well this has become an interesting hotbed of activity. First of all I would like to welcome all of our new voices to the site.
Secondly I do want throw out there that the one "rule" I do have is that we avoid personal attacks if at all possible. Allegations to the case are one thing, calling people an ambulance chaser are another. Please do not include those type of things here.
Thirdly, as many of you have observed by now, this board is open format. Unlike other forms of media, we are not bound by time constraints, size constraints, editors, advertisers, etc. If you have a story that you want to fully tell that you feel has not been vetted, feel free. I love to hear both sides of a story, as I do believe that an educated public is the best kind. I would love to hear "the other side of the story" in this specific case.
Forthly, my question personal question on this situation would be very simple. Do the coaches involved deny or accept the allegations of sexual orientation epitaphs being used and/or accepted in these settings.
I don't know who you are given that I am clearly new to this site, but I have found it interesting and it may have been useful earlier in the process.
Nontheless, the coaches have denied and do deny the allegations set forth by the complaining parents. The specific allegations were set forth in an e-mail from the parents to Garbacik (at the Kaletha's request).
Posted by: southsider2k7 Nov 9 2008, 09:05 AM
QUOTE(CLW28 @ Nov 9 2008, 09:02 AM)
I don't know who you are given that I am clearly new to this site, but I have found it interesting and it may have been useful earlier in the process.
Nontheless, the coaches have denied and do deny the allegations set forth by the complaining parents. The specific allegations were set forth in an e-mail from the parents to Garbacik (at the Kaletha's request).
My name is Michael Gresham, and I am the owner/founder of the site. We have been around since about December 2006, but have really caught on in growth over about the last 6 months or so.
Thank you for giving a clear response to my question!
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 9 2008, 09:52 AM
QUOTE(Roger Kaputnik @ Nov 6 2008, 04:18 PM)
Well, Mr. Kaletha has testified that he says wildly inappropriate things to children in his care. That really should have settled the matter.
When?
Posted by: krk Nov 9 2008, 10:56 AM
QUOTE(jt246 @ Nov 9 2008, 12:18 AM)
When I sent my letter in to the Anvil Chorus to say that my child has played on Mr Kaletha's teams, basketball, t-ball, baseball, football for 6 years and that we have never heard him use any negative comment toward any child on his team the letter wasn't printed. I called and spoke with Dave the editor and was told that he had more than 50 letters sitting on his desk and that it probably wouldn't make it in. We talked further and I was then informed that most of the letters were positive.
So how do we request that the ND do a "their side" article? It doesn't seem as if they are interested in printing anything positive for Kaletha.
Did you do the math? My child has played for Mr Kaletha for three sports each year for six years. In all of those months that we were at practices and at games, NEVER did Mr Kaletha call a child a name, harrass them or abuse them. He actually taught them to respect each other, their parents, to do their homework and to help in their community. Can't say that I have ever had another coach tell my children that.
If every person who reads this thread deluged the ND with requests for a "their side" story, one of two things would occur;
They would comply and everyone who participated could claim victory.
OR
They wouldn't comply and we could bash them relentlessly and the claims of "Team Coaches" would be validated.
It's a win-win, people.
(Not sure how to respond to the "Did you do the math?" question. Is JT posing this question to me personally or just asking it in a general way?)
Posted by: MC Born & Raised Nov 9 2008, 01:09 PM
QUOTE(CLW28 @ Nov 9 2008, 07:45 AM)
Also, if I would have recused myself at the MCPR hearing, which was NOT necessary at the time (but, I agree, will be necessary at LLL's meeting concerning this matter), I would not have been able to personally witness your testimony change during that same hearing..........as you went from stating that you heard Scott make a direct, derogatory comment to then conceding that you made a leap in your interpretation of what was said!!
Chris, now you're making a leap. I misspoke when I paraphrased what Scott said on draft night. "Misspoke" because I should have quoted it directly. I first said that Scott "indicated" a boy had a homesexual relationship with another boy. Then, on cross, I quoted him directly as saying they had a "special" relationship as evidenced by wrestling naked in the window together.
I admitted it was a leap to infer that he felt this was a homosexual activity. But given the choice of words and intonation, I don't feel that's an illogical inference to make and I doubt anyone else that isn't in your camp would either. My only mistake was paraphrasing on the first question, giving you vultures an opportunity to pick at me.
Posted by: ANH27 Nov 9 2008, 07:28 PM
QUOTE(jt246 @ Nov 8 2008, 11:37 PM)
Why yes we were there the night the police came to the field. Were you? Had you been you would have seen exactly what I am talking about. There were more than enough adults present that were sickened by the way Kevin Devereaux acted in front of children. They were amazed by his bizarre and erratic behavior. There were three officers of the law that were subjected to his behavior. When the armed officers arrived at the field and saw their co-workers as part of the coaching staff, they were more than a little mad that they had to respond to such a clearly unnecessary call.
By the way what is the "original issue"? After reviewing the six pages of this blog I have yet to find it. Did you file it? You seem to know "exactly" what you are talking about. Now, if you cannot answer these questions precisely then you yourself shouldn't be slinging the mud that you are accusing Camp Kaletha of doing. I am just giving this city the other side of a very disturbing story and I am only getting started. You seem a little irritated that the tide of this page is suddenly turning away from Kaletha bashing. Nite Nite
OOPS. Guess I inadvertently hit a nerve.
Never said and didn't mean to imply that I was there.
It just seems that you're upset about all of these 'unsubstantiated' and 'false' comments being made against you, so I was curious as to how you would justify doing the same to someone else.
I was operating under the impression that we were allowed to ask questions on this site if something wasn’t clear.
The 'original issue' I spoke of was "coaches' allowing inappropriate language to be used by adults and boys on teams under their direction". My interpretation of the news stories to date leads me to deduce that was what this was all about.
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=17479&TM=48389.91
I didn't realize that I was slinging mud. I had thought I was merely expressing my reaction and opinion. Our opinions in this matter apparently don't completly agree, but that doesn't mean that either of us should be prevented from expressing them.
Few things irritate me and this isn't one of them - I have no personal interest in this other then as a citizen and as someone that cares about children. Again, I was under the impression that this site was for making comments, expressing your opinions and reading the opinions of others on this site.
Posted by: Max Main Nov 9 2008, 07:46 PM
It is.
Posted by: Ang Nov 9 2008, 08:58 PM
Wow! I'm out for a couple days and the place goes nuts!
Interesting reading guys! I did notice a few things I would like to comment on.
To CLW, first you said this:
QUOTE
The evidence showed that there was a long history of differences between Scott and the father of the alleged victim thereby providing a reason for the accusations. The alleged victim and most of his teammates were never interviewed by Garbacik.
Then this:
QUOTE
The father of the boy that was allegedly instructed to hit an opposing player testified at the Park Bd. hearing that Scott never gave or condoned such an instruction. He should know, he spoke to his son.
My question is this: If the father of the first child made the allegations because he spoke to his son, why is he wrong when the father of the second child is right, after also speaking to his son? Having worked in the school system with children, they are NOT reliable. They will change their story to please the adult they are telling it to. And who's to say the second child denied being instructed to lob a ball at some one because he was threatened? And being scared of the person who threatened him, won't admit that he was threatened to begin with. I'm NOT saying that is the case here, just offering a suggestion. As I see it, you contradict yourself.
In general:
I don't know how or why the (Name removed to protect a child) were brought up, but I know (Name removed to protect a child) very well. I have worked closely with him in many different capacities and I believe that if (name removed to protect a child) felt the police needed to be called, there must have been a good reason for it. JT keeps asking if people were there, but has admitted to being on a different field than (name removed to protect a child), so how can JT know what actually transpired to make (Name removed to protect a child) feel the need to call the police?
Also, I have worked closely with Darrell Garbacik, and have the same opinion of him as I do (Name removed to protect a child). If Darrell felt there was a need to suspend the two coaches, then there must have been a good reason for it.
To JT:
I admire your suggestion for people to get involved, but you must understand that many of our members do not reside in MC anymore. I am one of them. And, just so you know, I am very active in the community where I reside. I volunteer for the Humane Society outside of the shelter-with fundraising events and such. And I also volunteer a lot for my daughter's various activities. If I lived in City, I would do the same thing there.
To MC Born,
You rock. There is just no other way to describe what I think of you.
I have edited my own post to remove names mentioned in this thread that should never have been brought up in the first place. This is not censorship as I have elected to edit all on my own. Admin Ang
Posted by: krk Nov 9 2008, 10:52 PM
QUOTE(jt246 @ Nov 9 2008, 09:26 AM)
POST DELETED BY ADMINISTRATOR
Many people brighter and more learned than I (admittedly, it doesn't take much
) read this portion of the story and came away thinking it was fact. I think most people assume, given the litigious nature of our society, no local newspaper would risk printing anything that might be a liability. Amidst all the squabbling, it's heartening to see people on both sides of the issue care so much about the youth. Michigan City does have an engaged contingent of parents! It's also encouraging to have a site that makes this exchange possible.
SSder, you should start to think about attracting advertisers. CBTL is THE ONLY FORUM for MC of any relevance.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Nov 10 2008, 08:43 AM
A site cluttered with ads would be a big turn-off.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Nov 10 2008, 08:55 AM
QUOTE(krk @ Nov 9 2008, 10:52 PM)
SSder, you should start to think about attracting advertisers. CBTL is THE ONLY FORUM for MC of any relevance.
I have zero interest in advertisers. I have a great deal on hosting, so it isn't costing me much at all to maintain the site. The board itself is a free one, as it isn't the most current model. I am not looking to make any money off of the site, and because of the scope of the viewership, any money would be minimal anyway. Plus the headache of having to answer to advertisers about content would take away from the purity of the site.
And the second line has nothing to do with me. Its all about the people who read and post here. All I do is give people a chance to connect. After that point, it is all up to you all.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Nov 10 2008, 08:57 AM
QUOTE(CLW28 @ Nov 9 2008, 09:02 AM)
I don't know who you are given that I am clearly new to this site, but I have found it interesting and it may have been useful earlier in the process.
Nontheless, the coaches have denied and do deny the allegations set forth by the complaining parents. The specific allegations were set forth in an e-mail from the parents to Garbacik (at the Kaletha's request).
So out of curiousity, where do you feel the allegations and the witnesses are coming from?
Posted by: southsider2k7 Nov 10 2008, 09:49 AM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=72&ArticleID=18760
QUOTE
Suspensions
Park Board finally gets it right
Editorial
The Michigan City Park Board finally made the right call. On Thursday, after an admission by board attorney Patrick Donoghue that he had made a mistake, the board reversed itself and ordered youth coaches Scott Kaletha and Mike Schwanke suspended for a year.
On Oct. 27, the four-member board voted 2-2 on a motion not to uphold the suspension. Members Phil Freese and Bryant Dabney voted in favor of lifting the suspension and members Phil Latchford and Tom Milcarek voted to suspend the coaches. Because there was no majority, members looked to Donoghue for a ruling and he told the board a tie voted meant the suspensions were no longer in effect.
On Oct. 28, the Michigan City Common Council met and expressed its displeasure with the Park Board and asked for copies of the transcripts from the previous night's meeting. Members indicated they were ready to ask Mayor Chuck Oberlie, who appoints the Park Board, to remove Freese and Dabney.
However, before any of that moved forward, city attorney John Espar contacted Donoghue to point out that under Roberts Rules of Order, which governs how meetings (including the Oct. 27 special meeting) are conducted, if a motion doesn't get a majority, it fails.
Donoghue apologized for his error, pointing out that the question was whether the board should reverse the suspensions. Since the motion didn't get a majority, the suspensions should stand.
Following the reversal, Kaletha and his attorney, Chris Willoughby, protested. Willoughby said he was "dumbfounded" by the reversal and Kaletha called it "small-town politics." The coaches have denied the allegations that led to the suspensions.
It's unfortunate that the board attorney erred in the original ruling, which needed a clear decision. The flip-flop only makes the park board look as if it mishandled the situation.
Our Opinion
The Issue:
Coaches' suspensions upheld, after all.
Our Opinion:
The motion to not uphold the suspensions in fact failed on a 2-2 vote. The ruling that the suspensions were not in effect was an error.
Park Board finally gets it right
Editorial
The Michigan City Park Board finally made the right call. On Thursday, after an admission by board attorney Patrick Donoghue that he had made a mistake, the board reversed itself and ordered youth coaches Scott Kaletha and Mike Schwanke suspended for a year.
On Oct. 27, the four-member board voted 2-2 on a motion not to uphold the suspension. Members Phil Freese and Bryant Dabney voted in favor of lifting the suspension and members Phil Latchford and Tom Milcarek voted to suspend the coaches. Because there was no majority, members looked to Donoghue for a ruling and he told the board a tie voted meant the suspensions were no longer in effect.
On Oct. 28, the Michigan City Common Council met and expressed its displeasure with the Park Board and asked for copies of the transcripts from the previous night's meeting. Members indicated they were ready to ask Mayor Chuck Oberlie, who appoints the Park Board, to remove Freese and Dabney.
However, before any of that moved forward, city attorney John Espar contacted Donoghue to point out that under Roberts Rules of Order, which governs how meetings (including the Oct. 27 special meeting) are conducted, if a motion doesn't get a majority, it fails.
Donoghue apologized for his error, pointing out that the question was whether the board should reverse the suspensions. Since the motion didn't get a majority, the suspensions should stand.
Following the reversal, Kaletha and his attorney, Chris Willoughby, protested. Willoughby said he was "dumbfounded" by the reversal and Kaletha called it "small-town politics." The coaches have denied the allegations that led to the suspensions.
It's unfortunate that the board attorney erred in the original ruling, which needed a clear decision. The flip-flop only makes the park board look as if it mishandled the situation.
Our Opinion
The Issue:
Coaches' suspensions upheld, after all.
Our Opinion:
The motion to not uphold the suspensions in fact failed on a 2-2 vote. The ruling that the suspensions were not in effect was an error.
Posted by: MKMF Nov 10 2008, 10:38 AM
This site was brought to my attention by my son who lives out of state. He called to ask me what in the world is going on in Michigan City youth sports! Out of curiosity I had to look and see what he was talking about.
After reading the comments on this subject I felt the need to express my opinion because I feel strongly about protecting our children.
First, and most importantly, after reading the News-dispatch articles and others comments, I did not notice any of these to contain the accusers names. This is inexcusable as you now have left this child open to more ridicule and abuse! Shame on you and also jt246. I believe you also mentioned you both were involved in youth sports. If you are so concerned about the youth you never would have released the names of the accusers. Instead, you did, which just seems to be a personal attack on this family.
Second,, Mr Willoughby, you seem to be using this forum as your own personal courtroom which, I am sure it is not meant to be. Do you do this every time you lose a case? In my opinion this seems highly unethical on you part. If I ever need an attorney, you and the firm you work for will not be my choice.
Thirdly, do not ask me my name because frankly, you and jt246 frighten me. Your anger jumps off this page. Truly you epitomize the statement “ boys will be boys”. I guess you just never grew up.
Stop your “puffing up of the chest” game your playing and get on to more important things.
Posted by: ANH27 Nov 10 2008, 11:07 AM
QUOTE(MKMF @ Nov 10 2008, 10:38 AM)
First, and most importantly, after reading the News-dispatch articles and others comments, I did not notice any of these to contain the accusers names. This is inexcusable as you now have left this child open to more ridicule and abuse! Shame on you and also jt246. I believe you also mentioned you both were involved in youth sports. If you are so concerned about the youth you never would have released the names of the accusers. Instead, you did, which just seems to be a personal attack on this family.
Nothing like wounding the victim... again.
Second,, Mr Willoughby, you seem to be using this forum as your own personal courtroom which, I am sure it is not meant to be. Do you do this every time you lose a case? In my opinion this seems highly unethical on you part. If I ever need an attorney, you and the firm you work for will not be my choice.
Thirdly, do not ask me my name because frankly, you and jt246 frighten me. Your anger jumps off this page. Truly you epitomize the statement “ boys will be boys”. I guess you just never grew up.
Stop your “puffing up of the chest” game your playing and get on to more important things.
Well said!
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 10 2008, 01:44 PM
QUOTE(MKMF @ Nov 10 2008, 10:38 AM)
This site was brought to my attention by my son who lives out of state. He called to ask me what in the world is going on in Michigan City youth sports! Out of curiosity I had to look and see what he was talking about.
After reading the comments on this subject I felt the need to express my opinion because I feel strongly about protecting our children.
First, and most importantly, after reading the News-dispatch articles and others comments, I did not notice any of these to contain the accusers names. This is inexcusable as you now have left this child open to more ridicule and abuse! Shame on you and also jt246. I believe you also mentioned you both were involved in youth sports. If you are so concerned about the youth you never would have released the names of the accusers. Instead, you did, which just seems to be a personal attack on this family.
Second,, Mr Willoughby, you seem to be using this forum as your own personal courtroom which, I am sure it is not meant to be. Do you do this every time you lose a case? In my opinion this seems highly unethical on you part. If I ever need an attorney, you and the firm you work for will not be my choice.
Thirdly, do not ask me my name because frankly, you and jt246 frighten me. Your anger jumps off this page. Truly you epitomize the statement “ boys will be boys”. I guess you just never grew up.
Stop your “puffing up of the chest” game your playing and get on to more important things.
I have intentionally not released any names in this matter. I cannot speak for others. So, your assertions as they pertain to me are misplaced. As for the rest of your comments, they are misinformed, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 10 2008, 01:57 PM
QUOTE(MC Born & Raised @ Nov 9 2008, 01:09 PM)
Chris, now you're making a leap. I misspoke when I paraphrased what Scott said on draft night. "Misspoke" because I should have quoted it directly. I first said that Scott "indicated" a boy had a homesexual relationship with another boy. Then, on cross, I quoted him directly as saying they had a "special" relationship as evidenced by wrestling naked in the window together.
I admitted it was a leap to infer that he felt this was a homosexual activity. But given the choice of words and intonation, I don't feel that's an illogical inference to make and I doubt anyone else that isn't in your camp would either. My only mistake was paraphrasing on the first question, giving you vultures an opportunity to pick at me.
All something that the transcript can confirm, I'm sure.
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 10 2008, 02:14 PM
Clearly this is a matter in which there have not been and will never be any "winners". The entire scenario is unfortunate for this community. However, and once again, the purpose of making use of this site is to inform the community that there is another side that is flat out being censored and ignored!!
Whether you like these coaches or ultimately believe them, it seems that too many people are ready to jump the gun in making their decision regarding what actually occured. Is it such a novel concept to imagine that the allegations are not true?
There were parents and children that the complaining parents and Garbacik specifically stated witnessed the coaches participating in and/or condoning the alleged actions. However, these same parents and children that were alleged to have supported the complaining parents' allegation in fact did just the opposite--this is all evidenced by sworn affidavits by all of the remaining families involved with the travel team. In the end, both the comlaining parents and Garbacik made allegations that have been unsubstantiated, all while these coaches continue to be the subject of defamatory remarks. At this point, even the appearance of fairness might be acceptable.
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 10 2008, 02:16 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k7 @ Nov 10 2008, 08:57 AM)
So out of curiousity, where do you feel the allegations and the witnesses are coming from?
In terms of basis or source?
Posted by: southsider2k7 Nov 10 2008, 02:21 PM
QUOTE(CLW28 @ Nov 10 2008, 02:16 PM)
In terms of basis or source?
More in basis, but I would be interested to hear sources, at least in a general sense. My initial impression is that it is hard to have this many people fabricate something this serious in 99.99% of cases.
Posted by: ANH27 Nov 10 2008, 02:50 PM
QUOTE(CLW28 @ Nov 10 2008, 02:14 PM)
Clearly this is a matter in which there have not been and will never be any "winners".
And just when I thought we'd never agree on anything...
Posted by: ANH27 Nov 10 2008, 03:01 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k7 @ Nov 10 2008, 02:21 PM)
My initial impression is that it is hard to have this many people fabricate something this serious in 99.99% of cases.
This is where my opinion in this comes from also - It wasn't just a couple of people that reviewed this case - it was many people and most of them have (at least to my knowledge) very sound, strong reputations.
These are people that I have only heard and/or witnessed good things about. I would put my trust in them.
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 10 2008, 03:05 PM
QUOTE(ANH27 @ Nov 10 2008, 03:01 PM)
This is where my opinion in this comes from also - It wasn't just a couple of people that reviewed this case - it was many people and most of them have (at least to my knowledge) very sound, strong reputations.
These are people that I have only heard and/or witnessed good things about. I would put my trust in them.
What is the perception of "many people"? What would it take to convince you that there may be credence to the coaches' position?
Posted by: southsider2k7 Nov 10 2008, 03:15 PM
QUOTE(CLW28 @ Nov 10 2008, 03:05 PM)
What is the perception of "many people"? What would it take to convince you that there may be credence to the coaches' position?
Speaking for myself, as a person with no first-hand experience, it would take pretty much everyone involved saying that the coaches did nothing for me to fully believe it. I know it is an initial impression, but like I said earlier, how would you get a significant amount of people together to all tell the same story about something that cruel? That kind of coordination is very tough to achieve under good circumstances, let alone if they were lying to try to take someone down, or whatever reason they would make something like that up. Logically it is much easier for a lot of people's story's to mesh if they are the truth. That's why I was curious why you would feel that this kind of thing was happening in this situation if it wasn't true.
I would love to hear the whole story!
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 10 2008, 03:50 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k7 @ Nov 10 2008, 03:15 PM)
Speaking for myself, as a person with no first-hand experience, it would take pretty much everyone involved saying that the coaches did nothing for me to fully believe it. I know it is an initial impression, but like I said earlier, how would you get a significant amount of people together to all tell the same story about something that cruel? That kind of coordination is very tough to achieve under good circumstances, let alone if they were lying to try to take someone down, or whatever reason they would make something like that up. Logically it is much easier for a lot of people's story's to mesh if they are the truth. That's why I was curious why you would feel that this kind of thing was happening in this situation if it wasn't true.
I would love to hear the whole story!
That's just it!! There isn't some mass of people lined up telling the same story regarding the allegations. There was Darrell Garbacik and the complaining parents. Despite allegations in Garbacik's report to the contrary, the remaining families involved with the travel team spoke out in support of the coaches. Statements in the form of direct testimony and/or sworn Affidavits were presented at the appeals hearing that directly contradicted the allegations.
Perception has been very powerful in creating "reality" in this matter.
Posted by: Ang Nov 10 2008, 03:54 PM
May I suggest to CLW that the two coaches in question use this forum to explain themselves? If they want their side of the story to be heard and they don't feel they are getting the attention from the ND that they deserve (there is no sarcasm intended there) then they should try a different forum. Since EVERY ONE here is allowed to speak what's on their mind (so long as they play nice) then this would be the perfect spot to do so. If they don't feel comfortable signing up and posting, have them write what they want to say and you can post it on their behalf.
I think this would help all of us to understand exactly what happened and maybe ease our worried minds. Someone said earlier in the thread when you only hear one side you tend to have a biased opinion. Well, CLW, ask your boys to remove that bias and use this forum to be heard.
Thank you.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Nov 10 2008, 04:14 PM
QUOTE(CLW28 @ Nov 10 2008, 03:05 PM)
What is the perception of "many people"? What would it take to convince you that there may be credence to the coaches' position?
The coaches are reported saying that they were aware of (at least) the "jokes" directed to the 12 YO boy in their care. This was reported in the ND story cited that began the public discussion as well as in the reports from the hearing. In the transcript, are they asked specifically if they condoned or participated in this behavior? Do they deny that they said it was like that when they were young players and that it was a case of "boys will be boys?" Do they further deny that the behavior occurred but they remained ignorant of it?
My inference, and others have stated the same thing, from the coverage and their reported remarks, is that they were aware of and participated in the behavior. I infer, reasonably, I add, that he felt it was acceptable. I also infer from the coverage, that they were on good vehavior most of the time in front of other adults but were a little more "edgy" when it was just them and the kids.
I am just a regular person, without formal training in splitting hairs, but the gist of the story is plain, and I think the Board got it right this time.
Posted by: MKMF Nov 10 2008, 04:32 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k7 @ Nov 10 2008, 02:21 PM)
More in basis, but I would be interested to hear sources, at least in a general sense. My initial impression is that it is hard to have this many people fabricate something this serious in 99.99% of cases.
I agree, I can't imagine any parent making that kind of allegation with out it being true. Why would you ever want to put your child through this kind of thing if it wasn't true. So sorry, I still believe the allegations to be true
Posted by: Dave Nov 10 2008, 05:22 PM
QUOTE(CLW28 @ Nov 10 2008, 02:14 PM)
Clearly this is a matter in which there have not been and will never be any "winners". The entire scenario is unfortunate for this community. However, and once again, the purpose of making use of this site is to inform the community that there is another side that is flat out being censored and ignored!!
(bolding mine)
Censored? Censored?!?!?
Where? How? You're claiming that the Admins or Moderators are censoring what exactly on this site? No one else would be capable of censoring anything here. So where's your proof of this allegation, Counselor?
Posted by: Ang Nov 10 2008, 05:27 PM
Dave, smooth your feathers!
I think what CLW is saying is that there is another side being censored ELSEWHERE (specifically the ND) and he is using this forum to inform the public of that other side. I don't believe he was accusing us of censorship.
Posted by: Dave Nov 10 2008, 05:34 PM
QUOTE(Ang @ Nov 10 2008, 05:27 PM)
Dave, smooth your feathers!
I think what CLW is saying is that there is another side being censored ELSEWHERE (specifically the ND) and he is using this forum to inform the public of that other side. I don't believe he was accusing us of censorship.
And upon re-reading, you're right and I'm wrong.
Sorry about that, CLW.
And just to show we don't censor, I won't use my fabulous Mod powers to delete my stupid post above.
Posted by: Ang Nov 10 2008, 05:38 PM
Your magic censorship wand is hereby suspended for the period of one stupid post.
You must now take a course in slow reading and upon completion, your wand will be reinstated.
Posted by: digger262 Nov 10 2008, 07:12 PM
QUOTE(MKMF @ Nov 10 2008, 06:32 PM)
I agree, I can't imagine any parent making that kind of allegation with out it being true. Why would you ever want to put your child through this kind of thing if it wasn't true. So sorry, I still believe the allegations to be true
Really? You don't watch the news often? There have been parents who have killed cheerleaders so their child could make the squad, parents who have accused teachers of rape because they flunked their child, etc. I'm not saying that's the case here, but c'mon, you're basing who to believe based only on allegations? I agree most parents would not put their children through something like this if it wasn't true. But if I could tell you all the things I've seen parents do for a variety of reasons for/to their kids in relations to sports, I don't think you'd find the allegations as airtight as you might imagine. It's unfortunate but some parents think if they believe they are helping their child, not matter how vindictive, it is acceptable, even commendable.
And just to repeat, CLW has stated in an earlier post: BOTH COACHES DENY ALL THE ALLEGATIONS. The original article reported on Garbaciks assertions as if they were fact.
Again, I'm not sure who is right or wrong on this issue, but it seems most everyone is basing their opinion on Darrell Garbaciks report and assuming it is 100% accurate. To me, that appears to be far from the truth.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Nov 10 2008, 08:04 PM
QUOTE(CLW28 @ Nov 10 2008, 03:50 PM)
That's just it!! There isn't some mass of people lined up telling the same story regarding the allegations. There was Darrell Garbacik and the complaining parents. Despite allegations in Garbacik's report to the contrary, the remaining families involved with the travel team spoke out in support of the coaches. Statements in the form of direct testimony and/or sworn Affidavits were presented at the appeals hearing that directly contradicted the allegations.
Perception has been very powerful in creating "reality" in this matter.
So how the heck was there nine hours of testimony in the appeals case?
Posted by: ANH27 Nov 10 2008, 09:01 PM
[quote name='digger262' date='Nov 10 2008, 07:12 PM' post='15949']
Really? You don't watch the news often? There have been parents who have killed cheerleaders so their child could make the squad, parents who have accused teachers of rape because they flunked their child, etc.
There have been coaches that have murdered players. There have been coaches that have encouraged extremely unhealthy lifestyles that have led to anorexia, or drug dependency - you hear about those things too. Sure there are bad parents out there, and there are bad coaches too.
I just don't buy that it's nothing more then bad parenting in this case.
It's unfortunate but some parents think if they believe they are helping their child, not matter how vindictive, it is acceptable, even commendable.
Is it vindictive to stand up for your child when he/she has been hurt, or to teach your child to stand up for themselves?
And just to repeat, CLW has stated in an earlier post: BOTH COACHES DENY ALL THE ALLEGATIONS.
Not to be too picky, but of course CLW claims both coaches deny everything. He is their lawyer. What else is he going to say? OJ's lawyer said that OJ was innocent. Scott Petersons lawyer said that he was innocent. I think it's mandatory lawyer speak.
Also, ND states that BOTH COACHES ARE GUILTY. The Parks Department states the same thing. So I tend to be swayed more by the Parks Department and the ND over one lawyer. Plus, did you see last weeks City Council meeting? They didn't seem to believe that the coaches were innocent either.
Posted by: MKMF Nov 11 2008, 07:57 AM
This is true, the lawyer would be a bit biased wouldn't he. Just doing his job.
Very well said!
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Nov 11 2008, 08:01 AM
QUOTE(Roger Kaputnik @ Nov 10 2008, 04:14 PM)
The coaches are reported saying that they were aware of (at least) the "jokes" directed to the 12 YO boy in their care. This was reported in the ND story cited that began the public discussion as well as in the reports from the hearing. In the transcript, are they asked specifically if they condoned or participated in this behavior? Do they deny that they said it was like that when they were young players and that it was a case of "boys will be boys?" Do they further deny that the behavior occurred but they remained ignorant of it?
Are these questions addressed in the transcript? What are the answers?
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 11 2008, 08:19 AM
QUOTE(MKMF @ Nov 11 2008, 07:57 AM)
This is true, the lawyer would be a bit biased wouldn't he. Just doing his job.
Very well said!
MKMF:
I realize that there is this sentiment-- goes with the territory. Nonetheless, there is actually evidence, oral and written, that was presented at the hearing. There have even been attempts to clarify The ND article. All of which continue to be ignored.
No one is mandating that you have to believe the coaches or me. However, it sure would be nice to give everyone the opportunity to make an informed decision, which, by definition, would entail hearing both sides.
Posted by: ANH27 Nov 11 2008, 08:47 AM
QUOTE(southsider2k7 @ Nov 10 2008, 08:04 PM)
So how the heck was there nine hours of testimony in the appeals case?
Good question.
I find it very hard to believe that all nine hours was taken up with just one side.
Also, the ND states that the Parks Department was not provided with representation so I would imagine that the Parks Department actually had the least amount of time - begging CLW's pardon but his clients had a lawyer present and I'm sure that the lawyer demanded and received more then his fair share of talk time. It would be a poor lawyer that didn't - especially when unchallenged by another attorney.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Nov 11 2008, 09:00 AM
QUOTE(Roger Kaputnik @ Nov 10 2008, 04:14 PM)
The coaches are reported saying that they were aware of (at least) the "jokes" directed to the 12 YO boy in their care. This was reported in the ND story cited that began the public discussion as well as in the reports from the hearing. In the transcript, are they asked specifically if they condoned or participated in this behavior? Do they deny that they said it was like that when they were young players and that it was a case of "boys will be boys?" Do they further deny that the behavior occurred but they remained ignorant of it?
As implied above and here stated, this is the crux of the biscuit: If the answer to either of the last two questions is other than an unequivocal Yes, the case is closed and the suspensions are proper.
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 11 2008, 09:12 AM
QUOTE(southsider2k7 @ Nov 10 2008, 08:04 PM)
So how the heck was there nine hours of testimony in the appeals case?
It is very difficult to "summarize" what occurred. This hearing was handled like a trial-- direct examination, cross examin., etc. There were also procedural issues (objections, etc.) that were addressed as part of the process......bored yet? Contrary to recent assertions in our local publication and/or public meetings, the Park Dept. and Bd. set the rules, we did not!! So, Garbacik was fully aware that the coaches would have legal representation, but the Dept. chose not to have their own.
Ultimately, I believe 12 people testified and 48 sworn affidavits (in support of Scott and Mike from parents and players) were submitted for consideration. I couldn't possibly provide all the detail of the hearing on this site, but I will try to answer questions as well as I can.
To answer "Roger's" question, I believe the transcript (from the hearing) addresses and answers the questions posed here. The coaches did directly deny participating in, being aware of, and/or condoning the things that the complaining parents allege in their complaint. The details of their complaint are clearly set forth in an e-mail to Garbacik.
It would be easy to post Garbacik's report and the Affidavits on this site for all to see. However, the dilemma is that the players are identified in the docs., and we do not want to subject any of the kids to the public.
Posted by: ANH27 Nov 11 2008, 09:58 AM
QUOTE(CLW28 @ Nov 11 2008, 09:12 AM)
It would be easy to post Garbacik's report and the Affidavits on this site for all to see. However, the dilemma is that the players are identified in the docs., and we do not want to subject any of the kids to the public.
It would also be VERY easy to remove all names from the document.
I believe that this is not an uncommon practice.
Infact, it may be the sole reason the Black Marker, and White Out were invented.
If your clients were given a copy of this report wouldn't the Parks dept. have already removed the names of minors involved so that your clients - actually both sides - wouldn't be able to contact or influence the players listed? I might be way off on that, but that was the impression that I've always had.
Also - if the 'hearing' is over then isn't all of that public?
Can't any of us just pay for a copy?
As far as not subjecting children - too late.
Posted by: Ang Nov 11 2008, 10:01 AM
QUOTE(Ang @ Nov 10 2008, 02:54 PM)
May I suggest to CLW that the two coaches in question use this forum to explain themselves? If they want their side of the story to be heard and they don't feel they are getting the attention from the ND that they deserve (there is no sarcasm intended there) then they should try a different forum. Since EVERY ONE here is allowed to speak what's on their mind (so long as they play nice) then this would be the perfect spot to do so. If they don't feel comfortable signing up and posting, have them write what they want to say and you can post it on their behalf.
I think this would help all of us to understand exactly what happened and maybe ease our worried minds. Someone said earlier in the thread when you only hear one side you tend to have a biased opinion. Well, CLW, ask your boys to remove that bias and use this forum to be heard.
Thank you.
Second request.
CLW you haven't even commented on my request.
Are the coaches not up to the challenge?
Or are you just waiting to hear from them?
Or do you not feel this is worth the effort?
Inquiring minds want to know.
If the coaches want to be heard then use this forum.
If they are not up to the challenge, then I will stand by my original opinion---GUILTY!
I'm willing to have an open mind regarding this situation, despite my history growing up with Scott and knowing what kind of a mean little boy he was (he was very cruel to me and my sister--to the point that my Dad had to talk to his Dad), but I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 11 2008, 10:24 AM
QUOTE(ANH27 @ Nov 11 2008, 09:58 AM)
It would also be VERY easy to remove all names from the document.
I believe that this is not an uncommon practice.
Infact, it may be the sole reason the Black Marker, and White Out were invented.
If your clients were given a copy of this report wouldn't the Parks dept. have already removed the names of minors involved so that your clients - actually both sides - wouldn't be able to contact or influence the players listed? I might be way off on that, but that was the impression that I've always had.
Also - if the 'hearing' is over then isn't all of that public?
Can't any of us just pay for a copy?
As far as not subjecting children - too late.
All fair comments, and providing redacted copies has been contemplated. In addition to continued exposure of the kids in the public (they really have not been to this point-- but I concede that we are probably a public records request or two from that), another concern is determining exactly how any redactions would be done so as to satisfy the need for info. without taking away the ability to make sense of it all by inhibiting the ability to connect the report with the affidavits. My clients were given a copy at which there was an attempt at redaction, but the names are clearly visible. Additionaly the affidavits have not been redacted, and non-redacted copies of the report and affidavits were submitted into evidence at the hearing.
The hearing and all relevant docs. are public records in my mind, but I know that the Park Bd. attorney previously took the position that the records are sealed.
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 11 2008, 10:35 AM
QUOTE(Ang @ Nov 11 2008, 10:01 AM)
Second request.
CLW you haven't even commented on my request.
Are the coaches not up to the challenge?
Or are you just waiting to hear from them?
Or do you not feel this is worth the effort?
Inquiring minds want to know.
If the coaches want to be heard then use this forum.
If they are not up to the challenge, then I will stand by my original opinion---GUILTY!
I'm willing to have an open mind regarding this situation, despite my history growing up with Scott and knowing what kind of a mean little boy he was (he was very cruel to me and my sister--to the point that my Dad had to talk to his Dad), but I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
Sorry. So much to respond to while actually trying to work. All involved are actually pleased to have found this forum. There are matters pertaining to the underlying issue here that are being contemplated and addressed, but rest assured this forum will most definitely be a resource in getting their side out. That opportunity is appreciated.
Also, there is definitely "worth" in the effort, especially given the opportunity to right the wrong these men and their families have had and continue to endure.
As for your exerience in your early days, I cannot speak to that, but I can say that one of the points I continually try to make in the youth sports context is that you never know what a child is going to grow up to be and the last thing anyone should want is to turn a kid off from participation.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Nov 11 2008, 11:05 AM
clw, if they categorically deny knowledge, involvement, etc., then I say it really is up to the kid's parents to bring forth witnesses. Until I hear witnesses, their denial has the same weight as the allegation.
The last part of this thought is that there does seem to be some fire under the smoke, and rather than meeting in an adversarial manner, it would have been better that the matter was treated as a factfinding conference, colleagues together to arrive at the best solution to an ugly situation.
Posted by: nise2cu Nov 11 2008, 11:33 AM
QUOTE(Roger Kaputnik @ Nov 11 2008, 11:05 AM)
clw, if they categorically deny knowledge, involvement, etc., then I say it really is up to the kid's parents to bring forth witnesses. Until I hear witnesses, their denial has the same weight as the allegation.
Sir, these are the questions you need to ask yourself. If the park superintendent felt that these two men were abusing a child, then why would he allow these two coaches to continue to coach the remainder of the season? Why would the park superintendent allow his child to be under the care of these two coaches after these allegations came out? Why would the participants’ parents allow their child to be under the supervision of these two coaches for 2 months after the park superintendent tried to make these two coaches sign a letter of admission of guilt. Why would the park superintendent tell the coaches to just sign the paper implying that all would be swept under the rug due to the fact that there already is too much going on at the park dept and the park dept does not need any more bad publicity. Then, low and behold, the park superintendent resigns from the job that he loves. That raises another good question… Why did he resign??
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 11 2008, 11:35 AM
QUOTE(Roger Kaputnik @ Nov 11 2008, 11:05 AM)
clw, if they categorically deny knowledge, involvement, etc., then I say it really is up to the kid's parents to bring forth witnesses. Until I hear witnesses, their denial has the same weight as the allegation.
What kid? That of the complaining parents? If you mean those parents, kids, and others in support of the coaches, they did come forth. They either testified or executed sworn affidavits, all in direct contradiction to the allegations set forth by Garbacik and the complaining parents. Again, 48 sworn docs--voluntarily!!
Ultimately, their denial does not carry the same weight as that would result in a net "he said/she said" and a level playing field. That's a significant part of the problem.....what Garbacik and the complaining parents have said is what apparently has been given credence!!
Posted by: Ang Nov 11 2008, 11:46 AM
QUOTE(CLW28 @ Nov 11 2008, 09:35 AM)
As for your exerience in your early days, I cannot speak to that, but I can say that one of the points I continually try to make in the youth sports context is that you never know what a child is going to grow up to be and the last thing anyone should want is to turn a kid off from participation.
And that is exactly why I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Nov 11 2008, 12:02 PM
QUOTE(CLW28 @ Nov 11 2008, 11:35 AM)
What kid? That of the complaining parents? If you mean those parents, kids, and others in support of the coaches, they did come forth. They either testified or executed sworn affidavits, all in direct contradiction to the allegations set forth by Garbacik and the complaining parents. Again, 48 sworn docs--voluntarily!!
Ultimately, their denial does not carry the same weight as that would result in a net "he said/she said" and a level playing field. That's a significant part of the problem.....what Garbacik and the complaining parents have said is what apparently has been given credence!!
I mean the alleged victim's parents have to bring witnesses (friendly or unfriendly) who, compelled to tell the truth, would reveal that the coaches either did know or did not know about the "teasing."
Regarding the affidavits, what is the penalty if they are not true? Without a penalty, those affidavits have little weight. Coerced (in the nice sense) testimony is credible.
Regarding the other post with all the questions by nise2cu, I think that there is no way I would ever allow my own children on a team with those two. I would also counsel others to avoid them.
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 11 2008, 01:19 PM
QUOTE(Roger Kaputnik @ Nov 11 2008, 12:02 PM)
I mean the alleged victim's parents have to bring witnesses (friendly or unfriendly) who, compelled to tell the truth, would reveal that the coaches either did know or did not know about the "teasing."
Regarding the affidavits, what is the penalty if they are not true? Without a penalty, those affidavits have little weight. Coerced (in the nice sense) testimony is credible.
Regarding the other post with all the questions by nise2cu, I think that there is no way I would ever allow my own children on a team with those two. I would also counsel others to avoid them.
Exactly, but they could and/or did not. I respectfully disagree about the affidavits--especially since at least 7 (-ish) of them directly refute claims and allegations Garbacik and the complaining parents made about these individiuals and/or their children witnessing (first hand) the alleged behavior. How come these individuals didn't do the same for Garbacik and/or the complaining parents? In fact, these individuals told Garbacik and/or the complaining parents that they did not agree with their "affidavit" (or version thereof) because it wasn't accurate.
Lastly, there are penalties for perjury, and I can assure you that everyone of them were aware that this matter could end up in a courtroom.
Posted by: ANH27 Nov 11 2008, 01:24 PM
CLW -
As it stands now my answer is that they are most likely guilty.
I honestly can’t believe ALL of the people involved in this have just been ‘making it up’ for fun.
I also cannot believe that the News Dispatch would repeatedly and knowingly publish incorrect information. I can believe that they may make a mistake here and there, but to out and out purposely do this to someone? I don't think so.
I am assuming that the News Dispatch can be sued like everyone else, so if there is so much proof of the ND being one sided then where is the lawsuit?
And while I’m on that subject, what about the Parks Board, or the Mayor, or the City itself?
I saw the City Council meeting last week (the week before?) and I was very moved by the board members thoughts and opinions on this. It seemed to me that all involved had given this a LOT of attention and plenty of thought.
Also, I am willing to bet that the JT246 that stormed in and began bashing everyone and everything that they didn’t completely agree with was one of your clients - (just my opinion.)
JT246 did not just jump in with a strong opinion or a need to have their views recognized – they seemed to want blood.
JT246 went thru each comment that had been made and when they didn’t like something they hit ‘reply’ and tried to rip someone apart – not just defend their position.
JT246 joined and made quite a few posts in a fairly small space of time.
This didn’t strike me as someone that was merely interested in the proceedings but instead as someone that was furious because of a personal involvement.
They even went so far as to provide information that could be damaging to the child involved in this (several times, as if to really rub it in).
Whoever JT246 may be it is my opinion that he/she has a VERY personal interest in how the public in general is viewing these two coaches.
If I believe that JT246 is one of the two coaches in question – and I do - then I have no choice but to believe that if they are capable of that kind of introduction with a group full of complete strangers, publicly revealing the child involved, and accusing the News Dispatch of having a ‘personal relationship’ with the parents that is causing the ND to ‘squelch’ information then they wouldn’t have the slightest problem in the world verbally attacking a child.
Maybe I’m way off on that, but… I don’t think so. I’m sure that I’m going to hear about this, but it’s what I believe.
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 11 2008, 01:38 PM
QUOTE(ANH27 @ Nov 11 2008, 01:24 PM)
CLW -
As it stands now my answer is that they are most likely guilty.
I honestly can’t believe ALL of the people involved in this have just been ‘making it up’ for fun.
I also cannot believe that the News Dispatch would repeatedly and knowingly publish incorrect information. I can believe that they may make a mistake here and there, but to out and out purposely do this to someone? I don't think so.
I am assuming that the News Dispatch can be sued like everyone else, so if there is so much proof of the ND being one sided then where is the lawsuit?
And while I’m on that subject, what about the Parks Board, or the Mayor, or the City itself?
I saw the City Council meeting last week (the week before?) and I was very moved by the board members thoughts and opinions on this. It seemed to me that all involved had given this a LOT of attention and plenty of thought.
Also, I am willing to bet that the JT246 that stormed in and began bashing everyone and everything that they didn’t completely agree with was one of your clients - (just my opinion.)
JT246 did not just jump in with a strong opinion or a need to have their views recognized – they seemed to want blood.
JT246 went thru each comment that had been made and when they didn’t like something they hit ‘reply’ and tried to rip someone apart – not just defend their position.
JT246 joined and made quite a few posts in a fairly small space of time.
This didn’t strike me as someone that was merely interested in the proceedings but instead as someone that was furious because of a personal involvement.
They even went so far as to provide information that could be damaging to the child involved in this (several times, as if to really rub it in).
Whoever JT246 may be it is my opinion that he/she has a VERY personal interest in how the public in general is viewing these two coaches.
If I believe that JT246 is one of the two coaches in question – and I do - then I have no choice but to believe that if they are capable of that kind of introduction with a group full of complete strangers, publicly revealing the child involved, and accusing the News Dispatch of having a ‘personal relationship’ with the parents that is causing the ND to ‘squelch’ information then they wouldn’t have the slightest problem in the world verbally attacking a child.
Maybe I’m way off on that, but… I don’t think so. I’m sure that I’m going to hear about this, but it’s what I believe.
The challenge of public opinion. I will say that all avenues are not closed, but it is very unfair and way off base to assume that lack of lawsuits equates to "guilt". Resources, cost/benefit analysis, etc. should all be considered. All just my opinion, but I'm their lawyer, right?
As for JT246, I do not believe that user is one my clients, and I certainly do not condone the method. However, this is yet another instance where you are going to believe what you want anyway.
Posted by: Ang Nov 11 2008, 02:00 PM
QUOTE(CLW28 @ Nov 11 2008, 12:38 PM)
As for JT246, I do not believe that user is one my clients, and I certainly do not condone the method.
I have to agree with CLW on this one. I don't believe JT is one of CLW's clients either. Maybe a relative of a client, but not an actual client.
Posted by: ANH27 Nov 11 2008, 02:27 PM
QUOTE(Ang @ Nov 11 2008, 02:00 PM)
I have to agree with CLW on this one. I don't believe JT is one of CLW's clients either. Maybe a relative of a client, but not an actual client.
I'd maybe go as far as a relative.
Posted by: Ang Nov 11 2008, 02:36 PM
QUOTE(ANH27 @ Nov 11 2008, 01:27 PM)
I'd maybe go as far as a relative.
Yeah, I'm thinking along those lines too.
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 11 2008, 02:44 PM
QUOTE(Roger Kaputnik @ Nov 11 2008, 11:05 AM)
The last part of this thought is that there does seem to be some fire under the smoke, and rather than meeting in an adversarial manner, it would have been better that the matter was treated as a factfinding conference, colleagues together to arrive at the best solution to an ugly situation.
As to this last part, which I, in my haste, overlooked, much less adversarial options were proposed by the coaches (to Garbacik and the complaining parents) and by me (to the Park Bd.'s attorney). Ultimately, I was told by the Park Bd.'s attorney that a hearing was required--nothing short of it.
Posted by: nise2cu Nov 11 2008, 02:49 PM
QUOTE(ANH27 @ Nov 11 2008, 01:24 PM)
CLW -
As it stands now my answer is that they are most likely guilty.
I honestly can’t believe ALL of the people involved in this have just been ‘making it up’ for fun.
I also cannot believe that the News Dispatch would repeatedly and knowingly publish incorrect information. I can believe that they may make a mistake here and there, but to out and out purposely do this to someone? I don't think so.
I am assuming that the News Dispatch can be sued like everyone else, so if there is so much proof of the ND being one sided then where is the lawsuit?
And while I’m on that subject, what about the Parks Board, or the Mayor, or the City itself?
I saw the City Council meeting last week (the week before?) and I was very moved by the board members thoughts and opinions on this. It seemed to me that all involved had given this a LOT of attention and plenty of thought.
Also, I am willing to bet that the JT246 that stormed in and began bashing everyone and everything that they didn’t completely agree with was one of your clients - (just my opinion.)
JT246 did not just jump in with a strong opinion or a need to have their views recognized – they seemed to want blood.
JT246 went thru each comment that had been made and when they didn’t like something they hit ‘reply’ and tried to rip someone apart – not just defend their position.
JT246 joined and made quite a few posts in a fairly small space of time.
This didn’t strike me as someone that was merely interested in the proceedings but instead as someone that was furious because of a personal involvement.
They even went so far as to provide information that could be damaging to the child involved in this (several times, as if to really rub it in).
Whoever JT246 may be it is my opinion that he/she has a VERY personal interest in how the public in general is viewing these two coaches.
If I believe that JT246 is one of the two coaches in question – and I do - then I have no choice but to believe that if they are capable of that kind of introduction with a group full of complete strangers, publicly revealing the child involved, and accusing the News Dispatch of having a ‘personal relationship’ with the parents that is causing the ND to ‘squelch’ information then they wouldn’t have the slightest problem in the world verbally attacking a child.
Maybe I’m way off on that, but… I don’t think so. I’m sure that I’m going to hear about this, but it’s what I believe.
ANH27,
You said and I quote, “I honestly can’t believe ALL of the people involved in this have just been ‘making it up’ for fun.”.
Do you know all the people involved in this?
There were many children and parents named in this 36 page report
and not one of them signed this report. Why?
Because the statements were not true.
The X park superintendent never investigated why none of the parents or their children signed this report except for the one and only child in question.
NISE2CU
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 11 2008, 03:05 PM
QUOTE(nise2cu @ Nov 11 2008, 02:49 PM)
ANH27,
You said and I quote, “I honestly can’t believe ALL of the people involved in this have just been ‘making it up’ for fun.”.
Do you know all the people involved in this?
There were many children and parents named in this 36 page report
and not one of them signed this report. Why?
Because the statements were not true.
The X park superintendent never investigated why none of the parents or their children signed this report except for the one and only child in question.
NISE2CU
This is not entirely correct. Garbacik never even spoke to the alleged victim. He only spoke to some others that the complaining parents claimed supported their position. As it turned out, those parents did not support Garbacik's report or the complaining parents-- facts which were also set out in the affidavits but somehow left out of Garbacik's report.
Some questions to ponder:
Why would these "other" parents risk having themselves and their children exposed as being dishonest by signing the sworn affidavits? If there was a question or shred of doubt, why not just stay out of it?
Posted by: Ang Nov 11 2008, 04:18 PM
Well, we are getting more and more posters here.
First I would like to welcome all the "newbies." It's great to have you guys here and I hope that you don't limit your input to just this thread. We have a lot going on and a lot of different things to discuss. Please check out our restaurant reviews and fun games we play in the City Living threads. We also have some very heated discussions in the City Talk threads.
Second, and most importantly, We, the Admin/Mod team, are pretty liberal with what you're allowed to post. We DO NOT censor--or least we haven't felt the need to do that yet. But please remember the basic rule--PLAY NICE. We do not allow defamatory comments nor slurs/slanders toward other members. It's okay to disagree, and we do encourage that here, but do so in a grown-up and respectful manner.
Having said that, again I would like to welcome you all to the board, and carry on......
Admin Ang
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Nov 11 2008, 05:14 PM
QUOTE(CLW28 @ Nov 11 2008, 02:44 PM)
As to this last part, which I, in my haste, overlooked, much less adversarial options were proposed by the coaches (to Garbacik and the complaining parents) and by me (to the Park Bd.'s attorney). Ultimately, I was told by the Park Bd.'s attorney that a hearing was required--nothing short of it.
You did not miss it. It was retrofitted to the post.
You are correct that there is more to the story than met the initial eye.
And I also welcome the newbies. I recommend two threads: Search for 'Grammar issues' and 'Pet Peeves.'
Posted by: ANH27 Nov 11 2008, 05:15 PM
QUOTE(nise2cu @ Nov 11 2008, 02:49 PM)
ANH27,
You said and I quote, “I honestly can’t believe ALL of the people involved in this have just been ‘making it up’ for fun.”.
Do you know all the people involved in this?
There were many children and parents named in this 36 page report
and not one of them signed this report. Why?
Because the statements were not true.
The X park superintendent never investigated why none of the parents or their children signed this report except for the one and only child in question.
NISE2CU
Hi NISE2CU - no, I don't know any of those involved, but I do know that a lot of people were involved in this and the odds of every one of those people being blind, ignorant liars is not very high.
As for signing the report - we only have CLW's claim that it's not signed.
And in all honesty any lawyer that tries a case on a blog... well that's just scary.
There are other, more appropriate avenues that should be taken if he and his clients feel that this is unjust.
And 36 pages!!!!! That sounds like a heck of report to me.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Nov 12 2008, 08:16 AM
QUOTE(CLW28 @ Nov 11 2008, 10:24 AM)
All fair comments, and providing redacted copies has been contemplated. In addition to continued exposure of the kids in the public (they really have not been to this point-- but I concede that we are probably a public records request or two from that), another concern is determining exactly how any redactions would be done so as to satisfy the need for info. without taking away the ability to make sense of it all by inhibiting the ability to connect the report with the affidavits. My clients were given a copy at which there was an attempt at redaction, but the names are clearly visible. Additionaly the affidavits have not been redacted, and non-redacted copies of the report and affidavits were submitted into evidence at the hearing.
The hearing and all relevant docs. are public records in my mind, but I know that the Park Bd. attorney previously took the position that the records are sealed.
But here we are discussing details that took place at those very hearings, right? I am confused as to why this is different than posting the relevant documents.
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 12 2008, 09:09 AM
QUOTE(southsider2k7 @ Nov 12 2008, 08:16 AM)
But here we are discussing details that took place at those very hearings, right? I am confused as to why this is different than posting the relevant documents.
I think the "struggle" is putting the kids' (and parents') names out there in black and white. Look how much damage has been done to the reputations of these coaches. Again, and as far as I know, no determination has been made by the Park Bd.'s attorney to release the docs. as public records (despite my own opinion as to the status of those docs.). Even if the docs. are public record, that doesn't mean that a responsible decision cannot be made. I hope that makes sense, but I feel like I am not explaining it well.
Ultimately, if the kids (and parents) that came out in support of the coaches are going to be further "exposed" to the public, there is some deliberation on the part of the coaches as to whether that should be at their direction.
Lastly, and this is in response to a prior post, there is no attempt to try this matter on this site--that is a ridiculous comment. Participation on this site has been a welcome opportunity to tell the side of the coaches that others have refused to acknowledge or publicize with as much (or any for that matter) fervor as the initial, fasle allegations and the subsequent circus in the guise of an appeals process.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Nov 12 2008, 09:33 AM
QUOTE(southsider2k7 @ Nov 12 2008, 08:16 AM)
But here we are discussing details that took place at those very hearings, right? I am confused as to why this is different than posting the relevant documents.
I would think that the sunshine laws (among my favorites) would require the Board to have them available to the public. Does FOIA request need to be filed? Can a contributor explain how that would be done?
Posted by: southsider2k7 Nov 12 2008, 12:11 PM
QUOTE(CLW28 @ Nov 12 2008, 09:09 AM)
I think the "struggle" is putting the kids' (and parents') names out there in black and white. Look how much damage has been done to the reputations of these coaches. Again, and as far as I know, no determination has been made by the Park Bd.'s attorney to release the docs. as public records (despite my own opinion as to the status of those docs.). Even if the docs. are public record, that doesn't mean that a responsible decision cannot be made. I hope that makes sense, but I feel like I am not explaining it well.
Ultimately, if the kids (and parents) that came out in support of the coaches are going to be further "exposed" to the public, there is some deliberation on the part of the coaches as to whether that should be at their direction.
Lastly, and this is in response to a prior post, there is no attempt to try this matter on this site--that is a ridiculous comment. Participation on this site has been a welcome opportunity to tell the side of the coaches that others have refused to acknowledge or publicize with as much (or any for that matter) fervor as the initial, fasle allegations and the subsequent circus in the guise of an appeals process.
I don't really want to see anymore names of the accusers or of the kids involved. To me that is a very low brow tactic. There is plenty of discussion that can be had without going into that type of territory.
Now is it possible to change the witnesses names to things like "Witness A" etc, as is done in big mob trials?
Posted by: southsider2k7 Nov 12 2008, 12:13 PM
QUOTE(CLW28 @ Nov 11 2008, 09:12 AM)
It is very difficult to "summarize" what occurred. This hearing was handled like a trial-- direct examination, cross examin., etc. There were also procedural issues (objections, etc.) that were addressed as part of the process......bored yet? Contrary to recent assertions in our local publication and/or public meetings, the Park Dept. and Bd. set the rules, we did not!! So, Garbacik was fully aware that the coaches would have legal representation, but the Dept. chose not to have their own.
Ultimately, I believe 12 people testified and 48 sworn affidavits (in support of Scott and Mike from parents and players) were submitted for consideration. I couldn't possibly provide all the detail of the hearing on this site, but I will try to answer questions as well as I can.
To answer "Roger's" question, I believe the transcript (from the hearing) addresses and answers the questions posed here. The coaches did directly deny participating in, being aware of, and/or condoning the things that the complaining parents allege in their complaint. The details of their complaint are clearly set forth in an e-mail to Garbacik.
It would be easy to post Garbacik's report and the Affidavits on this site for all to see. However, the dilemma is that the players are identified in the docs., and we do not want to subject any of the kids to the public.
Not bored at all. I am interested in the process as much as the details that came out of it. Again my question would be, how do you end up with 9 hours of testimony if only the complainants and the head of the park board testified against these coaches?
Posted by: ANH27 Nov 12 2008, 01:12 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k7 @ Nov 12 2008, 12:11 PM)
I don't really want to see anymore names of the accusers or of the kids involved. To me that is a very low brow tactic.
I agree 100%. That was just mean and nasty.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Nov 12 2008, 03:58 PM
Indeed.
Posted by: MC Born & Raised Nov 12 2008, 05:02 PM
QUOTE(CLW28 @ Nov 12 2008, 09:09 AM)
Lastly, and this is in response to a prior post, there is no attempt to try this matter on this site--that is a ridiculous comment.
Really? Ridiculous? Let's see: We have discussion about various testimony, the posting of affidavits and active arguments against opposing viewpoints, all by an attorney.
What, then, does constitute "trying a case?" I'm a bit confused.
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 12 2008, 05:12 PM
QUOTE(MC Born & Raised @ Nov 12 2008, 05:02 PM)
Really? Ridiculous? Let's see: We have discussion about various testimony, the posting of affidavits and active arguments against opposing viewpoints, all by an attorney.
What, then, does constitute "trying a case?" I'm a bit confused.
I am familiar with that response. Unfortunately, perhaps for you, there are others interested in the "other side". You have chosen yours, which you are certainly entitled to do.
Posted by: MC Born & Raised Nov 12 2008, 05:41 PM
QUOTE(CLW28 @ Nov 12 2008, 05:12 PM)
I am familiar with that response. Unfortunately, perhaps for you, there are others interested in the "other side". You have chosen yours, which you are certainly entitled to do.
Umm, thanks. I think. But I don't feel like my question — sarcastic as it might have been — has been answered. And, for the record, I have absolutely no issue whatsoever with both sides of any issue coming out, including this one. I'm sure you'll choose not to believe that, but it's true.
And before you respond with something about my place of employment not acting in the same manner, remember what I said earlier. Journalistically, I've necessarily recused myself from this story. Any argument I make at my office for or against the advancement of this story in our paper is a blatant conflict of interest.
Posted by: ANH27 Nov 12 2008, 07:16 PM
QUOTE(Ang @ Nov 11 2008, 10:01 AM)
Second request.
CLW you haven't even commented on my request.
Are the coaches not up to the challenge?
Or are you just waiting to hear from them?
Or do you not feel this is worth the effort?
Inquiring minds want to know.
If the coaches want to be heard then use this forum.
If they are not up to the challenge, then I will stand by my original opinion---GUILTY!
I'm willing to have an open mind regarding this situation, despite my history growing up with Scott and knowing what kind of a mean little boy he was (he was very cruel to me and my sister--to the point that my Dad had to talk to his Dad), but I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
CLW-
Will the coaches be joining in to tell their side?
You have repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again that they just want to tell 'their side'.
You and your clients do not appear happy about the coverage from the ND.
If true, then I don't blame you, I wouldn't be happy either.
Well, the News Dispatch isn't the only game in town.
If you are honestly convinced that the ND won't give you fair time and unbiased reporting then why not see if you have better luck with the LaPorte Herald Argus, or the South Bend Tribune, or the Indianapolis Star, or the Gary Post Tribune or one of the other newspapers that are available in our area?
I would think that the story of two innocent men wrongly accused, ill-treated and unfairly persecuted by an entire town would be a big news story.
They might even make it into a LifeTime movie of the week.
Posted by: MC Born & Raised Nov 12 2008, 07:38 PM
QUOTE(ANH27 @ Nov 12 2008, 07:16 PM)
CLW-
Will the coaches be joining in to tell their side?
You have repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again that they just want to tell 'their side'.
You and your clients do not appear happy about the coverage from the ND.
If true, then I don't blame you, I wouldn't be happy either.
Well, the News Dispatch isn't the only game in town.
If you are honestly convinced that the ND won't give you fair time and unbiased reporting then why not see if you have better luck with the LaPorte Herald Argus, or the South Bend Tribune, or the Indianapolis Star, or the Gary Post Tribune or one of the other newspapers that are available in our area?
I would think that the story of two innocent men wrongly accused, ill-treated and unfairly persecuted by an entire town would be a big news story.
They might even make it into a LifeTime movie of the week.
See, their side seems to be that the N-D isn't telling their side. It's a lot easier to point fingers and complain, apparently. For instance, the other day we received numerous complaints that Kaletha's Pop Warner result wasn't in Monday's paper, despite the fact no one called us with the info. I admit, we should have made a call Sunday night to get the info, but the truth is we heavily rely on people to help us with these results.
After being deluged with e-mails and voice mails accusing us of being biased, two calls made by myself to the Kaletha house Monday night went unreturned. We had the score, but were looking to get additional information. More than 48 hours later, those calls are still unreturned. Perhaps he was out of town or otherwise not available. I'll offer that up. But I think the same principle applies here, it's a lot easier to point fingers at others in an attempt to discredit rather than actually work toward a solution.
Just one man's opinion. And, by the way, the Lifetime movie crack made me laugh. Well done.
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 12 2008, 08:19 PM
QUOTE(MC Born & Raised @ Nov 12 2008, 07:38 PM)
See, their side seems to be that the N-D isn't telling their side. It's a lot easier to point fingers and complain, apparently. For instance, the other day we received numerous complaints that Kaletha's Pop Warner result wasn't in Monday's paper, despite the fact no one called us with the info. I admit, we should have made a call Sunday night to get the info, but the truth is we heavily rely on people to help us with these results.
After being deluged with e-mails and voice mails accusing us of being biased, two calls made by myself to the Kaletha house Monday night went unreturned. We had the score, but were looking to get additional information. More than 48 hours later, those calls are still unreturned. Perhaps he was out of town or otherwise not available. I'll offer that up. But I think the same principle applies here, it's a lot easier to point fingers at others in an attempt to discredit rather than actually work toward a solution.
Just one man's opinion. And, by the way, the Lifetime movie crack made me laugh. Well done.
As for shortcomings regarding coverage of youth sports, I'm not going to comment. However, and at the risk of being accused of "discrediting", didn't you receive calls about 2 teams that were "forgotten"? Nonetheless, probably a topic for another post.
Posted by: MC Born & Raised Nov 12 2008, 08:22 PM
QUOTE(CLW28 @ Nov 12 2008, 08:19 PM)
As for shortcomings regarding coverage of youth sports, I'm not going to comment. However, and at the risk of being accused of "discrediting", didn't you receive calls about 2 teams that were "forgotten"? Nonetheless, probably a topic for another post.
Two calls from whom?
Posted by: MC Born & Raised Nov 14 2008, 09:49 PM
Boy did this thread quiet down. LOL
Posted by: Ang Nov 14 2008, 11:31 PM
We've been down for two days.
Posted by: ANH27 Nov 15 2008, 11:28 AM
QUOTE(MC Born & Raised @ Nov 12 2008, 07:38 PM)
See, their side seems to be that the N-D isn't telling their side. It's a lot easier to point fingers and complain, apparently.
I really have a hard time believing that the News Dispatch would just pick sides and report only that which supports their own personal views.
If that was standard operating procedures at the ND then I can't see how they would have remained in business this long.
Seems to me that law suits would have shut them down long ago.
I just don't buy the ND repeatedly and intentionally create false reports.
Posted by: ANH27 Nov 15 2008, 11:30 AM
QUOTE(MC Born & Raised @ Nov 12 2008, 07:38 PM)
the Lifetime movie crack made me laugh. Well done.
It is the best medicine.
Posted by: Ang Nov 15 2008, 12:01 PM
QUOTE(ANH27 @ Nov 15 2008, 10:28 AM)
I really have a hard time believing that the News Dispatch would just pick sides and report only that which supports their own personal views.
If that was standard operating procedures at the ND then I can't see how they would have remained in business this long.
Seems to me that law suits would have shut them down long ago.
I just don't buy the ND repeatedly and intentionally create false reports.
I agree. While the N-D has its faults, like any other news paper in the country, I don't believe they would deliberatly print biased news stories in an attempt to sway public opinion.
Posted by: MC Born & Raised Nov 15 2008, 02:22 PM
QUOTE(Ang @ Nov 14 2008, 11:31 PM)
We've been down for two days.
I know. Just a little joke. Very little. ;-)
Posted by: southsider2k7 Nov 17 2008, 08:12 AM
Hello gang, I owe you all a little bit of an administrator's explanation here.
I have gone through this thread and deleted the posts and references by JT246. After discussing it with staff and getting some advice, basically it came down to the fact that I was very uncomfortable from a legal position with the names of the accusers being released here. I do want everyone to know that I did send an email to JT246 with the request that he/she reveal their true identity so that if there were problems, this person would take responsibility for their own actions, or to redact the names themselves. I never receive ANY response from them, even after waiting almost a week. This put me and the board into the position of having a potential illegal act being out in public, and the person who did it refusing to take responsibility for it. For that reason, I have gone through the thread and deleted any posts by this person, and any responses that included those posts, had those quoted posts deleted as well. I was not very happy that this person who hid behind a board moniker had no problems naming names. To me if you want to potentially endanger people in this situation, you should at least have the moxie to step to the plate and put responsibility for it on your own shoulders. I also hated having to be put in the position to do something I despise and change posts. I really believe in a full discussion being ideal, but not at the personal risk of lawsuit.
If anyone else has questions or comments, please feel free to share them here, or send me a PM or email if you prefer to discuss privately.
Thanks
Mike
Posted by: ANH27 Nov 17 2008, 05:12 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k7 @ Nov 17 2008, 08:12 AM)
I do want everyone to know that I did send an email to JT246 with the request that he/she reveal their true identity so that if there were problems, this person would take responsibility for their own actions, or to redact the names themselves. I never received ANY response from them, even after waiting almost a week. This put me and the board into the position of having a potential illegal act being out in public, and the person who did it refusing to take responsibility for it. For that reason, I have gone through the thread and deleted any posts by this person, and any responses that included those posts, had those quoted posts deleted as well. I was not very happy that this person who hid behind a board moniker had no problems naming names. To me if you want to potentially endanger people in this situation, you should at least have the moxie to step to the plate and put responsibility for it on your own shoulders. I also hated having to be put in the position to do something I despise and change posts.
Thanks
Mike
Excellent decision!
That just didn't sit right from the beginning.
I am sure that the minors name was not released for a number of reasons and the minor’s safety was without a doubt one of them.
Posted by: MKMF Nov 17 2008, 10:31 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k7 @ Nov 17 2008, 08:12 AM)
Hello gang, I owe you all a little bit of an administrator's explanation here.
I have gone through this thread and deleted the posts and references by JT246. After discussing it with staff and getting some advice, basically it came down to the fact that I was very uncomfortable from a legal position with the names of the accusers being released here. I do want everyone to know that I did send an email to JT246 with the request that he/she reveal their true identity so that if there were problems, this person would take responsibility for their own actions, or to redact the names themselves. I never receive ANY response from them, even after waiting almost a week. This put me and the board into the position of having a potential illegal act being out in public, and the person who did it refusing to take responsibility for it. For that reason, I have gone through the thread and deleted any posts by this person, and any responses that included those posts, had those quoted posts deleted as well. I was not very happy that this person who hid behind a board moniker had no problems naming names. To me if you want to potentially endanger people in this situation, you should at least have the moxie to step to the plate and put responsibility for it on your own shoulders. I also hated having to be put in the position to do something I despise and change posts. I really believe in a full discussion being ideal, but not at the personal risk of lawsuit.
If anyone else has questions or comments, please feel free to share them here, or send me a PM or email if you prefer to discuss privately.
Thanks
Mike
Good job, Mike! It seemed to be a personal attack instead of discussion.
Posted by: ANH27 Nov 19 2008, 06:45 PM
QUOTE(MKMF @ Nov 17 2008, 10:31 PM)
Good job, Mike! It seemed to be a personal attack instead of discussion.
You're right. It definitely felt like a personal attack.
Which is why I stand by my original believe that JT is one of the coaches involved.
If it was someone not involved and only with a strong opinion about the issue then why would they come in with such an obvious intent to smear the accusers?
Also, the main issue was never addressed - there was just a lot of unsubstantiated, uncalled for, off the issue, tattle telling.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Nov 19 2008, 07:11 PM
QUOTE(ANH27 @ Nov 19 2008, 06:45 PM)
You're right. It definitely felt like a personal attack.
Which is why I stand by my original believe that JT is one of the coaches involved.
If it was someone not involved and only with a strong opinion about the issue then why would they come in with such an obvious intent to smear the accusers?
Also, the main issue was never addressed - there was just a lot of unsubstantiated, uncalled for, off the issue, tattle telling.
IMO, the only issue is whether the coaches knew of, participated in, or condoned the ill-treatment of a child under their care. Their representative says they deny all three parts of the issue. Now it is a question of whose evidence one credits.
Is there any appeal or further legal action permitted to the coaches regarding this suspension? And are there any conditions for their reinstatement?
Posted by: ANH27 Nov 19 2008, 08:18 PM
QUOTE(Roger Kaputnik @ Nov 19 2008, 07:11 PM)
IMO, the only issue is whether the coaches knew of, participated in, or condoned the ill-treatment of a child under their care. Their representative says they deny all three parts of the issue. Now it is a question of whose evidence one credits.
I agree that was the original issue.
After hearing directly from their representative I give even less credibility to their story.
In all honesty I can't buy that the child lied, the accusers lied, Darrell G. lied, the Michigan City News Dispatch lied, the Parks Department lied and the City Council lied.
That is a long list of people - and most of them very reputable.
I don't believe that all of them just got up one morning and said "to heck with the truth - I'm done with it" and began to lie.
Also, IF they were not telling the truth then there could be lawsuits up the wazoo. Would the Parks Department, the News Dispatch and the City open themselves up to that without some very STRONG evidence?
Posted by: Ang Nov 19 2008, 09:24 PM
I also noticed that, while they were invited to provide their side of the story at this MB, it's been almost two weeks and they have yet to do so.
Posted by: CLW28 Nov 21 2008, 08:34 AM
Stay tuned.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Nov 21 2008, 02:33 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=19118&TM=56178.63
QUOTE
Board amends ethics code
MICHIGAN CITY - The Michigan City Park Board is amending a code of ethics for local Baseball Players Association coaches in an attempt to dissuade parents, players and fans from using inappropriate language.
Recreation Director Jeremy Kienitz of Michigan City Parks and Recreation brought forward three separate amendments at Thursday's park board meeting.
The three amendments, Kienitz said, are designed to give Little League coaches more control over players and fans, as well as give them more responsibility.
Philip Latchford, parks and recreation board president, said coaches would now have to take action against any use of inappropriate language.
"We want to make sure [the coach] knows he's responsible for wielding influence," Latchford said.
The first of the three amendments, which is relatively succinct, will state that coaches must make sure parents, players and fans follow the code.
The second amendment, according to Kienitz, calls for coaches to "commit to not tolerate foul or abusive language by parents, players or fans."
The third amendment indicates any failure of coaches to abide by the new standards will result in the suspension of the coach, and possibly removal from all park department-related activities.
The amendments were unanimously approved by the board.
The amendments come after two youth travel baseball coaches, Scott Kaletha and Mike Schwanke, were suspended from Michigan City Parks & Recreation youth activities and the Baseball Players Association for a year.
The suspensions resulted after then-Michigan City Park Superintendent Darrell Garbacik was told a 12-year-old player on Kaletha's team was being verbally harassed by teammates and allegedly Kaletha didn't do anything to halt the harassment.
On Oct. 27, the board voted to not uphold the suspensions of the coaches following a 2-2 vote. However, on Nov. 6, the board reversed its decision and ruled the suspensions would stand.
On Thursday, board vice president Philip Freese brought up the possibility of handing packets or fliers out to parents and fans before every game, notifying them about the new amendments. However, board attorney Pat Donoghue said a more practical thing would be for each coach to warn their fans about inappropriate language before the start of a game.
MICHIGAN CITY - The Michigan City Park Board is amending a code of ethics for local Baseball Players Association coaches in an attempt to dissuade parents, players and fans from using inappropriate language.
Recreation Director Jeremy Kienitz of Michigan City Parks and Recreation brought forward three separate amendments at Thursday's park board meeting.
The three amendments, Kienitz said, are designed to give Little League coaches more control over players and fans, as well as give them more responsibility.
Philip Latchford, parks and recreation board president, said coaches would now have to take action against any use of inappropriate language.
"We want to make sure [the coach] knows he's responsible for wielding influence," Latchford said.
The first of the three amendments, which is relatively succinct, will state that coaches must make sure parents, players and fans follow the code.
The second amendment, according to Kienitz, calls for coaches to "commit to not tolerate foul or abusive language by parents, players or fans."
The third amendment indicates any failure of coaches to abide by the new standards will result in the suspension of the coach, and possibly removal from all park department-related activities.
The amendments were unanimously approved by the board.
The amendments come after two youth travel baseball coaches, Scott Kaletha and Mike Schwanke, were suspended from Michigan City Parks & Recreation youth activities and the Baseball Players Association for a year.
The suspensions resulted after then-Michigan City Park Superintendent Darrell Garbacik was told a 12-year-old player on Kaletha's team was being verbally harassed by teammates and allegedly Kaletha didn't do anything to halt the harassment.
On Oct. 27, the board voted to not uphold the suspensions of the coaches following a 2-2 vote. However, on Nov. 6, the board reversed its decision and ruled the suspensions would stand.
On Thursday, board vice president Philip Freese brought up the possibility of handing packets or fliers out to parents and fans before every game, notifying them about the new amendments. However, board attorney Pat Donoghue said a more practical thing would be for each coach to warn their fans about inappropriate language before the start of a game.
Posted by: ANH27 Nov 22 2008, 08:40 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k7 @ Nov 21 2008, 02:33 PM)
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=19118&TM=56178.63
Well it looks like something good might finally have come out of all of this.
Not only can the two suspended coaches no longer engage in name calling and verbal harassment, now it will not be tolerated from players, fans, friends, or families attending any game.
Maybe every cloud really does have a silver lining....
I am surprised that Phil Freese was in favor of this. I would have thought that he would have ripped this idea to shreds and then stomped on it with both feet.
Voting for logical actions for the good of children seems to be something that he is generally dead set against.
All in all I think that this was an excellent and VERY necessary move.
Posted by: eric.hanke Nov 23 2008, 01:26 PM
From the Michigan City News Dispatch
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=19161QUOTE(Clarification of Earlier Story on Suspended Baseball Coaches @ Nov 23 2008)On Sept. 21 an article was published in this paper concerning the suspension of two baseball coaches from the Michigan City Park and Recreation Youth Activities and the Baseball Players Association for one year. The two coaches involved were head coach Scott Kaletha and assistant coach Mike Schwanke.
It has been brought to our attention that readers might imply from the article that the two coaches were interviewed at length by our newspaper. That was not the case. The information concerning the coaches came from an investigative report by the former Michigan City Parks Superintendent, Darrell Garbacik. In that connection, assistant coach Mike Schwanke did not return calls to The News-Dispatch and did not talk to this newspaper.
Scott Kaletha did talk to this newspaper on one occasion about the suspensions and stated that "the suspension was handed down on the opinion of one person (Garbacik). He's the one who did the so-called investigation. I'm very confident that the truth will come out and the suspension will be overturned. I will have statements and witnesses that will refute the opinion of the superintendent." No other comments by either coach were made to The News-Dispatch. As later reported in The News-Dispatch, the suspensions were ultimately upheld on the basis of a 2-2 vote of the parks board.
When is the last time anyone remembers the News Dispatch actually doing any type of "investigation"?
Does anyone else feel like the News Dispatch is just a stenographer?
A large number of public issues would not exist or would be better explained if the News Dispatch did not just amplify what people said but actually took the time and/or had the staff to investigate the issue.
I don't condone the coach's behavior. Just so everyone is clear on my standing in this issue. But the lack of "investigation" on behalf of the News Dispatch is just an example of even long time local business leaving the area.
Posted by: TSNSPYDER Nov 23 2008, 08:24 PM
When I lived in MC, the nickname was the News-Disgrace. Guess it still is.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Nov 24 2008, 09:09 AM
Since the acquisition by the company that also owns the HA, the ND has indeed gone downhill. It is noticeably poorer in local news. I hope that the sports dept. can maintain its high level of HS coverage.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Nov 24 2008, 09:11 AM
Do I smell a little lawyerly intervention in the ND "clarification?"
Posted by: ANH27 Nov 24 2008, 06:41 PM
QUOTE(Roger Kaputnik @ Nov 24 2008, 09:11 AM)
Do I detect a little lawyerly intervention in the ND "clarification?"
I'd say YES
Posted by: DOC101 Nov 24 2008, 08:08 PM
anh27
I apologize but I'm new to this and still trying to figure this site out so bear with me. Your message came up but I lost it and can't get it back. I'm an outsider reading the paper just like everyone else. I think you misunderstood me in someway. I just made a comment about kaletha stating it would be funny seeing that it has been him taking all this heat. I do not know him but it does matter who the coach is. 12 yr old kids can't do that by themselves. They need coaching and he must be a good coach and I wish him and the kids luck. This town should be proud of them. It's about time something positive happened in this town
Posted by: DOC101 Dec 17 2008, 03:03 PM
did anyone happen to watch the city council meeting last night? Ron meer and angela nelson said they both went through that nine hour hearing and both said there was not enough evidence to suspend those two guys. Something smells a little fishy in my opinion. Kaletha finally spoke out and clarified some things like he never even was interviewed by that Laurie Wink. He ripped her a pretty good one I think. Then he pointed his attention to Bob Mckee who I heard is pretty tight with Phil Latchford and Garbacik. Sounds like Mckee and Joe Doyle jumped the gun before they knew what was going on. I think that garbacik did'nt get his way so his friends jumped out on a limb to save him and got the city council involved but it seems to me not everybody is on board that train, at least not Meer and Nelson. Personnally I think this is looking like a witch hunt from the beginning.
Posted by: RedDevilMC Dec 18 2008, 09:46 PM
I'll just say that I believe the hearing and the overall process was not clear cut. There were many mistakes made throughout the process. Believe me, I don't believe in the conduct that had taken place with the children or adults but you have to be consistent in how you handle situations. I believe many behaviors have been allowed consistently over time. There were too many relationships and issues amongst coaches and parents. Hopefully this will be a lesson learned. I hope the Park Department implements a Code of Ethics for ANY PROGRAM that falls under their umbrella. That means any organization that is allowed to use their facilities or that may receive funding. I want all coaches and adults in supervisory roles to sign a code of ethics.
Angie
Posted by: southsider2k9 Feb 6 2009, 03:04 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=20829
QUOTE
Baseball coaches will sue
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - An attorney for two baseball coaches who received one-year suspensions by the parks superintendent gave notice of their intent to sue for damages in the amount of $700,000 each.
Christopher Willoughby, attorney with Braje, Nelson & Janes, is separately representing Scott Kaletha and Michael Schwanke, who have been prohibited from involvement in the Michigan City Park and Recreation Youth Activities and the Baseball Players Association for one year, starting Aug. 7, 2008. The suspensions were imposed by former Park Department Superintendent Darrell Garbacik after an investigation into allegations made by parents who claimed the coaches created a hostile environment for their son.
The coaches appealed the suspensions with the park board. Willoughby represented both coaches at a nine-hour appeal hearing with the park board to argue the suspensions. At a special Oct. 27 park board meeting, a motion to overturn the suspensions drew a 2-2 tie vote. Park Board Attorney Patrick Donoghue advised the board a tie vote meant the Garbacik suspensions were no longer in effect.
But the park board later reversed its Oct. 27 decision and said the coaches' suspensions would stand. The reversal came after Donoghue said the tie vote should have defeated the motion to overrule Garbacik's suspensions, allowing the original suspensions to stand.
Donoghue discussed the Feb. 3 tort claim notice at Thursday's park board meeting, saying the coaches claim Garbacik made false and defamatory statements about them and the park board willfully abused the rules and process for appeals.
"These claims are false and the department has extensive records of these incidents," Donoghue said.
The claim indicates $700,000 is being sought by each of the coaches in a lawsuit that could also include the City of Michigan City, the City Council, the Parks and Recreation Department, Darrell Garbacik and several other park department employees.
The coaches are seeking compensation for monetary and other damages, including emotional distress and damage to their reputations in and around the community.
Donoghue said the claims will be forwarded to the park board's insurance company.
At Thursday's meeting, board members unanimously voted to approve minor changes in its written appeals process, in order to clarify procedures for future appeals hearings. The changes now limit hearings to three hours or less, state that Roberts Rules of Order will be used during hearings and a tie vote will mean that a motion failed.
The modified appeals process will be in effect when the holds a public meeting at 6 p.m. on Feb. 19 to consider an appeal by Rodney McCormick, who had a permanent ban imposed on him by the Park and Recreation staff following his conduct while participating in the adult basketball program.
Park Department Recreation Director Jeremy Kienitz told the board Thursday that the recreation committee voted to reinstate McCormick's right to coach youth basketball at the Martin Luther King Center.
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - An attorney for two baseball coaches who received one-year suspensions by the parks superintendent gave notice of their intent to sue for damages in the amount of $700,000 each.
Christopher Willoughby, attorney with Braje, Nelson & Janes, is separately representing Scott Kaletha and Michael Schwanke, who have been prohibited from involvement in the Michigan City Park and Recreation Youth Activities and the Baseball Players Association for one year, starting Aug. 7, 2008. The suspensions were imposed by former Park Department Superintendent Darrell Garbacik after an investigation into allegations made by parents who claimed the coaches created a hostile environment for their son.
The coaches appealed the suspensions with the park board. Willoughby represented both coaches at a nine-hour appeal hearing with the park board to argue the suspensions. At a special Oct. 27 park board meeting, a motion to overturn the suspensions drew a 2-2 tie vote. Park Board Attorney Patrick Donoghue advised the board a tie vote meant the Garbacik suspensions were no longer in effect.
But the park board later reversed its Oct. 27 decision and said the coaches' suspensions would stand. The reversal came after Donoghue said the tie vote should have defeated the motion to overrule Garbacik's suspensions, allowing the original suspensions to stand.
Donoghue discussed the Feb. 3 tort claim notice at Thursday's park board meeting, saying the coaches claim Garbacik made false and defamatory statements about them and the park board willfully abused the rules and process for appeals.
"These claims are false and the department has extensive records of these incidents," Donoghue said.
The claim indicates $700,000 is being sought by each of the coaches in a lawsuit that could also include the City of Michigan City, the City Council, the Parks and Recreation Department, Darrell Garbacik and several other park department employees.
The coaches are seeking compensation for monetary and other damages, including emotional distress and damage to their reputations in and around the community.
Donoghue said the claims will be forwarded to the park board's insurance company.
At Thursday's meeting, board members unanimously voted to approve minor changes in its written appeals process, in order to clarify procedures for future appeals hearings. The changes now limit hearings to three hours or less, state that Roberts Rules of Order will be used during hearings and a tie vote will mean that a motion failed.
The modified appeals process will be in effect when the holds a public meeting at 6 p.m. on Feb. 19 to consider an appeal by Rodney McCormick, who had a permanent ban imposed on him by the Park and Recreation staff following his conduct while participating in the adult basketball program.
Park Department Recreation Director Jeremy Kienitz told the board Thursday that the recreation committee voted to reinstate McCormick's right to coach youth basketball at the Martin Luther King Center.
Posted by: DOC101 Feb 9 2009, 05:29 PM
City screwed up, I hope they stick it to them. All because of a bogus article written in ND. I wonder if there named as defendants also
Posted by: Ang Feb 10 2009, 10:34 AM
I'm not even going to tell you what i think about this. I might end up getting censored! My opinion of this is THAT bad!
Posted by: Dave Feb 10 2009, 11:19 AM
If I was the coaches' attorneys in the lawsuit, I'd want to be working on an hourly basis rather than a contingency fee.
If John Doe went to my boss and told him that I was a bad person because I did X, and I had never done X, but my boss fired me anyway, I wouldn't have a claim against my boss for defamation, I'd have a claim against John Doe.
Heck, in my hypothetical, if I was an at-will employee, my boss could say that he didn't believe John Doe's allegations, but he decided to fire me just because he didn't want to deal with the drama.
Granted, it's a claim for emotional distress (!) and defamation rather than wrongful discharge, but I think the analogy holds.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)