[Roger Kaputnik]

Outrageous.

[Ang]

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!

[digger262]

"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.

[Roger Kaputnik]

Well, Mr. Kaletha has testified that he says wildly inappropriate things to children in his care. That really should have settled the matter.

[ANH27]

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?

[krk]

Just curious: How does one obtain the position held by Kaletha?

[digger262]

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.

[JHeath]

Just curious: How does one obtain the position held by Kaletha?

Which position?

[krk]

Which position?

The coaching position referred to in this controversy.

[Southsider2k12]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...ArticleID=18738

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.

[Roger Kaputnik]

Yes! Yes! Yes!

Good for Phil Latchford for reversing the initial ruling.

[Ang]

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.

[Southsider2k12]

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.

[digger262]

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?

[MC Born & Raised]

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.

[Ang]

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.

[dante']

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?

[JHeath]

... 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?

[CLW28]

[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

[CLW28]

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.