As­so­ci­a­tion ad­mits to short­com­ings

The Compass - - ORTHTE -

Pun­ished for work­ing

Sey­mour is a so­cial stud­ies teacher at Car­bon­ear Col­le­giate, and has coached hockey at var­i­ous lev­els for two decades.

He has an atom-aged son who is a goal­tender.

Last sea­son, Sey­mour was as­sis­tant coach for the atom B team.

He ap­plied this sea­son to coach atom A, but the po­si­tion went to Roger Akerman. He then ap­plied or the B team po­si­tion, which was given to Martin Gre­gory.

In the past, he said, there was an un­writ­ten rule that coaches could re­as­sume the same po­si­tion the fol­low­ing sea­son. How­ever, Sey­mour was passed over com­pletely and he’s baf­fled as to why.

He wrote the as­so­ci­a­tion, seek­ing an­swers, and was not pleased with the re­sponse from league sec­re­tary Dawn But­ler.

Among the cri­te­ria used by the ex­ec­u­tive is whether or not an ap­pli­cant’s son or daugh­ter has the abil­ity to make the team, But­ler ex­plained in her re­sponse to Sey­mour.

Sey­mour’s son did not make the A team, but is on the B ros­ter.

“ I know what they’re say­ing, but I’ve never seen it used as a cri­te­ria,” Sey­mour said.

Sey­mour’s avail­abil­ity was also a fac­tor.

“ Upon re­view, it was felt that one coach had ex­pe­ri­ence coach­ing the ma­jor­ity of chil­dren try­ing out for this team and was much more ac­ces­si­ble, given work com­mit­ments,” But­ler wrote in her let­ter to Sey­mour.

Sey­mour ques­tioned that ra­tio­nale.

“I’m be­ing pun­ished be­cause I’m work­ing,” he said. “ If I didn’t have time, I wouldn’t have ap­plied.”

Other cri­te­ria out­lined in the let- ter in­clude the fol­low­ing: cre­den­tials and an abil­ity to get along with play­ers and par­ents.

Sey­mour de­scribed But­ler’s let­ter as a “ lame at­tempt at jus­ti­fy­ing an ob­vi­ously flawed process.”

Play­ing favourites

Sey­mour also said some mem­bers of the ex­ec­u­tive are di­rectly re­lated to some of those who landed coach­ing po­si­tions.

Roger Akerman, for in­stance, has fam­ily ties to three mem­bers of the ex­ec­u­tive, said Sey­mour.

“Ap­pli­ca­tions were there for Roger, and his wife ( Kim) was asked to leave,” said Drover. “ That’s an un­writ­ten rule in the as­so­ci­a­tion.”

The other two fam­ily mem­bers on the ex­ec­u­tive, Scott Akerman and Dawn But­ler, are Roger’s un­cle and aunt.

It is un­clear as to why Kim was asked to leave the room, but the other two were not, and al­lowed to vote.

Sey­mour said the as­so­ci­a­tion does not have a con­flict of in­ter­est def­i­ni­tion in it’s con­sti­tu­tion, some­thing Sey­mour can­not seem to be able to find a copy of.

“I’ve asked three peo­ple for it, and no one can seem to find it,” he said.

When asked about Sey­mour’s ap­pli­ca­tion, Drover stated: “ We had a dis­cus­sion about it, there was a se­cret bal­lot and Mr. Sey­mour wasn’t suc­cess­ful.”

Ques­tion­able ac­tions

Some of the ac­tions com­mit­ted by ex­ec­u­tive mem­bers lie at the heart of Sey­mour’s ar­gu­ment.

“ The way I un­der­stood it, the mem­bers of the board do not see the coach­ing ap­pli­ca­tions be­fore­hand,” he said. “ They are read the qual­i­fi­ca­tions and vote.”

When the ap­pli­ca­tions for the atom B team were read to the ex­ec­u­tive, all-star di­rec­tor Scott Akerman stated the ap­pli­cants were equally qual­i­fied. Sey­mour said he was told this by two other mem­bers of the ex­ec­u­tive — ref­eree-in-chief Keith Cronin and trea­surer Jeff Car­a­van.

Sey­mour said this is not the case, and his qual­i­fi­ca­tions are far more ex­ten­sive.

“ That is in­ten­tional mis­lead­ing,” said Sey­mour.

When asked to com­ment, Scott Akerman de­clined, call­ing it an “in­ter­nal is­sue.”

Pres­i­dent’s ad­dress

Sey­mour spelled out his con­cerns in a re­cent meet­ing with Brian Drover and vice-pres­i­dent Dun­can Kennedy.

Sey­mour sai d D ro v e r a n d Kennedy both agreed that there are short­com­ings in the se­lec­tion process, but would not com­mit to any changes this sea­son.

“ The coaches in ques­tion were al­ready in their sec­ond hour with the team, and we didn’t think it was right to change them,” said Drover.

Drover sees the sit­u­a­tion as “some­one vent­ing.”

“ We are a vol­un­teer group of peo­ple, and that doesn’t give the right to paint a tar­get on our back,” he said.

Drover rec­og­nizes that the sit­u­a­tion is not a good one, but he em­pha­sized that the ul­ti­mate goal of the as­so­ci­a­tion is to put chil­dren on the ice.

“As an ex­ec­u­tive, when you make these de­ci­sions, you are go­ing to up­set 50 other peo­ple,” said Drover. “ We’re go­ing to lose one or two good coaches be­cause … they felt they were done dirty.”

The sit­u­a­tion was han­dled in typ­i­cal Bay Arena mi­nor fash­ion, said Sey­mour.

“ Ig­nore it un­til it goes away,” he said. “ There’s no ac­count­abil­ity.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.