Troubled district resolves dispute over removal of volunteer football coach
By Jim Phillips
August 21, 2008
A simmering dispute over the removal of a volunteer football coach in the Federal Hocking School District was apparently resolved during the school board meeting Tuesday night, when the board voted to give a new volunteer contract to the coach, Bob Springer.
“We need to get beyond this and move forward,” suggested district Supt. James Patsey the next morning.
The quarrel, which apparently arose within the past week, stems from critical comments Springer made to Patsey about the condition of the high school and its athletics facilities, and a follow-up letter the coach wrote to the superintendent.
Based on Springer’s comments, which Patsey considered inappropriate, he relieved the volunteer employee of his duties.
In his letter, Springer acknowledged that during an Aug. 12 meeting with Patsey, he upbraided the superintendent in rather crude language for what Springer considered the unacceptable state of the high school.
The problems cited by Springer – which Patsey claimed Wednesday were “blown out of proportion” and have in some cases already been addressed – included “filthy” locker rooms, uncleaned toilets in athletics areas, and “mold and filth under the gym bleachers.”
Supposedly, according to the letter, student athletes were repeatedly asking Springer, “why is our school so awful? Why is it so dirty?”
After being told by Patsey at the start of their meeting that the two were talking “man to man,” the letter said, Springer proceeded to urge Patsey to “get off your ass and get the place cleaned up,” and to tell him that “kids laugh at you.”
In the letter, Springer also scolded Patsey, “Certainly, you cannot be proud of the district you manage. Certainly, I run into adults within the Federal Hocking community who are tremendously upset with your leadership. They may be correct.”
The Tuesday night meeting had some tense moments, as board President Bill Elasky opened the discussion with a motion to give Springer a new contract if he agreed to apologize to Patsey and withdraw his letter.
Elasky argued that the details of the case are dwarfed by the issue of what the clash could do to the always-fragile civility of the cash-poor, troubled district.
What is most important to consider, Elasky maintained, is “how are we going to treat each other?” and what lessons the district’s adults teach students about how to behave toward one another.
He suggested some of Springer’s concerns about the condition of the high school are legitimate, and accepted some responsibility on the board’s part for not keeping on top of this issue.
“Frankly, the buildings are not up to par… (and) we share the blame,” Elasky said.
However, he said, in a district that has seen its share of bitter factional infighting over the years, and in which some unity is now being achieved, fighting over Springer’s removal could set the district back seriously.
“It all needs to stop,” Elasky urged. “We all need to accept our share of the responsibility… I can’t believe that we’re at it again.”
Board members Dan Torrence and Roger Ketchum, however, questioned why only Springer should be required to apologize, and not Patsey.
“Should Mr. Patsey write a letter of apology back?” Torrence demanded.
Ketchum likewise suggested that Elasky’s motion was “a one-way street,” for not requiring both men to swap apologies. “I would like the apology to be both ways.”
Board Vice President John Young offered a heartfelt plea that the district get past the dispute as quickly as it can with a minimum of rancor, in the interests of the students.
“We’re trying to do what’s right for the school,” he told Springer. “We’ve got to find some common ground.”
While he suggested the dismissal of Springer “wasn’t done the right way,” he also argued that Springer should not have gone outside normal channels and confronted Patsey rudely with his concerns.
“We can’t teach our kids that it’s all right to disrespect somebody,” he insisted.
Torrence held out for a double apology, declaring, “I don’t see why two grown men can’t apologize.”
Springer told Patsey and the board that “I think we’re both wrong,” adding that he was too “terse” in his comments to Patsey, and that “Jim’s listening was not there.” He also acknowledged that ordering Patsey to “get off his ass” was improper.
“I wish I hadn’t used that word,” he said.
At one point, board member Dan Dailey addressed a question to both men, asking if they could work out their differences. Patsey replied that he had no comment on the matter – sparking jeers from some in the audience of around 100, which included a number of students.
When the motion went nowhere, the board members voted to table it, and went into executive session. When they returned, Young offered a new version of the motion.
This one simply brought Springer back to work as a volunteer coach, and left out mention of retracting the letter or requiring an apology.
The board passed the motion unanimously, triggering applause.
Patsey said later that he believes it was inappropriate to put the apology issue in the motion, and that he expects he will talk to Springer personally about the whole affair at some point in the near future.
Comments
Please log in to post a comment.
