AWARE wrote:
You
are correct in that I'm not disturbed by our Board not reconsidering their actions based on the fickle tide that is public sentiment. As Dan has stated elsewhere, I believe in due process and that a Board should proceed
very carefully and with great consideration matters such as this. Knee-jerk reactions because of things happening elsewhere (in other sports, countries, etc.) may not be the best course of action. Incidents/people/actions should be considered independently. Otherwise women in America might be required to wear burkas because a Muslim that happened to get elected at the right time thought it was a good idea....I certainly have little opinion on the fickle opinions of the Board Members - especially those that selectively choose what to read and/or pay attention to. They had the information prior to the Tribune report, the Board was made aware of the whole debacle & had multiple discussions around it.
That's what I have issue with - that someone pointed out an article written a week ago & suddenly we're hunting down a member that's done everything that the Court & the Board has asked of him. Now it's a "mob mentality" (is that preferable to "witch hunt"?) to drag him to the town square & stone him. The masses didn't know about the issue because it isn't pertinent to the sport. The Board - whom you all elected, fair & square - had the knowledge & took the action.
Yes, public sentiment can be fickle. But the duty of board members is to represent that public, and their sometimes-fickle sentiments. If, in September after the Ray Rice thing blew up, the board had said, "oops, we blew it, we maybe were out of touch with our membership's sentiments about domestic violence, let's reconsider if we should've elected Jack treasurer," I would give kudos. They'd have acknowledged a potential mistake, and then reconsidered it. Maybe even taken an informal poll of the membership: "hey, usat members, is it important to you that a convicted wife beater represents you and serves as treasurer? Are usat members different than nfl fans? Maybe you don't care?"
But no. They soldiered on with their decision. Either arrogantly confident that nobody cared, or perhaps embarrassed by their decision and hoping nobody would find out.
But alas, the membership has found out. And at least 2 board members have since switched positions on Jack being treasurer. And I want to know, why make one decision in secret, but switch sides when the decision is made public? That's what I find dishonorable. Operating one way behind closed doors, but taking another tack when exposed to the bright light of public scrutiny. That's what I find cowardly.
And as for your certainty that "the masses" don't know what is and isn't pertinent to the sport--that's the attitude I expect from entrenched officials who don't care about members' opinions and value, as the officials are certain they alone know what's best.. I believe it's called the god complex.