Hello fellow GVSLL members, neighbors and friends,
The purpose of this letter is to bring to your attention the fact that the Goleta Valley South Little League Board of Directors, has indicated that they will present a proposal to change our league’s affiliation to Cal Ripken Baseball for the 2012 season.
The opposition to this movement, as expressed in this letter, is not to debate the specifics of a change FROM Little League (LL), or TO Cal Ripken (CR). Rather, it is opposition to the process used (including the authorization) to push this change, and the reasons and justifications for this change needing to be made NOW, for the 2012 Season.
It must first be noted, that the Board of Directors (the Board) has done an exceptional job in furthering GVSLL this year. Many of the improvements are quite obvious. Many are not visible at the surface, but if one reads the Minutes of the meetings (which were only this year made available on our website), you will see the many positive things they have done.
This one issue, a change in affiliation, is the only issue where we think they have been misguided, and have misinterpreted the powers and authorization granted the Board of Directors as defined by our Bylaws.
Please consider the following:
• Less than 25 people (~ 5% of registered players/members) COULD have affected this change at the Monday 8/1 meeting, had this issue not been more broadly distributed to the membership and community through a grass roots movement.
• Were you made aware of the magnitude of this issue with sufficient notice? Consider how many people are on vacation, and STILL may not know about this.
• Some might suggest that the GVSLL Board was never authorized, according to our Bylaws, to pursue an affiliation change. They were elected to further GVSLL, as an organization, and as a community.
• If one is so disenchanted with GVSLL and its LL affiliation, they can certainly pursue creating the league of their dreams without approval of OUR GVSLL MEMBERSHIP. Anyone can form a new league (outside of GVSLL Board rooms), if they so choose.
• Alternatively, PONY baseball is ALREADY available with longer base paths, lead offs, dropped third strike, and fewer restrictions, etc.
• How might this new (third) league in our small community affect our other community leagues PONY Baseball, Dos Pueblos LL and Carpinteria LL?
• Those behind this letter respect these other leagues, and our existing rivalries, and DO NOT think it is reasonable, ethical or remotely neighborly to cannibalize their leagues.
• The Board appears to have known how divisive and caustic this issue would be as the July Minutes and the President’s July 27, 2011 meeting reminder show (excerpts below).
• “We do not want to jeopardize the all star teams with any changes we are proposing.”
• “We did delay this detailed announcement regarding the possibility of this change until the teams were finished with their Allstar tournaments, to try to keep peoples’ attention on the kids and their games and not on this issue.”
• GVSLL Bylaws, ARTICLE III Membership Section 3 Other Affiliations (b) states:
• Regular Members should not be actively engaged in the promotion and/or operations of any other baseball or similar program.
• One can now better appreciate the purpose and foresight of including this line to avoid conflicts of interest between different programs.
• One might also question whether non LL Travel Teams could be considered “other baseball programs”, thereby making anyone actively operating one, or promoting one, ineligible to be a Regular Member, or a Board member.
• How might this have changed the vote on investigating and presenting this change of affiliation in the first place?
• Please consider the wedge you may now feel in this community.
• Did it really NEED be inserted? • For what? • Longer base paths and leadoffs, so Johnny could dive back to first? • So we could have on-deck batters?
• The need for this, we submit, is just GREATLY exaggerated, due to a few people’s disdain for the existing rules. Will we go through it all again next year, or the year after?
• Our President has indicated the Board overwhelmingly supports the change.
• We ask you consider HOW this vote was taken, and the composition of the Board.
• Does our Board represent a broad cross section of our membership, as it is intended to be?
• Of the eighteen (18) Board members: • Nine (9) (50%) are Travel Team and All-Star Managers/Coaches or Parents
• ARTICLE VI – BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Section 2 Required Members states:
• “…The number of managers and coaches from all leagues elected to the Board shall not exceed a minority of the total Board.”
• One can now better appreciate the necessity and forethought of our Bylaws. • Last count shows eleven (11) of eighteen (18) Board Members are Managers/Coaches.
• ARTICLE XI – OFFICERS, DUTIES, POWERS, Section 3 President states:
The President shall:
• (d) Be responsible for the conduct of the Local League in strict conformity to the policies, principles, Rules and Regulations of Little League Baseball, Incorporated, as agreed to under the conditions of charter issued to the Local League by that organization.
• One could argue that investigating and presenting a change in affiliation was a violation of these duties and powers.
• Consider, is leading off at a younger age necessary for ALL our kids, or does it more benefit travel players, who can now practice on OUR (altered) 50/70 fields year round?
• Consider having travel teams as a separate (non-recreation league). CR allows these travel teams to not have to operate under separate insurance, and separate budgets, etc. Is this really about the entire baseball community, or does it provide more benefit to the “elite” teams/players?
• The appropriate way to conduct a vote, on a potentially contentious issue such as this, where peoples’ votes could be a conflict of interest, would be by ballot, so that peoples’ opinion could be honestly given, without fear of reprisal, or scorn.
• We should ask, was this vote, to present to the members, conducted by ballot? • Further, we should ask for a second vote, by ballot, to ensure that this really was, and still is, the will of the majority of the Board.
• If individuals do not like the way an organization is run, they are encouraged to join its Board, to help it evolve and to fix things they see, or learn, could use improvement. However, we must protect the organization from being nuked by any one or two individuals every year, based on latest whims. This is exactly what Bylaws are intended to do.
• What affiliation might they pursue next year, in their continual quest to research better affiliations?
• Will we have a similar divisive action every year from here forward, based on the next Board’s whims, due to the precedent we may be allowing?
• We believe that the Board has, possibly quite innocently, mistaken membership satisfaction with our GVSLL organization, for apathy. It is possible the Board thought none of us cared enough to ask for a vote.
• Our concern, is that we DID have to ASK for a vote.
• We would like to suggest that members of our community that are interested in becoming Regular Members of GVSLL be given that right, as provided for in our Bylaws. This would help to increase the community participation, representation at meetings, and general/overall guidance.
• After only three months of “investigation” by two individual Board Members, the Members were given a 10 day email notice (in the Notice of General Meeting of the Members) of the proposed change, before a possibly irreversible vote to alter 40 years of history, was to be conducted.
• We submit, that we, as the community (not just GVSLL) deserve more than a 3 month investigation, and 10 days notice. It should be expected that the Board would have FIRST requested permission from the Membership to even start an investigation, and that the Board would have required a much broader dialogue, with unbiased committees created to investigate BOTH LL and CR options, with a broader cross section of members including at least one member from each division, and an alumnus, to present an unbiased presentation.
• The President has indicated, in his second announcement, that the MEMBERS would only be given an “advisory” vote, and the Board would take up the issue at its next meeting.
From President John Nisbet, on July 22, 2011:
“While the majority of Board members favor the change, we will be taking an advisory vote of the league members present 8/1, and the Board will then take up the issue at its following meeting.”
It is still unclear what an “advisory” vote means…would there have been another vote by the membership, at NEXT year’s General Meeting, to ultimately decide?
It seems maybe not, if you consider “the Board will take up the issue at its following meeting”
We ask that you please ask yourself the following questions:
• Is that not why our Bylaws define a quorum of the General Meeting? To prevent such changes from being Railroaded through by a minority?
• Does our Board really think that they, and they alone, have the authority do make this change?
• Given the Boards apparent understanding of the powers and authority they possess to act without Membership approval, do we KNOW they would have acted ONLY upon the vote of the membership?
• Why has the Board now decided to tie the General Meeting election process, to elect the next Board, to the vote for a change? Is it possibly to ensure they will retain their “majority” support? Again, the process must be called into question.
• Will the Board be able to PROVE that a change to Cal Ripken will fix the many things they will claim are less than perfect?
• Can they prove there will NOT be some other unforeseen, or undisclosed hassles (like playing teams in Carpinteria and Gaviota, or playing a first round All-Star district tournament as far away as Salinas?), only to be discovered long after we have made this monumental and irreversible change.
• We would like to point out that GVSLL has been PROVEN SUSTAINABLE, over 40 years, through economic downturns, changes in population distribution, additions of other sports options like basketball, Lacrosse, etc.
• Does this not sound like the grass is greener on the Cal Ripken fields? • Surely the Cal Ripken organization is a fine and reputable organization. If our original founders had it as an option, maybe they would have went that direction at the outset. This is beside the point.
• Will anyone be presenting the reasons a change is NOT required, at least NOT at this time, for this upcoming 2012 season?
• Will debate be limited to Regular Members, or will our Community (including founding members, past players, etc.) be invited to participate in the dialogue/debate, or at least to offer some historical background?
GVSLL was founded on principles more along the line of developing personal relationships with soon to be grammar school classmates, and future Junior High and High School classmates, about playing with and against neighbors and developing local community friendships, than it is about arbitrarily increasing enrollment to simply increase revenue streams for grand visions of baseball academies, etc.
• We know this, because many of these founders are still here, living and involved in our community.
In conclusion, it is strongly believed, by many, that we have a GREAT thing here at GVSLL. We hope you feel the same way. It is believed that the tradition, and history, the efforts by the founders of our league, should all be considered, and given due recognition.
This institution, rich in history beyond baseball, should be given the utmost consideration, and the justification of necessity for change be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
GVSLL, its roots, its fields, its budget, its participation, its organization are all the envy of anyone that has come to our fields, no matter which LEAGUE they come from.
Those opposed to this process respectfully request that the Board of Directors do the following:
• If this affiliation change is not abandoned, as inappropriate, and in violation of our Bylaws, that, a Special Meeting of the membership be called, to address ONLY this topic, invite representatives from both LL and CR to hear the proposals (mentioned below) and answer questions from the Members.
• At a minimum, simply reconsider making a presentation at this meeting, until a more in-depth investigation can be undertaken, and a more complete proposal can be made including pros and cons of BOTH league affiliations, compiled and presented by bipartisan committees, including representation of Members from T-ball, Mini-Minor, Minors, Majors and Junior division, in addition to an Alumnus or two to acknowledge the hard work put into what we have today.
• That the Board post our Bylaws on the GVSLL website immediately.
• Our GVSLL Bylaws indicate proper amendment process, including submitting proposed amendments to LL for approval. It is our understanding that we have not seen (nor approved) proposed amendments by the Board, as indicated in the Minutes.
• Indicate their intentions regarding “elite travel teams” under Cal Ripken.
• Will they be chartered, and allowed to operate separately from regular season “Rec Ball” leagues?
• Indicate the Board’s interpretation of Regular (voting) Members
• That GVSLL members be given equal access to publish on our website, since this Board has decided to pursue an affiliation OTHER than GVSLL.
• Specifically, we request that this letter be posted on the GVSLL website. If you agree with the concerns, in whole, or in part, addressed in this letter, or have questions/suggestion/concerns, please email [email protected]
Or, if you feel more strong that this issue should NEVER have even been initiated by the Board, and that the precedent it may set is divisive and polarizing, and that those seeking a DIFFERENT brand of baseball should have invited people by personal invitation to the Holiday Inn to hear their presentation, and, finally, that allowing this action now (next year “Nations” brand baseball?!?!) is a detriment to our community, and should be stopped in its tracks, please indicate so in your response.
The longer we let this fester, the more damage will be done to our community.
Let’s not allow an unsustainable precedent to be set.
GVSLL needs your active participation now, more than ever.
If you would like to help shape the future of GVSLL, please consider becoming a member (indicating so in your email to [email protected]).
We especially need help from younger player families (T-ball, Mini-Minors, and Minors).
Sincerely, The committee to save GVSLL
GVSLL has been a successful organization in excess of 40 years. There is no need to remove the option of Little League for those families who still want to play Little league. Any family that does NOT enjoy Little League rules can 1) join Pony League in Santa Barbara; 2) play club ball; or 3) Find their own fields and start their own league. But do not remove the option of Little League, which has been an institution for so long.
GVSLL fields are the diamond of little league fields. And why is that? Because the good folks of Goleta and Santa Barbara have volunteered for 40+ years to maintain and improve those fields to be the beautiful facility they are today. How incredibly unethical to now take those fields away from the people who have lovingly cared and improved them for so long.
If you don’t like Little League, go play elsewhere. It’s that simple.
I do not understand why this is even an issue. If you don’t want to play Little League, you have other options. But don’t take Little League away from those who DO want to play.
More clarification and education on this issue should take place to participating families involved with GVSLL before a change is made. I would be interested in hearing more about pros and cons of both. My family and I have been happy with GVSLL for several years now and plan to be around for several more. Can the 2012 season be a season of discussion and possibly have a few games played by kids to demonstrate the differences. It seems this needs to be sold a bit more before just changing for 2012 season. I would like to be at the meeting but cannot. Whatever the outcome I hope it TRULY is for the benefit of ALL the kids who play, that is what it is all about don’t forget.
its too bad that the coaches/dads are spending all their time “investigating” this stuff instead of teaching kids how to bunt, throw, and field properly…if you look at the high school teams around town, the players might be bigger and stronger these days (due to the specialized one-on-one personal training boom in town) but across the board players are less fundamentally sound then ever when they enter high school…
I would agree that too much energy has been wasted on this issue.I however think that the local High Schools (excluding san Marcos) have the best teams and incoming Freshman classes that they have ever had
I suspect the Dads trying to get their 10 year old kids to steal bases never stepped foot on a baseball field. More important than stealing bases is allowing kids to learn the fundamentals of fielding with runners on base. If you watch a Mustang level game it is almost comical to see a kid get a walk and then steal 1st and 2nd without the catcher even attempting to make a throw. This happens even with the better all-star teams. This is not baseball and only reinforces bad habits.
Developing young kids into tactically sound baseball players does not happen during games – but rather on the practice fields and batting cages. So by focusing on how big is the field is completely short sited. Do you think the countless kids playing ball in the Dominican Republic were impacted by the size of the sandlot they played on. In fact learning how to play on dirt lots and imperfect conditions taught them how to stay down on balls and deal with bad hops that you would never get on perfect manicured fields that the GVSLL has. So if you really want to help develop kids, then I recommend you stop maintaining the fields.
The ’82 Senior League team was comprised of a truly remarkable set of gifted kids. Butch Wells and Micky Sanchez were both lefties who brought heat. Grant Brouse and Bruce Stewart were both righties who threw the ball even faster yet were the number 3 and 4 pitchers. They also had Charlie Stoll who was a man child and threw the fastest of all of them and only came in to mop up games. The catcher, Joe Misebauer was also D1 caliber. At short stop they had a solid fielder in Mike Hagen who anchored the infield. All of the other players were equally talented. I doubt you will ever see a crop of kids like this ever come around at the same time again. Of the Top 10 GVSLL players ever – I suspect over 5 of them were on this team. Butch Wells probably being the most talented ever.
Just think how much better they would have been by playing on a larger field and being allowed to steal bases as younger kids. NOT.
Memo to GVSLL Board – stop living vicariously through your kids. The reason most stop playing after Majors is because you made the game no fun.
What about 3rd baseman Jeff Ross?
There were plenty of emotions last night but I think the most
important argument of all was missed. Let me explain…
On the ‘pro’ side of the argument there was much conversation
about the rigidity of Little League International. The ‘con’ side was
mostly about the history and tradition of our community youth baseball league.
While I believe both of those arguments have merit, the most important
topic of all was not covered in the detail that it needed to be covered – our
shrinking league.
When I first signed up for Little League, I did not search out
what I thought was going to be the best baseball training ground for my kids, I
chose the league that my son’s friends were playing in. Seven years later
I am a manager, a board member, and a very active participant in the league.
NONE of this has to do with our affiliation. It has EVERYTHING to
do with trying to create the best baseball experience for my son the other kids
in our community. I love Goleta Valley South – we have a great group of
kids, a great group of parents, and a wonderful facility. However, this
is all in jeopardy because our league is shrinking.
An interesting thing happened a couple of years ago – Many of us
were ‘re-districted’. The homes of many of my neighbors no longer sit
within the GVSLL boundary line determined by Little League International.
Those new to this area that sign up for Little League, would do so with
Dos Pueblos Little League. Many prominent families, tireless volunteers
and active members are only still in G.V.S.L.L. because they have been
grandfathered in, as their League participation preexists the change in
boundaries. Many of the main players last night in the meeting are in
this situation – The Gamberdella Family, The Roberts Family, The Nisbet Family,
The Cope Family and The Guardino Family (to name just a FEW) do not reside in
the G.V.S.L.L. boundary. If they signed up today they would be playing at
Dos Pueblos L.L..
Why is this important? Well, one of the slides that Gary
Furukawa showed last night was about our shrinking enrollment. To me this
is the most compelling part of the ‘pro’ Cal Ripken argument and was virtually
ignored. Our league is able to do what it does because of our strong
enrollment numbers. Quick side note: Fran Mackey last night shared
that she is looking into expanding our boundaries to the south. She does
not have the ability to do this unilaterally. Little League
International’s website states that ‘Each local league in the Little
League program establishes its own boundaries with the total population not to
exceed 20,000 within the boundaries. There are some exceptions to this as
determined by the Charter Committee in Williamsport.’ I hope she
can, but if we expanded south many Little League’s along the central coast
would cry foul and ask why their boundaries are frozen and G.V.S.L.L. can
expand on the basis of a complaint and threat of secession. I certainly
hope we can expand our boundaries in order to draw more people in, but I doubt
this will ever happen – Little League boundary rules are very straightforward –
1 league for 20,000 population.
Now back to my point… If we continue to lose players to other
endeavors (no one can refute that this is happening – we are losing existing
players at a higher rate than before) and we continue to lose players
because of the re-districting then our league is in trouble. (Another
quick side note: The full effect of the recent redistricting has not
been completely felt due to the Grandfathering that Little League has
graciously permitted. This isn’t pro or con, this is a fact. Once
all of the families from outside of our border matriculate through GVSLL, we
will be left with even fewer players.) A shrinking league creates a
downward financial spiral that is almost impossible to get out of. Most
of our league costs are fixed. Most of our revenue is based on the size
of the league – concession sales, opening day auction, opening day raffle, and
league fees (to name a few) are all directly tied to the size of our
league.
Our League is shrinking. Period. I couldn’t care
less about 70 foot basepaths, on deck batters, coaches warming up pitchers or
leadoffs/pick-offs. Our Board of Directors was simply trying to find a
way to keep Goleta Valley baseball alive and viable for future generations.
After what has happened over the last two weeks no reasonable person
would ever suggest we move to a Cal Ripken/Babe Ruth League (or any other
league). The personal attacks the Board of Directors has faced is not
something anyone would every willingly put themselves through.
While I hope that I am wrong, I think our league is in trouble.
Not now: we are in great shape now. But in five or ten years
I think our league will look a lot like small Little Leagues that are
struggling to put together a decent program. Other Little Leagues in
District 63 are already having to resort to inter-league games – Ojai Valley
Little League, Ventura Coastal Little League, and Montalvo Little League had to
combine their Majors divisions to create an 7 team majors division. Is
that what we want our Little League to turn into?
In regards to the meeting last night and the BOD’s push to change to Cal Ripken, why didn’t anyone stand up and show their support for CR? Where were the other board members that support this idea? Why didn’t we hear from them? My brother who played in the league for many years and was a member of the World Series Championship team felt compelled to write a letter in response to this potential change since he lives out of state now. It echoes what was heard all through the meeting last night…
Goleta Valley South Little League
Dear GVSLL Board of Directors:
I am sad to hear that the Goleta Valley South Little League board is considering changing their charter from Little League to Cal Ripken. There is a lot of history and good memories that generations of families in the Santa Barbara area have provided and received from the Little League format at Goleta Valley South. I was lucky enough to be part of that history as a member of the Big League World Series winning team from 1982. I am asked to re-tell those stories to my co-workers, friends and their children every year, mainly because of the recognition that the Little League name brings to children and adults alike.
In making your decision, you must consider that the most important aspects of baseball leagues at this young age should be structure, fundamentals and most importantly, fun. Little League is highly structured, and this is important for both the kids and for those administrating the league. Without this structure it is very easy for rules to vary to the point that there are unfair advantages to some and not to others.
Kids of Little League age, especially at the 10-12 year old level, are continually developing, but have a long way to go before they are “veteran” baseball players. As a result, baseball fundamentals are critical in their development. In order to best focus on fundamentals, you have to control the environment so they can focus on a limited number of skills and not be overwhelmed by too many game variables better suited for older kids. Little League does a good job at providing this control. I think Cal Ripken asks a little too much of the kids at this age. Longer bases, deeper fences and especially the ability to steal at the 12 year-old age may overwhelm some kids and they may lose their confidence or sense of fun. There will be the top percentile of kids that can handle this expansion, but you need to think what this will do to the “average” player. I think you’ll find games becoming sloppy, less fun and not developing kids the way you think it will. There is plenty of time for development between the age of 12 and when they reach High School.
I have seen several testimonials from baseball coaches and parents stating that they could see no developmental differences between Little League players and Cal Ripken players when they reach older ages and are playing on an even playing field. You will always have the kids that excel at baseball and there are opportunities for expanded training outside of Little League or Cal Ripken for them if that is what you or their parents want. However, you have a lot of kids in your league t88hat aren’t “all-star” quality that you must consider. They have the potential to develop into better players, but will need confidence, good instruction and a controlled environment to do so. Little League provides this without the need to change your charter.
I appreciate your consideration of these concerns and I truly hope to see the Little League banner hanging from the fields when I return to Santa Barbara to visit family and friends.
Sincerely,
Jeff Ross
1982 Goleta Valley South Big League World Series member
Thanks Jeff. You make some valid points. I agree that whether a player plays Ripken or LL (s)he will develop based on his/her natural ability and the coaching (s)he receives. The real matter of fact is not whether some will sink or swim according to one set of rules or another (oh… by the way, Ripken offers local leagues the ability to set their own rules. For example, our Goleta Valley South League could keep every rule and field dimension exactly as it exists, acquire additional “territory” to offset the decreasing enrollment and still benefit. It disappoints me that even my colleagues on the B.O.D. don’t acknowledge that a potential change could occur and positively impact our League EVEN IF WE DON’T CHANGE ONE RULE.) but rather, a lot of data suggests that our league and many others are on a death march. This isn’t easy to say and doesn’t discount all that we have achieved in the last 40 or so years, but if it were even possible that this were true, don’t we owe it to ourselves, the current players, the alumni and founders to preserve our rich tradition?
Just as with Goleta schools that have closed due to lack of enrollment, then reopened a few years later, our community population of kids ebbs and flows. GVSLL enrollment has been higher, and lower, than it is today. It always survives and thrives.
That’s a really good point. I hope that we (as a Board) are overreacting to a trend that will reverse itself!
That is completely uncalled for.
Truth must hurt.
An(other) Open Letter to G.V.S.L.L. Friends and Familyhttp://klingmichael.com/2011/08/22/another-open-letter-to-g-v-s-l-l-friends-and-family/