My Response To The Frivilous Grievance

Normally I do not respond to frivilous things in my life but in this instance I am going to make an exception because I am tired of hearing about it from sources that never should have even known about it. (Tells me there is a leak somewhere...)

I am also responding somewhat in the dark since I am responding only to that which Bruce Sampley told me was in the grievance and not what was actually printed since I have been denied access to the grievance.

Please note that I am being very careful about not "criticizing" another official but I am presenting facts without any commentary.

I was told the following by Bruce Sampley: That Kevin Labor had filed a grievance against me for not sending him an availability and for posting the story about the hunting dog which he said was written about him. Here are my responses to this grievance (and also that which has been sent to the Grievance Committee):

ALLEGATION THAT I DID NOT SEND HIM AN AVAILABILITY

At time of the filing of the grievance, I had not sent out my grievances so that basically makes the question a moot point; however, these were my actions. Since I had had some issues with Kevin in the past, I told him that if he would personally write me and agree to the following, I would GLADLY send him an availability:

1. That he would improve his attitude with superiors, coaches, and other officials.
2. That he would agree to doing roving matches as well as chairing matches.
3. That he would not cancel an assignment to work another assignment somewhere else.

Kevin declined to make this commitment so I will not be sending him an availability. These requirements are the same as I expect from all officials who work for me and are enumerated earlier in my offer of a "universal availability."

Texas is a "right to work" state and we are independent contractors so I resent the nature of this frivilous grievance since it has absolutely no bearing on reality. I stand by my decision in this matter.

THE HUNTING DOG ANALOGY WAS ABOUT KEVIN HIMSELF

This is even more ludicrous than the first part. It was an analogy plain and simple and Kevin perhaps is overestimating himself in thinking it was about him. It was analogy about officials (at least 10) with whom these things have happened in the past. Not much else I can say on this issue.

This is all I plan to say about this grievance. I am not happy at all with the way this has been handled and the fact that it even became an actual grievance. It should have been nipped in the bud when it was presented. It basically sounds like something from an 8th grade playground...

Its time to move on to some things that have some valid reality and importance...