NWLL baseball scandal

[Anonymous]

District guys are protecting their own a$$…

[Anonymous]

Is this the start of WW3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The DC LL board member who refused to sign Ricky’s paperwork (Greg Roberts) for a top player from Cap Hill told the board to vote off the commissioners because they are bad apples.

I thought he said he did sign it eventually. Or had the other guy sign when they had all the paperwork?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would we accept findings of a special committee that's stacked with board members who "adore" Ricky and cry when asked about that???

100%

Why do we need a special committee to look into this? The findings have been transparently put out there ALREADY and Ricky and his cronies have had to answer for none of their cheating! NONE! Why put 3 (a conflict of interest by the way) board members on the committee to cover it up again?

[Anonymous]

I don’t believe many of the posts accurately describe the meeting (appear written by Mike to weave a story).

NWLL has an outside law firm (pro bono) to help review the allegations. The DC LL officials said the paperwork for the ‘22 and ‘23 summer teams were reviewed and all players were cleared to play. They did go on farther saying Mike didn’t represent aspects correctly.
Seems like part of the allegations and 9/8 email from Mike to the community is unraveling, but let’s let a process with an outside law firm review.

Board members also entered resolutions to improve board selection and waiver processes in the future.

Most in the room thanked the NWLL volunteers for their time and commented on a desire to focus on softball, baseball, teaching kids and having fun.

Let the review of the allegations happen, grow and change from what is learned and move on to focus on baseball, softball, learning and fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe many of the posts accurately describe the meeting (appear written by Mike to weave a story).

NWLL has an outside law firm (pro bono) to help review the allegations. The DC LL officials said the paperwork for the ‘22 and ‘23 summer teams were reviewed and all players were cleared to play. They did go on farther saying Mike didn’t represent aspects correctly.
Seems like part of the allegations and 9/8 email from Mike to the community is unraveling, but let’s let a process with an outside law firm review.

Board members also entered resolutions to improve board selection and waiver processes in the future.

Most in the room thanked the NWLL volunteers for their time and commented on a desire to focus on softball, baseball, teaching kids and having fun.

Let the review of the allegations happen, grow and change from what is learned and move on to focus on baseball, softball, learning and fun.

That won't happen as long as Ricky is running things because that is not his focus.

[Anonymous]

does anyone know anything about this? Looks like notes from a meeting last January (typo in date?) from someone on the NWLL board. Is there a copy out there without the redactions?

NOTES ON [PLAYER 1] /NWLL

Facts from our meeting tonight - 1/8/22.

According to Ricky Davenport, [PLAYER 1] was eligible under a II(d) waiver - his sibling [PLAYER 2] was once eligible.

RD said once a sibling, it never expires – wrong per LL rules.

Per RD - [PLAYER 2] went to Hardy in 2020-2021 (2021 Tournament). We know [PLAYER 1] played for Cap Hill that year on 12u AST. Per RD, [PLAYER 2] played juniors for NWLL in Spring 2021.

Last year, 2021-2022 (2022 Tournament), both boys went to [CHLL SCHOOL]. According to RD, "[PLAYER 2] played juniors under a waiver." However, NWLL did not play juniors with the rest of DC Little Leagues. They played in Rockville, which RD said was not Little League. [PLAYER 1] played for NWLL on 12U AST. According to RD, under a continuous waiver as a sibling. Given the above facts, a waiver would not have been required until this year, and [PLAYER 2] did not play Spring Little League.

Both [PLAYER 1] and [PLAYER 2] previously played in Cap Hill LL.

Both [PLAYER 1] and [PLAYER 2] are attending [MD SCHOOL] this year. It is in MD. Unless they moved into NWLL, [PLAYER 1] is ineligible.

Additional Facts

Greg processed 2022 tournament paperwork for NWLL. He would not sign [PLAYER 1] paperwork because no waiver was included.

Neither Bristol nor Williamsport sign off on II(d) waivers.

Even if there was a waiver, and it was issued v. the rules, the waiver is invalid and [PLAYER 1] is not entitled to play in NWLL.


Analysis

If [PLAYER 2] had a waiver in place in 2021 (wasn't needed if went to Hardy 2020-2021), [PLAYER 1] broke by playing in Cap Hill in 2021.

If [PLAYER 2] did not have a waiver in 2021 because at Hardy, a waiver was required in 2022, but [PLAYER 2] didn't play little league. II(d) says "sibling of a current player"

II(e) - If it is determined at a later date (after tournament) that player does not meet the conditions of II(d), the player is ineligible for further participation. Situations in which documentation is not available must be referred to the Charter Committee through the regional office for a determination.

If for some reason count the Rockville non-little league partici[ation, violating Reg 1 & risking charter revocation or suspension of tournament privileges for league or individuals associated with the team - Reg I(g)(4).

See: Tips for Expanding Participation Opportunities - Little League

Regulation II (d) Waiver
If used for the first time, this form applies only to a player who resided in, or attended school inside of a chartered league’s boundaries AND was a member of that same league. The player then, (A) moved out of the league’s boundaries; or (B) is now out of the boundaries because of a revision in the boundaries. If so, the player can be claimed on the form.
The player’s siblings can be claimed on a II(d) form as well, provided the sibling has continued to play in the league. Both must be named on the form.
If the player breaks service and does not play for a season or more, he or she cannot be claimed."

[Anonymous]

Doesn't seem like they need a committee to review the allegations, they are all laid out very clearly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe many of the posts accurately describe the meeting (appear written by Mike to weave a story).

NWLL has an outside law firm (pro bono) to help review the allegations. The DC LL officials said the paperwork for the ‘22 and ‘23 summer teams were reviewed and all players were cleared to play. They did go on farther saying Mike didn’t represent aspects correctly.
Seems like part of the allegations and 9/8 email from Mike to the community is unraveling, but let’s let a process with an outside law firm review.

Board members also entered resolutions to improve board selection and waiver processes in the future.

Most in the room thanked the NWLL volunteers for their time and commented on a desire to focus on softball, baseball, teaching kids and having fun.

Let the review of the allegations happen, grow and change from what is learned and move on to focus on baseball, softball, learning and fun.

Outside law firm is a good start, but those allegations are pretty self-explanatory... and at the very least, backed up by anyone who has ever watched NWLL games, it's very clear the league is not functioning. The current leadership is tainted, they've got to go.

[Anonymous]

NWLL is like a banana republic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obviously there are major issues here to be addressed. But as a parent of a small boy who loves baseball and loved his totally-for-fun LL team, I can’t help but wish the approach had been different here? Fifty-page documents going out to parents of six-year-olds who have nothing to do with this? Naming children in messages sent to hundreds of people? Whatever problems need to be tackled, which seem to mostly involve older kids, do we need to steal the joy from everyone else? Please stop drawing the rest of us into your infighting… I did not need to get another one of these dramatic emails the night before the first game of the season for a bunch of excited first graders.

I appreciate your anxiety over this and feel genuinely very bad for your kid, but that league is going to break your kid's excitement about baseball in a hurry if things aren't changed. It's in your interest to listen and care so your kid doesn't have to go through what so many of our kids went through. Cynical and burned out on baseball by 11 or 12 is so sad. And for what?

Also, Ricky's ump friends will be ruining your kid's day in games pretty soon. Those guys HAVE to go.

And finally, your money is supporting this garbage. You pay dues that get wasted on this AS and LLWS nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Those 1/8 notes are from DCLL and NOT LL. Greg Roberts needs to address them and explain how the waiver was approved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those 1/8 notes are from DCLL and NOT NWLL. Greg Roberts needs to address them and explain how the waiver was approved.

[Anonymous]

Subject: NWLL baseball scandal [Up]
Anonymous



Anonymous wrote:
Those 1/8 notes are from DCLL and NOT NWLL. Greg Roberts needs to address them and explain how the waiver was approved.

Anonymous wrote:does anyone know anything about this? Looks like notes from a meeting last January (typo in date?) from someone on the NWLL board. Is there a copy out there without the redactions?

NOTES ON [PLAYER 1] /NWLL

Facts from our meeting tonight - 1/8/22.

According to Ricky Davenport, [PLAYER 1] was eligible under a II(d) waiver - his sibling [PLAYER 2] was once eligible.

RD said once a sibling, it never expires – wrong per LL rules.

Per RD - [PLAYER 2] went to Hardy in 2020-2021 (2021 Tournament). We know [PLAYER 1] played for Cap Hill that year on 12u AST. Per RD, [PLAYER 2] played juniors for NWLL in Spring 2021.

Last year, 2021-2022 (2022 Tournament), both boys went to [CHLL SCHOOL]. According to RD, "[PLAYER 2] played juniors under a waiver." However, NWLL did not play juniors with the rest of DC Little Leagues. They played in Rockville, which RD said was not Little League. [PLAYER 1] played for NWLL on 12U AST. According to RD, under a continuous waiver as a sibling. Given the above facts, a waiver would not have been required until this year, and [PLAYER 2] did not play Spring Little League.

Both [PLAYER 1] and [PLAYER 2] previously played in Cap Hill LL.

Both [PLAYER 1] and [PLAYER 2] are attending [MD SCHOOL] this year. It is in MD. Unless they moved into NWLL, [PLAYER 1] is ineligible.

Additional Facts

Greg processed 2022 tournament paperwork for NWLL. He would not sign [PLAYER 1] paperwork because no waiver was included.

Neither Bristol nor Williamsport sign off on II(d) waivers.

Even if there was a waiver, and it was issued v. the rules, the waiver is invalid and [PLAYER 1] is not entitled to play in NWLL.


Analysis

If [PLAYER 2] had a waiver in place in 2021 (wasn't needed if went to Hardy 2020-2021), [PLAYER 1] broke by playing in Cap Hill in 2021.

If [PLAYER 2] did not have a waiver in 2021 because at Hardy, a waiver was required in 2022, but [PLAYER 2] didn't play little league. II(d) says "sibling of a current player"

II(e) - If it is determined at a later date (after tournament) that player does not meet the conditions of II(d), the player is ineligible for further participation. Situations in which documentation is not available must be referred to the Charter Committee through the regional office for a determination.

If for some reason count the Rockville non-little league partici[ation, violating Reg 1 & risking charter revocation or suspension of tournament privileges for league or individuals associated with the team - Reg I(g)(4).

See: Tips for Expanding Participation Opportunities - Little League

Regulation II (d) Waiver
If used for the first time, this form applies only to a player who resided in, or attended school inside of a chartered league’s boundaries AND was a member of that same league. The player then, (A) moved out of the league’s boundaries; or (B) is now out of the boundaries because of a revision in the boundaries. If so, the player can be claimed on the form.
The player’s siblings can be claimed on a II(d) form as well, provided the sibling has continued to play in the league. Both must be named on the form.
If the player breaks service and does not play for a season or more, he or she cannot be claimed."

[Anonymous]

I have no idea why the board is so afraid to act. Because of this inaction, they look weak and ineffective. This could have been dealt with very simply in one of two ways:

1. recognize there are issues and set up a meeting to review the complaints (without those named initially at least)

2. deny there are issues and get rid of the whistleblowers

If the board had acted quickly in either respect I would have applauded them.

By not doing number 2 it suggests there was some stone left unturned from earlier efforts to address this issue. Effectively, they didn't trust the decisions they had made earlier on these issues.

By not doing either it led to useless back and forth legalistic discussions that accomplished nothing. They appointed a group to review the allegations that has already discounted them. They claimed to have, but failed to produce, key evidence that could have settled some of the key points raised in the complaint.

The fact this simple thing wasn't done is fanning the flames of the idea of a larger conspiracy, which is insane because this is baseball for kids not a Federal RICO trial.

Maybe someone gave out some favors or showed favoritism or got a kid who was ineligible - these are not high crimes. They are common issues found with locally run groups like this. Identify the issues, take corrective action and move on.