NWLL baseball scandal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why won’t this end? Because two lawyers are focused on litigating rather than mediating. The opportunity to address, what appeared to be legitimate process issues within NWLL, is squandered because of litigation, legal threats towards board members, negligently sharing minor information, and, going to the press. Not to mention accusations of intentional criminal behavior, and IMO, what amounts to slander towards good people. This is not a corporation. Its a volunteer organization where volunteers stepped up to the plate because so many of us could not be bothered to volunteer or even show up at member meetings. To wholeheartedly throw support behind continuous slamming of good people is negligent. Read everything presented, show up at the meetings, volunteer and vote. Don’t hide behind, or get caught up in the mess.

Jesus, grow up NW board member. If the whistleblowers hadn't raised hell, you folks would have contiues to do nothing about the numerous issues raised. And I do mean raise hell which they did. Good fo them, sometimes that is the only way for a problem to be solved. Amplification, earned media, demand letters, legal maneuvers ... all were clearly needed.

Kids were getting cheated, funds (from parents and sponsors who mean well) were getting missapropriated to the advantage of a few in charge and all of it it was all well known in baseball circles in and outside of NW for years.

Unfortunately the Board never fixed their own issues. Probably because the liked the cash. $45K to a baord member to cut the grass? $2.500 a week to multiple board members and their kids for "coaching", (for teams that never win on the bigger stage where the cash was really focused)? Pizza and candy demdnaded for cases of balls paid for by parents registration fees? What a disaster.

ALso, what the hell about the 10 year+ Board members with no kids playing? That is just weird.

And this is not written by one of the whistleblowers. Just a parent from another league who has seen the smug handful of NW parents (this years the worst?) who thought they could keep pulling the wool of=ver the eyes of other leagues, etc. Glad this is all out in the open now, and that any crimes will be addressed, and new leadership will be elected. Good riddance to the lot of you. How embarrasing.

NWLL parent, not a Board member, sorry to disappoint. Calling it as I see it.

[Anonymous]

Molly Quigley has withdrawn her candidacy for the NWLL 2024 board

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The $45k on field maintenance is a great example of trying to create an issue out of nothing:
- There were field maintenance issues in the past with unplayable conditions
- Mr. Walsh helped solve that problem
- He now does work across multiple fields, at multiple parks, for I bet at least 9 months a year (as NWLL hosts summer games each year). So that averages to fairly little sums.
- He hires youth from DC for jobs (not all to him)
- He does work for other little leagues in the area because they see the value he brings
- The special committee evaluated his rates and found fair

And – I bet the folks questioning do not see him at the parks at 7AM after a night of rain getting fields playable. The special committee got to the bottom of that and agreed there should be more process and financial oversight, but nothing ill-intended.

Why is he a Board member? Stinks.

Also, I'd suggest not putting your hopes on the steptoe special committee report as "investigatory" or anything other than whitewash. It reads, let's say nicely, not well. Steptoe is likely to take a hit from getting involved as they did. Folks are already reaching out to them. Why not use a firm where NW board member is not employed? Stinks too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The $45k on field maintenance is a great example of trying to create an issue out of nothing:
- There were field maintenance issues in the past with unplayable conditions
- Mr. Walsh helped solve that problem
- He now does work across multiple fields, at multiple parks, for I bet at least 9 months a year (as NWLL hosts summer games each year). So that averages to fairly little sums.
- He hires youth from DC for jobs (not all to him)
- He does work for other little leagues in the area because they see the value he brings
- The special committee evaluated his rates and found fair

And – I bet the folks questioning do not see him at the parks at 7AM after a night of rain getting fields playable. The special committee got to the bottom of that and agreed there should be more process and financial oversight, but nothing ill-intended.

Why is he a Board member? Stinks.

Also, I'd suggest not putting your hopes on the steptoe special committee report as "investigatory" or anything other than whitewash. It reads, let's say nicely, not well. Steptoe is likely to take a hit from getting involved as they did. Folks are already reaching out to them. Why not use a firm where NW board member is not employed? Stinks too.

I agree - shouldn’t be a board member going forward. That’s solving issues not litigating them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The $45k on field maintenance is a great example of trying to create an issue out of nothing:
- There were field maintenance issues in the past with unplayable conditions
- Mr. Walsh helped solve that problem
- He now does work across multiple fields, at multiple parks, for I bet at least 9 months a year (as NWLL hosts summer games each year). So that averages to fairly little sums.
- He hires youth from DC for jobs (not all to him)
- He does work for other little leagues in the area because they see the value he brings
- The special committee evaluated his rates and found fair

And – I bet the folks questioning do not see him at the parks at 7AM after a night of rain getting fields playable. The special committee got to the bottom of that and agreed there should be more process and financial oversight, but nothing ill-intended.

Why is he a Board member? Stinks.

Also, I'd suggest not putting your hopes on the steptoe special committee report as "investigatory" or anything other than whitewash. It reads, let's say nicely, not well. Steptoe is likely to take a hit from getting involved as they did. Folks are already reaching out to them. Why not use a firm where NW board member is not employed? Stinks too.

I agree - shouldn’t be a board member going forward. That’s solving issues not litigating them.

Insufficient. Any half-competent board member of any board knows that a board member being paid for services is a conflict of interest, not to mention that it is expressly prohibited by LLI.

The other board members were negligent to ever let it happen. They too were at fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree 100%. And yes, it matters. Mike Klisch hand-picked the Fresh Slate group and is sending messages on their behalf. He is asking people to vote for them. The question is, are they aligned with his conduct? Are they willing to stand up to him? Will they put him in a position of authority representing the league? Hard to say. Would like to hear from them. So far, only Mike, who is not trustworthy.

I am considering some of the Fresh Slate candidates. These seem like valid questions. Can someone please ask them to be addressed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The $45k on field maintenance is a great example of trying to create an issue out of nothing:
- There were field maintenance issues in the past with unplayable conditions
- Mr. Walsh helped solve that problem
- He now does work across multiple fields, at multiple parks, for I bet at least 9 months a year (as NWLL hosts summer games each year). So that averages to fairly little sums.
- He hires youth from DC for jobs (not all to him)
- He does work for other little leagues in the area because they see the value he brings
- The special committee evaluated his rates and found fair

And – I bet the folks questioning do not see him at the parks at 7AM after a night of rain getting fields playable. The special committee got to the bottom of that and agreed there should be more process and financial oversight, but nothing ill-intended.

This post is a great example of the Committee's misleading presentation of information gathered during of its investigation, with a critical omission of important detail that has been clarified since. It is shameful, and the author is willfully ignoring the facts in order to confuse the community.

On page 29 of its report, the Committee writes:

. . .upon the Committee’s review of the rates charged by Walsh Works, no evidence exists to suggest that Mr. Walsh is overcharging NWLL. To benchmark the amounts paid by NWLL with those of other leagues on field maintenance, the Committee spoke with representatives of Capitol Hill Little League and Capitol City Little League.

In his email to the Committee last week, the Capitol Little League president provided clarity on the content of his conversation with the Committee:

I agreed to be interviewed and provided information about how CHLL operates. Among other things, I told the special committee that my league does not pay coaches; our proposed 2024 budget included $500 for field maintenance; the board scrutinizes the smallest of expenditures; and we have detailed budgets and treasurer reports too.

$500 is the "benchmark" against which the Committee evaluated NWLL's $45,000 in payments to Walsh.

A reasonable, objective analysis of the $44,500 difference in field maintenance budgeted by these two leagues surely would be considered to exceed the Committee's stated threshold of "no evidence," correct?

It is worth noting that CHLL is the largest little league in DC, and it relies on the same DC bodies (DPR and DCPS) for its playing fields.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The $45k on field maintenance is a great example of trying to create an issue out of nothing:
- There were field maintenance issues in the past with unplayable conditions
- Mr. Walsh helped solve that problem
- He now does work across multiple fields, at multiple parks, for I bet at least 9 months a year (as NWLL hosts summer games each year). So that averages to fairly little sums.
- He hires youth from DC for jobs (not all to him)
- He does work for other little leagues in the area because they see the value he brings
- The special committee evaluated his rates and found fair

And – I bet the folks questioning do not see him at the parks at 7AM after a night of rain getting fields playable. The special committee got to the bottom of that and agreed there should be more process and financial oversight, but nothing ill-intended.

This post is a great example of the Committee's misleading presentation of information gathered during of its investigation, with a critical omission of important detail that has been clarified since. It is shameful, and the author is willfully ignoring the facts in order to confuse the community.

On page 29 of its report, the Committee writes:

. . .upon the Committee’s review of the rates charged by Walsh Works, no evidence exists to suggest that Mr. Walsh is overcharging NWLL. To benchmark the amounts paid by NWLL with those of other leagues on field maintenance, the Committee spoke with representatives of Capitol Hill Little League and Capitol City Little League.

In his email to the Committee last week, the Capitol Little League president provided clarity on the content of his conversation with the Committee:

I agreed to be interviewed and provided information about how CHLL operates. Among other things, I told the special committee that my league does not pay coaches; our proposed 2024 budget included $500 for field maintenance; the board scrutinizes the smallest of expenditures; and we have detailed budgets and treasurer reports too.

$500 is the "benchmark" against which the Committee evaluated NWLL's $45,000 in payments to Walsh.

A reasonable, objective analysis of the $44,500 difference in field maintenance budgeted by these two leagues surely would be considered to exceed the Committee's stated threshold of "no evidence," correct?

It is worth noting that CHLL is the largest little league in DC, and it relies on the same DC bodies (DPR and DCPS) for its playing fields.

CHLL uses many turf fields. Which is nice. The condition of the fields that NWLL and Cap City use ranges from bad on a good day to downright dangerous on a bad day. Great for learning hops though!

[Anonymous]

Without opining on whether $45K of field maintenance is appropriate or not for all of the fields (I have no idea), I will say that nearly every NWLL field drains poorly and making those fields playable following rain is an expensive effort (having had to do it myself with just one field in the past), both in terms of time and materials to absorb water. There have been a number of weekends where I thought there was no chance the kids would play due to rain the prior day/night, but the field was playable and ready to go. $500 would be insufficient to cover a single grass/dirt field for an entire season unless you are deciding/accepting that any rain in prior 24-48 hours likely means a missed weekend of playing ball (which is a perfectly valid choice to make if you want to lower expenses and subsequently fees or spend money elsewhere -- I'm not judging either decision).

Also notable, I have not seen DPR do a very good job of maintaining any fields on its own beyond the basics of mowing the grass. All that said, it certainly does appear to be a serious lapse in judgment to have paid contractors on any board (best case scenario: even if all legit, the optics look terrible)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Without opining on whether $45K of field maintenance is appropriate or not for all of the fields (I have no idea), I will say that nearly every NWLL field drains poorly and making those fields playable following rain is an expensive effort (having had to do it myself with just one field in the past), both in terms of time and materials to absorb water. There have been a number of weekends where I thought there was no chance the kids would play due to rain the prior day/night, but the field was playable and ready to go. $500 would be insufficient to cover a single grass/dirt field for an entire season unless you are deciding/accepting that any rain in prior 24-48 hours likely means a missed weekend of playing ball (which is a perfectly valid choice to make if you want to lower expenses and subsequently fees or spend money elsewhere -- I'm not judging either decision).

Also notable, I have not seen DPR do a very good job of maintaining any fields on its own beyond the basics of mowing the grass. All that said, it certainly does appear to be a serious lapse in judgment to have paid contractors on any board (best case scenario: even if all legit, the optics look terrible)

That's not really the issue. The issue is whether it's appropriate to have the person being paid to do the work also be a board member. It isn't.

For a non-profit, it's never appropriate to have board members being paid.

[Anonymous]

That's not really the issue. The issue is whether it's appropriate to have the person being paid to do the work also be a board member. It isn't.

For a non-profit, it's never appropriate to have board members being paid.

Um, wrong. The DC Code (and other nonprofit legal resources) is clear that nonprofit board members may be compensated for services:

Code of the District of Columbia
§ 29–404.41. Compensation and other permitted payments.
(a) A nonprofit corporation may pay reasonable compensation or reimburse reasonable expenses to members, directors, delegates, members of a designated body, or officers for services rendered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That's not really the issue. The issue is whether it's appropriate to have the person being paid to do the work also be a board member. It isn't.

For a non-profit, it's never appropriate to have board members being paid.

Um, wrong. The DC Code (and other nonprofit legal resources) is clear that nonprofit board members may be compensated for services:

Code of the District of Columbia
§ 29–404.41. Compensation and other permitted payments.
(a) A nonprofit corporation may pay reasonable compensation or reimburse reasonable expenses to members, directors, delegates, members of a designated body, or officers for services rendered.

1) PP said "never appropriate," not "illegal."

2) LLI says it is not permissible.

[Anonymous]

Uh, right. that's some parsing. Moral of the story -- don't get your legal advice from Mike Klisch on DC Urban Moms. cannot be trusted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Uh, right. that's some parsing. Moral of the story -- don't get your legal advice from Mike Klisch on DC Urban Moms. cannot be trusted.

No.

The moral of this story is don't cheat at kid's games, get rid of the adults who do, and do the right thing. And if you see those who do, do what you can to stop them. The kids don't deserve it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Uh, right. that's some parsing. Moral of the story -- don't get your legal advice from Mike Klisch on DC Urban Moms. cannot be trusted.

Methinks you have never been on a non-profit board.