- Thread starter
- #1
News Bot
News Bot
- Messages
- 28,366
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
At some point while searching for a new executive director, someone within leadership of the NFL Players Association decided that it made sense to disclose as little information as possible regarding the candidates for the position. The goal of maintaining full confidentiality seemingly took on a life of its own, becoming a goal that potentially obscured the far more important objective — finding the right person for the job.
It became clear during a 40-minute press conference on Wednesday, as NFLPA president JC Tretter was peppered with questions on the matter, that union leadership associated confidentiality with "good governance." In many respects, that's accurate. In many others, it just isn't.
In this specific case, the player representatives who would be voting on the next executive director did not learn the names of the finalists until this week. They had limited time to vet the finalists, or to ponder which one they should support.
Tretter downplayed the vetting dynamic, explaining that it's for the Executive Committee to do the vetting. The Board of Player Representatives just does the voting. But with limited information on which to base a vote, how do the player reps even know how to vote? At some point, all they can do is accept the recommendation of the Executive Committee.
Meanwhile, the rank-and-file were at all times in the dark. In what union does a new leader get elected without the members even knowing who the candidates are? It's not a rhetorical question; the answer is that it happens in this specific union, because the members of the NFLPA are generally disengaged — and because someone involved in the selection process decided to finally exploit their apathy.
The seeds were planted a year ago, when the player representatives agreed to change the Constitution to eliminate the requirement that the player representatives learn the names of the candidates at least 30 days before the vote. We've asked for a copy of the amendment that was passed; we have yet to receive it, or an answer as to whether we will.
The circumstances of the amendment invite curiosity as to why the decision to make the amendment was reached, how many player representatives voted for it, how many voted against it? And how many even voted at all, given that on or about July 13 (the date of the vote in 2022) most players are getting in their last bits of rest and relaxation before the season started.
The extreme secrecy invites scrutiny over whether the process was fair, proper, and ultimately successful. It's impossible to know whether it was any of those things, because the NFLPA won't disclose who the other finalists were. Tretter refused to even say how many finalists there were, simply reciting the requirement that there be no fewer than two and no more than four.
Tretter's comments made it clear that the union didn't want the process to be influenced by the media. He complained that, in past elections, certain publications endorsed certain candidates. But concerns regarding potentially undue external influence must be balanced against concerns regarding potential undue internal influence.
Without any information about the process — without even the number of finalists that were up for the job — it's impossible to know whether this wasn't an inside job, a selection made by a small handful of people and rammed through with minimal friction or dissent, thanks to the limited opportunity for the player representatives to consider the information and the outright failure to give any of that information to the rank and file.
At times, the union has been held back by the ambivalence of its membership. This time around, union leadership took full advantage of it, seemingly ramming a hand-picked candidate through with an official process that, as far as we'll ever know, entailed nothing more than the application of a rubber stamp.
While past processes have been flawed due to excessive transparency, this one was flawed by the complete absence of it. And one of the biggest victims of the process is the man who got the job, because we'll never know with any certainty whether Lloyd Howell (whose work experience does little if anything to prepare him for the job) was truly the best option — because no one will know who the other options were.
Or, for that matter, how many.
Continue reading...
It became clear during a 40-minute press conference on Wednesday, as NFLPA president JC Tretter was peppered with questions on the matter, that union leadership associated confidentiality with "good governance." In many respects, that's accurate. In many others, it just isn't.
In this specific case, the player representatives who would be voting on the next executive director did not learn the names of the finalists until this week. They had limited time to vet the finalists, or to ponder which one they should support.
Tretter downplayed the vetting dynamic, explaining that it's for the Executive Committee to do the vetting. The Board of Player Representatives just does the voting. But with limited information on which to base a vote, how do the player reps even know how to vote? At some point, all they can do is accept the recommendation of the Executive Committee.
Meanwhile, the rank-and-file were at all times in the dark. In what union does a new leader get elected without the members even knowing who the candidates are? It's not a rhetorical question; the answer is that it happens in this specific union, because the members of the NFLPA are generally disengaged — and because someone involved in the selection process decided to finally exploit their apathy.
The seeds were planted a year ago, when the player representatives agreed to change the Constitution to eliminate the requirement that the player representatives learn the names of the candidates at least 30 days before the vote. We've asked for a copy of the amendment that was passed; we have yet to receive it, or an answer as to whether we will.
The circumstances of the amendment invite curiosity as to why the decision to make the amendment was reached, how many player representatives voted for it, how many voted against it? And how many even voted at all, given that on or about July 13 (the date of the vote in 2022) most players are getting in their last bits of rest and relaxation before the season started.
The extreme secrecy invites scrutiny over whether the process was fair, proper, and ultimately successful. It's impossible to know whether it was any of those things, because the NFLPA won't disclose who the other finalists were. Tretter refused to even say how many finalists there were, simply reciting the requirement that there be no fewer than two and no more than four.
Tretter's comments made it clear that the union didn't want the process to be influenced by the media. He complained that, in past elections, certain publications endorsed certain candidates. But concerns regarding potentially undue external influence must be balanced against concerns regarding potential undue internal influence.
Without any information about the process — without even the number of finalists that were up for the job — it's impossible to know whether this wasn't an inside job, a selection made by a small handful of people and rammed through with minimal friction or dissent, thanks to the limited opportunity for the player representatives to consider the information and the outright failure to give any of that information to the rank and file.
At times, the union has been held back by the ambivalence of its membership. This time around, union leadership took full advantage of it, seemingly ramming a hand-picked candidate through with an official process that, as far as we'll ever know, entailed nothing more than the application of a rubber stamp.
While past processes have been flawed due to excessive transparency, this one was flawed by the complete absence of it. And one of the biggest victims of the process is the man who got the job, because we'll never know with any certainty whether Lloyd Howell (whose work experience does little if anything to prepare him for the job) was truly the best option — because no one will know who the other options were.
Or, for that matter, how many.
Continue reading...
