Dan, Dan and the others: thank you for updating all of us about the board's and your efforts to increase our social media presence.

As someone who worked on five newspapers over 40 years, I know a little bit about social media. Mainly, I know that getting the images
and news up and keeping it all going is no easy task. It takes time, forethought and lots of continuing work.

But I think your idea is a very good one and I wish you luck in getting it done. I expect I can find some old photos to ship you.

That said, the fact that this news about this effort is just reaching all of us now is disturbing.

Apparently it fits a new and unpleasant pattern by the board over the past 12 months.

It appears the board has operated pretty much in the dark over that time. It hasn't told us things its planning or doing. Including the
social media idea.

I'm not pleased to have found that. In my 25 years in the league (16 of them as manager of the Red Hot Peppers,
a team I created), I don't recall things being done so quietly. Democracy doesn't like silence.

Perhaps I'm at fault for not questioning sooner, but this past off season I didn't see a single posting by someone from the board with
the board's minutes, detailing news of what it was planning and then posting what it did. Several times, I wondered, are they even meeting?

Well, apparently the board and the division managers did meet and they did some big things, which I learned about months after.

Among the board's, or perhaps it was the 62 division's efforts, there was a decision in the fall for the over-62s to hold a draft of about
10 up-coming players (most, if not all, from the 55 champion Whiz) and send those players to five of the six existing over-62 teams.
(The champion Arachnids did not take a player.) I don't know if the drafted players had any voice in where they went. I didn't hear
about the draft until a league mate told me in January, some three months after the vote.

Then, just this past Monday, while my over-62 Americans' game was underway against the Yankees, I learned that the division has
a new rule that in each inning second base can be stolen only once by each team. No multiple steals. Do I have that right? And if so,
what's the rationale? I don't know.

And then this past week, thanks to some really puzzling postings on the bulletin board (in which it seemed to me some unnamed fellows
were trying to sell goods to, or get the IDs of, players) I learn that the board has made an arrangement with two of its members,
to improve the league's social media presence. The board members are apparently volunteering their time to do this. I didn't learn their names,
until today (5/3), when Dan Jones and Dan Tarullo posted it on the bulletin board apparently some months after the decision.

Let me suggest that this is no way to run a league. Each of those goals may be worthy, but their premises and how they are finally
voted on, should be detailed on the league's bulletin board. (I miss Bob Noto. His board meeting minutes when he was secretary for
several years were clear, seemingly full and to the point.)

Actually, I'd favor a kind of English-style democracy here.

That is, at least a week before its meetings, I'd recommend that the board post its agenda on the bulletin board, and invite comments
from any of the players in the league. The comments wouldn't be binding on the board, but going in to the meeting, the board members
could have a better sense of how some in the league feel about this or that issue.

And the players may have ideas, new approaches to the issues, which the board might take up. Then, after the board meets, its
recommendations and decisions should be posted on the bulletin board.

It's elementary, Watson. Just keep the masses informed in a timely way. Don't surprise us, especially months after the decisions.

Do that, you'll likely enjoy some backing and cooperation from us.

Don't tell us, and you may find us a hard sell.

-Mike




-- Edited by mikehart on Friday 3rd of May 2024 01:29:45 AM