1. Where do you stand on the discussion, process and implementation of a mandatory 1.5 game fee for 1-man games?

Mike Owsiak: I am in favor of further discussions to increase the game fees for 1 umpire games based on the increased challenges in working these games and, therefore, the additional training, required fitness, and experience needed to work 1 umpire games. Rather than focus on a hard and fast fee rule as referenced in the question, I would assess and improve our 1 umpire training, further coordinate 1 umpire assignments with members who are willing and able to work these games, further segment our customers’ demands for these games (e.g., requesting 1 umpire only versus only having 1 umpire available), and clarify with our customers the experience in using 1 umpire versus 2 umpires. In looking at all of these aspects, we would be able to make the case to our customers when it is appropriate for 1 umpire games and establish higher 1 umpire game fees.

Jeffry Borgida: I am philosophically in support of any effort to increase our game fees. I am under the assumption that each of our customers have negotiated contracts that include compensation. I support our negotiating position of a 1.5 game fee (if not more) for 1-man games, but this must be done within the framework of a comprehensive contract negotiation.

Brian Tschumper: To start with, NBUA should strive to never have solo umpires on games our customers have agreed need multiple umpires. If NBUA needs to drop to a solo umpire, I support an increase to that solo umpire fee. While I support an increase, I have not been privy to discussions or data that states 1.5x is the right number. I’d like to review the data before agreeing 1.5x is the right number.

Peyton Coffin: Umpires currently earn about $16 more per game when working solo. I would like to see that increased. Contracts are negotiated with each league and prices are set at that time. As far as school ball goes, the WIAA sets game fees and NBUA has little input other than putting pressure on WOA to negotiate on our behalf.

If you have a request such as a suggested fee increase, or any other matter necessitating board discussion, it’s best to submit such a request to the NBUA president and he will add it to the agenda of the next board meeting. If the matter is urgent, he can poll the members.

Henry VonJouanne: As one who believes the game fees, including one-man game fees, are generally too low, I support improving game fees for one-man games. In 2024, our games fees allocated a fixed $16 more for a one-man game, which amounts to an approximate 20% difference in the game fee. In 2024, we increased our game fees by an average of approximately 9%. Our customers accepted these increased game fees without objection. As such, I believe we should propose larger increases in our one-man game fees and see if our customers accept these increased one-man fees.

Brian Sweet: All members of NBUA have been keenly aware of the ongoing umpire shortage, I’ll skip the shortage issue and go to the question. I believe that our members should received extra compensation when they perform a 1-man game. No one would argue that having 2 umpires (sometimes 3) provides a better officiated game. Every member who finds themselves working solo, myself included, goes into the game knowing it is going to take extra effort both physically and mentally to work a 1-man game. I’m proud of all our NBUA members because every one of you walk onto the field and give that effort willingly without additional compensation.

While I know more compensation is due our members, I believe more discussion and thought is needed before making “mandatory” 1-man games game fees be 1.5 the 2-man game fee. Where NBUA can, we should negotiate higher games fees for 1-man games. As our contracts expire, a higher fee for 1-man games should be part of our negotiations position and should be discussed with our customers. In my career as a construction manager, I’ve spent a large amount of time in negotiations. In my preparation, I always consider the upside and the downside when working toward an agreement. For 1-man games, higher fees are the upside and our members get more money! A potential downside? – our clients may have a higher expectation of our members because they are getting paid more. In my view, our members already are living this downside and put forth the extra effort required when working 1-man games because everyone on you take pride doing your best. As a member of your board, I’ll work to implement the upside and higher game fees for your efforts.

2. Where do you stand on allowing previously expelled members for cause to rejoin the association?

Mike Owsiak: It depends on the facts and circumstances surrounding the expulsion. Facts and circumstances can include the nature of the actions (e.g., physical altercation, verbal altercation, game rules disregarded consistently), considerations for local laws, considerations for personal safety of players and coaches. The finality of an expulsion is a serious decision. There should be a process with a high bar to overcome to achieve reinstatement. I am in favor of revisiting both expulsion and reinstatement processes and ownership.

Jeffry Borgida: Permanent expulsion (a Death Penalty) should be a punishment of last resort. I do not know if the association has a progressive discipline policy, but if not, I recommend that we implement one. Hopefully, such a policy would allow violators to correct their behavior and provide them a set of expectations so that they can appropriately represent themselves and the association, thus preventing a situation that might result in an expulsion.

In lieu of an existing policy, I believe that each specific situation would need to be evaluated and reviewed at the board. The specific set of circumstances surrounding the expulsion, any previous issues and/or performance, subsequent training, acceptance of accountability and responsibility for the behavior and/or performance, and an apology would all need to be considered. I think each case would need to be evaluated on its merits and do not believe we should have a broad policy that either permits or never allows a return.

Brian Tschumper: NBUA works best as an organization when we have a body of umpires that reflect the standards of the association. If a past member has been expelled for cause, then there should be a high bar to consider whether those individuals should be part of NBUA again. I have seen in the corporate world that individuals let go for cause have successfully been re-integrated into the same company. Most of these cases have had some moratorium before reconsideration (say 5 years), allowing both the individual and the organization to mature before assessing working together again.

Peyton Coffin: If a previous member has not been invited to re-apply for membership or was expelled for cause, they are welcome to apply for membership to the NBUA president. He will then ask the board members to approve or reject the application. While I am in favor of reinstating a former member, my personal stance would depend on the individual situation so I cannot make a blanket statement. NBUA’s Policies and Procedures reads, in part:

“17.4 Expelled: Due to disciplinary action, the Member has been expelled from the Association. NBUA will refund fees if required by WOA. If an expelled official petitions to return to NBUA in the future, and that request is granted by a majority vote of the Board of Directors, they are subject to training, certification, exams, and all other MGS requirements. Upon completion of the above, the umpire will be evaluated and assigned a tier level by the Evaluations Director bearing in mind that the any former tier level is not guaranteed.”

Henry VonJouanne: I support the NBUA Policies and Procedures which specifically allow for members who have been previously expelled for cause to petition to return to the NBUA. The NBUA Policies and Procedures section 17.4 addresses this situation (excerpt below).

17.4 Expelled: Due to disciplinary action, the Member has been expelled from the Association. NBUA will refund fees if required by WOA. If an expelled official petitions to return to NBUA in the future, and that request is granted by a majority vote of the Board of Directors, they are subject to training, certification, exams, and all other MGS** requirements. Upon completion of the above, the umpire will be evaluated and assigned a tier level by the Evaluations Director bearing in mind that the former tier level is not guaranteed.

** Member in Good Standing. A petition to return to the NBUA can be in the form of an e-mail to a board member.

Brian Sweet: Taking the step of expelling a member is not done lightly by the board. This step is only taken after either repeated incident and offenses which are contrary to our policies and by-laws or on the very rare occasion the result of a very serious single incident.

So, would I allow a previously expelled member to rejoin NBUA? In my 18 years with NBUA, I’m not personally aware of any previous expelled member who has rejoined NBUA, but I do have experience with members who after performance issues, arguments with assignors and/or board members over assignments, policies, etc. have left NBUA “by mutual agreement” and returned to NBUA a few years later. My experience with these former members is they’ve eventually continued where they left off. After a “honeymoon” period, they’ve fallen back to their old habits which lead to their leaving NBUA again by “mutual agreement”. In summary, the reintroduction of former members who left NBUA under less than ideal circumstances has been unsuccessful and should be considered cautiously.

In summary and based on my experience as member of NBUA since 2007 and a member of your board since 2022, I would be EXTREMELTY CAUTIOUS before I would consider allowing a previous expelled (fired for cause) member to rejoin.

3. What, if any, suspensions should the NBUA implement for players/coaches in contests we umpire?

Mike Owsiak: We should be mindful of our role, which isn’t league administration, and instead, leverage our training, lean on relationships with league administrators, and implement safeguards to handle player and coach discipline. For non-school ball, I am open to working with leagues on additional measures to bring player and coach behavior in alignment with game rules. For example, I would consider requesting league directors or tournament directors to be present at fields, assigning more experienced umpires to games, moving toward 3-man crews for games, prohibiting 1-man crews for games, or in times of limited umpires deprioritizing their games for umpire assignments. For training, I am interested in presenting more options to membership to manage conflict and to de-escalate the situation. Lastly, I am interested in exploring options like body cameras for these games and passing the technology cost to the leagues. End of the day, nobody enjoys a game where player and coach conduct is not in line with the agreed upon rules, so we must work with the leagues and use our toolkit to address the behavior.

Jeffry Borgida: Similar to the aforementioned pay question, this is something that would need to be negotiated as part of our contracts with our customers. I suspect that this may prove to be problematic, especially at the High School level as we are governed by the NFHS rule book. There is an allowance for local rules and again this would need to be negotiated. For our summer ball and adult leagues, I would be in support of a negotiating position that includes potential suspensions.

In lieu of a policy, I would rather see us engage in some meaningful dialogue with league leadership regarding the situation and offender. I would expect that we have established a level of trust and respect between leadership groups that would allow for a conversation to address the particular situation and arrive at a consensus on potential consequences. The leagues and the NBUA should work together with a foundation of mutual respect and an expectation of appropriate behavior. We should each agree that a violation should carry consequence and trust that either side will handle the situation appropriately.

Brian Tschumper: Since players/coaches are governed by the association (e.g., WIAA, Seattle Elite, PIL) they are a member of, members of NBUA can only enforce the ejection by the rules of the game and allow their league to enforce the actions. The suspensions and penalties vary across leagues today and it would be hard to enforce consistency. I support that NBUA evaluates during contract negotiations there be clear guidelines established in the leagues for suspensions of players / coaches. If absent or does not meet NBUA’s bar, then NBUA should require modification before a contract is signed. Any subsequent year’s contract renewal should assess how well they upheld their suspension policies and where not upheld strongly consider whether NBUA renews their contract.

Peyton Coffin: The NBUA is contracted to provide a service and, as such, has no direct control over any of our customer’s — a league’s — policies, employees, players or contracted personnel. NBUA can make suggestions of the league that implementation of a penalty clause in their agreements would be beneficial, but memorializing such is at the discretion of the league or tournament directors. Such suggestions have been well received in the past, some being implemented.

A few years ago, recognizing that we had to have an explicit policy and procedure to protect our members, I suggested such to the board and I wrote the following addendum to NBUA’s P & P’s. It was approved unanimously. NBUA’s Policies and Procedures reads, in part:

“14.8 In the event flagrant and/or abusive improper conduct is reported, especially as it is directed toward officials, or flagrant unsporting conduct is directed at opponents, concerning a league, team, spectators, coaches and/or participants and such a report is substantiated to the satisfaction of the President, the President shall poll the Directors and if a majority support a suspension of services to that league or team, such suspension shall take place immediately for such a time as the President shall decide. In lieu of immediate suspension of services, the President may elect to warn the offending entity. Such suspension or warning may be delivered by email, copy of such retained, and may be reiterated telephonically or by text message.

· The entity receiving such a warning or suspension may have such rescinded by pledging to the satisfaction of the President that proper and immediate steps will be taken to prevent a recurrence. Failure to adhere to such a pledge shall result in a further suspension of service.”

Henry VonJouanne: The NBUA has the responsibility to manage the conduct of our officials, and sanction an official, if warranted, for improper behavior. Likewise, I believe the leagues should have the responsibility to manage the conduct of their coaches, players, and fans, and sanction, if warranted, for improper behavior.

The NBUA does have the authority to address flagrant or abusive improper conduct through the use of suspension of services, or a warning of suspension of services (refer to the Policies and Procedures section 14.8 – excerpt below)

14.8 In the event flagrant and/or abusive improper conduct is reported, especially as it is directed toward officials, or flagrant unsporting conduct is directed at opponents, concerning a league, team, spectators, coaches and/or participants and such a report is substantiated to the satisfaction of the President, the President shall poll the Directors and if a majority support a suspension of services to that league or team, such suspension shall take place immediately for such a time as the President shall decide. In lieu of immediate suspension of services, the President may elect to warn the offending entity. Such suspension or warning may be delivered by email, copy of such retained, and may be reiterated telephonically or by text message.

The NBUA has successfully used this policy to address improper behavior of teams or individuals. In addition, the NBUA monitors the incident reports to assess if flagrant or abusive improper conduct warrants a suspension, or warning of suspension.

Brian Sweet: While members, including myself would enjoy the ability to “suspend” a coach or player and never have to deal with that person again, simply stated NBUA does not have the ability or authority to suspend any coach or player from future contests NBUA umpires officiate. This authority lies entirely with the league or association the team/player participates with. As members of NBUA, our authority as umpires is limited to officiating the game and when warranted by their conduct eject a coach or player and report that ejection to NBUA.

However, this does not mean that NBUA has no influence with the associated league. What NBUA can and does do to support its members is provide detailed and factual information to the leagues when a pattern of poor behavior is noted or observed. Through our ejection reports and feedback from our assignor, NBUA’s board of directors can and does engage with our customers when these situations occur.

As a member of your board of directors, I will continue to represent these types of concerns to the board and our clients.