The Disciplinary Committee Meeting

This is not simply a squash issue. Lesley and Greg have persistently, knowingly, blatantly defied the interests of the members and of the organization they’re paid to serve.

For a long period of time, they have used evasion and deceit to defend decisions that do not serve members.

These assertions are not a matter of opinion but of fact. The evidence we will present leaves no other reasonable interpretation. The evidence consists of: (1) my direct observations from dealing with both of them; (2) Ed’s direct observations from three years ago; and (3) the unusually thorough written record we have because of the fact that our campaign has been largely conducted via email.

My aim in this hearing is for you to be completely persuaded. If you aren’t, I hope you will give me an opportunity to address any doubts you may have.

The mismanagement we are reporting to you is not a matter of innocent error. It is a knowing violation of Y values and of the duty to serve members. While no one can read minds, our observations leave no reasonable doubt about this.

I want to emphasize that we tried to resolve problems with management in a courteous and friendly manner. We made it very easy for them, and to this date I am not aware of any obstacle that would have prevented management from granting our request.

What is striking about the mismanagement is how blatant it has been. An empty golf court; empty racquetball courts -- all plainly visible to people who can’t play squash because the squash courts are all busy.

The Y’s “Commitment To Service” states that management will “help members participate fully in programs” and will “create policies and systems that serve members.” This commitment has been clearly violated. Management’s evident indifference to problems over the years, while advertising this “commitment,” is the very definition of hypocrisy.

The aggrieved members in this case -- squash players -- do not represent a typical cross-section of Y members. Most of us are mature adults, many of us educated professionals. We are relatively resourceful and have shown a willingness to organize petitions. It is therefore unlikely that management has singled us out for bad treatment.

You should therefore regard the mismanagement we are reporting as the tip of the iceberg. The kinds of ethical breaches and violations of Y values we have witnessed are much more damaging to the many Y participants who are far more vulnerable, and who lack the persistence or resources to get your attention: kids; troubled youth and families; subsidized (low-income) members; staff and volunteers. For some people here, the Y may be the only positive environment they know.

What has struck me most in my dealings with management is their sense of invulnerability -- the apparent total lack of accountability. They behave like royalty, free to do whatever they want.

There in fact appears to be very little accountability. Most members have no idea that a complaint procedure exists. Even if they happen to learn of and read the “Resolution Procedure,” it describes a resolution committee that is subordinate to the General Manager. (It says that the General Manager appoints a panel, and the panel makes a recommendation to the General Manager.)

In this case, the person you will be making your recommendations to is the President, not the General Manager. Personally, I have not found Rich Bailey particularly receptive, and my guess is that he would not be enthusiastic about having his General Manager criticized.

Your duty, therefore, unpleasant as it may be, is to face the ugly problems we will detail; recognize that Metro-Central is corrupt; and, after this meeting, take a strong stand and make your expectations very clear to Rich Bailey. The fact is that the Metro-Central General Manager has caused harm to the YMCA. Your duty is to the Y, the institution and its principles -- not to any individual.

Before I get into the details of my encounters with management, I wanted to make you aware of the curious difficulty I encountered in scheduling this meeting, in case some of you were under the impression that we were the cause of the scheduling difficulties.

Our intention after our last meeting [June 21] was to schedule this next meeting promptly. A few days after our last meeting, I emailed Linda Cottes indicating a flexible range of dates when the four of us [I and the others appearing with me before the committee] could meet. Linda’s emailed reply, June 26, said:

the week of the 10th is best for the committee. Please let me know asap, as our schedules fill up.

That seemed reasonable. There were four of you trying to hold open your schedules to accommodate this meeting.

My response was emailed three and a half hours after Linda’s message:

Any of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday that week is good.

The four of us then waited to hear back from Linda which day would suit the committee. But there was no word back from Linda for eight days!

I’d like to ask: what took so long?

[With Linda present, this question created a moment of tension. Linda said nothing. Then the committee chair spoke, saying there was already enough to deal with in my primary complaint and we should stick to that. I obliged, except for one parting comment....]

I’ll move on from this point, but let me mention that Linda’s email also said that that week was the only feasible one to schedule our meeting (because of summer holidays in subsequent weeks). [So if we hadn’t still been available this week, the meeting might not have been possible at all.]

OK, details of our squash problem:

Squash courts are sometimes busy, sometimes not. At 10 AM, no one wants to play squash. It’s like traffic. There’s no problem if you want to commute to work at 6 AM, but that’s not how our lives are structured.

So the issue is the busy times. Typically during those times (except for summer), all the courts are busy, and that’s been the case for years.

The implications are:

• We sometimes can’t book for the time we want, so are obliged to make alternate plans rather than come to the Y and play squash.

• We get one time slot, but then are obliged to stop when the time is up because others are awaiting their turn.

• One way or the other, we often find ourselves at the Y, unable to use facilities as we’d like.

• People at the Y (the great majority) who don’t already know the game are far less likely, because of the effort involved in getting courts, to become familiar with this wholesome sport.

Obviously this is not destroying lives, but our time is being wasted, it’s frustrating, and the Y experience is not what it might be. We could accept this if there were a genuine scarcity, but it’s irksome when the evidence is before our eyes that it’s all for nothing.

I spoke to Greg Miller about these issues in May, 1999. I had forwarded to him a very courteous and modest ... we didn’t even call it a petition, it was headed “Memo,” and it began:

The undersigned members would like to draw your attention to a problem that is impeding our enjoyment of Club facilities.

It had 12 signatures.

Remarkably, no response whatever came from Greg. I eventually tracked him down, and he told me he hadn’t appreciated it much because it looked to him as if we were making a “demand.”

In that discussion, and again in a subsequent discussion months later, in February, 2000, Greg adamantly insisted that the golf court was being used as much as the squash courts. All the regular squash people knew that that was utter nonsense.

At one point he turned for confirmation to the staff working at the reservation desk. Instead, they told him that golf is used very little, perhaps once a day.

You had to be there to appreciate Greg’s audacity. In the face of what the Y staff had just told us, he still maintained that the golf court was used as much as squash and that he’d compiled statistics (since discarded) that proved it.

About 45 Y members have had an ongoing discussion of these issues via an email list. I have been open for months about my allegations of Greg’s dishonesty. Although people differ as to whether we should make this allegation openly, no one has suggested that it is not accurate.

Again, your duty is unpleasant, but you must focus on this to understand the problems at Metro-Central. There is no way Greg was innocently mistaken. He has been deliberately deceiving the members he’s paid to serve.

This has to be unacceptable to the Y. And yet, there has apparently been no reaction whatsoever to our petition’s complaint about Greg’s dishonesty, even though the petition version that complains about that was signed by 38 people.

Back in 1997, Greg told Ed (as you will be hearing from him) that his “data” supported the decision to put Cycle Fit on a squash court. This means Greg has been lying to members for years. The Y’s 1997 data in fact shows a usage ratio of more than 5 to 1 in favor of squash (over racquetball). It is fairly obvious that this would indicate an appropriate ratio of 5 to 1 in physical courts. This is what we would have had -- 5 squash courts, 1 racquetball court -- if Cycle Fit had been installed on a racquetball court.

This deceit is actually quite serious, in that it represents a misuse of charitable funds. Private contributors, corporations and individuals; the different levels of government that make grants to the Y; volunteers who contribute their time -- all have been betrayed by Greg.

Not to mention members who simply want a decent health facility, and who for years have been aggravated or driven to other clubs.

This is not an isolated, impulsive lie. This is years of conscious deceit. Greg has not been doing the job he’s paid to do.

As for Lesley: We recognize she is busy; she is a senior person; she often mentions the figure of 13,000, the number of members at this club.

However, I submit that when we presented this petition to her last March, it became one of the more important issues that she had to deal with.

The petition had 62 signatures, representing practically all the regular squash players at the Y. These are 62 witnesses to serious mismanagement.

Here are a few of the phrases in the mild version of the petition: strong dissatisfaction; squandering valuable squash court infrastructure; frustration and degradation of our Y experience; lack of adequate response to repeated appeals and suggestions by dues-paying members; we strongly appeal...

Here is a substantial group of Y members presenting legitimate grievances. Lesley’s response to this group was to treat them with contempt:

• She did not just reject the petition. She appears not even to have read it.

• Her decision process addressed irrelevant issues while ignoring our simple point -- the return of courts.

• She refused us access to the decision process.

• She ignored her own promise to respond within 2 weeks.

• After 2 weeks she refused to speak to us at all. For the next 2 weeks she wouldn’t even return messages.

• After 6 weeks she issued her negative decision (returning 1 court rather than the 2 we had asked for).

• She then evaded questions, refusing to justify or explain her decision.

Let me back up and explain the chronology.

I stress again the courteousness of our approach. We did not bring our problems upon ourselves by being hostile or pushy. My half-hour meeting with Lesley on March 22 was friendly and relaxed. She heard me out. Nobody pushed. The issue was very simple: we were asking for the two courts back because the alternate use was not efficient. She volunteered at the conclusion of our meeting to respond within 2 weeks (i.e. by April 5). We didn’t bother her for those 2 weeks.

I did send a single email one week after our meeting saying: “I do hope you’ll give me a chance to offer input before finalizing your response to the group.” She never did. But her reply said: “I will contact you for a meeting within two weeks.”

We made it very easy to do the right thing. I still today cannot see any obstacle.

Lesley’s 2-week promise was publicized to the 45 people on the email list right after our meeting. And the message was forwarded to her, so she knew it had been publicized.

Two weeks passed without a word. Then I tried calling. She refused to answer phone and email messages for a further two weeks. It was simply not possible to make contact. She did call once, leaving a voicemail message asking that I call her the next day, Saturday, April 8. I did -- but she refused to take the call.

On reaching her voicemail that day, I transferred to the front desk, where I spoke to Benjamin. He walked over to her office to tell her I was on the line. She told him to ask me to leave her a voicemail message, and she would call me “right back.”

I left the message. She did not call back.

That one voicemail she’d left was somewhat disturbing since it also suggested she’d missed the basic point of our petition. It mentioned research into external trends, contacts with the Squash Ontario organization, and a planned refurbishment of the courts.

I responded to this message by email:

I am concerned that your response deadline has been exceeded because of extraneous issues which you mention are being addressed. I would request that you review the text of our petitions, which stresses that our core issue is the "squandering of valuable squash court infrastructure"

I will give you a call tomorrow

I called and left a message, but she wouldn’t return it.

I tried emailing again a week later (April 15):

Could we schedule a phone appointment to discuss the petition?

This message too was ignored.

Then on Wednesday, April 19, at the end of the day, she finally phoned and left a message, and we connected the next day. She announced that her decision would be made May 2 and proposed that we meet afterwards. I reminded her of my wish for input, and she agreed to meet on April 26.

The meeting, however, was pointless. Her mind appeared to be already made up. But there was one surprise. Even at this late date in the decision process (5 weeks after I’d presented the petitions), I discovered she was under the impression that we were proposing to eliminate Cycle Fit. Apparently, she hadn’t read the petition!

Here is how I described the meeting in an email to the members:

Again and again, Lesley raised completely extraneous considerations to attempt to confuse the simple issue at hand. And, again and again, she raised the suggestion that we, the petition signatories, being squash players, are necessarily blind to the legitimate interests of other Y members with whom we share the facility.

I explained that we are reasonable people; we respect the activities of the non-squash membership; what we are talking about is efficient usage of limited resources. It honestly seems like she cannot hear me.

As an example of those extraneous issues, she dwelt for some time on what would be the optimal design if the facility were being constructed today, and how space would be allocated among the many different activities such as conditioning and swimming.

But why were we talking about an optimal redesign? She was simply evading the issue of the empty racquetball court.

On May 2 (6 weeks after she received the petitions) we were given the expected decision. Cycle Fit would stay where it was. I sent her a public email:

Squash is busy; racquetball is not. Why have Cycle Fit on a squash court?

Her reply:

Based on several guiding program principles, utilization targets and internal data, we have decided to add one additional squash court. I would be pleased to discuss my decision with any individual. Please call me directly at 975-9168 X400.

But this didn’t answer the question. Why Cycle Fit on a squash court? I repeated the question, adding:

Your message invites each of us to call you to discuss your decision. Seventy people have signed the petition; 45 are on this email list. May I suggest you put in writing, just once, your reasons for deciding to maintain TWO courts for racquetball players, when your own numbers show how few Y members are interested in that sport.

That prompted a phone call from her, which I described to my fellow petitioners thus:

Basically, her position is that she has provided a satisfactory explanation for her decision already, even if I can’t see it. She said two or three of you have called and spoken with her, and that those people, unlike me, understood her explanation.

May I ask any of you who understand Lesley’s decision to volunteer to explain it to the rest of us?

Needless to say, no one offered an explanation.

At that point Peter Higginson also publicly emailed a request for an answer to the question:

I would like to say that I do not think each of us calling you makes much sense. Especially since our group frustration comes from the paucity of response we have received as a group. Your failure to address the questions that we all have in a single group response is disappointing.

Her reply to this was:

The removal of a racquetball court at this time will drive the racquetball access up a level similar to the one that squash players do not find acceptable now. I feel this solution provides fair access to both groups.

Please call me if you would like to discuss this further. My number is (416) 975-9168 X 400.

My rejoinder promptly followed:

I have never seen both racquetball courts booked for the same time slot. But every night we have all 3 squash courts simultaneously booked for multiple time slots. Have you taken a look at the reservation sheets?

But no further word has come from Lesley.

To conclude:

I’m sorry if I’ve belabored this unduly. It is clearly not rocket science. We have busy squash courts and empty racquetball courts, an obvious waste of resources.

Management error is acceptable; even longstanding error; even some degree of inattention to member concerns. This was our attitude during the March meeting. But afterwards -- after a pile of petitions has been submitted concerning a simple issue; after I have gotten Lesley’s attention and she has heard what the problems are -- at that point, continuing to uphold bad decisions is unacceptable.

We have seen evasion, unresponsiveness, defiance, and a blatant refusal to answer questions or justify decisions. The only reasonable interpretation for this persistent evasion is a deliberate refusal to do what’s right for members.

Ed will be corroborating this with his own firsthand observations.

This deliberate refusal logically implies a conscious violation of the “commitment to service.”

I have also mentioned the indifference to our complaint about dishonesty.

Hypocrisy; dishonesty -- these are unpleasant words, but they exactly fit.

Let me underline: this is blatant; empty golf and racquetball courts right there in the midst of packed squash courts. This is a monumental defiance of a large group of Y members.

Three petitions, over the course of three years. All rejected.

Again, your duty is to the Y, not to any individual. Lesley has a plum job, a top position bringing prestige and benefits, and a role as Y representative in the community. The Y has every right to impose high standards on the person occupying such a position. As I see it, personal dedication to Y values is all-important for the person holding that position.

This is obviously not my decision to make; but personally, I feel that Lesley has demonstrated that she does not belong at the Y. There is no doubt whatever that a suitable individual could be found who would love to have her job. And a person could well be very suitable even if his or her political skills are not equal to Lesley’s.

No matter who holds the position, you have to have accountability to protect values and prevent corruption. The Y should therefore post notices at its facilities making members aware that they can obtain independent reviews of complaints about any employees.

If this statement has left you with any doubts, I hope you will give me an opportunity to address them. I am willing to participate in a followup meeting if you wish.