Mock Disciplinary Hearings and the Appeals Proccess

At the United Soccer Coaches/USYSA Annual Convention, David Dalrymple of the Mass Youth Soccer Board of Director and Dave Laraba the West Virginia Executive Director presented on Discipline Hearing and Appeals. The presentation had extensive audience participation so the following is the general outline of the material presented.

Most appeals succeed for two major reasons. The first is failure to follow the procedures and process outline in USSF 701. The second is issues with the governance documents.

For the first issue, when contemplating holding a discipline event, review USSF 701 to note the proper process for notification and the requirements. A quick review of Policy 539 (Referee) is often in order as many discipline events are spawned from interactions with our referees.

While not under the pressure of needing to hold a discipline event, a review of the governance documents is in order. The first issue, what is prohibited behavior? It is difficult to articulate all the possible infractions that can occur. The recommendation for governance documents is to list the common types (red card, zero tolerance etc) and have a comprehensive code of conduct to outline the conduct expected for individuals working with children. Reference the training (SafeSport, Concussion Awareness, AED certification, CPR certification or whatever your organization mandates). Also include items such as authorizing the appropriate organization to do background checks in accordance with national requirements (in Massachusetts, a level 2 CORI check is required as well as the national background check).

The second point is not to create conflicts in the structure. For example if the documents direct the Sportsmanship Directors investigates all breaches of the code of conduct and that the Sportsmanship Director also chairs a discipline hearing, a problem is created as the governance documents specify a situation where the an individual is designated to investigate and then be part of a panel that is required to be unbiased and impartial, It is OK to specify that a member of a discipline hearing be a USSF certified referee but if you designate a specific individual (such as Head Referee), it is not guaranteed that this person is unbiased. It is better to have someone (such as President or Sportsmanship Director) to appoint a panel for each hearing to ensure that an unbiased, impartial panel is formed to hear the matter.

The third point is only hold a hearing when it is needed. There are three types of penalties, statutory, single person discretionary and pure discretionary. The first two do not required a hearing. To use a car analogy, it is important to have a hearing for the "vital few" and not the "mundane many." The governance documents should specify the first two as if they are absent, than a hearing is needed to apply a penalty for any prohibited behavior. A statutory penalty example is that a red card received by an individual requires the individual the not participate in the next game played. This can be turned into a single person discretionary where a red carded individual will be suspended for a minimum of one game and up to three games in the sole discretion of the head referee. (I am using the head referee but it could be sportsmanship director, ejection director etc - substitute your own term for the appropriate identified individual in your organization.) Two points here, if we leave off the "at the discretion of the head referee," we have bought a hearing so a panel can determine the appropriate number of games. Not a good use of a hearing panel. A good use of the hearing panel would be to add the phrase that if in the opinion of the head referee that three games is not a sufficient penalty, the head referee may impose a three game suspension and refer to a hearing panel for further action.

One additional point. When a statutory or single person discretionary is used, it is appropriate to allow a single event reconsideration, where the individual being sanctioned can bring up any information that the head referee or equivalent may not have been aware of in case it as a bearing on the severity of the incidence. Be sure to put limits on this - as in once and within a certain amount of time to give the head referee a chance to confirm any details that may not have been clear during the original decision.

Final point is an escape hatch is needed. Clubs are not the alpha organization when it comes to discipline. There are cases where we need to take a back seat to other jurisdictions. SafeSport, Criminal Authorities or other organizations may get primary jurisdictions. Make sure there is a section that a person may be suspended in anticipation of a hearing to happen within time certain should the individual become the subject of an investigation that if found to be true would bar the individual from working with children.

Now is the time to review your governance documents and make sure you are set up to handle discipline events with a process that is fair to the individual charged, an effective use of volunteer time for these issues and protects all the children and volunteers that are part of your organization.

Much has been written so far about getting the organization's house in order to be able to hold a proper disciplinary hearing. Once the hearing is over and the panel has rendered a decision, the process is not yet complete. One of the important aspects is the written decision. It must detail the hearing, including those presents and the main points of evidence presented. The Panel may only consider information presented in the disciplinary hearing. The decision also must detail the decision and the REASONS for the decision. An appeal panel, should the individual be aggrieved by the decision and appeal, should be able to understand the decision made and the thought that went into it. An appeal is not a "second bite at the apple" but a chance for an individual that felt the process or decision was unfair, a chance to have a higher authority review the grounds for the appeal and make a ruling without having to conduct an original hearing in its entirety

Most appeals are successful due to improper process. An Appeal Panel has three or four decisions it can render (depending on the appeal organization governance documents)

Outcome 1 - the process was unfair and in the panel's opinion, there is no chance for a fair process due to the circumstances - Appeal is upheld and issue is dismissed with prejudice - meaning the lower organization is not allowed to re-try

Outcome 2 - the process was unfair but in the panel's opinion, the process can be corrected. The matter is remanded back for a new hearing with a new panel.

Outcome 3a - (whether this option is available depends on the governance documents). Fair process but onerous sanction. Modify Sanction to appropriate level in line with Soccer Norms and close the issue

Outcome 3b - Fair process but onerous sanction. Remand for review of sanction and modification by original organization

Outcome 4 - Fair process and fair sanction. Deny the appeal and let the lower organization decision stand.

The Appeal decision must have all the same elements as the original hearing decision should have. Those present, the information presented, the decision, the reasons for the decision and the right to further appeal.

Dave Laraba as well as being the West Virginia Executive Director has sat on the Federation's Appeal committee. He states that the Federation does not wish to overturn the local decisions but many times needs to due to not following the proper process. David Dalrymple has been the Mass Youth Soccer Appeals Chairman for over a decade and has written many of the decisions for appeals coming to Mass Youth.