mobile site Go to The News Item mobile

Who is right?


Font size: [A] [A] [A]

Mount Carmel Area School District has a problem.

Many other districts have the same or a similar problem, but last week's firing of head football coach Bob Chesney after just one season, and a fairly successful one at that, puts Mount Carmel in the spotlight right now, so our focus will be there.

The problem is this - how does a district produce well-rounded students, capable of playing football, playing a trumpet, solving a calculus problem, acting in a play, doing community service, etc. etc., while much of the community at large demands that the high school football team not just win, but win a lot?

That, in a nutshell, is what Chesney's ouster is all about. It boils down to this - Superintendent Cheryl Latorre's vision for the district vs. Chesney's vision for the football team. As a school official later put it, Chesney was a round peg in a square hole from the start.

The words 'witchhunt' and 'repercussions' got bandied about a lot at last week's special meeting, when the school board voted 6-2 to fire Chesney, and any time those words are being used to describe school district business, it's also not a good thing.

Latorre, and the parents who support her, envisions a 21st-century school district where students can participate in as many extracurricular activities as they want to, or feel they can handle, while keeping their grades up. There's nothing wrong with that.

Trouble is, in Mount Carmel, football has always been considered THE extracurricular activity.

That's not the fault of Chesney, a coach whose style is firmly rooted in the mid-20th century when he was a student-athlete. He feels that during football season, the football players are his, at least for the two or so hours of football practice. And, as Chesney reminded the board during his rebuttals to their accusations, in Mount Carmel, excellence on the football field is demanded by the community.

Wins and losses...

There was talk by some of the board members that they didn't care about wins and losses, as long as the players were treated with respect. Chesney, like a good trial lawyer, even got a couple of those members to say that for the record.

They may say that, and they may even think they believe it, but if Mount Carmel would have been 12-0 this season, all the disgruntled players, parents and coaches you keep hearing about wouldn't count quite as much. And if Mount Carmel's next coach leads the team to a 5-5 record, they might be doing this all over again.

That was just one of the points in which board members, at least the majority, came off as somewhat disingenuous. Frankly, it's hard not to believe Chesney when he asserts, as he did in a written statement to The News-Item, that the meeting "was simply a predetermined, premeditated kangaroo court."

It was clear that once the majority and the superintendent had Chesney in their sights, any perceived mistake he made since he was hired was going to be brought against him. Allowing other students to deliver mail from colleges to players? Get real. Not wearing a headset on the sideline? Since when was that a coaching must? The starting lineup was determined before the season? Uh, it's called a depth chart.

And the whole bit by board member Eric Belfanti about his "constitutionality concerns" over the matter of prayer and players going to church as an organized group is ripe for skepticism. Again, if the football team was 12-0 and everyone happy, Belfanti likely wouldn't care if the coach made the kids go to church, a synagogue, a mosque, a Scientology meeting or a midnight mass with Druids.

Real concerns

To be fair, there were some real concerns. Any time hazing is talked about in a high school context, some notice will be taken. And there's the sticky matter of the assistant coaches. Reportedly, some of the assistants weren't happy with their roles under Chesney. Much was made of the fact that few assistants were there to support Chesney.

That's one time the word "repercussions" came in. Chesney said he told four assistant coaches not to come to the meeting because of potential repercussions from the board, either because they or relatives were employed by the district in capacities as more than coaches. Other people will tell you some of the coaches are glad Chesney is gone.

Ultimately though, this came down to an old-style coach against some players, their parents and an administration more comfortable with new-style coaching. Previous head coach Mike Brennan could yell and scream once in awhile, but had a more folksy, I'm-your-buddy approach that clearly resonated with the kids and parents.

And it was nice to see that the board gave the players some say. Too often the students, the ones who really count, are forgotten in the politics of the situation.

But the board had better be careful. At what point does complaining about bullying and intimidating of players (what football coach has never done that?) morph into the inmates running the asylum?

Finally, some questions need to be asked.

First, why did the board choose to try to oust Chesney at a reorganizational meeting held at Northumberland County Vocational-Technical School in Coal Township instead of a regular board meeting in Mount Carmel? Clearly, they were trying an end run with as little public opposition as possible, and it was a slimy maneuver.

Second, what's Plan B? Is the next head coach already chosen? If not, who does the board have in mind to be head coach at a school district which demands excellence on the field, won't pay all that much for it, and which has now set a precedent of firing coaches if they don't coach just the way some players, their parents, some assistant coaches and apparently the superintendent feel is the right way?

And will this now be standard procedure in evaluating all coaches? If the basketball coach, the wrestling coach or the baseball coach rubs someone the wrong way, will their players be asked, en masse, to evaluate the coach (anonymously, of course - we must protect the kids from "repercussions").

As I said, Mount Carmel Area School District has a problem.







Type in the characters you see in the picture below. If you have trouble reading the characters in the picture, click it to see a new one.



3 posted comments

As a Kulpmont High School graduate and a firm believer that Kulpmont should have never merged with Mt. Carmel, this is another case to prove my point. Kulpmont players and coaches never got any respect from Mt. Carmel and evidently this hasn't changed over the years. Sorry Bob, your from the wrong side of the tracks. Wish you the best. If I were you players from Kulpmont I'd tell them to shove there football program. If there is a scholorship to be had you can bet a Mt.Carmel kid will get it before you.
Howard Klinger 12/22/09 8:17
Looks like Shamokin football to me
dave 12/21/09 8:10
This wasn't about coaching it was about pissing of Lattore! What did
Coach Lazicki ever win at Mt.Carmel? Answer:Nothing but you don't see him get fired! And as usual this post won't be shown!!!!
Tom 12/20/09 8:19

Sportsmen's Survey

Let us know what you think about the latest changes to bear and deer hunting.


Police Blotter 03-15-10

1-vehicle crash SHAMOKIN TOWNSHIP - A Winfield woman escaped injury after losing control of her car on Route 61 just south of Holly Road Saturday, according to state police at Stonington. Dahnya N. Heim, 32, was heading north on Route 61 around 4:44 p.m.


 

Part of building collapses onto street in Shamokin

BY LARRY DEKLINSKI SHAMOKIN - A portion of a vacant commercial building collapsed onto a busy city street late Saturday morning. The collapse occurred around 11:30 a.m. when sheet metal, wood and bricks from 23 S. Market St. fell near the structure on M