33 minutes ago, PP1 said:

That being said, I think it is odd when grown men put emojis in their text messages.  

Agree.

6 minutes ago, BubbyKY said:

Agree.

What do you mean ??????!?!?

3 minutes ago, TheConch said:

What do you mean ??????!?!?

IKR @TheConch, OMG, what is wrong with ?‍♂️???

The difference is, this is a message board and not a text message. Geesh ?

I think this situation is understandably embarrassing for the Ruthsatz family. Scott was told he was being inducted to the CCH Hall of Fame and invited his family and friends. Then he was told the plans were off and he wasn't in the HOF. Now in that fallout everyone is also finding out that he was actually fired from the job when he sold it to everyone including his family that he resigned. That's even more embarrassing.

Maybe the bishop flexed a little more in all of this than he needed to but it's still his flex to be able to make. The CCH admins made their first mistake in not correcting the story when Ruthsatz and papers and news were all saying he resigned. Maybe that was because they liked Scott and hadn't wanted to fire him in the first place, maybe it wasn't. I dunno. If they'd been transparent about the fact that Scott had been fired in the first place, though, then I don't think there'd be as much pressure on them to put him into their Hall of Fame. The CCH admins made their next mistake in going ahead with trying to induct Scott into their HOF in the first place. If my boss tells me I have to fire one of my employees, I don't go back to my boss 6 months later and ask if I can give the guy a lifetime achievement award. And if the situation here is that they were given approval by Superintendent McGuire to induct him and then Bishop Iffert stepped in later and overruled McGuire when he found out, then the principal and AD at CCH are the two with egg on their faces for not actually getting approval from the actual guy who had Ruthsatz fired.

It all stinks for everybody involved. The CCH admins tried to do Ruthsatz a solid by letting him save face and spin his firing as a resignation. Then they tried to extend that even further by honoring him in the HOF. Their mistakes along the way look like they've come back to bite them in the butt in a really public way. Ruthsatz is going through the public embarrassment of having it made clear that he deceived everyone about resigning when he'd actually been shown the door. Plus he had the HOF honor waved in front of his face and then pulled away from him.

6 minutes ago, Cincinnati Cobra said:

I think this situation is understandably embarrassing for the Ruthsatz family. Scott was told he was being inducted to the CCH Hall of Fame and invited his family and friends. Then he was told the plans were off and he wasn't in the HOF. Now in that fallout everyone is also finding out that he was actually fired from the job when he sold it to everyone including his family that he resigned. That's even more embarrassing.

Maybe the bishop flexed a little more in all of this than he needed to but it's still his flex to be able to make. The CCH admins made their first mistake in not correcting the story when Ruthsatz and papers and news were all saying he resigned. Maybe that was because they liked Scott and hadn't wanted to fire him in the first place, maybe it wasn't. I dunno. If they'd been transparent about the fact that Scott had been fired in the first place, though, then I don't think there'd be as much pressure on them to put him into their Hall of Fame. The CCH admins made their next mistake in going ahead with trying to induct Scott into their HOF in the first place. If my boss tells me I have to fire one of my employees, I don't go back to my boss 6 months later and ask if I can give the guy a lifetime achievement award. And if the situation here is that they were given approval by Superintendent McGuire to induct him and then Bishop Iffert stepped in later and overruled McGuire when he found out, then the principal and AD at CCH are the two with egg on their faces for not actually getting approval from the actual guy who had Ruthsatz fired.

It all stinks for everybody involved. The CCH admins tried to do Ruthsatz a solid by letting him save face and spin his firing as a resignation. Then they tried to extend that even further by honoring him in the HOF. Their mistakes along the way look like they've come back to bite them in the butt in a really public way. Ruthsatz is going through the public embarrassment of having it made clear that he deceived everyone about resigning when he'd actually been shown the door. Plus he had the HOF honor waved in front of his face and then pulled away from him.

He was not fired. I know this for a 100% fact.

Welcome to BGP @NKYHoopsFan!

6 minutes ago, NKYHoopsFan said:

He was not fired. I know this for a 100% fact.

It would seem that you have a contrastingly different stance about that from Ruthsatz's former employers.

1 minute ago, Cincinnati Cobra said:

It would seem that you have a contrastingly different stance about that from Ruthsatz's former employers.

Called into meet Diocese. Listed off all the times he "verbally" was tough on kids. Caden Miller etc etc. Parent complaints about practices being too physical etc etc. Diocese was setup for warning/suspension. Scott knew the writing was on the wall for the following season and was ready to go anyway. Probably not his ideal timeline but was best to resign. 

3 minutes ago, NKYHoopsFan said:

Called into meet Diocese. Listed off all the times he "verbally" was tough on kids. Caden Miller etc etc. Parent complaints about practices being too physical etc etc. Diocese was setup for warning/suspension. Scott knew the writing was on the wall for the following season and was ready to go anyway. Probably not his ideal timeline but was best to resign. 

I completely agree with everything you wrote, right up through your second "etc etc."

12 minutes ago, Cincinnati Cobra said:

And if the implication here is that they were given approval by superintendent McGuire to induct him and then bishop Iffert stepped in later and overruled McGuire when he found out, then the principal and AD at CCH are the two with egg on their faces for not actually getting approval from the actual guy who had Ruthsatz fired.

I don't agree with this part, unless there is no chain of command.  I know that if I ever cut my supervisor out of the loop/ran an end around and went up the chain of command, I would be punished severely and have no one to blame but myself. 

2 minutes ago, theguru said:

I don't agree with this part, unless there is no chain of command.  I know that if I ever cut my supervisor out of the loop/ran an end around and went up the chain of command, I would be punished severely and have no one to blame but myself. 

My assumption would be that if my boss' supervisor had already chosen to step in himself and handle a personnel issue with a specific employee, unless I was told otherwise then I sure better be copying my boss' supervisor on any future communications I made about that same specific employee. I wouldn't be cutting my boss out of the loop, rather, I would be also including my boss' supervisor in the loop since they already had a history of involvement.

2 minutes ago, Cincinnati Cobra said:

My assumption would be that if my boss' supervisor had already chosen to step in himself and handle a personnel issue with a specific employee, unless I was told otherwise then I sure better be copying my boss' supervisor on any future communications I made about that same specific employee. I wouldn't be cutting my boss out of the loop, rather, I would be also including my boss' supervisor in the loop since they already had a history of involvement.

I hear you but to that I say it is my boss' job to check with her/his supervisor.  I suppose it would come down to the customs of a given organization.

We need an I-Team investigation or maybe have Tricia Macke do a sit-down with all parties involved...I'd watch it with my ?.  

4 minutes ago, theguru said:

I hear you but to that I say it is my boss' job to check with her/his supervisor.  I suppose it would come down to the customs of a given organization.

That's fair. I'm sure there are plenty of organizations that vary from one another in how much they do or don't want to involve multiple managerial levels in their personnel matters.