Former CFL Commissioner: frank or remarkably self-absorbed?

Over the past forty years, especially, it is probably fair to say that politicians have, in the estimation of everyday people, dropped considerably in terms of esteem.

There was a time, long ago, when being an elected official meant something, maybe even something special. It was an honorable thing to represent the people.

There are many reasons for the decline in respect granted elected officials.  Many are perceived to say one thing and do another, or promise something and do something else.  Many vote like sheep according to “party” lines instead of personal principle.  Quite a few display vanity of a sort on a regular basis while mugging for ever-present television cameras.

So it’s perhaps little wonder that former Canadian Football league commissioner Larry Smith is only days into his political life, and he has already discovered what you say does actually matter.

Smith, a former president of the Montreal Alouettes, a former professional player and a successful business person, was recently named to the Canadian Senate by Prime Minister Harper. Within a day or so, he announced he was seeking to become the Member of Parliament in his riding.

When interviewed by a CBC reporter, Smith was quoted as saying he was not being cynical in using his Senatorial position to jump start his campaign.

A Canadian press article put it this way:

When Smith was asked by Solomon if he believed it was cynical political strategy to use his new profile to help launch his bid to become an MP, the political novice responded with a quick "no."

"You have to understand that I've worked very hard over my career and, to do what I'm doing now, I'm making a major, major concession in my lifestyle to even be a senator," Smith said.

"I'm not trying to be arrogant, because I'm not, but I made a commitment to get myself into a higher form of public service than the philanthropic stuff I've done for the last 30 years."

Smith, a former CFL commissioner and newspaper publisher, was then pressed further on the lifestyle impact. "In simple terms, the money I was earning in my last profession to where I would be in this profession is what I would call a dramatic, catastrophic pay cut," Smith said.

"And I have a family — I have obligations ... I am making a major commitment to do what I'm going to do so I don't look at it as being cynical at all."

His comments seems to have struck a nerve, in much the same way the former CEO of BP created controversy months ago by saying he just “wanted to get his life back” after his company had created environmental chaos almost beyond compare. People were shocked that the CEO’s focus was seemingly on feeling sorry for himself, as opposed simply apologizing for the disaster triggered by his profit-driven company.

In that same vein, people (many of whom Smith expects, presumably, to vote for him) will find it difficult to relate to a person who seems to be patting himself on the back by saying, essentially, “Hey, I’m being a good guy here. Look, I’m taking this big pay cut just to serve you. I’m only going to make $130,000 or so a year…” , not to mention huge allowances and benefits.

To say to everyday people (who work hard to earn far less than that) that you are making “major concessions to my lifestyle” will come across as outlandish at best to many.

So it was not a good start in politics for a supposedly savvy and experienced individual. It will be interesting to see if he will be similarly “candid” (some would say thoughtless) in the months to come—and how the voters in his constituency will respond.

Youth coach faces suspension because of principled stand

There is always an “accuracy” risk in writing or commenting about something without knowing all the facts.

I’m referring, in this instance, to recent published reports about a youth hockey team in Peterborough, Ontario. The reports indicate that a coach pulled his team in the middle of a game. Why? One of his players had been subjected to a racial slur and the other team (and player who is alleged to have made the remark) did not immediately apologize to the player in question.

There seems to be no debate that the remark was indeed made. The offending player/team did apologize afterwards, the player evidently showing genuine remorse.

In the interim, the Ontario Minor Hockey Association, pending an official hearing, has suspended the coach who pulled his team off the ice. The reason? Teams are not allowed, by rule, to pull their teams off the ice during a game—even in a case such as this.

As I mentioned earlier, I don’t know those involved and did not witness the incident. It’s always possible there are facts or factors that outsiders are simply not aware of.

The hockey authorities in question stand by their decision to suspend the coach, based on longstanding rules and regulations.

But it is difficult not to question an authority structure that suspends a coach, when, by all accounts, that individual is simply standing up for his players, his team, and an question of principle.

Were there other ways to protest the remark? No doubt. And it makes sense to await a thorough investigation to determine exactly what took place and why and whether the “punishment” is fair.

But this just seems to be, on the surface at least, a case where technicalities over-rule common sense. If the coach who was suspended was, in fact, simply protecting his player and his team from abuse and “taking a stand”, is a suspension really fair?

I’m sure more will come from this story, but for now, an indefinite suspension (it could be up to a full year) would seem to be a peculiar decision, since the coach did not initiate the offensive action. (The player who made the remark and his two coaches were suspended for three days and are all back in action already.)

I’m not sure this all sends a very clear—or good—message to our young people.