In a press release on the 22nd, Bae Jae-jae’s parent emergency committee (hereinafter referred to as the emergency committee) said, “In January this year, Principal Lee Hyo-joon (hereinafter referred to as the principal) notified all four athletic directors, including Bae Jae-jae’s baseball team coach Kwon Oh-young, of their refusal to renew their contracts.” The principal said, “The reason was that the baseball team coach was disciplined for taking a student player (hereinafter referred to as a ‘new student’) to winter training in January last year, and that the vice principal’s rated work performance evaluation resulted in less than 60 points.”
The parents of baseball players are strongly opposed. They argue that the decision was made without a single word with the parents, who are paying the wages of all coaches and leaders on the principle of beneficiary burden, and that the winter training issue and work performance that the principal is taking issue with are not considerable reasons to dismiss a coach.
In particular, the winter training problem was made by voluntary decision of the athletes and parents with the consent of the parents of the freshmen, who were the parties, and with the permission of the school (unwritten). In terms of the execution of expenses, it was transparently managed by reporting and executing to parents. As such, it is problematic for a school that allowed freshmen to participate in the winter training now to dismiss them for that reason.
In addition, “participation in winter training for new students” was carried out by the school and the director together as a “torture measure” that went against the guidelines of the Office of Education, but was unavoidable by the team’s leadership. The office’s disciplinary action was taken in the process, and the director accepted the disciplinary action with full responsibility. Although he was disciplined, the cost was handled transparently, and it was far from corruption or corruption to pursue the personal interests of the director. Parents say that it is against the grain for the school to take such disciplinary matters as a reason for dismissal.
Above all, parents complain that there is a bigger problem as the timing of the dismissal of the coach is bound to adversely affect the performance of the student players and the performance of the tournament. Although it is not possible to renew the contract according to the contract date, the sudden dismissal of the coach at the time of winter training, which is the most important period of the season due to the nature of baseball, is like giving up the performance of the tournament for several years including this year.
Parents are worried that if a coach, who has been consistently performing well even in the face of a lack of players, is dismissed, the coach (two coaches have already decided to work with the coach) or the players will inevitably have a big impact on the performance of the game.
The parents of the player demanded to know on what basis the principal and the vice principal evaluated their work performance, and they demanded an interview with the vice principal, who is a work performance evaluator, but the principal refuses, saying he has no obligation to do so. He also insists on withdrawing his refusal to renew his contract, saying that the fact that he did not go through the school management committee and did not guarantee the director’s calling while dismissing the director who had worked for more than 10 years shows the principal’s dogmaticity.
Parents’ consistent argument is that a leader who has led the baseball team in a clean and fair manner, and who has consistently performed despite a lack of players, should not lose his position in an unfair way, and above all, the rejection of the renewal of the contract should be withdrawn for the future of the student players. Parents expressed their opinions to the principal to reconsider their decision by writing an appeal.