Oberdorf firing incomprehensible
The Leechburg Area School Board released softball coach Jim Oberdorf on Aug. 19 with no input from the community or students.
When the Heritage League move became a hot issue, other parents and I asked that the board post an agenda prior to meetings to allow the community to be involved before decisions were made. That's never happened.
Parents and students should have the right to be heard regarding a coaching position. Mr. Oberdorf seemed to be unaware that he was being removed, yet the replacement was already chosen.
Why change something that has been working for 28 years? Oberdorf is the second most winning coach in WPIAL softball history but gets replaced for losing the past two years in the first round of playoffs?
This man has been praised on social media today by former players and community members for the direction he gave his players on and off the field. He's a legend. He not only crafted great ballplayers, he also helped to craft great young people to become adults.
I wish Debbie Young the best of luck and believe she will be a good coach. But as a community member, I would like to know the real reason Oberdorf was removed.
Is this what we have to look forward to from Superintendent Ian Magness and the board we elected?
Bravo for giving one of the best tools our girls had for learning on and off the field to one of our opponents.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Inconsistent Wolf
- Corbett is the honest choice
- Corbett over Wolf I
- Corbett over Wolf II
- Gross in 45th
- Watson in 33rd
- Barbour sentence shameful
- Embrace domestic energy production
- Justice incomplete
- Positive promise