text:
Jeff Luhnow
More on the Luhnow lawsuit
Because I now have the brain space to think about stuff like this again.
Did not age well
While baseball fans and courtroom voyeurs might long for a public legal showdown between Astros owner Jim Crane and former general manager Jeff Luhnow, attorneys say the more likely outcome of their contract dispute over Luhnow's firing is a quiet, secretive resolution behind the protective wall of private arbitration.
Three Texas attorneys were united on that point of view Monday after examining the 18-page breach of contract lawsuit filed by Luhnow against the ballclub before Texas 125th District Judge Kyle Carter.
Luhnow alleges that Crane violated his contract by firing him in January after he was suspended for a year by Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred. Crane's decision, Luhnow says, denied him benefits that include $22 million of his $31 million contract plus bonuses and a guaranteed slice of the ballclub's profits.
While the bulk of the complaint alleges a plot by the Astros and MLB to scapegoat Luhnow as the villain of the 2017-18 sign-stealing scandal, attorneys say its most critical point is in the 34th of 43 paragraphs, which says Luhnow is required to submit contract disputes to arbitration "by the commissioner or the commissioner's designee."
"Jeff Luhnow will have a very difficult time defeating the arbitration agreement clause," said Rogge Dunn, a Dallas attorney who has represented former Orioles manager Buck Showalter, Texas Tech University and a former Baylor University Title IX oversight director in employment law cases.
Luhnow's attorneys say it would be a "complete sham" for Manfred to have a key role in arbitrating disputes in which he is a central figure. The lawsuit asks Carter to submit the case to a jury or to appoint an arbitrator of his own choosing.
"His point is that this is an inside deal," Dunn said. "The commissioner will protect the owner and scapegoat me, and he also gets to appoint the arbitrator, who will know on whose bread is being buttered."
Mike Muskat, a partner with the Houston firm Muskat, Mahony & Devine, said Texas law is "very favorable toward enforcement provisions," which decreases the prospect Luhnow can avoid an arbitration proceeding in which MLB gets to pick the arbitrator.
"I'll give (Luhnow's attorneys) credit for a creative argument, but the law is pretty solid," Muskat said. "There's a pretty high hurdle to avoid arbitration based on the selection of the arbitrator."
See here for the background, and there's a copy of the lawsuit embedded in the story. I'll say this much, if Luhnow turns this into a crusade against mandatory arbitration clauses in employment agreements, even if it's for the most self-interested of reasons (*), I will regain a modicum of respect for him. He's right that this kind of forced arbitration is a scam that greatly benefits employers – and businesses in general when we're talking about other types of service agreements – but the fight needs to be bigger than this. You can do it, Jeff!
(*) Money is very much the motivating factor here, as there's over $30 million at stake. If the Astros can fire Luhnow for cause, instead of firing him for being a loser, as is the case most of the time when managers/GMs are canned, then they don't owe him any of the money he was to be paid in his contract. Whatever else you may think of Luhnow, he's not an idiot.
Luhnow sues Astros
This ought to be entertaining.
Jeff Luhnow sued the Houston Astros for breach of contract on Sunday, alleging that Astros owner Jim Crane and Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred negotiated penalties for the sign-stealing scandal that enabled the team to paint Luhnow as "the scapegoat for the organization" and fire its general manager "in order to save more than $22 million in guaranteed salary."
In January, after a two-month investigation into how the Astros violated baseball rules by improperly deploying technology to decode signs in the 2017 and 2018 seasons, Manfred suspended Luhnow and Astros manager A.J. Hinch for the 2020 season. Crane then fired Luhnow and Hinch.
Luhnow's lawsuit uses quotation marks around the word "investigation" and calls it "a negotiated resolution" between Crane and Manfred "that enabled the team to keep its World Series championship, went to great lengths to publicly exonerate Crane, and scapegoated Luhnow for a sign-stealing scandal that he had no knowledge of and played no part in."
Manfred later suspended Alex Cora, who was the Astros' bench coach in 2017 and then became manager of the Boston Red Sox, for the 2018 season. The Detroit Tigers hired Hinch as their manager last week, and the Red Sox re-hired Cora.
Luhnow has not found work in baseball. His suit, filed in Texas district court in Houston, alleges the Astros breached their contract with him because none of the conditions that would be considered as just cause for his dismissal actually occurred.
Yes, the first story appeared in the LA Times. Go figure. The Chron followed a little later with a copy of the lawsuit and some more details.
"The commissioner struck a deal with Crane to make Luhnow the scapegoat of the cheating scandal while absolving Crane, the players and others of responsibility," the suit reads.
Luhnow's lawsuit calls the league's investigation "deeply flawed." It paints Director of Advance Information Tom Koch-Weser as the scandal's "actual ringleader" who, according to the suit, blamed Luhnow "to save his own job."
Major League Baseball's investigation included 22,000 text and chat messages to or from Koch-Weser that, according to the suit, Manfred "ignored … as part of the effort to scapegoat Luhnow." Luhnow is not included in any of the messages, according to the petition.
The petition claims that Koch-Weser was the "only witness to claim that Luhnow mentioned electronic sign-stealing." Luhnow's lawsuit calls him a "biased source who has zero credibility."
"The Astros told Koch-Weser that he could keep his job so long as his actions were sanctioned by his supervisors, including Luhnow," the suit states.
Koch-Weser remained employed by the Astros throughout the 2020 season.
Luhnow's lawsuit attempted to demonstrate his adherence to baseball's crackdown on electronic sign-stealing during the 2017-19 seasons. In Major League Baseball's report, Manfred excoriated Luhnow for "(failing) to take any adequate steps to ensure that his club was in compliance with the rules."
You can add this to the season ticket holders' lawsuit as part of your offseason things to watch. The suit was filed in the 125th Civil Court, so congratulations to Judge Kyle Carter for having this hot potato land on his bench. I have no idea if any of these allegations are true, but I can't wait to find out more.
What more is there to be said about the Astros sign stealing scandal?
There's at least one podcast's worth of material out there.
Rather than writing a sequel to "Astroball," his 2018 book about the improbable rise of the Jim Crane/Jeff Luhnow-era Astros, former Sports Illustrated writer Ben Reiter opted for a six-episode podcast that delved into the sources and aftermath of the 2017-18 sign-stealing scandal.
The podcast, titled "The Edge," wraps up Wednesday and Wednesday, Nov. 11, with a two-part final episode that likely will be devoted in large measure to Reiter's interviews with Luhnow, the former general manager who was ousted along with manager A.J. Hinch in the wake of the sign-stealing revelations.
Reiter said in a recent interview that he expects the podcast to be his final word, at least for now, on the Astros' rise and fall that has occupied much of his professional life since 2014.
He acknowledges, however, that the impact of the scandal will be lasting, both for the players and the Astros brand, and that details remain hidden about the case that will be brought into the light grudgingly, if at all.
"A lot of people are going to be very motivated to keep their lips sealed forever on this, including some very powerful people," Reiter said. "My hope as a journalist is my belief is that the truth always finds a way to emerge. I think that is what's going to happen with this story."
Reiter said he took on the podcast because he "felt a great personal responsibility to dive back into this story. I had written so much about the team since 2014, and I'd missed something. Everybody had missed something."
As for his goal of learning as much as possible about what happened with the Astros and why it happened, Reiter said he is satisfied that he has uncovered as much as can be learned. He does, however, acknowledge that MLB's report in January was incomplete.
"I think that there are certain things that MLB knows that do not show up in the report," he said.
"MLB wants to move forward. They want to put this scandal behind them. There's certainly the possibility that motivation worked against a full investigation of what happened, not only in the Astros, but across the league."
The podcast is called "The Edge", and you can find it wherever you'd expect to find podcasts. Now that I might have a bit of spare time in my schedule, I plan to give it a listen.
"You guys Codebreaking?"
You thought the Astros sign stealing saga was over? It's not over.
Roughly four weeks ago, Major League Baseball disciplined the Houston Astros for what commissioner Rob Manfred called the "banging scheme." The Astros were busted illegally stealing signs in 2017 and 2018. The scheme involved banging a nearby trash can to relay the signs to the hitter at the plate.
Here is a recap of Houston's punishment:
$5 million fine (maximum allowed by MLB Constitution)
Manager A.J, Hinch suspended one year (he was then fired)
GM Jeff Luhnow suspended one year (he was also fired)
Top two draft picks in 2020 and 2021 forfeited
In his nine-page report detailing the investigation, Manfred explained the Astros stole signs illegally throughout their 2017 World Series season and early in 2018 as well. The report says the investigation "revealed no evidence to suggest that Luhnow was aware of the banging scheme." There appears to be more to the story, however.
According to a bombshell report by the Wall Street Journal's Jared Diamond, Manfred sent Luhnow a letter 11 days before the discipline was announced saying "there is more than sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that you knew — and overwhelming evidence that you should have known — that the Astros maintained a sign-stealing program that violated MLB's rules."
Diamond reports an intern showed Luhnow an algorithm used to decode signs in September 2016. The spreadsheet, nicknamed "Codemaker," was fairly rudimentary — someone would manually input the sign sequence and the pitch, and the algorithm would decipher the pattern — but illegal nonetheless. The system was also referred to internally as the team's "dark arts."
The Astros used Codebreaker to decode signs during home and road games, according to Diamond, and the information was passed on to the dugout. As Manfred detailed in his report, the information was initially used by runners at second base. Eventually the Astros started banging on garbage cans to cut out the middle man and relay signs even with the bases empty.
See here and here for some background. There's more:
Among the other details that have come to light:
The use of Codebreaker continued into 2018 and not just at home games, but also on the road. Until this point, it was assumed that the Astros only used their system at home. This story suggests they used at least some version of it on the road.
Luhnow, however, told MLB that he thought the use of Codebreaker was only for decoding signs after games, not in real-time.
The Codebreaker system was developed by Derek Vigoa, then an intern and now the Astros' senior manager for team operations.
Tom Koch-Weser, the team's director of advance information, plays a central role in this latest story. He told MLB investigators Luhnow would "giggle" at the name "Codebreaker." Koch-Weser said Luhnow would sometimes say, "You guys Codebreaking?" when he came to the Astros video room during road games. Luhnow denied this to the Wall Street Journal.
Koch-Weser would often call the system the Astros' "dark arts," according to e-mails obtained by MLB. He said once in a team Slack channel, referring to Luhnow: "I know the secrets that made us a championship team, some of which he[']d definitely feel a lot safer if they were kept in-house."
Another Astros front-office staffer Matt Hogan told MLB investigators that no one tried to hide their actions from Luhnow. "It would have been something to show we were working and get validation of our work," Hogan told investigators.
Luhnow was updated via e-mail by many in the front office about Codebreaker, the investigation shows, however Luhnow's defense was that he didn't read the full e-mails.
Regardless of Luhnow's claim he didn't know about any of this, Manfred's letter said, "there is more than sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that you knew—and overwhelming evidence that you should have known—that the Astros maintained a sign-stealing program that violated MLB's rules."
I'm not sure what's worse at this point, the new details about how entrenched in the organization this all was – you saw that this was happening on the road, too, right? – or how pathetically incomplete the Manfred report was. We can think of it as more like the Barr-summary-of-the-Mueller-report rather than the real report, because as before, it pointed us in a totally wrong direction. We need to be asking Rob Manfred a lot of questions about this.
The Journal states that the league's evidence included knowledge of the existence of Codebreaker, yet the league's report completely omits it and exonerates Astros non-uniformed personnel. The league's report also somewhat pointedly omits any mention of actions prior to 2017, even though Manfred apparently knew about the Codebreaker implementation and that program's 2016 origins.
Why did MLB not punish any personnel besides Lunhow? The intern who reportedly originally presented Codebreaker to Lunhow, Derek Vigoa, is now Houston's senior director of team operations. For that matter, why has nothing become of Kevin Goldstein, who according to a report from Jeff Passan asked his scouts to point their cameras into other teams' dugouts? That information became public before the conclusion of the league's investigation. Is the front office-driven nature of the scheme the reason that AJ Hinch never put a stop to the banging?
Beyond that, what happened in 2018 when the use of Codebreaker stopped? Was it because there was a better system implemented, and was there front office-driven cheating in 2019? Tom Verducci point-blank asked Hinch whether there was truth to the rumors that the Astros used buzzers to convey signs during the interview that aired tonight on MLB Network. Hinch stated that the league found that no buzzers were used (h/t to Brendan Kuty for transcribing the full exchange). That's not exactly a "no."
It's also worth noting that the Journal states that the aforementioned euphemism "dark arts" was used in the Advance Scouting Department's 2019 budgeting spreadsheet. Is that a reference to the initiative Goldstein proposed, a new sign-stealing scheme, or something else entirely?
A lot of things about this whole story never added up. Why didn't Hinch ever flat-out tell the players to cut it out? Why didn't they get the message when he went as far as to smash the monitors, and did so twice? How could Luhnow – and owner Jim Crane, for that matter – not know about any of this?
The picture is becoming clearer now. We still need more information, and the question of Crane's knowledge of these matters is still not satisfyingly resolved. But for some reason, MLB decided to conceal this side of the story, and decided to leave everything that happened before 2017 out of the report. Baseball deliberately shielded everyone in the Astros' front office besides Jeff Luhnow.
Rob Manfred needs to tell us why.
Yes, he does. Also, maybe people need to ask AJ Hinch some more questions, too. We're about to find out the fate of the Red Sox, as well as MLB's plan for avoiding this kind of scandal in the future. My advice is to treat this in the same way the large organizations that are serious about cybersecurity treat that threat to their business: Hire people whose mission it is to monitor for this activity in real time, who proactively review past data for signs of misbehavior, and who use intel and other techniques to hunt for bad actors and actions proactively. I'm sure MLB already has cybersecurity experts on their payroll. They need to take that to the next step and treat this as a threat to their business, because it is. Rob Arthur and ESPN have more.
Is there an Astros apology coming?
A "strong statement" of apology could be forthcoming from the Astros players involved in electronic sign-stealing during the 2017 and 2018 seasons, owner Jim Crane said Tuesday.
In response to interviews given by Jose Altuve and Alex Bregman on Saturday at FanFest, Crane said his players are "just getting some advice to take it easy."
Neither Altuve nor Bregman addressed specifics of the sign-stealing scheme — one Major League Baseball determined was "player-driven" — nor did they accept culpability for the fallout when presented the option. Manager A.J. Hinch and general manager Jeff Luhnow were fired after the league released its investigative findings.
"When we get down to spring training, we'll all get them together and they'll come out with a strong statement as a team and, I think, apologize for what happened and move forward," Crane said Tuesday prior to the Houston Sports Awards.
Crane said the players who've spoken have been "holding back a bit" and are apparently awaiting spring training to formulate a response.
"Everyone is split up. It's a team," Crane said. "We're going to sit in a room and talk about it, then we'll come out and address the press. All of them will address the press, either as a group or individually. Quite frankly, we'll apologize for what happened, ask for forgiveness and move forward."
You know my opinion. I just hope that if and when they do offer an apology, it's genuine and heartfelt and not one of those "if anyone was offended" abominations. Better to fully embrace being the heel than to half-ass it, that's my advice. Joe Holley has more.
You can't move on from something you haven't faced up to
Neither Jose Altuve nor Alex Bregman, two principal players on a 2017 team that executed what Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred described as a "player-driven and player-executed" system to violate baseball's rules and defraud the game, chose Saturday to address specifics of a nine-page report on the scandal that led to the dismissal of general manager Jeff Luhnow and manager A.J. Hinch.
If there is remorse and apology, that will come later, perhaps next month after the ballclub gathers at West Palm Beach, Fla, for spring training. But for the moment, if there are fences to be mended, feelings to be reconciled or trust to be regained, Astros fans apparently will be left to their own devices.
Until the players speak, the focus of the Astros' efforts to cope with and move past what some have described as baseball's worst performance-related scandal in a century remains on owner Jim Crane, who made the decision last Monday to fire Hinch and Luhnow rather than settle for the suspensions imposed by MLB commissioner Rob Manfred.
By firing his manager and general manaager, said Gene Grabowski, a principal with the public relations firm kglobal, the Astros have made the appropriate sacrifice for their sins to the Lords of Baseball.
"They have thrown the virgin into the volcano," Grabowski said.
With that, he said, the most important task facing Astros management is to move ahead, as Crane has done by apologizing to season ticket holders, contacting sponsors and receiving what he described as messages of continued support.
"You have to get past this," Grabowski said.
Astros alumni Jeff Bagwell and Lance Berkman also emphasized the need to look ahead.
"When I get a spanking from my dad, he doesn't quit loving me and I don't quit being his son," Berkman said. "The Astros aren't going to stop being part of Major League Baseball. You have to accept the punishment and move on.
"This is a clean organization. This is not a dirty organization. This is not a tricky organization. All these things notwithstanding, this is a great organization, and I think it will continue to be."
Bagwell agreed with Altuve that it's too early for players to react to the specific charges outlined in the commissioner's report.
"Everyone is still trying to wrap their heads around it," he said.
Others, however, favor a more direct approach. Jeff Van Gundy, the former Rockets coach who now works for ESPN, said the forgiving nature of Houston fans and the old saw that confession is good for the soul would be a better avenue than silence.
"You don't have to get into specifics, but you can say, 'I'm sorry for the role that I played in this, and I promise the Astros fans that not only will I promise not to do it again, I won't tolerate anybody else doing it,' " Van Gundy said.
While some fans will scoff at the idea that players did anything wrong by violating the rules in a sport where competition is everything and winning is the only thing, Van Gundy said, "The earlier you deal with it, the more forthright you are, the better.
"Saying 'I screwed up' is the hardest thing to do. But it's the simplest way to be forgiven."
I'm with Van Gundy here. Look, the main thing we know here is that other than then-coach Alex Cora, the whole "banging scheme" was player-devised and player-driven. Yet for a variety of understandable if debatable reasons, MLB chose to punish only the manager and GM. This has not only left the public wanting players to be held accountable as well, it's also left every member of the Astros team from 2017 and 2018 under a cloud. That cloud isn't going anywhere until the players themselves talk about their own role in what happened, whether as a ringleader, beneficiary of the scheme, or just someone who didn't care for it but didn't speak up about it. This isn't complicated. The Astros themselves can feel however they want about all this, but if they want other people to move on, they need to own what they did and apologize for it.
Luhnnow and Hinch suspended by MLB, then fired by Astros
Astros owner Jim Crane fired manager A.J. Hinch and general manager Jeff Luhnow on Monday shortly after Major League Baseball announced the pair would be suspended for a year as part of the penalties for the investigation into alleged electronic-sign stealing.
"Today is a very difficult day for the Houston Astros," Astros owner Jim Crane said in a press conference Monday. "MLB did a very thorough investigation and the Astros fully cooperated and we accept their decisions and findings and penalties."
The franchise also was stripped of its first- and second-round picks in both the 2020 and 2021 drafts and fined $5 million.
MLB's report detailed the Astros' efforts to steal signs in 2017 and laid out the punishment handed down to the Astros. Crane opted to go a step further.
"I have higher standards for the city and the franchise," Crane said.
Well, at least the Astros found a way to make everyone forget about the Texans' playoff disaster. The full report is embedded in the story, and it's not long, so go read the whole thing. (Or just read the highlights here, but really, read the whole thing.) I'd say this was on the high end of what I thought might happen, but it's not out of line with my expectations. The key is that the activity continued to occur after the 2017 Red Sox Apple Watch incident, in which Commissioner Manfred (the author of the report) explicitly promised strong punishment if anyone was caught doing stuff like that again. If I'm Alex Cora, who was directly named as a mastermind behind the scheme and is now the manager of another team under investigation I'm probably not sleeping well right now. We can debate at length whether this was fitting or not, or if any punishment is worth winning a World Series, or just put on some oven mitts and read Twitter about it. Let's just say 2020 is off to a rough start for Houston sports fans.
This also wrapped up the Brandon Taubman investigation – he too was suspended for a year, and will have to apply to the Commissioner's office for reinstatement. He was also singled out in the report for some sharp rebukes. I'll be thinking about all this for some time. The Press has more.
UPDATE: This did not age well.
Allegations of electronic sign-stealing "surprised" Astros shortstop Carlos Correa, who acknowledged Saturday he has participated in and cooperated with Major League Baseball's ongoing investigation into his team.
Appearing at an autograph show alongside Alex Bregman and George Springer, Correa offered the most elaborate comments of any Houston player since the scandal broke last November.
Correa expressed little worry about the organization's reputation and no thought the 2017 World Series title is in any way tainted. He revealed subtle antipathy toward former teammate Mike Fiers, whose on-the-record allegations about the 2017 team's actions spurred the investigation.
"He's a grown man, and he can do whatever he wants to do. It's a free country," Correa said. "Knowing Fiers, it was surprising, because we were a team. We were a team. We were all together, and we had a bond, and we won a World Series championship. But this is America, the land of the free. You can say what you want to say."
I'd say at least a little worry about the team's reputation is in order at this time. There's no evidence to suggest that the sign stealing actually benefited the Astros, but that doesn't matter. Fair or not, this scandal will forever be associated with that title.
A "most thorough" investigation
Here's an Astros update for you.
The ongoing electronic sign-stealing investigation against the Astros is "probably the most thorough" ever conducted by the commissioner's office, Rob Manfred said Wednesday.
Addressing reporters during the final full day of the winter meetings, Manfred said his office has interviewed more than 60 witnesses, has 76,000 emails through which to sift and "an additional trove of instant messages."
"That review has caused us to conclude that we have to do some follow-up interviewing," Manfred said. "It is my hope to conclude the investigation just as promptly as possible, but it's just really hard to predict how long something like that is going to take."
Maintaining a stance he's taken since the query began, Manfred declined to elaborate on possible punishments, calling such predictions "wholly inappropriate." A timeline for the investigation's conclusion remains a mystery, though follow-up interviews suggest it could drag longer into the winter.
"I'm going to get all the facts in front of me and make a decision as promptly as possible on discipline and, obviously, you all will know about it as soon as it happens."
See here for the last update. As a reminder, this is two investigations in one, the sign-stealing allegations and the Brandon Taubman debacle. I have to assume MLB will wrap this up during the off-season, but beyond that we have no idea how long this will take. We'll know when they're ready to tell us something.
MLB investigating more than 2017 for Astros' alleged sign stealing
This sounds ominous.
Major League Baseball's investigation into the Astros' alleged sign-stealing will include the 2018 and 2019 seasons, commissioner Rob Manfred revealed Thursday, adding two more years to an inquiry already involving Houston's World Series-winning 2017 team.
"We are talking to people all over the industry, former employees, competitors, whatever," Manfred said at the conclusion of the owners meetings on Thursday. "To the extent that we find other leads, we are going to follow these leads. We will get to the bottom of what we have out there in terms of what went on to the extent that it's humanly possible."
"Every time we've gotten a lead, we chased that lead down to the extent we felt was investigatively possible," Manfred said. "Obviously, an individual breaking what is a pretty firm commitment to silence about what goes on in dugouts and clubhouses is a big break in an investigation and an opportunity to push forward that we hadn't had previously."
The expanded investigation into sign-stealing is being combined with MLB's other probe into the Astros for comments made by former assistant general manager Brandon Taubman and the team's response.
Manfred clarified Thursday that the league's investigation into Taubman and sign-stealing started independently of one another and "ended up as one big thing."
"It's hard to separate them out," Manfred said. "I hope at the end of this undertaking, I'll put both of these issues to bed at one time."
See here and here for the background on the sign-stealing, and here for some background on the Taubman investigation. It makes sense to combine the two – if nothing else, I presume MLB has only so many investigators available at any one time – though what effect that may have on its direction or timeline is unknown. Of greater interest is what kind of penalties the Astros may face. Craig Edwards from Fangraphs takes a look. There's too much to easily summarize (go click over, the first paragraph has links to more reporting on the sign stealing allegations), but the bottom line is that it doesn't look great for the Astros. If Rob Manfred comes down on them, it's going to leave a mark. Be prepared. ESPN has more.
MLB has had its eye on the Astros
Nov 21st, 2019
The story develops.
Early in the 2019 season, Major League Baseball instructed video monitors working in Minute Maid Park to listen for banging sounds emanating from the Astros' dugout, a person with knowledge of the directive said Monday.
The Astros are alleged to have stolen signs during their World Series-winning season of 2017 using a system that included players banging on trash cans to signal certain pitches. That MLB directed those working at Minute Maid Park to listen for such sounds is an indication the league already had an eye on Houston.
Conversely, a video monitor who worked in another American League ballpark told the Chronicle they were not "implicitly told" to listen for any sounds from either dugout.
MLB began investigating the Astros last week after former Houston pitcher Mike Fiers outlined how the team stole signs in 2017, using a camera in center field and a video screen in the tunnel next to the dugout, then banging on trash cans.
The Athletic's report detailed alleged wrongdoing in 2017 only. Whether the Astros continued their practices into 2018 or 2019 remains unconfirmed. Astros general manager Jeff Luhnow said he was "confident that in general, we did things right and we try and follow the rules."
The team has said it is cooperating with MLB's investigation.
"Beginning in the 2017 season, numerous clubs expressed general concerns that other clubs were stealing their signs," MLB said last week. "As a result of those concerns, and after receiving extensive input from the general managers, we issued a revised policy on sign stealing prior to the 2019 season. We also put in place detailed protocols and procedures to provide comfort to clubs that other clubs were not using video during the game to decode and steal signs."
Part of that revised policy included a group of video monitors at each ballpark responsible for ensuring clubs adhered to the new regulations. Each game last regular season had at least one person around both the home and visiting dugouts monitoring the replay room, clubhouse, tunnel and any other area.
"What they told us was we were essentially looking for people who were using technology to steal signs," said one video monitor.
One person familiar with the Astros' video monitoring said those who worked at Minute Maid Park were instructed "early on" to "make sure there was no one in the dugout banging."
See here for the background. We don't know the extent of what may or may not have happened yet, and MLB hasn't said when their investigation will end. What we do know is that if MLB does conclude the Astros were breaking the rules, the penalties could be harsh.
Commissioner Rob Manfred has "no reason to believe" Major League Baseball's ongoing investigation into electronic sign-stealing will involve any club aside from the Astros — a franchise that could feel the full authority of Manfred's power under the major league constitution.
Manfred has levied only one public punishment for electronic sign-stealing — an undisclosed fine to the Boston Red Sox during the 2017 season. That same year, the Astros are alleged to have electronically stolen signs with a center-field camera at Minute Maid Park, actions that are now the center of MLB's investigation.
"Any allegation that relates to a rule violation that could affect the outcome of a game or games is the most serious matter," Manfred said Tuesday. "It relates to the integrity of the sport. In terms of where we are, we have a very active, what is going to be a really, really thorough investigation ongoing. Beyond that, I can't tell you how close we are to done."
When he issued the fine to the Red Sox in 2017, Manfred warned any future violations were subject to "more serious sanctions, including the possible loss of draft picks."
MLB's most recent revised policy on sign-stealing promised "progressive discipline" for rule-breakers, "including fines, suspensions, and penalties or loss of benefits." The benefits, according to the policy, included draft picks and international signing penalties.
"I'm not going to speculate on what the appropriate discipline is," Manfred said. "That depends on how the facts are established at the end of the investigation. The general warning that I issued to the clubs I stand by. It certainly could be all those things, but my authority under the major league constitution could be broader than those things as well."
Nothing to do but wait and see. Who says the offseason is dull?
Astros accused of stealing signs
The post-season is off to a roaring start.
Former Houston pitcher Mike Fiers told The Athletic that the Astros stole signs electronically at Minute Maid Park during their World Series-winning 2017 season, adding another inglorious instance to the franchise's recent run of cheating accusations.
The Astros have begun an investigation in cooperation with Major League Baseball, the club said in a statement on Tuesday. It's unclear if this investigation is independent of the ongoing one involving the firing of former assistant general manager Brandon Taubman.
Citing three anonymous sources along with an on-record interview and confirmation from Fiers, The Athletic reported the Astros had a camera in center field at Minute Maid Park fixated on the opposing catcher. A television located below the dugout showed the feed. Players watched the catcher and soon were able to detect what was coming, sometimes banging trash cans to alert hitters.
"That's not playing the game the right way," Fiers told The Athletic. "They were advanced and willing to go above and beyond to win."
Using technology to steal signs is against major league rules. The Red Sox were fined in 2017 after the Yankees filed a complaint against them. Major League Baseball discovered they were "sending electronic communications from their video replay room to an athletic trainer in the dugout."
In his ruling that year, commissioner Rob Manfred said "all 30 clubs have been notified that future violations of this type will be subject to more serious sanctions, including the possible loss of draft picks."
Whether the Astros will be punished remains to be seen. Major League Baseball still has an open investigation against the franchise as a result of Taubman's tirade against female reporters following the American League Championship Series.
Here's the Athletic story. It's a pay site, but you can sign up for a free seven-day trial if you want to read the whole thing. This NJ.com story has a couple of excerpts, including this one that explains how the scheme allegedly worked:
The Astros' set-up in 2017 was not overly complicated. A feed from a camera in center field, fixed on the opposing catcher's signs, was hooked up to a television monitor that was placed on a wall steps from the team's home dugout at Minute Maid Park, in the tunnel that runs between the dugout and the clubhouse. Team employees and players would watch the screen during the game and try to decode signs — sitting opposite the screen on massage tables in a wide hallway. When the onlookers believed they had decoded the signs, the expected pitch would be communicated via a loud noise — specifically, banging on a trash can, which sat in the tunnel. Normally, the bangs would mean a breaking ball or off-speed pitch was coming. Fiers, who confirmed the set-up, acknowledged he already has a strained relationship with the Astros because he relayed to his subsequent teams, the Tigers and A's, what the Astros were doing.
Twitter user and video genius Jomboy illustrated this with a live example. The pitcher in that clip, Danny Farquhar, noticed the banging noises and is quoted about it in the Athletic story. Jomboy has subsequent examples here, here, and here.
The key to all this is the allegation that cameras were used, as it is the use of technology to steal signs that is illegal. If the MLB investigation bears that out, expect the Astros to suffer stronger punishment than what was meted out to the Red Sox in 2017, since Commissioner Rob Manfred has emphasized that this is illegal. As the Athletic story notes, while the Astros are under investigation, using tech to steal signs is a league-wide problem, with other teams also under suspicion. Expect to hear a lot more about this over the next few weeks. Jerome Solomon, ESPN, Sports Illustrated, and the Press have more.
Firing Taubman wasn't enough
Just putting down a marker.
Major League Baseball's investigation into the Astros will stretch beyond the World Series as the league looks into "aspects that go beyond" Brandon Taubman's clubhouse incident.
Taubman was fired on Thursday, five days after he unleashed a profanity-filled tirade toward three female reporters in the Astros' clubhouse following the American League Championship Series.
Commissioner Rob Manfred said Friday the Astros "reacted quickly and in an appropriate way" with their decision to terminate Taubman, the team's 34-year-old assistant general manager. Manfred said results of the ongoing investigation "will be public."
Manfred said his office began its current investigation because it was "concerned" about the Astros' initial statement in response to the incident, one that falsely claimed Sports Illustrated reporter Stephanie Apstein "attempted to fabricate" Taubman's actions.
After the two exchanged unreturned voicemails earlier in the day, Astros general manager Jeff Luhnow and Apstien met for about 15 minutes at Nationals Park on Friday night. Apstein requested a written retraction of the team's first statement. It is unclear if the Astros will oblige.
On Thursday, Luhnow repeatedly declined to reveal who wrote or approved the statement. The general manager acknowledged he saw the 76-word writeup before it was released. The Athletic reported on Friday that Anita Sehgal, the team's senior vice president of marketing and communication, oversaw it.
See here and here for the background. Let me remind you, that first statement by the Astros accused reporter Stephanie Apstein of making the whole thing up. If even a little bit of that were true, her career would be over. It's not just that the Astros were completely wrong about that, it's that they didn't care enough to be concerned about it before going ahead and smearing her. The Astros did finally formally retract that statement, five whole days later. To say the least, we are here now because that statement was issued in the first place, then left to fester for the entire work week.
Let's be clear: This wasn't a slip-up committed by some underpaid low-level employee. General Manager Jeff Luhnow saw that statement before it was released. The senior vice president of marketing and communication, Anita Sehgal, oversaw and thus presumably approved it. Brandon Taubman is deservedly unemployed now, but he's far from the only sinner here. The Astros didn't have a Brandon Taubman problem. They have a whole-organization problem. That remains true even with that apology and retraction from Jim Crane to Stephanie Apstein. That's MLB's problem now, and I hope they are considering that as they do their investigation.
After I started writing this post, I came across this story, which notes the Crane letter to Apstein and moves things along a little bit.
How Houston's original statement was crafted remains vague. Who wrote it remains a mystery. Senior vice president of marketing and communications Anita Sehgal refused to "name names" in a six-minute interview with three reporters prior to Game 5 of the World Series on Sunday.
"This statement really is owned by the entire organization," Sehgal said. "This team needs to wear this statement. We screwed up. And we're going to own it as a team. We're going to share responsibility for it and we're not going to point fingers at any one person. We're going to own it as a team. And that's the right decision."
The Athletic reported this week that Sehgal, an Astros employee since 2015, had oversight of the statement. Asked if that report was true, Sehgal said "I oversee all of (public relations) and communications. Lots of people were involved."
"Listen, this statement was wrong and it was wrong on a number of fronts," Sehgal said. "It's disappointing. It's embarrassing for the organization and we are very, very sorry that it happens. But the team owns it. The entire organization owns the decision that that statement went out. We've apologized. We've recognized it. And we feel really, really bad."
That's better, and it's good that she recognizes this is owned by the whole organization, but it doesn't address the question of how the whole organization should be held accountable. Again: Jeff Luhnow and Anita Sehgal have responsibility for the original statement. Likely other senior executives do as well, not to mention Jim Crane. Firing Brandon Taubman doesn't get all of them off the hook as well. What, if anything, are we going to do about that? I'll be honest and admit I don't know what a just outcome to all this should be, but the Astros and MLB need to figure it out. This will remain a stain on the Astros organization until they do.
Astros fire Taubman
It's something.
The Astros fired assistant general manager Brandon Taubman on Thursday afternoon and issued an apology to a Sports Illustrated reporter whom they falsely accused of fabricating a story about his clubhouse tirade.
The Astros "proactively assisted" Major League Baseball in an investigation over the last two days, the team said in a statement disseminated on Thursday. MLB separately interviewed eyewitnesses to Taubman's actions on Saturday in the Astros' celebratory clubhouse.
When Sports Illustrated's story first published on Monday — one for which the Astros initially declined comment — the club issued a defiant denial that claimed reporter Stephanie Apstein attempted "to fabricate a story where one does not exist."
"We were wrong," the Astros said in their Thursday statement that terminated Taubman.
"We sincerely apologize to Stephanie Apstein, Sports Illustrated and to all individuals who witnessed this incident or were offended by the inappropriate conduct. The Astros in no way intended to minimize the issues related to domestic violence."
See here for the background. This would feel a whole lot different if the Astros had taken more decisive and more appropriate action in the immediate aftermath of Taubman's rant, even if all they had said originally was that they took the allegations seriously and would look into them. It would also feel different if this had happened before Jeff Luhnow's ridiculous claim that "we may never know" Taubman's intent. (Pro tip: Maybe try asking him.) At this point, it mostly comes across as damage control, and leaves one wondering why it was so hard to get it right in the first place.
But it is what it is, and so here we are. Late is still better than never, and I'm glad the Astros eventually got to the right place. I hope they truly learn something from this. Nonequiteuse and Texas Monthly have more.
Astros-hacker pleads out
One chapter closes in of one of the stranger sagas I've seen in sports.
The former scouting director of the St. Louis Cardinals pleaded guilty in federal court Friday to hacking into the player database and email system of the Houston Astros in an unusual case of high-tech cheating involving two Major League Baseball clubs.
Chris Correa pleaded guilty to five counts of unauthorized access of a protected computer from 2013 to at least 2014, the same year he was promoted to director of baseball development in St. Louis. Correa, 35, was fired last summer and faces up to five years in prison on each charge when he is sentenced April 11.
"I accept responsibility in this case," Correa told U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes. "I trespassed repeatedly."
"So you broke in their house?" Hughes asked Correa, referring to the Astros.
"It was stupid," replied Correa, who is free on $20,000 bond.
U.S. Attorney Kenneth Magidson said the hacking cost the Astros about $1.7 million, taking into account how Correa used the Astros' data to draft players.
"It has to do with the talent that was on the record that they were able to have access to, that they wouldn't have otherwise had access to," he told reporters. "They were watching what the Astros were doing."
MLB could discipline the Cardinals, possibly with a fine or a loss of draft picks, but said only that it looked forward to getting details on the case from federal authorities. The Cardinals, whose chairman, Bill DeWitt Jr., had blamed the incident on "roguish behavior," declined comment.
See here, here, and here for the background. Given that he pleaded out, I don't expect Correa to get jail time, though perhaps a suspended sentence might be in the works. He'll never work in baseball again, that's for sure.
There's still a lot more to this, however. As Craig Calcaterra notes, Correa claimed to have found Cards information on the Astros' system when he was traipsing around in there.
That may not raise to a criminal level — there is no allegation Astros people hacked into the Cardinals' system — but it could be relevant to Major League Baseball in a larger team-to-team information security matter. All of that depends on what Correa is saying he saw, which we do not know yet.
That aside, the level and the amount of information Correa got from the Astros is extraordinary. The defense some have offered — that he was merely checking to see if the Astros stole something — seems like a tiny part of this compared to what he accessed. And the argument I have heard from some people that, "hey, Correa was just walking in an unlocked door, so it's not a big deal," is not really true. He walked in, the Astros locked it, so then he broke into Jeff Luhnow's office, as it were, and stole the keys so he could walk back in again. That is not just idle perusing. That is a concerted effort to carry out corporate espionage.
All of which is to say that this is far from over, especially from a baseball perspective. Correa performed his duties as Cardinals scouting director for over two years while in possession of extensive amounts of Astros' confidential information. That benefitted him personally and, by extension, benefitted the Cardinals via the acts he took on their behalf with that information in his head. And that's the case even if he was the sole person involved. If anyone else accessed Ground Control or was made privy to the information Correa obtained, it makes the Cardinals' collective informational advantage all the greater.
Major League Baseball needs to find out what, if anything the Astros have of the Cardinals, as Correa claims. They need to learn — as they may still learn given that the investigation and the case is not over — what law enforcement knows about anyone else's involvement. There is still a long way to go. However, based on what is known at the moment, the data breach here was extensive and extraordinary and the Cardinals will likely be facing some stiff, stiff penalties as a result. Maybe financial penalties. Maybe draft pick penalties. Maybe some combination.
Either way, this case is way bigger than people thought it to be yesterday.
We'll see what MLB does once they have all the information that the prosecutors gathered. Hair Balls and the Chron have more.
Cardinals identify a fall guy
The latest Hacked-Stros news.
The St. Louis Cardinals have terminated the contract of their scouting director, Chris Correa, as investigations continue into alleged hacking of a Houston Astros database.
A Cardinals' lawyer, James G. Martin, confirmed the move Thursday, saying Correa already had been on an "imposed leave of absence." Martin declined to comment on the reason. And he would not say whether any employee has admitted hacking the Astros, citing ongoing investigations by the club, Major League Baseball and the FBI.
Correa declined to comment.
In a prepared statement, Correa's lawyer, Nicholas Williams, wrote: "Mr. Correa denies any illegal conduct. The relevant inquiry should be what information did former St. Louis Cardinals employees steal from the St. Louis Cardinals organization prior to joining the Houston Astros, and who in the Houston Astros organization authorized, consented to, or benefited from that roguish behavior?"
Giles Kibbe, the attorney for the Astros, reaffirmed an earlier denial that neither the Houston organization nor any previous Cardinals employees now with the Astros had taken anything proprietary from the Cardinals.
Astros general manager Jeff Luhnow, who as head of the Cardinals' analytics department had helped build the database used here to evaluate players, has said that everything he and others did in Houston was accomplished "from scratch."
"We stand by all of our previous comments," Kibbe said. "We're looking forward to the conclusion of the FBI's investigation. I stand by all that Jeff has said on this matter."
Correa has admitted hacking into a Houston database but only to determine whether the Astros had stolen proprietary data, according to a source with knowledge of the investigation.
Correa did not leak any Astros data and is not responsible for additional hacks that the FBI has alleged occurred, said the source.
The source said that Correa's involvement in the hacking began in 2013, in an attempt to determine whether Luhnow or any other former Cardinals employees took proprietary data to the Astros.
Correa's suspicions were aroused in part by a résumé in which a job seeker claimed expertise that Correa believed could have come only from working with Cardinals data, the source said.
He used an old password from a former Cardinals employee working for the Astros to access the Houston database "a few" times but did not download data, the source said. The source claims Correa located some data on the website, but did not report it to his bosses because the information was outdated and unreliable without being redone.
The source said that others must have accessed Houston's database if federal investigators' claims about the number of hacking attempts are correct.
See here and here for the background. The counter-charges are interesting and I suppose could be a potential line of defense in the event this ever goes to a courtroom in some fashion. Whether it might mitigate any future punishment by MLB is another matter. The Chron story adds a bit more detail.
Giles Kibbe, the Astros' general counsel, said in an e-mail, "We stand by all of our previous comments. We look forward to the FBI concluding their investigation."
Major League Baseball, similarly, plans to await the conclusion of the FBI's investigation, a person familiar with the league's thinking said. A league spokesperson did not return a request for comment.
The FBI has not commented on details of its investigation but repeated a previously issued statement: "The FBI aggressively investigates all potential threats to public and private sector systems. Once our investigations are complete, we pursue all appropriate avenues to hold accountable those who pose a threat in cyberspace."
Washington D.C.-based attorney Peter Toren, who handles cases involving intellectual property and commercial litigation, said that were a civil case to be filed, the Cardinals might be able to allege as a counterclaim against the Astros that Astros personnel improperly used information obtained in their time as employees for the Cardinals that could be classified as a trade secret.
Major League Baseball forbids clubs from suing each other, instead directing disputes to the commissioner as arbitrator. He can then award the Astros damages.
Luhnow and director of decision sciences Sig Mejdal worked with the Cardinals before joining the Astros, for whom they launched a database called "Ground Control." The Cardinals had their own database, called "Red Bird Dog."
"Ground Control" includes statistics, player evaluations and, at least up until last spring, logs of trade negotiations. Those logs were posted online and widely viewed at the website Deadspin last June, prompting an FBI investigation.
As first reported by The New York Times and confirmed by the Chronicle, the Cardinals had a master list of passwords, and at least one of the Astros' departed executives did not alter his password well enough upon departure.
While Astros amateur scouting director Mike Elias also worked with the Cardinals in St. Louis and came over to the Astros with Luhnow, a person familiar with the investigation said Elias' log-in credentials were not at issue. It's unclear if the log-in information of both of Luhnow and Mejdal or just one of the two was in some way utilized in accessing Astros information.
Luhnow told Sports Illustrated he knows "about password hygiene and best practices" but did not directly address whether both he and his employees followed those practices to the necessary extent. Luhnow has turned down repeated requests for comment.
"I'm very aware of intellectual property and the agreements I signed," Luhnow told Sports Illustrated. "I didn't take anything, any proprietary information. Nor have we ever received any inquiries from anybody that even suggested that we had."
Regarding the use of information obtained while working for another employer, Toren said, "That scenario is probably the most common type of trade secret case. One employee moves jobs and takes information with him to a new job for his use. The question then is: Is the employee generally allowed to take with him general knowledge?"
Toren said courts have ruled that employees can use general knowledge and skills gained on one job when they move to their next employer. However, he said lines can become blurry over "the type of information that really belongs to the employer that goes beyond … and really is specific knowledge."
I still say having a master list of passwords is a terrible idea, whether Luhnow and the others who jumped from the Cards to the Stros practiced good password hygiene or not. I can't wait to see the FBI report. Craig Calcaterra, who is not impressed by Correa's attorney's claims, has more.
The Hacked-Stros
The F.B.I. and Justice Department prosecutors are investigating whether front-office officials for the St. Louis Cardinals, one of the most successful teams in baseball over the past two decades, hacked into internal networks of a rival team to steal closely guarded information about player personnel.
Investigators have uncovered evidence that Cardinals officials broke into a network of the Houston Astros that housed special databases the team had built, according to law enforcement officials. Internal discussions about trades, proprietary statistics and scouting reports were compromised, the officials said.
The officials did not say which employees were the focus of the investigation or whether the team's highest-ranking officials were aware of the hacking or authorized it. The investigation is being led by the F.B.I.'s Houston field office and has progressed to the point that subpoenas have been served on the Cardinals and Major League Baseball for electronic correspondence.
The attack represents the first known case of corporate espionage in which a professional sports team has hacked the network of another team. Illegal intrusions into companies' networks have become commonplace, but it is generally conducted by hackers operating in foreign countries, like Russia and China, who steal large tranches of data or trade secrets for military equipment and electronics.
Major League Baseball "has been aware of and has fully cooperated with the federal investigation into the illegal breach of the Astros' baseball operations database," a spokesman for baseball's commissioner, Rob Manfred, said in a written statement.
Law enforcement officials believe the hacking was executed by vengeful front-office employees for the Cardinals hoping to wreak havoc on the work of Jeff Luhnow, the Astros' general manager who had been a successful and polarizing executive with the Cardinals until 2011.
The intrusion did not appear to be sophisticated, the law enforcement officials said. When Mr. Luhnow was with the Cardinals, the organization built a computer network, called Redbird, to house all of their baseball operations information — including scouting reports and player personnel information. After leaving to join the Astros, and bringing some front-office personnel with him from the Cardinals, Houston created a similar program known as Ground Control.
Ground Control contained the Astros' "collective baseball knowledge," according to a Bloomberg Business article published last year. The program took a series of variables and "weights them according to the values determined by the team's statisticians, physicist, doctors, scouts and coaches," the article said.
Investigators believe Cardinals officials, concerned that Mr. Luhnow had taken their idea and proprietary baseball information to the Astros, examined a master list of passwords used by Mr. Luhnow and the other officials who had joined the Astros when they worked for the Cardinals. The Cardinals officials are believed to have used those passwords to gain access to the Astros' network, law enforcement officials said.
Emphasis mine. Allow me to put my IT security hat on for a moment: There should never be a "master list of passwords", because writing passwords down is poor security practice. Keep passwords in your head or in a password-keeper app. Two-factor authentication is a fine idea, too. And for goodness' sake, don't reuse old passwords, especially if you know that someone else knows what those old passwords are. The weakest link in any enterprise system is always an end user with bad security habits. Thus endeth the lesson. I can't wait to see what Commissioner Manfred makes of this "Spygate" allegation. Hair Balls and ThinkProgress, from whom I got the embedded image, have more.
Somebody doesn't like something about the Astros
I'm still not sure what we're supposed to conclude from this long but mostly unsourced screed about how the Astros are running their team.
The Astros have become one of baseball's most progressive franchises as they try to rebuild and avoid a fourth consecutive 100-loss season.
But general manager Jeff Luhnow's radical approach to on-field changes and business decisions has created at least pockets of internal discontent and a potential reputation problem throughout baseball.
"They are definitely the outcast of major league baseball right now, and it's kind of frustrating for everyone else to have to watch it," said former Astros pitcher Bud Norris, now with Baltimore. "When you talk to agents, when you talk to other players and you talk amongst the league, yeah, there's going to be some opinions about it, and they're not always pretty."
The criticism, through interviews with more than 20 players, coaches, agents and others, comes in two parts:
On the field, the Astros shift their defenders into unusual positions to counteract hitter tendencies more than any other team, including in the minor leagues. They schedule minor league starting pitchers on altered and fluctuating rotation schedules, what they call a "modified tandem" system, a development strategy unique in baseball.
Off the field, the Astros are said to handle contract negotiations and the timing of player promotions with a dehumanizing, analytics-based approach detected by some across their operation.
The central question is how much criticism should be inherent to their process and how much should signal trouble in a game where word of mouth spreads quickly?
"Ninety-five percent of what we do is very similar to what all of baseball does," Luhnow said. "We're being a little bit different for very good reasons in some areas that we think are important.
"It doesn't affect our ability to make people happy at the big league level. It just doesn't. It affects their ability to perform better and be more prepared. That's at least our hypothesis, and what we believe. And to tie that together with (how we handle) contracts is ridiculous."
As far as the shifting goes, we all know that the basic idea for this dates from the 1940s, right? Lots of teams are employing it heavily these days, due to a combination of much better data about where each individual batter tends to hit the baseball plus a crop of managers and GMs that are willing to do what the plain facts say they ought to do. As the widespread deployment of this tactic is still new there are sure to be adjustments and countermeasures taken along the way, but for now whatever griping there is about it – the story basically had none – is the usual reactionary BS that tends to dominate baseball conversations. This is why we can't have a better Hall of Fame balloting process.
As far as the "tandem rotation" system in the minors goes, that's another stathead pet rock that goes back at least 30 years. The basic idea behind it is to develop young arms while minimizing the risk of injury. For all the advances we've made in tracking and measuring what happens on the field, we still have no idea what causes some pitchers to thrive and others to blow out their arms. A team that can crack that enigma, or just show some tangible advantage over doing what everyone has always done, will reap a huge benefit. I have no idea if this particular idea will work, but it can't hurt to try, and the minors is the place to do it since player development and not a team's won-loss record is the primary goal.
It almost feels silly to even discuss these things because despite being prominently mentioned early in the story, the rest of it has nothing to do with them. I guess those things are proxies for the real gripe, about how the Astros evaluate players and handle contracts.
When players are first promoted to the majors, they need not be paid more than the standard minimum salary of $500,000. Once in the majors, a player's service-time clock begins, which eventually will determine when he is eligible for salary arbitration (three years, or two-plus in some special cases) and free agency (six years) – both vehicles for bigger paydays.
The Astros have benefited from making contract offers to young players at low rates and holding back players in the minors for service-time reasons.
Last year, Jose Altuve, signed a guaranteed four-year, $12.5 million deal (the Astros can extend it to six years) that made him even more valuable than his statistics alone – players who are productive and inexpensive are the game's most valuable commodity.
Top prospect George Springer, who was promoted to the Astros after the season started, will not be eligible for free agency until he is 30 after the team delayed his move to the majors. The Astros said service time wasn't a factor in the move that could potentially save them millions.
The Astros saved themselves money. But the question is whether the team handles these matters in a way that fosters confidence, and how much they should care about that perception in a business worth half a billion dollars based on a core product of 25 players.
"Players are people, but the Astros view them purely as property that can be evaluated through a computer program or a rigid set of criteria," one player agent said, echoing the comments of others. "They plug players into it to see what makes sense from a development or contractual perspective, and it does not engender a lot of goodwill in the player or agent community.
"They wield service time like a sword (in contract extension negotiations) and basically tell a player, 'This is what you are worth to us, take it or leave it.' "
Extension offers for players who have little or no major league experience have grown in popularity in recent years as teams try to get them at a bargain price, and the Astros have made several such offers.
The premise is not what some agents said bothers them, but how the Astros approach dealings and appear to handle clients.
Springer had an offer last year that reportedly was worth about $7 million guaranteed with the potential to earn more. The Astros also have made third baseman Matt Dominguez an offer worth $14.5 million for five years, plus two options, and outfielder Robbie Grossman received at least one similar offer – $13.5 million for six years plus two options, a person familiar with the offers said.
None of the players accepted. Luhnow has a policy of commenting on contracts only if a deal is finalized.
None of this is unusual. Every team does it to some extent. Offering multi-year extensions to young players that might sign for huge amounts elsewhere once they become free agents is standard practice now, to the point that teams like the Yankees that have traditionally done business by signing such players have had to make adjustments because the free agent talent pool ain't what it used to be. Generally speaking, teams make this kind of offer to their rising stars with a year or two left in their team-control years – it doesn't make sense to do it much earlier than that. If the Astros are insulting or alienating the kind of players they'd like to retain at a competitive salary, they'll find those players will choose instead to play out the string and sign with another team. It's just too early to say whether they're headed down that path or not.
What was really amazing about this story was just how few people were quoted in it. One unnamed Astro, one unnamed agent, and two former players – Jed Lowrie and Bud Norris. Lots of potential axes to grind in there, but no objective outsider/analyst perspective, other than one positive statement about the effect of the shift defense. I have no idea what we're supposed to make of this. Sure, it's easy to point at the on-field performance, but we all know they started from a point of having zero talent. They're finally developing that talent now, and it would be nice if they could keep the players they grow. It's fine to point out that their managerial style – talking contract negotiations here, not player positioning or pitcher rotations – might be a hindrance to that. There was so much smoke in this piece it's hard for me to say if that's a legitimate concern or a bunch of mindless nattering by the handful of malcontents that every organization has. If it's the former, there will be plenty of visible evidence for it soon enough. I'm not going to worry about it until then. Chron columnist Randy Harvey, who sees things more or less as I do, and PDiddie, who sees it differently, have more.
Mills and Clemens
Enjoy your paid time off, Brad Mills.
General manager Jeff Luhnow and owner Jim Crane see no reason to wait until the season ends to begin the search for the next Astros manager after Brad Mills was fired and replaced by interim skipper Tony DeFrancesco.
Some candidates might not become available until after Oct. 3 — or after the World Series should their employers advance far enough — but the search begins now and interviews will likely start during the season for those unattached.
"Right now, we're at the very first stage, which is gathering information," Luhnow said Sunday. "Once we get past that stage and determine which candidates we want to speak to, there's going to be a lot of factors involved in that.
"There's no reason to wait, so we're going to move as fast as we can.
"We're going to be working diligently on that for the remainder of the season and into the offseason or however long it takes."
Crane said the Astros have four or five candidates in mind but have not compiled a list, which is expected to be larger than that once phone calls start today.
That Mills was fired isn't a surprise. Changes in ownership almost always mean changes in management, and it's not like Mills has a long record of managerial success to mitigate against that. Of course, it's hard to imagine any manager from John McGraw to Casey Stengel to Bobby Cox getting a whole lot more out of the talent on hand. Still, I am curious what the actual case against Mills was, since no one is saying anything bad about him and I don't recall seeing anyone argue that he's been a failure. When a club is in complete tear down and rebuild mode, you need a manager that's good at teaching and who won't unnecessarily risk the health of his players to win a game that in the long run doesn't mean much. I don't know if Luhnow and Crane didn't like what they saw with Mills or if they just wanted to get their own guy in there. Not that it really matters, as whoever they bring in is unlikely to still be there when the team finally turns it around. That's usually the way these things go in the process, and with the Astros years away from being competitive, I'm pretty sure that's how it will go here. Best of luck to whoever will be nurturing them in the interim.
Then there's Roger Clemens.
Roger Clemens, whose remarkable 30-year baseball travelogue has taken him from Houston to Austin, Boston, Toronto, New York and points in between, will make his next stop in Sugar Land.
Clemens, 50, the seven-time Cy Young Award winner who last pitched in 2007 and was last in the public eye for his acquittal on federal perjury charges earlier this year, will return to the mound on Saturday night to pitch for the minor league Sugar Land Skeeters.
Clemens threw for about 90 minutes Monday morning at Sugar Land's Constellation Field and pronounced himself ready for his comeback against the Bridgeport Bluefish, which along with the Skeeters plays in the independent Atlantic League.
"It is a fun, local, one-time kind of thing," said Clemens' longtime agent, Randy Hendricks. "The hitters will let him know Saturday if he should pitch another game."
Whether it is indeed a one-time curtain call or a return to action that could at some point lead to Clemens' return to the major leagues, it is an unexpected swerve in the career of one of baseball's most charismatic yet polarizing athletes.
"We're going to take things one game at a time and see where they lead us," said Michael Kirk, operations manager for the Skeeters. "I am fascinated to see what happens this weekend, and we'll take it from there."
I think a little Pete Townshend is appropriate here:
"After the fire, the fire still burns
The heart grows older, but never ever learns
The memories smolder, but the soul always yearns
After the fire, the fire still burns."
There's two ways for an athletic career to end: For the athlete to accept that it's over and move on, and for the athlete's performance to make it clear to anyone who might think of hiring said athlete that it's over. Neither has happened yet with Roger Clemens. As long as he's got the fire, and until the objective evidence says otherwise, I say what the heck. For all we know he may still be a viable option for the Astros a few years down the line when they've finally put together a team that can win again. Or perhaps sooner than that, as Campos speculates.
So here's the deal. If he does OK in a couple of outings, the 'Stros will pick him up for three games in September when they can expand the roster. The 'Stros will let him start against three non-contending clubs at The Yard – Cubbies, Phillies, and San Luis (soon to be non-contenders) – and they will let him pitch four or five innings and sell out The Yard. It is gate money the team wasn't counting on. They will pay The Rocket the minimum but since he'll be an MLBer, he'll be knocked off the Hall of Fame ballot for the next five years and won't have to face the humiliation of not getting the votes next January to join the Hall of Fame. By 2018, some of the old school BBWOA members won't be around to leave The Rocket off of their ballot and the most recent Rocket memory will be of the 2012 Comeback at The Yard. That's not a bad strategy if you ask me. Plus, at least it would be something to look forward to at The Yard this September.
That actually makes a lot of sense, for all involved. We'll see how it goes.


Read what has been written about us!
Barcelona Experience Press Releases: What does the press have to say about us?
Please click on any of the articles below to see what has been said about our private Barcelona tours and other services.
Barcelona Experience private tours are like visiting family and friends.
Nothing captures and holds a memory like a picture.
Article: "Tips for Exchanging Currency in Barcelona"
Tips and facts about exchanging money in Barcelona.
Blog Post: "Best Private Guide"
Discover hidden plazas for the first time. What makes the perfect private walking tour?.
Blog Post: "Things to do in Barcelona According to a Local"
Read what "Chic Family Travels" had to say about their Barcelona Experience.
Contact us to experience your own private, personalized and unique Barcelona tour, shore excursions, bike tours or any of our other services.


When people see me, they see something they haven't seen before, my other side. In reality, I see myself as a someone good like in my shadow box. I put some pictures up that represent me. One of them is the Seattle Seahawks. I'm not from there, but I love how they play football and football is one of my favorite sports I play. A dominant narrative is that all Latinos play soccer, but I love to play football too. I also enjoy my family culture. My mother comes from a beautiful town in Guatemala and my father is from Mexico. Our culture is really religious and I love learning about religion. How my family really cares for me and they want me to be better and not be a kid who is out in the street not respecting. After high school I want to go to college and after college I want to be in the NFL.
Jildardo's True Identity by Jil is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
I am really impressed by your shadow box, "Jildardo's True Identity" because I knew how you act and I always knew that you liked football but I never really knew you wanted to be in the NFL. Also, the part where you wrote about how you want to go to college and you have goals for yourself in the future really impressed me because it reminded me that I should always have goals for myself. One sentence you wrote that stands out to me is: "A dominant narrative is that all Latinos play soccer, but I love to play football too." I think this is very important for people know because there are always people who are going to assume by the way you look or the way to seem to them. Thanks for your writing. I look forward to seeing what you write next, because I would like to see what your thoughts are on about all the issues going on. You seem like you have so many ideas and I would like to read them.
I am stand out about how you care about your family and your religion and culture in your artist statement of your project, "Jildardo's True Identity" because you were thoughtful and metacognitively of adding your family in your shadow box. Also, you added your love of football and how you want to be a football player in college. Another part is how you like the Seattle Seahawks, which are the Oakland Raiders rival and enemy in the season. Thank you for your work of art. I look forward to seeing what you make next, because I would like to see other works of art that are thoughtful and significant.
Thank you for sharing your work. My name is Paola and I am a freshman student at Fremont High School.
Something I liked about your work was that you put a picture of the seahawks and that shows that you love football and that is the team you go for.
Something I have a question about is since when did you want to become a football player? Also, what college do you want to go to? Please feel free to comment on my work in the future. The address of my student blog is https://paolaafhs2022.edublogs.org/wp-admin/profile.php .
1.How did it feel to put what you like into a shadow box and share it with the entire world?
2.When and why do you like the Seattle Seahawks?
3.Was there something you wanted to put into the shadow box that you couldn't find the room for?
Hey there Jordan nice that you replied back. Well, to answer your question. It felt good to do my shadow box because I never expressed myself to people I have not seen and I have ADHD and it´s hard for me because it makes me space out on what I´m saying when I´m nervous. When I shared at the Peralta House I was able to stay focused and do a good job. I started liking the Seahawks when I saw the beastmode in action and how Wilson threw the ball and Baldwin when he took off. I also like them because they play good games they got Richard and he makes good plays and they´re not cocky. In addition, I wanted to put my dreams of owning a Rolls Royce and a Maserati and a big house and about music too. But I ran out of room. Music is another thing I like. Thanks for commenting and if you got dreams you can achieve them too.
If you did a Shadow Box what would you put in it?


Trance is a genre of electronic music that emerged from the rave scene in the United Kingdom in the late 1980s and developed further during the early 1990s in Germany before spreading throughout the rest of Europe, as a more melodic offshoot from techno and house. At the same time trance music was developing in Europe, the genre was also gathering a following in the Indian state of Goa.
Trance music is characterized by a tempo lying between 110–150 bpm (BPM), repeating melodic phrases, and a musical form that distinctly builds tension and elements throughout a track often culminating in 1 to 2 "peaks" or "drops. "Although trance is a genre of its own, it liberally incorporates influences from other musical styles such as techno, house, pop, chill-out, classical music, tech house, ambient, and film music.
It also refers to a state of hypnotism and heightened consciousness. This is portrayed in trance music by the mixing of layers with distinctly foreshadowed build-up and release. A common characteristic of trance music is a mid-song climax followed by a soft breakdown disposing of beats and percussion entirely, leaving the melody or atmospherics to stand alone for an extended period before gradually building up again. The tracks are often lengthy to allow for such progression and commonly have sufficiently sparse opening and closing sections to facilitate mixing by DJs.
The genre is mostly instrumental, although vocals can be mixed in: typically they are performed by mezzo-soprano to soprano female soloists, often without a traditional verse/chorus structure. Structured vocal form in trance music forms the basis of the vocal subgenre, which has been described as "grand, soaring, and operatic" and "ethereal female leads floating amongst the synths". However, male singers are also featured, Jonathan Mendelson for example.
Inspired by one of his favorite places and first gigs overseas, Greek trance prodigy Niko Zografos reveals "One Night In Amsterdam" on Mental-Asylum White.
Globally regarded as one of the most sought-after acts of the moment, Vini Vici have been taking the world by storm.
Just after destroying Poland dancefloors with an immense b2b with his country-fellow Indecent Noise.
Magical. Powerful. Elevating. Though darkness may be in the song title, as a performer and music creator, Andrew Rayel spreads only happiness and light in the hearts of music-lovers.
Throughout the years he has topped every DJ poll, won pretty much every award and earned the respect of industry worldwide.


text:
Data and analysis ›
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' culture has proved its resilience by surviving intact and strong through many millennia and through two centuries of injustice and cruelty, including violence, dispossession of land, imprisonment and the removal of children.
This exceptional culture continues to guide, sustain and console Aboriginal people but they still struggle with racism, discrimination, pervasive disadvantage and the continuing grief and trauma of a culture that honours ancestors and still experiences the early and preventable illness or loss of family members. Of particular concern is that Aboriginal people in NSW die by suicide at a substantially higher rate than do non-Aboriginal people.
To inform local action in Aboriginal suicide prevention, the Commission has collaborated with the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to build a detailed map comparing the suicide rates for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in NSW. Many individual stories lie behind these statistics and the Commission hopes that these data will be used to better inform local understanding of relative suicide rates and where local responses should focus.
PLEASE NOTE: that as map files are large, loading or updating of maps may be slow depending on the speed of your internet connection.
To view the specific rates for each Primary Health Network click on the map area that interests you and a pop-up flag will appear showing the relevant rate. Use the radio buttons above the map to sort the data for different groups.
Data visualisation by Mental Health Commission of NSW based on data provided by Australian Bureau of Statistics.
The Commission also holds data about the type of mechanism used as a proportion of suicide deaths within a specific region. This information is available upon request to individuals or organisations who have an established interest in planning and service improvement and/or research in mental health or suicide prevention. If you satisfy this requirement and you are interested in gaining access to this data, please send an email stating your name, the organisation you represent and the purpose for using this data, to the following address: mhc@mhc.nsw.gov.au

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Group Technology for Scientific Equipment & Supplies, hereinafter referred to as "Grouptek", hereby provides you access to the website grouptek.com.
The information on this website is of a promotional nature and is intended to provide information on Grouptek and its business. No offer is being made and no agreement is or can be entered into as a result of the visit or review of the information on the website.
Grouptek reserves the right to change the content of its website, including the partial or complete deletion thereof, at any time without prior announcement thereof.
Grouptek has taken great care in the preparation of its website and strives to keep the information thereon up to date. Despite this, the content of this website and the information published thereon might be incomplete or incorrect.
Grouptek assumes no liability with respect to any information published on the website, nor does it accept any liability for damage in whatever form caused by incorrectness or incompleteness of the information on this website and/or its content. No representation is being made by Grouptek regarding the completeness and correctness of the website and its content.
Although the Grouptek website may include links providing direct access to other Internet resources, including websites, Grouptek is not responsible for the accuracy or content of information contained in these sites.
All rights remain with Grouptek for the information on this website, or with third parties that have granted Grouptek permission to publish information and/or images on this website. Replication of information from this website in any form is allowed only after prior approval of Grouptek and/or of third parties.
By visiting this website you accept this disclaimer. This disclaimer can be changed from time to time without prior announcement.


text:
Archived ›
Commission Advice 2013/07: Legislative changes to procedures for handling misconduct
Please note - this is an archived circular.
The Public Service Amendment Act 2013 (the Amendment Act) made significant changes to the Public Service Act 1999 (the Act). As a consequence the Public Service Regulations 1999 have been amended and the Public Service Commissioner's Directions 1999 repealed and replaced with the Australian Public Service Commissioner's Directions 2013 (the Directions).
The Australian Public Service Commission (the Commission) has developed a series of 'Advices' to assist Australian Public Service (APS) agencies implement the changes in the amended legislation and the new Directions. The Advices are available on the Circulars and advices page of the Commission's website.
This Advice informs agencies of amendments to subsection 15(3) of the Act concerning procedures for determining whether a breach of the Code of Conduct has occurred and the sanction (if any) imposed as a consequence.
The commencement date for the amended Act, amended Regulations and the Directions is 1 July 2013. The changes will become part of Commonwealth law on that date. Agencies will need to take action to prepare for these changes before the commencement date.
Why are these changes being made?
These changes aim to improve the effectiveness of the procedures for handling misconduct in the APS, while at the same time safeguarding the rights of APS employees. The current framework for handling misconduct is essentially sound, and the amendments will clarify and strengthen it further in key areas.
What changes are being made?
For a complete review of all the changes to the Code, refer to Advice 2013/4 (APS Values, Employment Principles and revisions to the Code of Conduct).
Code of Conduct Procedures
Amended subsection 15(3) of the Act requires agency heads to establish procedures for:
determining whether an APS employee, or former APS employee, in the agency has breached the Code (including by engaging in conduct referred to in subsection 15(2A) of the Act); and
determining sanctions to be applied to an APS employee who is found to have breached the Code (including by engaging in conduct referred to in subsection 15(2A) of the Act).
New subsection 15(4) of the Act states the above procedures must comply with basic procedural requirements set out in the Directions and must have due regard to procedural fairness.
Procedures for handling suspected breaches of the Code
The new Chapter 6 of the Directions sets out basic procedural requirements with which the procedures established by an agency head under subsection 15(3) of the Act for determining whether an APS employee, or former APS employee, in the agency has breached the Code must comply. These procedural requirements are substantially the same as those that are currently in place, and provide that a determination may not be made in relation to a suspected breach of the Code by an APS employee, or former employee, unless reasonable steps have been taken to inform the individual of the details of the suspected breach and, in the case of an APS employee, the sanctions that may be imposed.
Procedures for determining sanctions
The changes to the Act will require agency heads to establish procedures for determining the sanction to be applied to an APS employee who is found to have breached the Code. In accordance with Chapter 6 of the Directions, if a determination is made that an APS employee has breached the Code, agencies may not impose a sanction unless reasonable steps have been taken to inform the employee of the determination, the factors that are under consideration in determining any sanction, the sanctions or sanctions that are under consideration, and must give the employee a reasonable opportunity to make a statement in relation to the sanction(s) under consideration. Sanctions may not be imposed on former employees.
An agency head must also ensure that the procedures established are made publicly available. The intention is to promote transparency and accountability in investigating alleged breaches of the Code.
Code of Conduct investigations and inter-agency moves
Chapter 6 of the Directions clarifies the procedures to be followed in circumstances where a decision has been made for an ongoing APS employee to move to another agency, but that employee is suspected of breaching the Code of Conduct and has been informed of the suspected breach and the sanctions that may be imposed if the misconduct is proven. Under the new Directions, the APS employee under investigation must remain in their original agency until the matter is resolved, unless the original agency head and new agency head agree otherwise. 'Resolved' means that a determination is made or it is decided that a determination is not necessary.
Australian Public Service Commissioner and Merit Protection Commissioner inquiries
The Australian Public Service Commissioner and the Merit Protection Commissioner can undertake inquiries into Code breaches by APS employees and former APS employees in limited circumstances. Further information is available in Advice 2013/5 (Australian Public Service Commissioner's functions) and Advice 2013/6 (Merit Protection Commissioner's functions).
Chapter 6 of the Directions is attached.
What transitional arrangements need to be put in place?
Part 1 and Part 6 of Schedule 4 of the Amendment Act outline the transitional arrangements for dealing with alleged breaches of the Code. Agencies must implement the following when applying their Code of Conduct procedures after 1 July 2013:
Alleged breaches of the Code that occur before and after commencement
For the purposes of Parts 4, 6 and 7 of Schedule 4 of the Amendment Act, if a breach of the Code is alleged to have occurred between two dates, one before and one after 1 July 2013, the breach is alleged to have occurred before 1 July 2013.
Investigation in progress
If, before 1 July 2013, an agency head had:
begun an investigation to determine whether an APS employee in the agency had breached the Code, but no finding had been made, or
decided to begin such an investigation, but had not yet done so,
the old legislation and relevant procedures continue to apply at and after 1 July 2013 in relation to the investigation and determination.
If the APS employee is found to have breached the Code, the agency head must determine any sanction to be imposed in accordance with the new procedures (i.e. those established under 15(3)(b) of the new Act), but with reference to the old Code.
Finding of a breach but no sanction imposed
If, before 1 July 2013, an APS employee was found to have breached the Code, but no sanction had been imposed, the agency head must determine any sanction to be imposed in accordance with the procedures established under the new Act but with reference to the old Code.
Allegation of breach of Code by APS employee before commencement time
If, before 1 July 2013, an allegation is made that an APS employee has breached the Code, but the agency head had not decided whether to begin an investigation, the new Act (and new procedures) applies in relation to investigation and determination, but with reference to the old Code.
If, after 1 July 2013, an allegation is made that:
an APS employee has breached the Code, or
a person who became a former APS employee after 1 July 2013 has breached the Code, and
the breach is alleged to have occurred before 1 July 2013, the new Act (and new procedures) apply in relation to the alleged breach, but with reference to the old Code.
What do agencies need to do?
Agencies must comply with the amended legislation from 1 July 2013. Agencies must review and revise their Code of Conduct procedures and establish procedures for setting sanctions having regard to Chapter 6 of the Directions.
Agencies are advised to review and update any associated guidance material and publications, as appropriate, to ensure they reflect the changes to the procedures for determining whether APS employees, or former APS employees, have breached the Code and the procedures for determining sanctions for current employees.
A breach of the Code can lead to the application of sanctions under subsection 15(1) of the Act, and it is important that agencies communicate these changes to their employees. Transitional arrangements will need to be in place as of 1 July 2013.
Agencies must ensure that their procedures established under amended subsection 15(3) of the Act (determination and sanctions procedures) are publicly available from 1 July 2013 and are advised to communicate the changes to these procedures to their employees.
The Public Service Amendment Act 2013, the Public Service Amendment Regulation 2013 and the Australian Public Service Commissioner's Directions 2013 are available on the Comlaw website.
Advice 2013/4 (APS Values, Employment Principles and revisions to the Code of Conduct)
Advice 2013/5 (Australian Public Service Commissioner's functions)
Advice 2013/6 (Merit Protection Commissioner's functions)
Advice 2013/13 (Review of Actions).
Enquiries from agencies' corporate services staff can be made by email at ethics [at] apsc.gov.au or by telephone on 02 6202 3737.
APS employees who have queries about how the changes will affect them are asked to contact the HR area in their agency.
Karin Fisher
Group Manager, Ethics
Australian Public Service Commission
Attachment: Australian Public Service Commissioner's Directions 2013
Chapter 6 Agency Head handling of suspected Code of Conduct breaches
Division 1—Preliminary–Preliminary
6.1 Purpose of Chapter 6
The purpose of this Chapter is to set out the basic procedural requirements that must be complied with by the procedures established by an Agency Head under subsection 15 (3) of the Act for:
determining whether an APS employee, or a former APS employee, in the Agency has breached the Code of Conduct; and
determining what sanction, if any, should be imposed on an APS employee for a breach of the Code of Conduct.
Note: The requirements set out in this Chapter and the procedures established under subsection 15 (3) of the Act apply only in relation to a suspected breach of the Code of Conduct by an APS employee in respect of which a determination may be made. Not all suspected breaches of the Code of Conduct need to be dealt with by way of a determination. In particular circumstances, another way of dealing with a suspected breach of the Code may be more appropriate. (See also clause 4.2.)
6.2 Application to former APS employees
In this Chapter, unless the contrary intention appears, a reference to an APS employee in an Agency includes a reference to a former APS employee who is suspected of having breached the Code of Conduct while an employee in the Agency.
Subparagraph 6.3(a)(ii) and clause 6.4 do not apply in relation to a former employee.
Division 2—Basic procedural requirements
6.3 Employee must be informed that a determination is being considered
A determination may not be made in relation to a suspected breach of the Code of Conduct by an APS employee unless reasonable steps have been taken to:
inform the employee of:
the details of the suspected breach (including any subsequent variation of those details); and
the sanctions that may be imposed on the employee under subsection 15 (1) of the Act; and
give the employee a reasonable opportunity to make a statement in relation to the suspected breach.
6.4 Employee must be informed before a sanction is imposed
If a determination is made that an APS employee has breached the Code of Conduct, a sanction may not be imposed unless reasonable steps have been taken to:
the determination; and
the sanction or sanctions that are under consideration; and
the factors that are under consideration in determining any sanction to be imposed; and
give the employee a reasonable opportunity to make a statement in relation to sanctions under consideration.
6.5 Person making determination to be independent and unbiased
An Agency Head must take reasonable steps to ensure that:
the person who determines whether an APS employee has breached the Code of Conduct is, and appears to be, independent and unbiased; and
the person who determines any sanction to be imposed is, and appears to be, independent and unbiased.
6.6 Determination process to be informal
The process for determining whether an APS employee has breached the Code of Conduct must be carried out with as little formality and as much expedition as a proper consideration of the matter allows.
6.7 Record of determination and sanctions
If a determination is made in relation to a suspected breach of the Code of Conduct by an APS employee, a written record must be made of:
the suspected breach; and
any sanctions imposed as a result of a determination that the employee breached the Code of Conduct; and
if a statement of reasons was given to the employee—the statement of reasons.
Note: The Archives Act 1983 and the Privacy Act 1988 apply to a record made under this clause.
6.8 Procedure when an employee is to move to another Agency during an investigation
This clause applies if:
an ongoing APS employee in an Agency is suspected of having breached the Code of Conduct; and
the employee has been informed of the matters mentioned in paragraph 6.3(a); and
the matter has not yet been resolved; and
a decision has been made that, apart from this clause, would result in the movement of the employee under section 26 of the Act to another Agency (including on promotion).
Unless the original Agency Head and the new Agency Head agree otherwise, the movement (including on promotion) does not take effect until the matter is resolved.
For this clause, the matter is taken to be resolved when:
a determination is made, as mentioned in clause 6.3; or
it is decided that a determination is not necessary.