[Row80Critic]

1701016482[/url]']
Talk to Chris directly.  When he took over he made big user friendly changes in attitude.  Sadly I hear you.  The “I’m in charge you aren’t” attitude is back with some.

Thanks, I have. He's always great, but then it's the same thing week after week.

After seeing the poll results so far, I’ve been mulling this a bit and suspect the heart of the problem is that (1) the University is giving way too much discretion to people who should not have it, and (2) much more thought and legal review needs to go into ‘the rules’ in order to properly manage both the attendees and the red coats.  The first problem could be addressed with a set list of things the front line guest services people are permitted to say and do.  If they are concerned about something not on the list, get a supervisor.  Kind of the call-center script approach.  A Fans’ Bill of Rights wouldn’t hurt either. We’d all love to see them exercise great judgment and discretion, but it’s just not realistic across that employee base. The second problem needs higher level input.  In my view, Guest Services is set up for conflict and the unanimous disapproval seen here by the content and nature of the so-called ‘Fans Code of Conduct.’  It’s a very lazy Buford T. Justice “do what I say, when I say it” approach.  The University’s legal department also needs to review that document to ensure it fully complies with applicable Federal and State law.  I would argue, as written, it does not.  Regardless, it is also a recipe for conflict, disputes, and bad-will.  Lots of clear rules make sense (no smoking, no going on the field, only sit in assigned seats, etc.), but much of it is just way too vague, broad, authoritarian, hidden, arguably/potentially illegal, and just way too ‘us vs. them’ for no reason.  Here are some excerpts for those who have never seen them (my comments in bold):

Failure to follow this code may result in ejection from the facility… and/or arrest….

--Any action that disrupts other guests' enjoyment of the game [Egregiously vague and subjective; many patently illegal examples come to mind; way way way too much discretion given to people who shouldn’t have it .]

--Profanity or other offensive language, whether spoken or appearing on apparel [in my strong opinion, this violates CA Education Code Section 94367, when applied to students and as previously upheld against STANFORD UNIVERSITY in Robert J. Corry, et al. v. The Leland Stanford Junior University, et al., No. 740309 (Cal. Super. Ct. Feb. 27, 1995); strong arguments also that it is unconstitutional in general].

--Failure to follow the directions of law enforcement or stadium management [law enforcement is properly trained so this makes perfect sense -- it should say 'lawful directions' both otherwise goes without saying; on the other hand, it’s not remotely clear who “stadium management” is or why they should have the power to make up directions on the fly without regard to the law, consistency or common sense….]

--Stanford Athletics reserves the right to determine what constitutes unacceptable behavior.   [Many of the same issues as above.]

[Row80Critic]

1701016482[/url]']
Talk to Chris directly.  When he took over he made big user friendly changes in attitude.  Sadly I hear you.  The “I’m in charge you aren’t” attitude is back with some.

Thanks, I have. He's always great, but then it's the same thing week after week.

After seeing the poll results so far, I’ve been mulling this a bit and suspect the heart of the problem is that (1) the University is giving way too much discretion to people who should not have it, and (2) much more thought and legal review needs to go into ‘the rules’ in order to properly manage both the attendees and the red coats.  The first problem could be addressed with a set list of things the front line guest services people are permitted to say and do.  If they are concerned about something not on the list, get a supervisor.  Kind of the call-center script approach.  A Fans’ Bill of Rights wouldn’t hurt either. We’d all love to see them exercise great judgment and discretion, but it’s just not realistic across that employee base. The second problem needs higher level input.  In my view, Guest Services is set up for conflict and the unanimous disapproval seen here by the content and nature of the so-called ‘Fans Code of Conduct.’  It’s a very lazy Buford T. Justice “do what I say, when I say it” approach.  The University’s legal department also needs to review that document to ensure it fully complies with applicable Federal and State law.  I would argue, as written, it does not.  Regardless, it is also a recipe for conflict, disputes, and bad-will.  Lots of clear rules make sense (no smoking, no going on the field, only sit in assigned seats, etc.), but much of it is just way too vague, broad, authoritarian, hidden, arguably/potentially illegal, and just way too ‘us vs. them’ for no reason.  Here are some excerpts for those who have never seen them (my comments in bold):

Failure to follow this code may result in ejection from the facility… and/or arrest….

--Any action that disrupts other guests' enjoyment of the game [Egregiously vague and subjective; many patently illegal examples come to mind; way way way too much discretion given to people who shouldn’t have it .]

--Profanity or other offensive language, whether spoken or appearing on apparel [in my strong opinion, this violates CA Education Code Section 94367, when applied to students and as previously upheld against STANFORD UNIVERSITY in Robert J. Corry, et al. v. The Leland Stanford Junior University, et al., No. 740309 (Cal. Super. Ct. Feb. 27, 1995); strong arguments also that it is unconstitutional in general].

--Failure to follow the directions of law enforcement or stadium management [law enforcement is properly trained so this makes perfect sense -- it should say 'lawful directions' both otherwise goes without saying; on the other hand, it’s not remotely clear who “stadium management” is or why they should have the power to make up directions on the fly without regard to the law, consistency or common sense….]

--Stanford Athletics reserves the right to determine what constitutes unacceptable behavior.   [Many of the same issues as above.]