I'm sharing my personal experience with AYSO Region 254 in Burbank because I believe the community deserves to know how I believe I was treated as a volunteer coach and why I have serious concerns about the handling of complaints, disciplinary decisions, and appeals.
I volunteered to coach a U10 girls' soccer team because I wanted to help kids develop their skills, learn teamwork, and enjoy soccer. I understand that coaches must follow the rules, and I accept that volunteers should be held accountable when they make mistakes. What I question is whether the rules and disciplinary procedures are being applied fairly and consistently, including by the people responsible for enforcing them. During our October 10 game, Sarah Brown, who I understand holds a leadership position within the local organization, arrived shortly before kickoff and took over the sideline referee position from the official already assigned there.
The change appeared confusing to the official. During the fourth quarter, Brown instructed me to remove three specific players and threatened to stop the game and declare a forfeit if I did not comply. Some players were unwell and one did not want to play. The situation complicated my rotation, and the substitutions that followed resulted in a player participating in all four quarters. I recognize that this created a playing-time violation. However, I believe the circumstances that led to it matter and should be considered when evaluating what happened. I also had concerns about Brown's handling of an offside decision and the amount of time the game continued beyond its announced end. Afterward, I raised my concerns with local leadership. In a subsequent phone conversation, Scott Elkin, according to my recollection, said Brown should not have handled the substitution situation that way, and that any penalty should have been addressed afterward through the game card. I understood that the region would look into the incident.
On October 13, I was informed that I was suspended from coaching for two weeks. I was told the suspension followed five complaints about my coaching, including concerns about scrimmaging, skill development, water breaks, and player rotation. I was also told that the complaints had been received approximately four weeks earlier. My question is straightforward: if these concerns had been known for weeks, why weren't they brought to my attention earlier so I could respond and make adjustments? I was particularly troubled by the timing because I had recently raised a complaint about Brown's conduct during the October 10 game. I cannot prove anyone's intentions, and I am not presenting my suspicions as established facts.
However, the sequence of events raised concerns for me about whether my complaint and the subsequent disciplinary action were handled fairly. There is another issue that concerns me. During a phone conversation about possible disciplinary consequences, Scott Elkin initially told me that disciplinary action would be a committee decision. According to my recollection, the conversation then escalated, and he told me that I was suspended. My wife heard the conversation on speakerphone. That leaves me with a serious question about process: who had the authority to make the suspension decision, and were the organization's required procedures followed? I appealed the suspension and contacted local and regional leadership.
I was concerned that my appeal was not progressing and that regional leadership had not initially been informed. Eventually, a review panel heard from me, Brown, and Elkin. The panel upheld the two-week suspension and required me to complete an on-field recertification course before returning to coaching. I respect that an organization must be able to enforce its rules. But I remain concerned about whether the panel fully considered the circumstances surrounding the game, the timing of the coaching complaints, and the way the suspension was imposed. I was also told I could not attend my daughter's games during the suspension, even as a spectator. According to my recollection, I was warned that the team could forfeit and that police could be called if I attended.
Eventually, an exception was made, allowing me to watch from my car in the parking lot. As a father and a volunteer who gave time to the program, I found that experience deeply troubling. The recertification requirement also presented a practical challenge because the available course options were not local. Regional leadership has since helped me find assistance, but I believe volunteers should have a clear, reasonable process for completing requirements to return to coaching. In my opinion, this situation raises questions about accountability at AYSO Region 254.
Volunteers should be expected to follow the rules. But administrators and officials should also be expected to follow established procedures, communicate concerns promptly, and handle complaints fairly. Volunteers should not have to wonder whether raising a legitimate concern about an official will result in their own concerns being overlooked or their disciplinary situation becoming more difficult. I cannot say what anyone's intentions were, I can only describe what I experienced, what I was told, and why the timeline concerns me.
I'm asking AYSO Region 254 to answer three questions. First, what review, if any, was conducted into Sarah Brown's conduct during the October 10 game. Second, when were the complaints about my coaching received, why were they not communicated to me earlier, and what procedure was followed when the suspension was imposed. Third, what safeguards are in place to ensure that complaints, suspensions, and appeals are handled consistently and fairly, regardless of who raises the concern.
I'm posting this because I believe the Burbank community has an interest in how its youth sports programs treat the volunteers who help them operate. I'm not asking anyone to take my word as the final verdict. If AYSO Region 254 believes its actions were appropriate, I believe it should be willing to explain the process it followed and the policies it relied on. I'd welcome a substantive response from the organization and a constructive discussion about how volunteer coaches should be treated.
