NEW REGULATIONS
FOR THE APTA HALL OF FAME COMMITTEE

At its first meeting of the new fiscal year, the Board of Directors of the APTA voted to reconfigure its Hall of Fame Committee. It is this group of men and women who propose candidates to the APTA Board of Directors for election to the Platform Tennis Hall of Fame. The Board then votes to confirm or reject the candidates proposed by the Committee. Three changes to last year’s composition of the Committee were made by the Board.

First, the maximum number of Committee members was increased from five to eight. Second, it reverted to the rule that Committee members must be Hall of Fame inductees or past or present Directors of the APTA. Finally, the Board decreed that if a proposed candidate is deceased, a waiting period of two years after death is required before such candidate can be considered for induction. Let’s look at what the Directors have done.

Increase in size of the Committee

From the inception of the Hall of Fame in 1965, the Committee, which nominated candidates, consisted of five persons. This number has been consistent until this year’s change increasing the number to eight. I believe the intention of the Board by this action is to broaden the Committee. They anticipate that their change will add new voices to the selection process and provide wider regional representation.

That may be possible. I believe, however, that the Committee of five has done an excellent job in nominating candidates of both genders, from all geographical areas, and with a variety of talents on and off the court, who are worthy to be members of the Hall of Fame.

Just consider that the selection committee for the sport of professional baseball consists of ten sportswriters. That’s right, only ten! Certainly they have a much larger population of candidates to consider than does the committee for platform tennis.

Further, as the number of committee members increase, it becomes more difficult to conduct meetings with all members present. Yes, we have used a telecommunications device so that the Committee members did not have to be physically present. However, this method lacks the real essence of the selection process when committee members are able to “rub elbows” with one another in discussing the qualifications of a specific individual. I believe five members is a sufficient number and having eight is going to make the process more difficult and not improve the selection process or the diversity of the candidates.

Qualifications to Serve on the Committee

In reverting back to requiring the members of the Committee to be current inductees or past or present Directors, the Board took a step in the right direction. I am sure that there are well-qualified persons who have not served on the APTA Board who could serve effectively on the Committee. However, when there is such a large pool of persons who have been in this position of responsibility, it seems unnecessary to add even more eligible persons. Initially the Committee was composed of past presidents of the Association. As players were elected to the Hall of Fame, they were declared eligible for the Committee. That format was in place until 1998 when past and present Directors of the APTA were made eligible to serve on the Committee. In 2004, the Directors abandoned that format and it was decided to make appointments to the Committee from the general membership of the Association. In reverting back to the previous qualifications, the Board has recognized that some “hands on” experience is valuable. Having served on the APTA Board provides that.

I believe one other correction should be made. Presently the Board of Directors votes on the suggestions of the Committee. For that reason I don’t believe that current Board members should be on the Committee. This gives them a double vote, first on the Committee and then as a Director on the Board. The whole process is difficult enough without the added pressure of having a current Board member with this extra influence on the selection of a candidate. However, I don’t oppose a current Board member being “ex-officio” to the Committee. That Director could have a voice but no vote on the Committee and serve as a valuable liaison to the Board.

Eligibility of Deceased Candidates

In recent years, the Committee has been extremely fortunate in the selection of nominees. Several persons who were inducted passed away not long after being honored. Although it was sometimes known that a potential nominee was not in the best of health, none of the selections were made under the pressure of imminent death.

The Committee has discussed the honoring of deceased persons and determined that, unless there were exceptional circumstances, they would generally refrain from nominating a person under that circumstance. It is not an easy situation. Some highly skilled players may die at a young age and never be able to show their full potential. Also an accidental death may come at any time even as a candidate is making a major contribution to the sport.

I don’t subscribe to the two year waiting period. I believe the Committee should be free to determine the situation that prevails when a candidate is proposed. I don’t mean that the Committee should rush to judgement and honor a person who dies but a mandatory two-year period can be a restriction that the Committee should not have to bear. Waiting two years could easily mean the person would be forgotten, which is certainly not what the Hall of Fame should be about.

Click HERE to Return to Archives