That impression would be wrong, although from what I hear, most Board Members are under the same impression. Why do I feel that impression is wrong? Because the KHSAA's own due process procedure ( specifically Section 3.I of the procedure) permits a party to appeal the KHSAA's position to the judicial system. Now I ask you, student, if one of the conditions of becoming a member meant that the KHSAA's decisions superceded all legal court proceedings, why would the KHSAA expressly permit a party to appeal the KHSAA's decision to the judicial system?
Wouldn't the right to appeal a KHSAA decision to the judicial system by contradictory to the assertion that the KHSAA's decision superceded the judiciary's decision?
What good is a right to appeal to the judiciary (which is granted via the due process procedure) if a school can't follow it and is bound by the KHSAA decision?
For Leatherneck and the lawyers out there, can an administrative agency of the state (which the KHSAA is) even legally require, as a condition of membership, that a school agree to accept the KHSAA's decision as final and superceding the judiciary? Taken in another context, could the Employment Compensation agency tell an unemployed person that a condition to filing an unemployment claim meant that such person had to agree that the Employment Compensation agency's decision supeceded a subsequent court ruling on the issue?
Having posed those questions, I do find it odd that Highlands would now, at this point in time, request the State Board to direct the KHSAA to reverse the sanctions. The only reason I can think they would do so is that the General Assembly has now told the KHSAA in no uncertain terms, I'm advised by friends in the LRC, that the KHSAA cannot impose such sanctions in the future. Perhaps the Highlands administration believes that if the KHSAA cannot impose those sanctions in the future, it was wrong for them to impose them in the past and that the State Board will agree with that reasoning.
Hemlock any one?