A LEGISLATIVE REMEDY IS BEING SOUGHT TO STOP THE UNFAIR TREATMENT OF NON-PUBLIC SCHOOL FAMILIES

 

 

 

Follow the action steps below and then forward this message to others who support the rights of non-public school families!

 

 

 

There is a critical piece of legislation being voted on this Wednesday that will keep one set of state championships in Kentucky and allow parents to choose the best school for their child WITHOUT any restrictions on participation in KHSAA sports.

 

 

 

Senator Tim Shaughnessy from Louisville introduced an amendment to another bill last Friday that is shown below. It passed the Senate 33-3. We now need the House to do likewise.

 

It is very important that everyone contact their state representatives and urge them to pass HB 532. It is very easy, simply…

 

 

 

FIRST

 

 

 

Log on to http://www.ccky.org

 

 

 

Click on TAKE ACTION button on the right hand side

 

 

 

Use the zip code section near the top and in the center of the page to find your representative

 

 

 

On the next screen, under ACTION ALERT! Click on TAKE ACTION under HB 532 (choose “education” for the “issue area”)

 

 

 

Send the message to your representative

 

 

 

SECOND

 

 

 

We also need calls/e-mails to go to Representative Larry Clark from Jefferson County.

 

 

 

Call his office at 1-502-564-7520 and leave him a message

 

 

 

In addition to your state representative, we need calls/e-mails to go to Majority Leader Rocky Adkins from Education or other leaders in his district--Blaine, Cattlesburg, Louisa, Morehead, Sandy Hook in Boyd, Eliot, Lawrence, and Rowan counties.

 

 

 

House Bill 532, AN ACT relating to athletic activities, sponsored by Representative Mike Cherry as amended in the Senate passed the Senate Friday March 24, 2006, with an amendment offered by Senator Tim Shaughnessy. The amendment:

 

 

 

1) Ensures that the Kentucky High School Athletic Association (KHSAA) cannot exclude nonpublic schools from participation in the state championships; and

 

 

 

2) Requires any rule that restricts the eligibility of a student to participate in high school athletics based on the geographical boundary or the grade school that the student attended to be approved by the General Assembly.

 

 

 

This amendment makes sure that no child will be unfairly excluded from school athletic activities because a parent exercised their constitutional right to choose a school for their child without approval of the General Assembly.

I will start this statement by saying that I am not for spliting the championships, but it seems the way that you have written it on here that the bill seems to be missing the point. Point 1 says that no non-public schools would be excluded by the KHSAA from the state championships.

 

Proposal 20 was not to exclude the non-public schools from participating in championships. It was to create a public school championship and a private school championship. Point 1 of this bill does not address that, maybe they need to amend it.

 

I hope proposal 20 dies a quiet death(which it will not), but I do not think point 1 of HB 532 addresses that issue.

It addresses a bias against KIDS....sounds fair to me.

One of the main reasons that I am against Prop 20 and any of the ideas that the task force has come up with is that it is not in the best interest of the athletes.

 

This bill is toothless though. It does not go after the meat of the issue. Seems to me, that it is a political stunt to make it appear that something is being done about it when really they are doing zero!

 

If point one stated, that there will be no separation of championships between public and non-public schools that are governed by the KHSAA without legislative action, then it would be a bill worth noting.

I have just been made aware the evidently point one does contain language that would prevent separating the championships without legislative consent, RP just did not post it correctly.

Here is what is posted on the webpage if you take the links in the first post:

 

The amendment:

 

1) Insures that the Kentucky High School Athletic Association (KHSAA) cannot exclude nonpublic schools from participation in the state championships; and

 

2) Requires any rule that restricts the eligibility of a student to participate in high school athletics based on the geographical boundary or the grade school that the student attended to be approved by the General Assembly. The wording of the amendment is as follows: The organization or designated agency shall not segregate or divide public and private schools for the purposes of state championship play-offs or tournaments. Any proposal designed to control a student's eligibility to participate in high school interscholastic athletics based on geographic boundaries designed for this purpose or designated feeder schools shall be approved by the General Assembly before being implemented.

 

This is a matter of importance as the KHSAA Board of Control has recently recommended to the State Board of Education two bylaw changes that would restrict student participation in athletic competition at the high school level for up to two years. These proposed rule changes will unfairly penalize Kentucky children from participation in athletics. Additionally, the process of resolving the eligibility issues through the KHSAA process has broken down.

Looks like the assembly is doing an end around! :-) Will be interesting to see if it passes.

RP just did not post it correctly.

I cut and pasted from my e-mail...be what it may.

I cut and pasted from my e-mail...be what it may.

 

I know, I tried to edit my post but it didn't work. I tried to rewrite. Your post didn't contain all the pertinent data. Either way, it appears that the HB does contain the meat that I was hoping for. No harm no foul ;-)

I very much dislike Proposal 20. However, this legislation is a dream for a lawyer. For instance, it is written in such a way that a parent would have a great legal challenge, for instance, if their child were kept from playing under the Transfer Rule, Rule 6. Even if the transfer would ordinarily be illegal.

 

This is the problem with self-interested issues. We keep handing them to politicians. Don't like what is going on, lets pass a LAW to stop it! Do you really want your child's high school education and athletics LEGISLATED????

I very much dislike Proposal 20. However, this legislation is a dream for a lawyer. For instance, it is written in such a way that a parent would have a great legal challenge, for instance, if their child were kept from playing under the Transfer Rule, Rule 6. Even if the transfer would ordinarily be illegal.

 

This is the problem with self-interested issues. We keep handing them to politicians. Don't like what is going on, lets pass a LAW to stop it! Do you really want your child's high school education and athletics LEGISLATED????

 

I'll reluctantly agree with legislative or judicial action when IMO the best interests of the student athletes are not being looked after by the association (KHSAA) which was created by the legislature to govern athletics.

 

IMO the feeder school and two year ban garbage that has been proposed by the task force in no way is to the benefit of the kids. The mantra of the KHSAA has been or is to increase participation in high school athletics. These proposals run completely counter to that goal.

I'll reluctantly agree with legislative or judicial action when IMO the best interests of the student athletes are not being looked after by the association (KHSAA) which was created by the legislature to govern athletics.

 

IMO the feeder school and two year ban garbage that has been proposed by the task force in no way is to the benefit of the kids. The mantra of the KHSAA has been or is to increase participation in high school athletics. These proposals run completely counter to that goal.

 

I think the actions of the KHSAA can be successfully challenged within the framework and process of existing laws without resorting to what I consider to be superfluous legislative action that will only create more controversy. Everything cannot be simply labeled a "crisis" that requires immediate, irreparable attention. We have become spoiled if we think so. I don't like placing the power in the hands of the legislature on this issue at this juncture.

I think the actions of the KHSAA can be successfully challenged within the framework and process of existing laws without resorting to what I consider to be superfluous legislative action that will only create more controversy. Everything cannot be simply labeled a "crisis" that requires immediate, irreparable attention. We have become spoiled if we think so. I don't like placing the power in the hands of the legislature on this issue at this juncture.

 

Maybe so, but I am even less confident in placing the power in the hands of the KHSAA to make the correct decision. They do not have the resources or the ability to currently police their own by-laws, much less adding more bureacracy (feeder schools, boundary lines, etc.).

Maybe so, but I am even less confident in placing the power in the hands of the KHSAA to make the correct decision. They do not have the resources or the ability to currently police their own by-laws, much less adding more bureacracy (feeder schools, boundary lines, etc.).

 

Again, the KHSAA is not the final resting place for what is merely an ADMINISTRATIVE regulation they make concerning high school athletic eligibility and championships. You can go from there to the Dept. of Education, and from the Dept. of Education to the Courts, using ordinary and regular procedures, without muddying the waters with a new law. The regulation is so ill-conceived, almost certainly along that journey it would be overturned. If not, the legislature could act then, but to act now, this late in the '06 session, will be seen as superficial and ineffective.

Again, the KHSAA is not the final resting place for what is merely an ADMINISTRATIVE regulation they make concerning high school athletic eligibility and championships. You can go from there to the Dept. of Education, and from the Dept. of Education to the Courts, using ordinary and regular procedures, without muddying the waters with a new law. The regulation is so ill-conceived, almost certainly along that journey it would be overturned. If not, the legislature could act then, but to act now, this late in the '06 session, will be seen as superficial and ineffective.

 

While I agree that there is opportunity for judicial review before the legislature takes this step, but if it passes it will be much more effective than dragging all this through the courts for the next 18 to 24 months(a conservative estimate, not including the many months that this has been going on already). All you have to do is look at the Mitchell eligibility case from two years ago to see how expediantly the KHSAA handles the judicial review process.

 

In your opinion, how is the new law "muddying" the waters?