There will be no vote by the BOE. The attorney says there are still procedures that have to take place.

 

The tone of the BOE (IMO) is that they think some of these proposals are punitive and that the KHSAA needs to reconsider.

 

The BOE is not so much worried about that, they are worried about implementing the proposals from the task force which have not been voted on by the entire membership body. They do not want to implement something that has not been voted on, either via referendum or the annual meeting the entire body of the members. The conversation is procedural at this point not judging the proposals yet.

THE BOE is not so much worried about that, they are worried about implementing the proposals from the task force which have not been voted on by the entire membership body. They do not want to implement something that has not been voted on, either via referendum or the annual meeting the entire body of the members. The conversation is procedural at this point not judging the proposals yet.

 

Agreed. That's why I mentioned the comment from the attorney.

The BOE is not so much worried about that, they are worried about implementing the proposals from the task force which have not been voted on by the entire membership body. They do not want to implement something that has not been voted on, either via referendum or the annual meeting the entire body of the members. The conversation is procedural at this point not judging the proposals yet.

When did that become a worry since they pretty much shook their head at the last overwhelmingly passed proposal from the membership.

When did that become a worry since they pretty much shook their head at the last overwhelmingly passed proposal from the membership.

 

That is the sticking point. One I think that the BOE does not want to make a decision, because they do not want to look like the bad guy. They are using the procedural issue as a convenient tactic. Which is fair enough IMO. But if they are the ultimate authortity, they do need to make a decision. Like the lady just said, do not come back to us with that vote or we will be back to square one. The BOE is not going to be the one to split the championship. They are sticking it back on the KHSAA to make a decision.

There is one board member who keeps asking "what exactly are you trying to fix?". The gentleman from the BOC(?) Mr. Taylor is having trouble answering the question.

 

The BOE member is very reluctant to do anything that would penalize a child.

 

It is not going well for the BOC.

Sounds at least like the BOE has the student in mind which is good. I would be interested what they would do if the vote came back on the proposals as overwhelming as the prop 20 vote did, then what would they do? Probably the same thing and send it back to the KHSAA to try and come up with a "better" solution.

Lady hit the nail on the head there, the proposals are not about kids they are about coaches. Which is why I am not for any of it.

Back to the drawing board on 2 and 3.

The non-public person is presenting her case to the BOE. She is making some good points about enforcement of recruiting. At the same time she says both sides need to come together and come to a rational decision. That is the problem, both sides are so far apart, it is easy to say but not easy to come to.

One point that jumped out at me that was made by a BOE member.

 

She said that all of these proposals seemed to be more concerned with protecting coaches and their "turf" then it did in actually fixing any real (not percieved) problems. She suggested that instead of punishing the children they should put more effort into penalizing the coaches and schools that actually break the rules.

I liked the idea of real mediation, not a session like the task force where the result is a foregone conclusion.

 

Mediation should involve fact gathering by a neutral individual and rulings made them not by a vote.

I liked the idea of real mediation, not a session like the task force where the result is a foregone conclusion.

 

Mediation should involve fact gathering by a neutral individual and rulings made them not by a vote.

 

A good idea, but I think that these sides are too far apart for mediation to work. Both sides are really going to have to come a long way to get to an agreement.

I think the point that Mr. Sears misses the point when he says that the 1 + 1 is not punitive, is that 1000's of kids participate in varsity athletics at the 9th and 10th grade levels. Maybe not in football, but in most other sports.

I think the point that Mr. Sears misses the point when he says that the 1 + 1 is not punitive, is that 1000's of kids participate in varsity athletics at the 9th and 10th grade levels. Maybe not in football, but in most other sports.

Not only that, but the public proposal would prohibit them from participating at ANY level during the freshman year.

I watched the whole thing. Here are my thoughts:

 

1. Thank you LBBC for the link.

2. The KHSAA came off as looking absolutely inept. I think there are likely some personnel changes in order there before the year is out.

3. Noone wants to take the lead on this. I am disappointed that the BOE did not have better grasp of the legal procedural requirements before this meeting. Perhaps it is a good thing that new blood is getting in there, maybe there will be some concise leadership.

4. I believe that the issue is going to die, or will mold itself into a discussion of Bylaw 10 and how to properly investigate/prosecute/punish recruiting violations.

 

Otherwise, Mr. Sears made no sense to me and only further strengthened my belief that we are attempting to pass laws based upon perception and unrealistic thoughts of "fairness," rather than upon fact and acting in the best interest of children/families.