IMO, although I agree this will likely be a nightmare, the privates have largely brought this upon themselves. When the delegate assembly vote dealing with these issues almost passed two years ago, the private school leaders could and should have taken steps to improve their image within the delegate assembly. They didn't, now they have this.

What should they have done?

 

Begged forgiveness for building successful programs?

 

Promised not to win more then "their share" of the state titles?

 

And while we're at it please explain exactly what they did to damage their image in the first place.

 

One thing that I have gleaned from all of the rhetoric here is that this is going to be a huge bureaucratic nightmare with so many loopholes that it will be totally chaotic as well as causing a whole lot more money to be spent defending lawsuits.

 

One other thing is that the primary justification the public school side has presented was to prevent illegal recruiting. Now wouldn't it have been cheaper in the long run to spend the money to enforce rules that are already on the books rather then adding this whole new level of bureaucracy?

 

Or maybe, just maybe there are those on the public side that don't want enforcement. I wonder why?

What should they have done?

 

Begged forgiveness for building successful programs?

 

Promised not to win more then "their share" of the state titles?

 

And while we're at it please explain exactly what they did to damage their image in the first place.

One thing that I have gleaned from all of the rhetoric here is that this is going to be a huge bureaucratic nightmare with so many loopholes that it will be totally chaotic as well as causing a whole lot more money to be spent defending lawsuits.

 

One other thing is that the primary justification the public school side has presented was to prevent illegal recruiting. Now wouldn't it have been cheaper in the long run to spend the money to enforce rules that are already on the books rather then adding this whole new level of bureaucracy?

 

Or maybe, just maybe there are those on the public side that don't want enforcement. I wonder why?

 

One thing they shouldn't have done was to send snotty little lawyers to both the KHSAA and the BOE meetings early in the process waiving their hands about the lawsuits they were going to file, and printing Trinity T-shirts that said "If you think our football team is good, wait'll you see our lawyers." I am a snotty little (OK, well, not little) lawyer myself, so I know from whence I speak. It made the privates look almost as arrogant (I said "almost") as Wilson Sears.

How dare they stand up for their rights. The arrogance.

 

And the snotty little lawyers all over the state are beside themselves with the additional income they are going to be bringing in.

 

Congratulations

How dare they stand up for their rights. The arrogance.

 

And the snotty little lawyers all over the state are beside themselves with the additional income they are going to be bringing in.

 

Congratulations

 

I'm just messing with you, man. I'm on your side. And yes, we've got Bethlehem down here which draws a lot of students from Radcliff, which I don't think is within 30 miles. So maybe I'll make some money.

This will be interesting in Boone Co w/the who goes where problem. Families move into certain areas so their child can go to a certain high school. W/prop.2, the KHSAA seems to be determining where our kids go. The first thing I asked when moving to Florence was in this street in the Boone Co H.S. district. Kenton Co will be a mess since they have open enrollment. I see law suits after law suits happening w/this proposal.

I believe the anger of the many public school officials was equally split between their frustration with the ineptness of the KHSAA in investigating and prosecuting those guilty of infractions and the arrogant behavior of many private school officials. One "corrective action" imposed on a small parochial Jefferson County school found guilty of illegal recruiting a couple of years ago was not allowing the head football coach to be the admittance counselor. That could have been a reasonable voluntary step all privates could have taken. The head football coach should not be the contact person for admittance to the school when the KHSAA bylaws seem to forbid this type of contact with prospective student-athletes according to case situations of Bylaw 10 in the KHSAA handbook. The head coach at St X also currently serves as the Director of Admissions?????

 

I realize that some public schools are also guilty of this type of misconduct and they should be held just as accountable. I also believe that the perception among the majority of delegates is/was that privates were much more blatant in their attempts to improve their situation using public school kids that didn't grow up in the parochial system.

Here is this mornings C-J on the vote:

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070406/SPORTS05/704060536

I may have misspoken here; when we talk about the Archdiocese of Louisville, for example, if a child attends an ARCHDIOCESE middle school within the Archdiocesan boundaries, I think they still get to choose whether they want to go to Trinity, St. Xavier, Holy Cross, Desales, Assumption, Mercy, et. al. However, even though Bates Middle School (public), for example, is in the Archdiocesan physical boundaries, Bates students will not be able to go to Trinity without implicating Proposal 2.

 

I am now officially backing off of this statement. I don't know that they are going to allow any child in a diocesan middle school to attend any diocesan high school in the diocese. It may very well be that they require a defined feeder school list for each high school.

 

I would assume, then, that the same will be true for the magnet schools such as Male, Manual, and Butler, but at this point I just don't know. The devil will be in the details.

One thing they shouldn't have done was to send snotty little lawyers to both the KHSAA and the BOE meetings early in the process waiving their hands about the lawsuits they were going to file, and printing Trinity T-shirts that said "If you think our football team is good, wait'll you see our lawyers." I am a snotty little (OK, well, not little) lawyer myself, so I know from whence I speak. It made the privates look almost as arrogant (I said "almost") as Wilson Sears.

Since one of their "snotty little lawyers" is a VERY good friend of mine, let me assure you that he is one of the nicest and most honorable people I have ever known. Anyone that found him offensive was looking to be offended. He is also a very good lawyer. This will not stand.

Since one of their "snotty little lawyers" is a VERY good friend of mine, let me assure you that he is one of the nicest and most honorable people I have ever known. Anyone that found him offensive was looking to be offended. He is also a very good lawyer. This will not stand.

 

Please see my follow-up to AllTell. We are probably speaking of the same lawyer, and he is a friend of mine, too. I did not mean to offend, and my comment was made late at night and was in poor taste, and I apologize.

 

My position stands that the practice of sending lawyers threatening lawsuits to a collaborative process is not calculated to bear productive results.

Wha about considering the kids. What if there is a divorce and their children are forced to move. Now if he wants to play sports he is going to have to set out an entire year? I don't think this is a good solution at all.

Wha about considering the kids. What if there is a divorce and their children are forced to move. Now if he wants to play sports he is going to have to set out an entire year? I don't think this is a good solution at all.

 

This has been an problematic interpretive question for years under Bylaw 6 (Transfer Rule). There is a Proposal 2 allowance for the Commish to have "discretion" to grant a "waiver" for some of the enumerated reasons under Bylaw 6 (death, divorce, etc.). There does not appear to be mimicking language that talks about a "bona fide change in residence" that "reasonably precipitates" the transfer. I have seen literally dozens of cases just locally where two parents split up and factually cannot afford to send the child to private school anymore, and the court won't order it. I have also seen divorces that require a parent to move or change districts. In fact, "removal" cases are a hot topic in the area of custody and visitation law.

 

Good question, Log Mountain Boy, just another in the myriad of scenarios that this rule doesn't seem to cover at the moment.

This has been an problematic interpretive question for years under Bylaw 6 (Transfer Rule). You are right that there does not seem to be a Proposal 2 allowance for a "bona fide change in residence" that "reasonably precipitates" the transfer. I have seen literally dozens of cases just locally where two parents split up and factually cannot afford to send the child to private school anymore, and the court won't order it. I have also seen divorces that require a parent to move or change districts. In fact, "removal" cases are a hot topic in the area of custody and visitation law.

 

Good question, Log Mountain Boy, just another in the myriad of scenarios that this rule doesn't seem to cover at the moment.

 

I really think the KHSAA is way too much about politics rather than the kids. Its very upsetting and sad really.

I really think the KHSAA is way too much about politics rather than the kids. Its very upsetting and sad really.

 

Supposedly a 7-person "committee" is being formed by the Board of Education to investigate the internal affairs of the KHSAA.

I don't think the feeder schools list has been defined yet, and it will be administratively done by the KHSAA BOC. I could see even more in-fighting over that than the rule itself.

 

I think the process of "lobbying" to be in a certain feeder system could be ripe for fraud.

My first question is when will this go into effect?

 

My second question is, what if you have a child that attends a Catholic Middle Scool and the nearest Catholic High is two Counties and over twenty miles away, will a person have to go to that Catholic High School in order to be eligable?