Proposal 2 passed in its entirety yesterday at the Kentucky Board of Education.

 

The KHSAA Investigative Committee was also formed rubber-stamping all members proposed except L.V. McGinty, who was removed due to his current membership on the Board of Control.

 

I'll try and post a link when it appears in the major news media.

 

Let the games begin!

Proposal 2 passed in its entirety yesterday at the Kentucky Board of Education.

 

The KHSAA Investigative Committee was also formed rubber-stamping all members proposed except L.V. McGinty, who was removed due to his current membership on the Board of Control.

 

I'll try and post a link when it appears in the major news media.

 

Let the games begin!

 

 

While I am not naive, I hope there are no games. Given the rancor throughout the Commonwealth with the KHSAA, the importance of this Committee cannot be overstated. The public supers (or at least a large component of them) are upset with the KHSAA for not following their bidding; the private schools are upset because they think they have been thrown under the bus by the KHSAA with Proposal 2; and a lot of parents are upset with the long drawn out process on eligibility isssues (even if a student eventually gains eligibility after being initially denied, whole athletic seasons have passed).

 

I hope the Committee looks at the KHSAA from top to bottom, inside and out.

Issues to examine include:

 

1. Should the BOC membership composition be changed? Are we better off with no school representatives on the BOC, rather, it being composed of only 7 lay members all appointed by the State Board of Education? Currently the supers put a lot of pressure on members to vote the way the supers want them to vote even if the BOC member personally disagrees with the way the supers want them to vote. The supers threat: if you don't vote the way they want, you will not be re-elected to the BOC. This has happened I'm told and really threatens the fiduciary independence that BOC members are supposed to exercise. Again, the BOC does not work for the member schools. It, as the agent of the State Board of Education, works for the State Board of Education. If we continue to allow a large majority of the BOC members to be elected by the schools, the necesary independence will be at risk. Plus, we have to admit people bring baggage with them. Kind of hard for school officials, coaches and AD's to put that baggage aside when they deal with issues that the BOC has to deal with. Furthermore, by reducing the size of the BOC, it would also reduce the expenses of the KHSAA. With monthly meetings necessary to handle the eligibility issues, it gets expensive paying for mileage, food and hotel costs of 18 members.

 

2. Are the due process procedures for eligibility and other matters really fair and in the best interests of the kids? It used to be that a kid was immediately eligible after the hearing officer recommended that the Commissioner's initial determination of ineligibility be overturned. The rule was revised some time ago to make the Commissioner's decision remain valid and binding until the BOC formally acted to overturn her decision. As a result, even when the BOC ultimately agrees with the heaing officer's recommendation, entire athletic seasons are lost to children.

 

3. Should a greater effort be placed and more resources dedicated to investigating issues like illegal recruiting? It seems like the KHSAA keeps adding rules to stop alleged illegal recruiting with no substantive proof that the illegal recruiting even occurs. Rather than penalizing the 98% of parents and coaches doing the right thing by imposing more and more rules restricting the rights of parents, shouldn't we ferret out the wrong doers and severely penalize them? I'm in favor of a life time ban of any coach proven to have engaged in illegal recruiting. Rather than acknowledging that there are good reasons for a child/parent to want to transfer schools, the presupposition currently is that the child is being recruited. Frankly, I think that presupposition is because school administrators and coaches on the BOC don't want to admit that transfers may simply be because their peers at some schools just aren't doing a good job educating and coaching our kids and supporting athletic programs at those schools.

 

 

 

4. Can the due process procedures be amended to allow the hearing officer's decision to be final (and eliminate the BOC entirely from the process, and have them concentrate their time and energy on other issues). Face it, the 2 current hearing officers are both lawyers and former circuit court judges trained and well experienced in doing investigations, ascertaining facts and applying the law to the facts. Heck, as circuit court judges they had the power to sentence a person to death on capital punishment offenses, yet by having the BOC have the ability to overturn the hearing officer's recommendation, we're saying we don't trust them to make eligibilty decisions. Does it really make sense to have the BOC, comprised primarily of school administrators, coaches and athletic directors second guessing the hearing officers (and I mean no disrespect to the BOC members, they just are not trained to make those types of determinations)? Another benefit to such revision would be the elimination of up to a month in the final decision being made if it was to stop with the hearing officer. Even if statutes need to be changed, it would be worth the effort to streamline the process and make it more fair. I look at it this way: assuming the BOC disagrees with the hearing officer, for reasons stated above, does that second guessing really make sense? And if they agree with the hearing officer, all we've done is delay final action by a month which is terribly unfair to the affected kids. And remember the KHSAA is supposed to be all about the kids and athletic participation is supposed to be a good thing and helpful to the academic process. Thus anything we can do to streamline the process and make it fairer to the kids must be considered. A further benefit of not having school officials, coaches and ADs on the BOC or involved in the eligibilty process it totally eliminates the possibility that decisions are made based on biases, grudges and friendships. Lets not even permit the appearance of an impropriety to occur.

 

Those are some of the issues I'd like to see be addressed by the Committee. Any one have other thoughts and issues?

I would agree that BOC should be appointed and not current AD's.

 

The issue of enforcing rules on recruiting and Prop 2 are more difficult.

 

Let me give a situation the way I understand it happened (w/o any names of kids or schools) recently for illustration. A student-athlete in 8th grade public school who plays basketball and his parents decide to attend a parochial high school in Jefferson County. The high school coach that would have had this kid coming in from his feeder school was disappointed but understood his parents wishes. Now the problem occurs, this kids parents (who have already decided that their kid IS attending the parochial high school) now begin to encourage the parents of their sons friends (who also play basketball) to check out the parochial school as well and think about attending. The 3 families attend a basketball game at the high school this past winter. It just so happens that a rather famous local college football coach stops by and says hello and that he hopes these families decide to join the "--------" family. All 3 kids are supposed to enroll in this particular private school this fall.

 

Was this illegal recruiting? YES. The parents, once they decided their son would enroll, became (probably unknowingly) agents of the school if I'm not mistaken and therefore can not attempt to persuade others to attend. A high profile parent meeting and welcoming the group at a basketball game was obviously recruiting. QUESTION? Who is going to turn this in? If turned in, who is going to relate the facts of the events? The parents whose kids are now in the school????

 

If I were the coach of the offended school, I would turn it in and pester the powers that be at KHSAA until at least an investigation was begun. Would anything come of it? Very doubtful, since their is no "hard" evidence that anything improper took place and the ones with the facts have it in their best interest to keep quiet. Did illegal recruiting or contact happen, no doubt it did.

 

This type of illustration is probably the biggest type of problem that occurs and adding all the investigators in the world WON'T solve it. Prop 2, however, would make situations like this a lot less likely. Just one man's opinion.

For those on the private side of the issue, please feel free to disagree with Prop 2, but at least admit that there are problems, on both sides, like the one I outlined that can't be fixed by "enforcement-only" by the KHSAA.

I would agree if I thought anything illegal had happened but IMVHO nothing illegal did happen. Please show me in KHSAA regulations where these people would be considered "agents" of the school, once the kid was enrolled maybe but not before he even attends the school. If the coach thought it was illegal then he should have reported it to the KHSAA. Maybe, just maybe the real reason the coach didn't report it (and the real reason coaches are reluctant to report suspected violations) is because they don't want to bring themselves under scrutiny.

I

 

Let me give a situation the way I understand it happened (w/o any names of kids or schools) recently for illustration. A student-athlete in 8th grade public school who plays basketball and his parents decide to attend a parochial high school in Jefferson County. The high school coach that would have had this kid coming in from his feeder school was disappointed but understood his parents wishes. Now the problem occurs, this kids parents (who have already decided that their kid IS attending the parochial high school) now begin to encourage the parents of their sons friends (who also play basketball) to check out the parochial school as well and think about attending. The 3 families attend a basketball game at the high school this past winter. It just so happens that a rather famous local college football coach stops by and says hello and that he hopes these families decide to join the "--------" family. All 3 kids are supposed to enroll in this particular private school this fall.

 

Don't tell me. I'm still trying to figure this one out. Famous coach in Louisville? Catholic school ? Maybe the coach had a kid at the school. That should help me figure it out.

 

Was this illegal recruiting? YES. The parents, once they decided their son would enroll, became (probably unknowingly) agents of the school if I'm not mistaken and therefore can not attempt to persuade others to attend. .

 

I'd be shocked if your assumption is true.

Here's something funny....

 

In the situation outlined above, if I was the coach of the public school team, I wouldn't be worried. Private school boys basketball isn't exactly taking the state by storm.

 

Now, if this were a girls team we were speaking of I could see it being a bigger concern, but still not illegal.

 

In systems where there is open enrollment, kids/families can choose their high school whether public or private. I can't tell you how many baseball games I've attended over the years where kids of one school or another extolled the virtues of the school their kid would be attending and mentioned that "wouldn't it be great if Billy and Johnny could play together in high school?"

 

In the end, a family with a child in the 8th grade is looking to put their kid in a private school, whether it be a religiously affiliated school or not, the biggest concern is money, not athletics.

I would agree that BOC should be appointed and not current AD's.

 

The issue of enforcing rules on recruiting and Prop 2 are more difficult.

 

Let me give a situation the way I understand it happened (w/o any names of kids or schools) recently for illustration. A student-athlete in 8th grade public school who plays basketball and his parents decide to attend a parochial high school in Jefferson County. The high school coach that would have had this kid coming in from his feeder school was disappointed but understood his parents wishes. Now the problem occurs, this kids parents (who have already decided that their kid IS attending the parochial high school) now begin to encourage the parents of their sons friends (who also play basketball) to check out the parochial school as well and think about attending. The 3 families attend a basketball game at the high school this past winter. It just so happens that a rather famous local college football coach stops by and says hello and that he hopes these families decide to join the "--------" family. All 3 kids are supposed to enroll in this particular private school this fall.

 

Was this illegal recruiting? YES. The parents, once they decided their son would enroll, became (probably unknowingly) agents of the school if I'm not mistaken and therefore can not attempt to persuade others to attend. A high profile parent meeting and welcoming the group at a basketball game was obviously recruiting. QUESTION? Who is going to turn this in? If turned in, who is going to relate the facts of the events? The parents whose kids are now in the school????

 

If I were the coach of the offended school, I would turn it in and pester the powers that be at KHSAA until at least an investigation was begun. Would anything come of it? Very doubtful, since their is no "hard" evidence that anything improper took place and the ones with the facts have it in their best interest to keep quiet. Did illegal recruiting or contact happen, no doubt it did.

 

This type of illustration is probably the biggest type of problem that occurs and adding all the investigators in the world WON'T solve it. Prop 2, however, would make situations like this a lot less likely. Just one man's opinion.

 

 

You are probably correct, from my reading of By law 10, that what the parents did was illegal recruiting. However, until I heard all the details and facts, I couldn't say for certain. You ask who would turn this type of behavior in to the KHSAA? You would and should. Its obvious, unless you are one of the parents, that the recruiting incident got out to the public. Then again, if you are not one of the parents, keep in mind that you are dealing with hearsay, which as we all know can be very, very inaccurate. Nonetheless, turn it in. If the parents have any integrity they'll tell the truth. If they don't, shame on them. It doesn't solve the problem I'll admit, but I don't believe you enact laws to stop the 5% of bad parents when those laws adversely impact the 95% of the parents making decisions for the right reasons. Having said that while I believe that what the parents did in your scenario may have constituted illegal recruiting under By law 10 (again, I couldn't say for certain until I heard everything), I don't think it should be illegal for parents to encourage other parents to send their kids to particular schools. Way too gray area for me to want to regulate. If a parent came up to me and asked why I send my kids to Highlands, is it reasonable to expect me to say "I cannot tell you why as I don't want to risk the school from being found to engage in illegal recruiting?". Of course not. Even the NCAA does not go that far. Heck its an established practice for kids committed to go to a university to encourage other kids to make that same choice.

 

And its really not too hard to combat this type of behavior. The coach at the public high school that these kids would have attended had they not gone to the parochial school, could just as easily had a parents night and extolled the virtues of his public school and could have gotten a prominent alumnus to appear and do the same. Do they have to be careful not to focus exclusively on athletics? Sure, but nonetheless the message can be gotten out (some public schools have figured that out and have open houses and place advertisements). Either that coach and the administrators at the public school were asleep at the wheel or they didn't want to put in the effort to have a parents night or they felt that they kids in the public middle school were "theirs" and they didn't have to resort to putting their best foot forward. Either choice is a bad one. The sooner all the public schools realize that they are in competition for students and athletes the better off they will be and frankly the better their schools will become. For the benefit of LBBC, I'll admit that some parochial schools and some independents have advantages over the mainline public schools. No doubt. Then again, those public schools don't charge thousands of dollars in tuition and that could be emphasized to the parents. They could emphasize the "glory" in playing for the community school and the civic pride involved. If they are making a commitment to improving their academics and athletics, that could be emphasized (and if they are not making such a commitment, shame on them). Bottom line, I believe that the public schools do have some things they can use to encourage kids and parents to have the kids attend the public schools. But it takes effort to do so. And up until the past 10 years or so they didn't have to do it, and thus didn't do it. But the winds of change have blown and will blow stronger and no rules, including Proposal 2 will stop that. The sooner the publics realize it and start being proactive to keep and attract students, the better it will be for them and the better it will be for the kids that attend those schools. Just my thoughts on the matters.

You are probably correct, from my reading of By law 10, that what the parents did was illegal recruiting. However, until I heard all the details and facts, I couldn't say for certain. You ask who would turn this type of behavior in to the KHSAA? You would and should. Its obvious, unless you are one of the parents, that the recruiting incident got out to the public. Then again, if you are not one of the parents, keep in mind that you are dealing with hearsay, which as we all know can be very, very inaccurate. Nonetheless, turn it in. If the parents have any integrity they'll tell the truth. If they don't, shame on them. It doesn't solve the problem I'll admit, but I don't believe you enact laws to stop the 5% of bad parents when those laws adversely impact the 95% of the parents making decisions for the right reasons. Having said that while I believe that what the parents did in your scenario may have constituted illegal recruiting under By law 10 (again, I couldn't say for certain until I heard everything), I don't think it should be illegal for parents to encourage other parents to send their kids to particular schools. Way too gray area for me to want to regulate. If a parent came up to me and asked why I send my kids to Highlands, is it reasonable to expect me to say "I cannot tell you why as I don't want to risk the school from being found to engage in illegal recruiting?". Of course not. Even the NCAA does not go that far. Heck its an established practice for kids committed to go to a university to encourage other kids to make that same choice.

 

And its really not too hard to combat this type of behavior. The coach at the public high school that these kids would have attended had they not gone to the parochial school, could just as easily had a parents night and extolled the virtues of his public school and could have gotten a prominent alumnus to appear and do the same. Do they have to be careful not to focus exclusively on athletics? Sure, but nonetheless the message can be gotten out (some public schools have figured that out and have open houses and place advertisements). Either that coach and the administrators at the public school were asleep at the wheel or they didn't want to put in the effort to have a parents night or they felt that they kids in the public middle school were "theirs" and they didn't have to resort to putting their best foot forward. Either choice is a bad one. The sooner all the public schools realize that they are in competition for students and athletes the better off they will be and frankly the better their schools will become. For the benefit of LBBC, I'll admit that some parochial schools and some independents have advantages over the mainline public schools. No doubt. Then again, those public schools don't charge thousands of dollars in tuition and that could be emphasized to the parents. They could emphasize the "glory" in playing for the community school and the civic pride involved. If they are making a commitment to improving their academics and athletics, that could be emphasized (and if they are not making such a commitment, shame on them). Bottom line, I believe that the public schools do have some things they can use to encourage kids and parents to have the kids attend the public schools. But it takes effort to do so. And up until the past 10 years or so they didn't have to do it, and thus didn't do it. But the winds of change have blown and will blow stronger and no rules, including Proposal 2 will stop that. The sooner the publics realize it and start being proactive to keep and attract students, the better it will be for them and the better it will be for the kids that attend those schools. Just my thoughts on the matters.

You are a 100% correct LN...........:thumb:

I would agree that BOC should be appointed and not current AD's.

 

The issue of enforcing rules on recruiting and Prop 2 are more difficult.

 

Let me give a situation the way I understand it happened (w/o any names of kids or schools) recently for illustration. A student-athlete in 8th grade public school who plays basketball and his parents decide to attend a parochial high school in Jefferson County. The high school coach that would have had this kid coming in from his feeder school was disappointed but understood his parents wishes. Now the problem occurs, this kids parents (who have already decided that their kid IS attending the parochial high school) now begin to encourage the parents of their sons friends (who also play basketball) to check out the parochial school as well and think about attending. The 3 families attend a basketball game at the high school this past winter. It just so happens that a rather famous local college football coach stops by and says hello and that he hopes these families decide to join the "--------" family. All 3 kids are supposed to enroll in this particular private school this fall.

 

Was this illegal recruiting? YES. The parents, once they decided their son would enroll, became (probably unknowingly) agents of the school if I'm not mistaken and therefore can not attempt to persuade others to attend. A high profile parent meeting and welcoming the group at a basketball game was obviously recruiting. QUESTION? Who is going to turn this in? If turned in, who is going to relate the facts of the events? The parents whose kids are now in the school????

 

If I were the coach of the offended school, I would turn it in and pester the powers that be at KHSAA until at least an investigation was begun. Would anything come of it? Very doubtful, since their is no "hard" evidence that anything improper took place and the ones with the facts have it in their best interest to keep quiet. Did illegal recruiting or contact happen, no doubt it did.

 

This type of illustration is probably the biggest type of problem that occurs and adding all the investigators in the world WON'T solve it. Prop 2, however, would make situations like this a lot less likely. Just one man's opinion.

I guess that before I would agree that this was illegal recruiting I would ask if the parents were encouraged by anyone that works for the school to talk to potential students based on athletic ability. If encouraging parents or potential students to consider a school is illegal recruiting, lock me up. Was the coach asked by anyone that works for the school to make the contact because of athletic ability? If so, that would be illegal recruiting. If not, it was parent to parent talking and I don't think it can be or should be eliminated. If I were in charge of recruiting new students to a school and I had a very high profile parent, I would ask them to speak whenever possible. I would NOT ask them to focus on athletes or to speak about athletics as any more than one small aspect of the school. I can't see anything wrong with that.

I guess that before I would agree that this was illegal recruiting I would ask if the parents were encouraged by anyone that works for the school to talk to potential students based on athletic ability. If encouraging parents or potential students to consider a school is illegal recruiting, lock me up. Was the coach asked by anyone that works for the school to make the contact because of athletic ability? If so, that would be illegal recruiting. If not, it was parent to parent talking and I don't think it can be or should be eliminated. If I were in charge of recruiting new students to a school and I had a very high profile parent, I would ask them to speak whenever possible. I would NOT ask them to focus on athletes or to speak about athletics as any more than one small aspect of the school. I can't see anything wrong with that.

 

If you look at By Law 10 (which deals with recruiting and is one of the more poorly written By laws in my opinion) it defines recruiting, inter alia as a school official utilizing (whatever that means) a parent or a student for the purpose of recruiting a student athlete. So that would mean, in my opinion, that it would require the school official to have taken affirmative action or to have asked the parent to encourage a student or his/her parent to attend a particular school in order for there to have been recruiting. In the situation discussed above, I'm not sure that happened. If not, no recruiting so I somewhat retract what I previously posted.

 

However, if you look at case study BL-10-2, the requirement that the school official would have had to ask or utilized the parent to recruit is not there. The case study simply states that a parent who might be interested in a school's athletic program (whatever that means) may not solicit a student from another school district or contact a student or the student's parents prior to the student's enrollment in the school regarding athletic participation. To some extent it is broader/more restrictive than the By Law. Case studies are not the law and do not substitute for the law, but do give insight into how the KHSAA has interpreted things in the past or might interpret the By Law in the future. As I interpret the case study, it doesn't matter that the school didn't take any action to utilize the parent to recruit; rather if there was contact by a parent "interested in a school's athletic program" then there is recruiting if the parent makes contact. Again, the case study is not law, and if there is no involvement (directly or indirectly) by a school official to utilize the parent who makes contact, then it would not be recruiting under the By Law. The By law somewhat makes sense; the case study does not.

 

The By Laws and the case studies I believe can be found on the KHSAA website if anyone wants to look and come to their own conclusions.

 

Note: the above post is not considered to be legal advise and cannot be relied upon by any party!

If you look at By Law 10 (which deals with recruiting and is one of the more poorly written By laws in my opinion) it defines recruiting, inter alia as a school official utilizing (whatever that means) a parent or a student for the purpose of recruiting a student athlete. So that would mean, in my opinion, that it would require the school official to have taken affirmative action or to have asked the parent to encourage a student or his/her parent to attend a particular school in order for there to have been recruiting. In the situation discussed above, I'm not sure that happened. If not, no recruiting so I somewhat retract what I previously posted.

 

However, if you look at case study BL-10-2, the requirement that the school official would have had to ask or utilized the parent to recruit is not there. The case study simply states that a parent who might be interested in a school's athletic program (whatever that means) may not solicit a student from another school district or contact a student or the student's parents prior to the student's enrollment in the school regarding athletic participation. To some extent it is broader/more restrictive than the By Law. Case studies are not the law and do not substitute for the law, but do give insight into how the KHSAA has interpreted things in the past or might interpret the By Law in the future. As I interpret the case study, it doesn't matter that the school didn't take any action to utilize the parent to recruit; rather if there was contact by a parent "interested in a school's athletic program" then there is recruiting if the parent makes contact. Again, the case study is not law, and if there is no involvement (directly or indirectly) by a school official to utilize the parent who makes contact, then it would not be recruiting under the By Law. The By law somewhat makes sense; the case study does not.

 

The By Laws and the case studies I believe can be found on the KHSAA website if anyone wants to look and come to their own conclusions.

 

Note: the above post is not considered to be legal advise and cannot be relied upon by any party!

 

 

The By-Law 10 case study is what I was referring to. I am not saying it was written clearly or that it makes sense, but it does, I believe, back up my contention that the situation I laid out would be a case of recruiting. Would parents in the situation I described know they were "recruiting" prospective athletes - I very seriously doubt it. As for the high profile coach-parent that spoke to them at a game, it is highly unlikely that he just happened to stop by this group and talk. He was not the most outgoing and chatty type from what I remember. The fact that those on the private side completely disregard these type of actions as a problem is what led the public side to pursue other avenues. It is also why the private side's solution of adding more investigators would not solve anything IMO and why the public side looked to remedies such as Prop 2.

 

The situation I described took place at a cross-county rival, so reporting it would be up to those at that school.

Then if they feel illegal recruiting occurred they should report it PERIOD.

 

The public side hide behind the excuse that nothing can/will be done so why report it.

 

I still maintain that the last thing those on the public side want is better enforcement because they don't want the increased scrutiny, particularly at one of the district rivals of the thinly veiled private school described here.

The By-Law 10 case study is what I was referring to. I am not saying it was written clearly or that it makes sense, but it does, I believe, back up my contention that the situation I laid out would be a case of recruiting. Would parents in the situation I described know they were "recruiting" prospective athletes - I very seriously doubt it. As for the high profile coach-parent that spoke to them at a game, it is highly unlikely that he just happened to stop by this group and talk. He was not the most outgoing and chatty type from what I remember. The fact that those on the private side completely disregard these type of actions as a problem is what led the public side to pursue other avenues. It is also why the private side's solution of adding more investigators would not solve anything IMO and why the public side looked to remedies such as Prop 2.

 

The situation I described took place at a cross-county rival, so reporting it would be up to those at that school.

 

 

I totally disagree with your conclusion. If more people took the time to turn in reports of these types of incidents to the KHSAA and the KHSAA had more and better investigative resources, there would be better enforcement. Again, I may be naive, but I don't presuppose that people will lie, particularly the high profile person-coach that you refer to (and I may be stupid too, as I don't know whom you are referring to). And again, unless you observed it or were directly involved in the incident, I would caution you that if you heard it second hand, the chances are probably pretty good that what you heard happened may not actually have happened. As a lawyer, I know very well that what people hear happened, really did not happen in many, many cases. And I would throw out another caution, the public schools themselves do not have entirely clean hands when it comes to violating the KHSAA rules. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't start going around carelessly throwing stones.

 

 

Finally, and I should have stated this earlier, doesn't BGP have a rule that states we aren't to talk about or make allegations about illegal activity on here; rather it is to be reported to the KHSAA. I realize that you first disclosed the alleged violation to support your point that you don't think better investigative action would lead to better enforcement (which position I totally disagree with), but nonetheless, if you think there was a violation, then call the KHSAA and report. Otherwise you become a part of the problem. If it doesn't bother you enough to do that, then don't bother complaining about it on here.

There should be no case-specific allegations of recruiting on here.