In the column in the link below Wilson Sears is quoted as follows:

 

"It's never been an issue at the high school level - people have accepted the eligibility requirements," Sears said. "This is the same rule, just at a lower level."

 

http://www.cnhins.com/highschoolsports/cnhinshssports_story_151154355.html

 

 

This is misleading at best. The new GE04 makes a clear distinction between transfers of high schoolers and the same transfer scenerio for those changing school "feeder systems" between 8th and 9th grade.

 

Bylaw 6, section f was expressly changed in the new Prop 2 version to PREVENT middle schoolers from switching schools, while preserving the former transfer rule for those in grades 9 - 12.

 

If Mr. Wilson was correct in his statement Bylaw 6, section f would not need an update. Section f clearly shows that the new GE04 treats middle schoolers differently than those in grades 9 - 12.

How is it a compromise if it is pushed down the throats of one side of the argument?

 

Mr. Sears is delusional, plain and simple.

 

He says that this is no different then other transfers an that is either a lie or a simple minded response.

 

The current transfer rule only affect student athletes who have competed at the varsity level. Under current rules I can go to High School A, not play sports, then transfer to High School B for whatever reason and be eligible immediately. This idiocy immediately makes anyone who goes to a "non-feeder" school ineligible across the board.

 

If Mr. Sears doesn't see the difference then it is way past time for the people of Somerset to take a very close look at the person that is in charge of their children's education.

How is it a compromise if it is pushed down the throats of one side of the argument?

 

Mr. Sears is delusional, plain and simple.

 

He says that this is no different then other transfers an that is either a lie or a simple minded response.

 

The current transfer rule only affect student athletes who have competed at the varsity level. Under current rules I can go to High School A, not play sports, then transfer to High School B for whatever reason and be eligible immediately. This idiocy immediately makes anyone who goes to a "non-feeder" school ineligible across the board.

 

If Mr. Sears doesn't see the difference then it is way past time for the people of Somerset to take a very close look at the person that is in charge of their children's education.

 

And yet Mr. Sears was just named Superintendent of the Year by his peers. Ouch, I bet that hurt. Next argument........

 

PS: Here's a link

http://www.somerset-kentucky.com/local/local_story_202185426.html

And yet Mr. Sears was just named Superintendent of the Year by his peers. Ouch, I bet that hurt. Next argument........

 

PS: Here's a link

http://www.somerset-kentucky.com/local/local_story_202185426.html

 

 

Of course he was. :lol:

 

These are the same peers who supported Prop 20, Prop 2, and even a full Public/Private split!

 

Wilson Sears is their Poster Boy...the only guy (Besides MR. Jim Sexton) with the kohonas big enough to go "public" with their agenda.

 

Who's hurting? Not the private schools as institutions. Oh yeah! It's the kids, but they don't matter here do they?

And yet Mr. Sears was just named Superintendent of the Year by his peers. Ouch, I bet that hurt. Next argument........

 

PS: Here's a link

http://www.somerset-kentucky.com/local/local_story_202185426.html

There is no next argument, and no it didn't hurt a bit because it changes my opinion of him not one bit.

 

In this article Sears is either poorly informed or intentionally dishonest in order to try to make his point. That means he is either ignorant or a liar, either one make him a poor candidate to take charge of the education of children anywhere.

The Board wants a compromise, if none of proposals that have been proposed work out, what do you guys recommend?

Increased enforcement of current rules against recruiting.

The Board wants a compromise, if none of proposals that have been proposed work out, what do you guys recommend?

 

 

How about what Wilson Sears is leading people to believe in his quote in the originating post above. Apply the same Bylaw 6 AS IS to middle schoolers who play at the high school level. Many privates have voluntarily accepted this rule and support it. Quite simply, if you have played in MS for a high school team you have now 'declared'. I would refer to this as the 'Big Dog rule', if you run with the big dogs, you have to accept their rules. If you never played a sport at the high school level - let them participate, fully and without restriction.

 

Of course, this will not affect football or soccer since MSers can not play up in these sports anyway. But does anyone really believe that Prop 2 will have a material impact on Football inequities in this state?

 

Lets not deny children the chance to fully participate and contribute to teams, especially if they are in a new environment with new peers.

Isn't the coach or AD pretty much the only ones defined as the ones that cannot recruit? It doesn't say anything about the parents or boosters does it?

There is no next argument, and no it didn't hurt a bit because it changes my opinion of him not one bit.

 

In this article Sears is either poorly informed or intentionally dishonest in order to try to make his point. That means he is either ignorant or a liar, either one make him a poor candidate to take charge of the education of children anywhere.

 

Well stated. I would suggest that Sears is all that you mention and probably more.

Isn't the coach or AD pretty much the only ones defined as the ones that cannot recruit? It doesn't say anything about the parents or boosters does it?

 

Anyone who makes contact with a player and/or a players parents for the purpose of recruitment has become an agent of that school.

 

Bylaw 10. Recruitment

Sec. 1) Foreword

Pupils (both domestic and foreign) at any grade level shall

not be recruited to a member school of the KHSAA for the

purpose of participating in athletics, including recruitment

under the guise of academics.

Sec. 2) Definition

a) Recruiting is defined as an act, on behalf of or for

the benefit of, a school, which attempts to influence a

student to transfer to a member school for the purpose

of participating in athletics. Such also includes influencing

a student to remain at a school. A school official utilizing

an intermediary, such as, but not limited to a peer,

another school employee, a student, a parent or a

citizen, for the purpose of recruiting a student athlete

shall be in noncompliance.

b) An athletic coach or any other member of the school

staff shall not influence a student even if the student,

his/her parents or any intermediary from another school

makes the initial contact. In this situation, a coach or

BylawsBylaws

10 2006-2007 KHSAA HANDBOOK

staff member (paid or unpaid) should immediately refer

the person(s) to the school principal.

c) Influencing a student shall include, but shall not be

limited to the promise or instilling the expectation of

an athletic advantage, playing time, employment of the

student or his/her parents or relatives, housing for the

student or his/her parents, scholarships or financial

aid for which other members of the student body are

not generally eligible, or any other material or athletic

reward for which other members of the student body

are not generally eligible.

Sec. 3) Penalty

Any representative of a member school knowingly allowing

the recruitment of a student for the purpose of participating

in athletics or who should have known of such recruitment

shall be guilty of willful neglect of duty, misconduct, and/or

breach of contract. Such shall apply not only to coaches,

but also to personnel supervising coaches, such as, but

not limited to an athletic director, an assistant principal,

a principal, an assistant superintendent, a superintendent

or a school board member. This regulation shall also apply

to students or their parents.

(Case situations related to this bylaw appear on pages 19

Anyone who makes contact with a player and/or a players parents for the purpose of recruitment has become an agent of that school.

 

Sec. 2) Definition

a) Recruiting is defined as an act, on behalf of or for

the benefit of, a school, which attempts to influence a

student to transfer to a member school for the purpose

of participating in athletics. Such also includes influencing

a student to remain at a school. A school official utilizing

an intermediary, such as, but not limited to a peer,

another school employee, a student, a parent or a

citizen, for the purpose of recruiting a student athlete

shall be in noncompliance.

 

Here is where a lot of the angst of 'recrument' originates from.

 

 

 

I would argue based on merely the above wording, that parents are not, by default, agents of the school unless they specifically act as an intermediary to any formal representative of the school.

 

The entire first sentence leaves much to the imagination. It merely provides a KHSAA definition of the word "recuiting". This sentence does nothing else - it is merely a defining a word. The second sentence further defines "recuiting" to include trying to keep a student from transferring. Though not stated I will assume the additional definition of "for the purpose of participating in athletics" is still in play.

 

I have bolded the core part of sentence 3. The non-bolded part is merely narrative and not part of the subject of the sentence. The only party that is called out for noncompliance in the above sentence is the school official. I do not believe KHSAA defines "agents" of schools formally.

 

My objective reading of the actual wording indicates that pure parent to parent recruiting, regardless if the discussion involves athletics or not, is not an offense and parents are not 'agents of the school' unless they are in contact with school officials about their actions and/or discussions with supposed target recruits.

 

I realize that many, if not a majority, would interpret the words differently. But I believe I have captured their objective content and how it is viewed by many.

 

This wording and its interpretation are a major source of hard feelings. If the Board wants to fix something, at least update this wording to define things much better or more specific. If KHSAA thinks pure parent to parent discussion is recuiting, then say so. Be expliciet, not impliciet!

Here is where a lot of the angst of 'recrument' originates from.

 

I would argue based on merely the above wording, that parents are not, by default, agents of the school unless they specifically act as an intermediary to any formal representative of the school.

 

The entire first sentence leaves much to the imagination. It merely provides a KHSAA definition of the word "recuiting". This sentence does nothing else - it is merely a defining a word. The second sentence further defines "recuiting" to include trying to keep a student from transferring. Though not stated I will assume the additional definition of "for the purpose of participating in athletics" is still in play.

 

I have bolded the core part of sentence 3. The non-bolded part is merely narrative and not part of the subject of the sentence. The only party that is called out for noncompliance in the above sentence is the school official. I do not believe KHSAA defines "agents" of schools formally.

 

My objective reading of the actual wording indicates that pure parent to parent recruiting, regardless if the discussion involves athletics or not, is not an offense and parents are not 'agents of the school' unless they are in contact with school officials about their actions and/or discussions with supposed target recruits.

 

I realize that many, if not a majority, would interpret the words differently. But I believe I have captured their objective content and how it is viewed by many.

 

This wording and its interpretation are a major source of hard feelings. If the Board wants to fix something, at least update this wording to define things much better or more specific. If KHSAA thinks pure parent to parent discussion is recuiting, then say so. Be expliciet, not impliciet!

 

It really doesn't bother me either way. I was just supplying information to a person who had a question. But, for the sake of discussion, I think a person can be a intermediary without knowing they are, or either party knowing that they are mediating between knowing they are. Another words, I don't think it has to be two or more parties working in concert.

 

For example: Coach A says to a parent, "I would love to have school B's QB". The parents attends a community event and sees school B's QB's parents and says, "I would love to see your son attend our school, he would fit in well and he has many friends at our school, and I know we need a QB". QB B's parents transfer their son to Coach A's school. Is this a recruiting violation? I believe it is. The parent clearly mediated between the coach and the recruit, by transferring information. Could it have possibly been an innocent incident? Sure it could have.

 

Now I have heard many people say that if you only talk about the academic benefits of their school, then the are not recruiting. Because the bylaw says,"for the purpose of athletics". So in the above scenario if the parent says,"I would love to see your son come to our school, for the sake of his education". I would say no recruiting violation occurred. They did not transfer information from one party to another. And no discussion of athletics occurred.

 

Now matter how we brake the letter of the bylaw down, I believe the spirit of the bylaw is that no player is to be contacted by anyone from anther school for the purpose of having that student/athlete to change school to play sports.

 

Simple fact though: can you prove anything in either of the above incidents? No. I doubt any of the parties are going to know the entire story, or testify in a negative light. The coach did nothing wrong. The parent didn't know they did anything wrong. The parents of the QB did nothing wrong, and the school that the QB transferred from knows nothing about the incident. School A is happy, Coach A is happy, the parent is happy, and the parents of the QB and the QB are apparently happy. No evidence is available.

Increased enforcement of current rules against recruiting.

Again, the current rules says that if my child and your child are on the same AAU team and you talk to me about attending a private or a public school, that is recruiting. That is the MAIN form of recruiting.

 

How are you going to enforce that not occurring??????

Again, the current rules says that if my child and your child are on the same AAU team and you talk to me about attending a private or a public school, that is recruiting.

 

Referencing my post above, I will repeat, where does the rule say that? Explicietly it does not. Impliciently, it may.

 

I respect LBBs and RAMs interpretation of the rule. And certainly agree with the general spirit of it. But we all read the same words and draw different conclusions as their intent and meaning. This is one of the reasons there are constant whispers of 'recruitment' related to pure parent to parent discussion.

 

The problem is the clarity, or lack there of, of the rule.