Elmer Patrick has sued the KHSAA in Whitley County to obtain a waiver that will enable his son to be eligible this season after transferring from Williamsburg.http://www.thetimestribune.com/local/local_story_284090951.html

Eligible THIS season? Even if they win, they have waited to long.

Don't know anything about the situation, but if the injunction issues and you're Whitley County, do you:

 

A - play the kid to comply with the Judge's Order and risk forfeiting all games he played in if it eventually goes the other way?

B - not play the kid to avoid potential forfeits and risk having the parent sue you or a contempt hearing before the Judge?

 

 

Past KHSAA actions put the schools in an untenable position. KHSAA should change their rules/policy to state that there is no penalty to member schools for complying with a valid court order. To do otherwise is a tacit accusation by the KHSAA that the Kentucky courts are not to be trusted.

The KHSAA is in the four corners offense.

In other words the commisioner should have been held in contempt of court for her ruling against Highlands after they followed a court order.

The KHSAA cannot penalize a school for complying with a validly issued court injunction. They threaten it every time, but I have never seen them test the waters with it.

From the article this is interesting:

 

Elmer said his son’s waiver was first denied because Gary Peters, the athletic director at Williamsburg High School, wrote that Alex had switched schools for athletic purposes only.

 

============================

 

How do you prove the above statement/opinion?

 

The fact that the hearing officer ruled in the favor of the KHSAA means this is going to be a tough one for the player involved. Also, why does this stuff always stretch out so long? I would like to know the complete time frame on this one.

 

Finally, I would like to know how other states handle such appeals. Anyone?

The KHSAA cannot penalize a school for complying with a validly issued court injunction. They threaten it every time, but I have never seen them test the waters with it.

 

They did it to Highlands and in the end Highlands/Mitchell prevailed in court but it didn't matter because it was so long after the fact and because Highlands didn't want to rock the boat at that point.

I can't see the Patricks winning. I believe that they may still live, or at least own property in the Williamsburg school district.

Here is another link to the story.http://www.corbinnewsjournal.com

"The evidence presented to the hearing officer showed that the student did not have a permanent change of residence prior to the date of enrollment at the new school," Martin said.

 

"Under our rule, that is a requirement for it to be a bonafide change of residence. It has to be a permanent move by the student and his family prior to the date of enrollment.

 

"The evidence in this case was that it occurred after transfer. It wasn't by the entire family, and it wasn't permanent at that time."

 

Seems pretty clear if no bonafide change of residence was presented to the hearing officer.

I've heard many people in favor of making a player ineligible for a year on a transfer for any reason, after seeing cases like this that rule sounds better all the time then cases like this would never be an issue.

From the article this is interesting:

 

Elmer said his son’s waiver was first denied because Gary Peters, the athletic director at Williamsburg High School, wrote that Alex had switched schools for athletic purposes only.

 

============================

 

How do you prove the above statement/opinion?

 

The fact that the hearing officer ruled in the favor of the KHSAA means this is going to be a tough one for the player involved. Also, why does this stuff always stretch out so long? I would like to know the complete time frame on this one.

 

Finally, I would like to know how other states handle such appeals. Anyone?

 

I don't know how alot of states handle this, but in states I've coached you have clearly defined boundries for school attendance. The only way a transfer in these other states is allowed to play and not sit out a year is to move into a new school district and transfer at the time of move. Seldom have I experienced a move such as the one described and seen the child eligible to play.

The Case is Whitley Circuit Court (Williamsburg Division) Case No. 07-CI-00712, styled Christopher Alexander Allen Patrick v. Kentucky High School Athletic Association. Interestingly, it does not appear Mr. Patrick is represented by an attorney. The KHSAA is again paying Greenebaum Doll & McDonald and their lackey, Ted Martin, to represent them. Mr. Martin filed his Memorandum today. The KHSAA Hearing Officer's tape was also filed today.

 

The "its a little late" part is not Mr. Patrick's fault. To get to this point, Mr. Patrick would have been required to first exhaust his administrative remedies. That mean an initial determination by the Commissioner, which was probably in July or August, followed by a ruling by the Hearing Officer, perhaps in September, followed by an appellate review by the KHSAA Board of Control. The student then has a short period of time following the BOC ruling to appeal to the Local Circuit Court if he so chooses, and to ask for injunctive relief.

 

It is NOT a given that the Hearing Officer ruled against Mr. Patrick. The BOC often overrules their Hearing Officer (the person who took evidence and heard testimony). I did not read anything confirming what was stated earlier that the Hearing Officer ruled against Mr. Patrick. All we have is the BOC decision.

 

There are several red flags raised for me here:

 

1. The Williamsburg A.D. states "this is a KHSAA issue, not a Williamsburg issue." What a crock. He immediately has lost credibility by saying that. He also will not disclose what it is was said to him about so-called "sports-related transfer comment by the father." How in the heck do you prove that? If that is all that the KHSAA based their decision on, what level of proof do you have to have? Anybody could say that a comment was made and that essentially would be the end of it, whether true or not.

 

2. Mr. Patrick and his wife were divorcing. When you divorce, someone has to go. It is stated that he was building a house in the county. If the KHSAA is saying that the transfer doesn't "reasonably precipitate" the move because the house wasn't done or the divorce not final, then I think the court needs to rule against them and sanction them.

 

3. I would be interested in knowing who was awarded temporary custody of the child in the divorce proceedings. If its the father the KHSAA has problems.

 

4. The "I transferred for Spanish classes" routine is bogus and should never have been mentioned. It simply should have been "my wife and I are divorcing, I have temporary custody, I'm building a new house in the county, and the boy is transferring schools because that's where we're going to live."

 

My thoughts, not knowing any of the facts, in a nutshell.

Wasn't there a case, before the present rule, that a family made the claim that they were building a house but hadn't broke ground. Ground was never broken and after their senior year, the land was sold. Family never moved out of the original house.