I thought you were sitting this one out? :lol:

 

How much do you post when you're really into it.

 

Well done. :thumb:

 

I'm avoiding (or at least trying to avoid) discussions that are specific to Mitchell. I'm trying to limit my comments to general matters involving how the KHSAA works (or at least as I understand how the KHSAA works) and the interplay between the KHSAA and the General Assembly.

I believe he was replying to the part of your post that said that all members, by joining the KHSAA, agree to abide and be bound by the decisions of the KHSAA. I understand your point and there is language to that affect I believe on the membership application, which is probably why you have that understanding.

 

The problem is that, while the application may contain such language, the due process procedure of the KHSAA specifically allows for appeals of their decisions to the judiciary. So there is some inconsistency of the two positions. On one doc it says members will be bound by the KHSAA decisions. In another doc it say members can appeal the KHSAA decisions to the judiciary.

 

Personally, I think it ludicrous for the KHSAA to attempt to require schools to be bound by the decisions of the KHSAA. Again, the KHSAA is not some private club the schools truly voluntarily elect to join, with there being plenty of other options out there for the schools to join. I know that some people believe that the KHSAA is a voluntary association. But if a school wants to participate in official state sanctioned Ky high school athletics, a school has only one choice: join the KHSAA. It's like telling me that joining the Kentucky Bar Association is voluntary. I have to join the Ky Bar Association if I want to be admitted to and practice law in Ky. One could argue that it's voluntary because if I don't want to join I don't have to join. But if I don't join, then I can't practice law in Ky. Not really voluntary as I think of the word. It's the only game in town and if I want to play in the game, I have to join.

 

Furthermore the KHSAA, as an agent of the state, cannot legally require its members to waive their right to appeal to the judiciary. Believe it or not, at one point in time, not too long ago, the KHSAA tried to put language on its membership application that forced members to waive their state and federal constitutional rights as to eligibility decisions of the KHSAA! It blew my mind when I heard about that and I remember thinking to myself: just who does the KHSAA think they are? Fortunately the folks at the State Board and the LRC told the KHSAA to remove that language, although IMO the language wouldn 't have been enforceable any way.

 

You and others may not think this way, but the KHSAA is like every other state agency (K-OSHA, the Ky Office of Employment, Ky ABC, etc) in that their final administrative decisions are appealable to the judiciary, regardless of what language may be on membership applications, forms, etc. You may think the KHSAA is different, but that is false. I'm sure that some people at the KHSAA and maybe a majority of the schools would prefer that the KHSAA decisions would not be appealable to the judiciary, but it's not a matter of what they want. It's a matter of what the law requires. If you disagree on that point, I direct your attention to KRS 13B.140. Here is the link: http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/KRS/013B00/140.PDF.

 

Whitley County may have elected to not play the student even though the student got a temporary injunction of eligibilty. That was their choice I guess. Other schools may feel that to so decide is just a back door approach to undermine the statutory and constitutional rights of students to exercise their Chapter 13B rights and thus not elect to not play the kid on the principle of the matter.

 

As I have oft stated, I as an attorney find it bewildering that the educators involved with the KHSAA would even think of having themselves and other schools act in a manner that violates the Ky statutes and constitution. Perhaps some think I'm being polly annish, but I thought educators were supposed to teach and practice compliance with the law and the powers of the judicial branch.

 

I've heard it said that the KHSAA is opposed to allowing schools to appeal their decisions to the judiciary because it increases costs to the KHSAA (and ultimately the schools), takes time to handle the lawsuits, etc. There is no doubt that they are probably correct in those assertions. But those are not valid grounds for ignoring what our statutes and constitution state and require. A business can't choose to ignore a ruling of the court just because it will cause some costs to the business or make the business do additional things. You can't ignore an order of the court telling you to tear down a building that violated a zoning ordinance just because it will cost you money and time to tear down building. Putting the shoe on the other foot (and in an analogy more appropriate for the KHSAA's effort to force schools to abide by their final decision and not appeal it to the judiciary) , the city or county that you live in can't require you to waive your right to appeal a final decision of its Board of Adjustment to the judiciary (as a condition to you living in the city or county) just because your appeal may cost the city or county funds to handle your appeal.

 

I hope you consider my post with an open mind and I am not trying to be offensive. I know it's difficult for a lot of people (particularly school officials) to accept because school officials for a long, long time have felt that the KHSAA is some type of voluntary, private club that is free to do whatever a majority of the schools want it to do. Unfortunately, they have been mistaken for a long, long time.

 

I'd have to say that I agree with Leatherneck here. I think the KHSAA opens up to a pretty big can of worms by stating that their members can appeal their rulings to the judiciary. Also, LN is completely correct that the KHSAA isn't exactly a "voluntary" association. If a high school (or high school athlete) wants to compete in high school football, for all intents and purposes, their only option is to be a member of the KHSAA.

 

The fact is, this isn't the NFL - there isn't a commissioner whose rulings are the end-all-be-all. The KHSAA rulings can be appealed, their ruling was appealed in this situation, and their ruling was overturned. I think what the Mitchell's and coach Mueller did was "legal" within the letter of the law.

 

Yet, I will still say that all of the dealings were shady, to say the least, and borderline unethical. The Highlands community often chalks up their generalized dislike by the majority of the remaining Kentucky high school sports communities to the fact that they are a perennial sports power, and this is true. However, I might suggest that perhaps some of that dislike also stems from incidents like these. Regardless of the "legalities" involved, pretty much everyone can see what the situation was here. They have been able to prove to this point that everything was in fact "legal", so perhaps "unsportsmanlike" would be a good word to describe the outcome of their actions.

Here's a question: if a court ruled that Mitchell's eligibility was intact (and it's my understanding that the last word on this situation given by a court was that MM's eligibility was intact) and the KHSAA refuses to remove sanctions on Highlands because they believe MM was ineligible, could the KHSAA be held in contempt of court?

 

Also, I get the sense that some BGP'ers think this issue just "popped" back up recently, but I believe there has been a group in Fort Thomas pushing/pursuing this matter for quite some time (perhaps since 2005).

Well done. :thumb:

 

I'm avoiding (or at least trying to avoid) discussions that are specific to Mitchell. I'm trying to limit my comments to general matters involving how the KHSAA works (or at least as I understand how the KHSAA works) and the interplay between the KHSAA and the General Assembly.

 

Oh, ok. Say, generally speaking, a kid named Mitch Michael wanted to play for the Sparrows because he wasn't happy playing for the Generals. And say Mitch was declared ineligible by the KHSAA, then got an order from his local elected judge (where the KHSAA usually loses anyway) saying he could play, which was later overturned on appeal say, just for drama, on the night of a big playoff game that Mitch played in, and -- hang with me for a minute more -- then the KHSAA spanked the Sparrows for abiding by the court order and letting Mitch play, despite the fact that the KHSAA -- if asked nicely -- would now say that it wouldn't smack teams for abiding by a court order.

 

How would the KHSAA handle that general problem?

I'd have to say that I agree with Leatherneck here. I think the KHSAA opens up to a pretty big can of worms by stating that their members can appeal their rulings to the judiciary. Also, LN is completely correct that the KHSAA isn't exactly a "voluntary" association. If a high school (or high school athlete) wants to compete in high school football, for all intents and purposes, their only option is to be a member of the KHSAA.

 

The fact is, this isn't the NFL - there isn't a commissioner whose rulings are the end-all-be-all. The KHSAA rulings can be appealed, their ruling was appealed in this situation, and their ruling was overturned. I think what the Mitchell's and coach Mueller did was "legal" within the letter of the law.

 

Yet, I will still say that all of the dealings were shady, to say the least, and borderline unethical. The Highlands community often chalks up their generalized dislike by the majority of the remaining Kentucky high school sports communities to the fact that they are a perennial sports power, and this is true. However, I might suggest that perhaps some of that dislike also stems from incidents like these. Regardless of the "legalities" involved, pretty much everyone can see what the situation was here. They have been able to prove to this point that everything was in fact "legal", so perhaps "unsportsmanlike" would be a good word to describe the outcome of their actions.

 

How so, by accepting a person who wanted to play for them and was ruled eligible? Does that just apply to HHS or to ALL schools?

 

Jus sayin, don't go throwing stones.

How so, by accepting a person who wanted to play for them and was ruled eligible? Does that just apply to HHS or to ALL schools?

 

Jus sayin, don't go throwing stones.

 

I'm not throwing stones. I'd say the same thing of any school using these practices.

Oh, ok. Say, generally speaking, a kid named Mitch Michael wanted to play for the Sparrows because he wasn't happy playing for the Generals. And say Mitch was declared ineligible by the KHSAA, then got an order from his local elected judge (where the KHSAA usually loses anyway) saying he could play, which was later overturned on appeal say, just for drama, on the night of a big playoff game that Mitch played in, and -- hang with me for a minute more -- then the KHSAA spanked the Sparrows for abiding by the court order and letting Mitch play, despite the fact that the KHSAA -- if asked nicely -- would now say that it wouldn't smack teams for abiding by a court order.

 

How would the KHSAA handle that general problem?

 

Huh?

I'd have to say that I agree with Leatherneck here. I think the KHSAA opens up to a pretty big can of worms by stating that their members can appeal their rulings to the judiciary. Also, LN is completely correct that the KHSAA isn't exactly a "voluntary" association. If a high school (or high school athlete) wants to compete in high school football, for all intents and purposes, their only option is to be a member of the KHSAA.

 

The fact is, this isn't the NFL - there isn't a commissioner whose rulings are the end-all-be-all. The KHSAA rulings can be appealed, their ruling was appealed in this situation, and their ruling was overturned. I think what the Mitchell's and coach Mueller did was "legal" within the letter of the law.

 

Yet, I will still say that all of the dealings were shady, to say the least, and borderline unethical. The Highlands community often chalks up their generalized dislike by the majority of the remaining Kentucky high school sports communities to the fact that they are a perennial sports power, and this is true. However, I might suggest that perhaps some of that dislike also stems from incidents like these. Regardless of the "legalities" involved, pretty much everyone can see what the situation was here. They have been able to prove to this point that everything was in fact "legal", so perhaps "unsportsmanlike" would be a good word to describe the outcome of their actions.

 

 

I agree the KHSAA is not above the judicial system.

 

I understand that when people do play by the rules happenings can be unethical. An example of that is when the winning teams calls timeouts at the end of the game when the score is not in doubt to rub it in.

 

However, the case with Mike Mitchell was ethical. He wanted to come to Highlands and his parents moved to Fort Thomas with a bona fide address. He was not recruited in any way and I can assure you that. People want to come to Highlands for various reasons. He was ruled eligible by the courts and was not able to play in 2 games of football and was not able to run track for a whole season because the KHSAA had a made a false ruling against Mike. There was nothing that he did wrong, and if there was anything that he or Highlands did wrong it would have been brought up in the court of law.

 

The only unethical thing is that people make false judgements about schools or people. Calling something unsportsmanlike because he or the school has done nothing wrong is a false judgement.

I agree the KHSAA is not above the judicial system.

 

I understand that when people do play by the rules happenings can be unethical. An example of that is when the winning teams calls timeouts at the end of the game when the score is not in doubt to rub it in.

 

However, the case with Mike Mitchell was ethical. He wanted to come to Highlands and his parents moved to Fort Thomas with a bona fide address. He was not recruited in any way and I can assure you that. People want to come to Highlands for various reasons. He was ruled eligible by the courts and was not able to play in 2 games of football and was not able to run track for a whole season because the KHSAA had a made a false ruling against Mike. There was nothing that he did wrong, and if there was anything that he or Highlands did wrong it would have been brought up in the court of law.

 

The only unethical thing is that people make false judgements about schools or people. Calling something unsportsmanlike because he or the school has done nothing wrong is a false judgement.

 

Mike made no bones about his reasoning for wanting to go to Highlands when talking to several of his former Cov Cath teammates way back when. And as far as bona fide address is concerned...well...I think maybe the KHSAA's definition of "bona fide address" was lacking. And for the record, not once did I say they did anything "wrong". My whole point was that they didn't do anything "wrong". My point was intended to be a little more about character than right or wrong.

 

Also, for the record, you started off by saying that "winning teams calls timeouts at the end of the game when the score is not in doubt" is unethical. This would be "unsportsmanlike", although they've done nothing "wrong", correct? You seem to have somewhat contradicted yourself, or at least muddled your argument by later saying, "calling something unsportsmanlike because he or the school has done nothing wrong is a false judgment".

Mike made no bones about his reasoning for wanting to go to Highlands when talking to several of his former Cov Cath teammates way back when. And as far as bona fide address is concerned...well...I think maybe the KHSAA's definition of "bona fide address" was lacking. And for the record, not once did I say they did anything "wrong". My whole point was that they didn't do anything "wrong". My point was intended to be a little more about character than right or wrong.

 

Also, for the record, you started off by saying that "winning teams calls timeouts at the end of the game when the score is not in doubt" is unethical. This would be "unsportsmanlike", although they've done nothing "wrong", correct? You seem to have somewhat contradicted yourself, or at least muddled your argument by later saying, "calling something unsportsmanlike because he or the school has done nothing wrong is a false judgment".

 

I made my point of knowing that people can do unsportsmanlike things while staying within the rules. In this case Mike or Highlands did nothing to be unsportsmanlike. I can reword that to make more sense, It is unsportsmanlike to accuse someone of doing something wrong if they in fact have not done anything wrong. Niether Highlands or Mike Mitchell have done anything unsportsmanlike. If you think they did then specifically state what was unsportsmanlike please:D

I believe he was replying to the part of your post that said that all members, by joining the KHSAA, agree to abide and be bound by the decisions of the KHSAA. I understand your point and there is language to that affect I believe on the membership application, which is probably why you have that understanding.

 

The problem is that, while the application may contain such language, the due process procedure of the KHSAA specifically allows for appeals of their decisions to the judiciary. So there is some inconsistency of the two positions. On one doc it says members will be bound by the KHSAA decisions. In another doc it say members can appeal the KHSAA decisions to the judiciary.

 

Personally, I think it ludicrous for the KHSAA to attempt to require schools to be bound by the decisions of the KHSAA. Again, the KHSAA is not some private club the schools truly voluntarily elect to join, with there being plenty of other options out there for the schools to join. I know that some people believe that the KHSAA is a voluntary association. But if a school wants to participate in official state sanctioned Ky high school athletics, a school has only one choice: join the KHSAA. It's like telling me that joining the Kentucky Bar Association is voluntary. I have to join the Ky Bar Association if I want to be admitted to and practice law in Ky. One could argue that it's voluntary because if I don't want to join I don't have to join. But if I don't join, then I can't practice law in Ky. Not really voluntary as I think of the word. It's the only game in town and if I want to play in the game, I have to join.

 

Furthermore the KHSAA, as an agent of the state, cannot legally require its members to waive their right to appeal to the judiciary. Believe it or not, at one point in time, not too long ago, the KHSAA tried to put language on its membership application that forced members to waive their state and federal constitutional rights as to eligibility decisions of the KHSAA! It blew my mind when I heard about that and I remember thinking to myself: just who does the KHSAA think they are? Fortunately the folks at the State Board and the LRC told the KHSAA to remove that language, although IMO the language wouldn 't have been enforceable any way.

 

You and others may not think this way, but the KHSAA is like every other state agency (K-OSHA, the Ky Office of Employment, Ky ABC, etc) in that their final administrative decisions are appealable to the judiciary, regardless of what language may be on membership applications, forms, etc. You may think the KHSAA is different, but that is false. I'm sure that some people at the KHSAA and maybe a majority of the schools would prefer that the KHSAA decisions would not be appealable to the judiciary, but it's not a matter of what they want. It's a matter of what the law requires. If you disagree on that point, I direct your attention to KRS 13B.140. Here is the link: http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/KRS/013B00/140.PDF.

 

Whitley County may have elected to not play the student even though the student got a temporary injunction of eligibilty. That was their choice I guess. Other schools may feel that to so decide is just a back door approach to undermine the statutory and constitutional rights of students to exercise their Chapter 13B rights and thus not elect to not play the kid on the principle of the matter.

 

As I have oft stated, I as an attorney find it bewildering that the educators involved with the KHSAA would even think of having themselves and other schools act in a manner that violates the Ky statutes and constitution. Perhaps some think I'm being polly annish, but I thought educators were supposed to teach and practice compliance with the law and the powers of the judicial branch.

 

I've heard it said that the KHSAA is opposed to allowing schools to appeal their decisions to the judiciary because it increases costs to the KHSAA (and ultimately the schools), takes time to handle the lawsuits, etc. There is no doubt that they are probably correct in those assertions. But those are not valid grounds for ignoring what our statutes and constitution state and require. A business can't choose to ignore a ruling of the court just because it will cause some costs to the business or make the business do additional things. You can't ignore an order of the court telling you to tear down a building that violated a zoning ordinance just because it will cost you money and time to tear down building. Putting the shoe on the other foot (and in an analogy more appropriate for the KHSAA's effort to force schools to abide by their final decision and not appeal it to the judiciary) , the city or county that you live in can't require you to waive your right to appeal a final decision of its Board of Adjustment to the judiciary (as a condition to you living in the city or county) just because your appeal may cost the city or county funds to handle your appeal.

 

I hope you consider my post with an open mind and I am not trying to be offensive. I know it's difficult for a lot of people (particularly school officials) to accept because school officials for a long, long time have felt that the KHSAA is some type of voluntary, private club that is free to do whatever a majority of the schools want it to do. Unfortunately, they have been mistaken for a long, long time.

 

:thumb:

 

As to the bolded, just for the record, some of us do...and some of us actually believe it.

Mike made no bones about his reasoning for wanting to go to Highlands when talking to several of his former Cov Cath teammates way back when. And as far as bona fide address is concerned...well...I think maybe the KHSAA's definition of "bona fide address" was lacking. And for the record, not once did I say they did anything "wrong". My whole point was that they didn't do anything "wrong". My point was intended to be a little more about character than right or wrong.

 

Also, for the record, you started off by saying that "winning teams calls timeouts at the end of the game when the score is not in doubt" is unethical. This would be "unsportsmanlike", although they've done nothing "wrong", correct? You seem to have somewhat contradicted yourself, or at least muddled your argument by later saying, "calling something unsportsmanlike because he or the school has done nothing wrong is a false judgment".

 

Here's another problem with this whole discussion: what "Mike" did and what HHS did are separate and should be judged separately. Regardless of Mitchell and his parents' reasons, HHS followed the law. When the courts said that the kid could play, they played him. When they said that he couldn't, they didn't play him. They cannot (and should not) make the decision on his eligibility. They should (and did) follow the law. How anyone can say that this makes them unsportsmanlike (or any other variation of it) is beyond me.

I made my point of knowing that people can do unsportsmanlike things while staying within the rules. In this case Mike or Highlands did nothing to be unsportsmanlike. I can reword that to make more sense, It is unsportsmanlike to accuse someone of doing something wrong if they in fact have not done anything wrong. Niether Highlands or Mike Mitchell have done anything unsportsmanlike. If you think they did then specifically state what was unsportsmanlike please:D

 

Okay...

 

Call me old-fashioned, but I think it's pretty unsportsmanlike to ditch a team for the sake of 'greener pastures', and I think it's unsportsmanlike to enable an individual to ditch their team and then reap the benefits of them doing so.

Here's another problem with this whole discussion: what "Mike" did and what HHS did are separate and should be judged separately. Regardless of Mitchell and his parents' reasons, HHS followed the law. When the courts said that the kid could play, they played him. When they said that he couldn't, they didn't play him. They cannot (and should not) make the decision on his eligibility. They should (and did) follow the law. How anyone can say that this makes them unsportsmanlike (or any other variation of it) is beyond me.

 

I'm not alleging that any of those involved didn't follow the law. However, I think someone can easily be unsportsmanlike without breaking any laws. For example, is it illegal to run up a score? No. Is it unsportsmanlike? Yes.

Okay...

 

Call me old-fashioned, but I think it's pretty unsportsmanlike to ditch a team for the sake of 'greener pastures', and I think it's unsportsmanlike to enable an individual to ditch their team and then reap the benefits of them doing so.

 

I like that "Greener Pastures" ... Thats fine if you don't think anyone can transfer ever, even if it is what is best for the kid and what his parents thought was best for him. Especially someone who is now making more money than, probably, anyone that posts on here because of going to the greener pasture. Thats your opinion and thats fine if you believe that.