The product of the Senate Special Committee on Interscholastic Athletics’ (Special Committee) nine month investigation into the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Agency (PIAA) is a body of well-documented, factual, and objective recommendations for change at the PIAA.

These recommendations are based on facts contained in nine hundred (900) pages of transcripts from seven public hearings. They are based on information included in eight thousand three hundred and thirty-eight (8,338) documents collected from the PIAA. They are based on findings of fact compiled by an independent auditing firm acting under the Special Committee’s direction. And they are based on seventy-nine (79) specific recommendations for change proposed by the Special Committee’s eight advisory committees. In short, the Special Committee’s recommendations reflect facts, findings and suggestions made by Pennsylvanians who care about interscholastic athletics in the Commonwealth.

Just as important, these recommendations represent a consensus among Republican and Democrat members of the Special Committee. Throughout the Special Committee’s inquiry, members have worked together in a spirit of non-partisan cooperation in order to fulfill their common objective: to make interscholastic athletics in Pennsylvania the very best that they can be.

This section of the Special Committee’s Report provides a narrative to illustrate how the Special Committee arrived at its recommendations. It details the following.

1. The Authorization of the Special Committee.
2. The Starting Point for the Special Committee’s Inquiry.
3. The Fact-Finding Process used to Collect Information.
4. The Conclusions Drawn from the Special Committee’s Factual Record.
5. The Recommendations Proposed By the Special Committee.

This narrative will serve to place the Special Committee’s recommendations in context with the work it has done to gather a body of objective facts, findings, and recommendations from a great number of Pennsylvanians.

The Senate Special Committee on Interscholastic Athletics was formed by the Senate’s unanimous adoption of Senate Resolution 127 on February 10, 1998. Senate Resolution 127 authorized the Senate to create a special committee of limited duration that would conduct a thorough investigation of interscholastic athletics in Pennsylvania and issue a report on its findings by November 30. Senate Resolution 127 established the following objective for the Special Committee:

Members of the Senate took the extraordinary action of forming the Special Committee in response to a growing public discontent with the operation of interscholastic athletics in Pennsylvania and with the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association (PIAA). In November and December 1997, a flurry of news reports distilled this discontent into a number of specific issues. Parents questioned student athlete eligibility decisions made by the PIAA. PIAA member schools questioned the existence of a significant fund balance at the PIAA and its constituent districts. Commentators and legislators questioned the lack of public input into PIAA decisions.

Although many questions existed, there were precious few answers. And, as members of the Senate soon discovered, there was no mechanism in place for Pennsylvanians to get answers. Members confronted the fact that the PIAA was a non-profit organization without state oversight. Members confronted the fact that the PIAA was unaccountable to the General Assembly even though its authorities and its budget revenues are derived from the Commonwealth’s public schools and from admission charges at interscholastic athletic contests. Members confronted the fact that the PIAA, as represented by its governing instruments, seemed to owe no duty to the Pennsylvanians who support their local schools at district and interdistrict athletic competitions.

The existence of these questions and the inability to find clear answers convinced members of the Senate that there was sufficient justification to warrant a detailed, objective investigation of interscholastic athletics in Pennsylvania. Considering the lack of state oversight and the absence of recourse for dissatisfied Pennsylvanians, members determined that the Senate must proceed with an inquiry into the PIAA. Members decided that such an inquiry was the only way to find answers to the questions that existed.

In authorizing the Special Committee and its inquiry, members were aware of the fact that government review of the PIAA was not unprecedented. In 1988, the Senate adopted a resolution directing a subcommittee of the Senate Education Committee to review the PIAA and make recommendations for positive change. In 1994, the Senate Education Committee held a public hearing on the relationship of the PIAA to its member schools. And, shortly after the adoption of Senate Resolution 127, the House Education Committee held a public hearing in which it called members of the PIAA Board of Control as witnesses. Moreover, in 1974 the General Assembly enacted legislation directing the PIAA to admit non-public schools as members. (24 P.S. 5-511(b.1))

However, in adopting Senate Resolution 127, the Senate did not intend the Special Committee to become another entry on a list of PIAA investigations. Rather, the Senate intended a comprehensive, objective and factual analysis of the PIAA. The Senate intended that the Special Committee inquire into all facets of the PIAA and make comprehensive recommendations for change – recommendations that would guide the PIAA.

When the Special Committee began its work, members were conscious of the fact that most of the authority to oversee interscholastic athletics in Pennsylvania was vested in a non-profit organization: the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association (PIAA). To gain an initial understanding of the PIAA, Special Committee members and staff closely studied the PIAA’s history, governing instruments, and overall composition. As the inquiry progressed, Special Committee members quickly observed that:

1. The PIAA Exercises Far-Reaching Authorities. The PIAA, through its governing instruments and its agents in the PIAA Board of Control, governs virtually every aspect of interscholastic athletics in Pennsylvania.
2. PIAA Member Schools Had Relinquished Authority to the PIAA. By becoming PIAA dues paying members, Pennsylvania schools had given a non-profit organization authority to establish classifications and schedules, coordinate interdistrict contests, make decisions on rules violations and interpretations, and select championship sites.
3. State Government Had Virtually No Oversight Over PIAA Operations. Very few institutional mechanisms existed to provide information to the Department of Education or the General Assembly and no institutional mechanisms existed to provide the Department of Education or the General Assembly with direct input into PIAA decisions.

Considering these observations, members quickly expressed concern that the PIAA holds a tremendous amount of decision-making authority on organizational issues that result in the direction of member schools’ financial resources. With regard to public school members of the PIAA (approximately ninety per cent of PIAA member schools), these resources represent taxes paid by residents of public school districts. Members also expressed concern that the PIAA holds wide-ranging authorities in the determination of athletic eligibility and athletic intent. The outcome of these questions can have a profound affect on the education of those student athletes. In addition, the Constitution of Pennsylvania requires the General Assembly to provide for the maintenance and support of public education in Pennsylvania. (Constitution of Pennsylvania, Art. III, sec. 14)

The PIAA was formed in 1913 as an independent, non-profit corporation organized on a membership basis by a group of high school principals who desired to establish uniform rules, policies, and regulations for interscholastic athletics. (PIAA Annual Report, 1998, p. 2) The current membership of the PIAA consists of approximately 1,300 schools, divided almost equally between senior high school and junior high/middle schools. Of that number, approximately 130 are private schools. Approximately 250,000 students participate in interscholastic athletics under PIAA jurisdiction each year. (PIAA Annual Report, 1998, p. 3)

Member schools must abide by the PIAA’s constitution and by-laws, which are its primary governing instruments. (PIAA Annual Report, 1998, p. 4) The five-page constitution may only be amended by a vote of two-thirds of the schools voting or by a majority of the total PIAA membership. (PIAA Constitution, Art. X, sec. 1) The twenty-one page by-laws may be amended by a vote of twelve of the PIAA Board of Control’s eighteen members. (PIAA Annual Report, 1998, p. 4) These governing instruments establish responsibilities for the PIAA’s three levels of governance:

1. PIAA Board of Control,
2. PIAA District Committees, and
3. PIAA member school building principals.

The PIAA Board of Control is the PIAA’s central decision-making body and is responsible for the executive and administrative decisions of the PIAA. (PIAA Constitution, Art. VI, sec. 1) There are currently twenty-two members of the Board of Control, eighteen voting members and four advisory, non-voting members. Membership on the Board of Control is governed by Article VI of the PIAA Constitution. Members include:

1. Thirteen Voting Representatives of Each of the Eleven District Committees. Each of the eleven districts has one member of the Board of Control for each seventy-five member schools. (PIAA Constitution, Art. VI, sec.2(a)) Currently, two of the eleven districts have two representatives on the Board of Control: District III and District VII. (PIAA Handbook, 1998-1999, page xvii)
2. Five Voting Representatives of Identified Constituencies. Five constituencies each have one voting member of the Board of Control. These include:

1. Junior High/Middle Schools. (PIAA Constitution, Art. VI., sec. 2(b))
2. Pennsylvania School Boards Association. (PIAA Constitution, Art. VI., sec. 2(c))
3. Game Officials. (PIAA Constitution, Art. VI., sec. 2(e))
4. Pennsylvania State Athletic Directors Association. (PIAA Constitution, Art. VI., sec. 2(f))
5. Pennsylvania Association of Secondary School Principals. (PIAA Constitution, Art. VI., sec. 2(h))

1. Four Non-Voting Representatives of Identified Constituencies. Four constituencies each have one non-voting advisory member on the Board of Control.

1. Representative of the Pennsylvania Department of Education. (PIAA Constitution, Art. VI., sec. 2(d))
2. Girls Athletic Steering Committee. (PIAA Constitution, Art. VI., sec. 2(g))
3. Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators. (PIAA Constitution, Art. VI., sec. 2(i))
4. Private Schools Steering Committee. (PIAA Constitution, Art. VI., sec. 2(j))

The PIAA divides Pennsylvania into eleven geographic districts (PIAA Constitution, Art. V, sec. 1) and requires that each of these districts be governed by a district committee. (PIAA Constitution, Art. VIII) The composition of district committees is at the discretion of the district committee members so long as district committees contain at least one voting representative of junior high/middle schools, school boards, and game officials and at least one non-voting representative of athletic directors and girls athletic programs. (PIAA Constitution, Art. VIII, sec. 1) The authorities of the district committees with respect to the PIAA member schools in their districts are roughly equivalent to the PIAA Board of Control’s authorities at the state level.

The PIAA requires that member school principals are responsible to the PIAA for all matters pertaining to the interscholastic relations of their schools. (PIAA Constitution, Art. IX, sec. 1) Among a principal’s responsibilities is the duty to report any "seemingly authentic information" about the eligibility of athletes to officials of member schools. (PIAA By-Laws, Ethics Pertaining to High School Athletics, sec. 5(c))

As members of the PIAA, Pennsylvania schools relinquish certain authorities to the PIAA in order to conform to the requirements of the PIAA constitution and by-laws and in order to comply with decisions of the PIAA Board of Control and District Committees. By completion of an application for school membership form, an aspiring PIAA member school agrees to "be governed by the Constitution and By-Laws of the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association." (PIAA Constitution, Art. III, sec. 2 and PIAA Handbook, p. 26) According to the PIAA constitution, the authorities of the PIAA Board of Control include but are not limited to:

1. General Control of Interscholastic Relations and Contests. Member schools agree to allow the PIAA to exercise general control over all interscholastic athletic contests and relations. (PIAA Constitution, Art. VII, sec. 1(a))
2. Interpretation of PIAA Constitution and By-Laws. Member schools agree to allow the PIAA to interpret the PIAA constitution and by-laws. (PIAA Constitution, Art. VII, sec. 1(b))
3. Administration of PIAA Finances. Member schools agree to allow the PIAA to administer the association’s finances. (PIAA Constitution, Art. VII, sec. 1(e)) Approximately eighty-seven per cent (87%) of PIAA finances are derived from championship game revenues, member school dues and penalties and officials dues and penalties. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 8)
4. Adjudication of Disputes Between Member Schools and Appeals. Member schools agree to allow the PIAA to adjudicate disputes between member schools and render decisions on eligibility and athletic intent decisions that are appealed from district committees. (PIAA Constitution, Art. VII, sec. 1(g))
5. General Control of Championship Level Games. Member schools agree to allow the PIAA to have general control of the conduct of championship level games. (PIAA Constitution, Art. VII, sec. 1(i))
6. Implementation of Restitution Rule. Member schools agree to allow the PIAA to enforce the restitution rule, which provides that members that file legal contests to PIAA decisions must reimburse the PIAA for the cost of the PIAA’s legal defense. (PIAA Constitution, Art. VII, sec. 1(k))

As a non-profit corporation, the PIAA has no official oversight by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The only official mechanisms by which the PIAA provides the Commonwealth with information on its operations are:

1. Newsletter. Publication of its newsletter, which is published six times a year and distributed to PIAA member schools, PIAA Board of Control members, and members of the General Assembly. The newsletter provides summaries of PIAA recommendations for rules changes and notification of certain PIAA activities.
2. Annual Report. Publication of an annual report, which has been delivered to the Senate and House Education Committees each year since 1990. The annual reports were begun at the recommendation of the Senate Education Committee in 1988. They provide brief summary information on the PIAA’s activities over the past year.
3. Department of Education Staff as Non-Voting Board Member. Membership of a Department of Education staff member on the PIAA Board of Control. The PIAA Board of Control includes one non-voting, advisory member who is a staff member at the Pennsylvania Department of Education.

Considering these facts, the Special Committee concluded that a further, detailed analysis was necessary to determine whether the PIAA’s system of far-reaching authorities, the requirement that member schools relinquish significant authorities to the PIAA, and the lack of state oversight represented attributes of an organization that acts in the public interest. The Special Committee established a structure through which it could gather objective, factual information about the PIAA.

To continue its inquiry, the Special Committee determined to compose a detailed factual record from which it could draw information necessary to produce substantive, objective and constructive recommendations for change at the PIAA. The components of this investigation included the following. (See section 2 of the Special Committee’s Report for a complete chronology of Special Committee activities.)

1. Public Hearings.
2. Document Requests from the PIAA, District Committees and Others.
3. A Comprehensive In-Control Services Review of the PIAA.
4. Creation of Advisory Committees to Offer Substantive Recommendations.

1. Public Hearings

The Special Committee held five fact-finding public hearings at locations across

Pennsylvania in order to give Pennsylvanians an opportunity to share their questions and concerns about the PIAA with Special Committee members. Hearings were held in Harrisburg, Altoona, Mercer, and Lionville during which a total of thirty-eight (38) witnesses testified about issues ranging from PIAA eligibility rules, to site selection issues, to the relationship between the PIAA and its constituent districts. (See section 3 of the Special Committee’s Report for a summary of testimony from each of the Special Committee’s witnesses.)

The Special Committee held two additional hearings in Harrisburg. One allowed the Special Committee’s advisory committees and auditing firm to enter their findings into the record. (These findings and recommendations are included in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2.) The other provided PIAA executive staff members and PIAA Board of Control members an opportunity to testify.

These public hearings resulted in approximately nine hundred pages of transcripts that were entered into the Special Committee’s official record. The facts provided by witnesses at the public hearings were used to establish the Special Committee’s Conclusions (see section 1d of the Special Committee’s Report) and to identify issues on which recommendations for change were required. (See sections 1e and 4 of the Special Committee’s Report.)

Issues raised by witnesses at the Special Committee’s public hearings included the following.

1. Pennsylvania Sunshine Act. Mr. William Northrop testified that the PIAA should be subject to the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act. (D 0331)
   
2. Bidding Processes. Mr. Gorden Blain testified that because no bidding has existed to allow individuals to compete for PIAA contracts to produce game programs, his company has been denied an opportunity to produce PIAA game programs. (D 0173) Mr. Louis Gattozzi testified that the lack of certainty in the broadcast rights bidding process allows PIAA executive staff members to exercise arbitrary control over bidding decisions. (D 0148) Mr. Bruce Shaak testified that the broadcast rights bidding process is unfair to cable systems versus broadcast systems and favors large cable systems over smaller systems. (D 0913) Mr. Robert Capasso noted that the award of exclusive broadcast rights for PIAA District XI games is not based on competitive bids. (D 0887) Mr. Norman Palovcsik testified that the current site for PIAA wrestling championships is inadequate. (D 0469) Mr. Herb Schmidt testified that the Pennsylvania State University had received no factual information from the PIAA regarding the criteria for bidding on PIAA wrestling and basketball championships. (D 0443)
3. Broadcast Fees and Access. Mr. John Wilsbach testified that prior to a rule change which reduced the fee by fifty per cent (50%), school radio stations were charged the same broadcast fee as commercial stations. (D 0113) Mr. Richard Wyckoff testified that radio broadcasters have had greater difficulty than other media in obtaining media credentials to championship games. (D 0125) Mr. Tim Karlson testified that the "fifteen minute rule" enforced at interdistrict and championship games denies broadcasters the opportunity to interview local players immediately after a game. (D 0129) Mr. David Lewandowski testified that the use of a generic video feed at PIAA interdistrict and championship games limits broadcasters’ ability to cover local athletes. (D 0132)

b. Due Process for PIAA Student Athletes. Six (6) witnesses testified that they had experienced problems with PIAA policies regarding the conduct of appeal hearings.

1. Restitution Rule. Dr. R. Gene Malarbi testified that the PIAA’s restitution rule requires a member school to pay the PIAA’s legal expenses if the member school brings an unsuccessful legal action against the PIAA. (D 0930 - D 0931)
2. Notice of Hearing Procedures. Mr. Mark Kaszer and Mr. Joseph Bonazza testified that they had no direct notice or explanation of hearings held to decide eligibility issues related to their children.
   (D 0697 and D 0654 – D 0655)
3. Opportunity to Respond. Mr. Joseph Bonazza testified that he was provided with evidentiary information related to his son’s eligibility appeal only at the onset of District VII eligibility hearings. (D 0647) Mr. Peter White, Sr. testified that an anonymous letter provided the evidentiary basis for a PIAA hearing on his conduct as a coach until a federal judge ordered the PIAA not to rely on the anonymous letter. (D 0246 – D 0247)
4. Uniformity in Decisions. Mr. Jack McCurry testified that the PIAA uses no system of precedent to ensure consistency in decisions it makes on similar factual issues. (D 0055)

c. Organization of PIAA Operations. Five (5) witnesses testified that they had experienced problems with certain aspects of PIAA’s organization.

1. Officials. Mr. Robert Bassett, Mr. William Schirf, and Ms. Becky Bolyard testified that the PIAA employs no statewide system of rating game officials and there are no established criteria for selecting officials who work district or championship level games. (D 0801,
   D 0835, D 0712) Mr. Robert Bassett also testified that the services and support PIAA provides to officials is insufficient to justify officials’ high annual dues. (D 0795)
2. Advisory Committees. Mr. John Monsell testified that a survey on key PIAA issues was conducted for athletic directors but was never considered by the PIAA Board of Control. (D 0343)
3. School Classifications. Mr. John Quinn testified that unfairness exists in the PIAA’s school classifications and play-off berth assignments, because AAAA classification includes schools of between 497 and 1200 students and because the eastern/western division of play-off berths gives advantage to the western conference, because it has significantly fewer schools and general population than the eastern conference. (D 0214)

2. Document Requests

The Special Committee authorized Special Committee chairman James J. Rhoades to hire and direct the work of a reputable independent auditing firm by the adoption of a special motion on May 5, 1998. (D 0016 - D 0019) Senator Rhoades, in consultation with other members of the Special Committee, entered into an agreement with the auditing firm Coopers and Lybrand on June 10, 1998. (D 0206) Coopers and Lybrand later merged with PriceWaterhouse and became known as PricewaterhouseCoopers (Coopers).

The Special Committee established a Work Plan for the auditing firm and directed Coopers to perform a comprehensive in-control services review (Coopers Review) of the PIAA and its constituent districts. The work plan, as refined by additional directives from the Special Committee, instructed Coopers to investigate the following.

1. PIAA Budgeting. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 3)
2. PIAA Employment Practices. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 13)
3. PIAA Game Manager Procedures. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 27)
4. PIAA Television - Broadcast Rights. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 40)
5. PIAA Game Site Selection. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 45)
6. PIAA Expense Reimbursement. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 54)
7. PIAA Revenues. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 78)
8. PIAA Constituent Districts. Including districts I, II, VI, VII, X, and XI.

In working to complete its analysis, Coopers engaged in interviews with PIAA executive staff members, reviewed numerous PIAA documents at PIAA headquarters in Mechanicsburg, traveled to each of the six districts identified for review, and composed a final report of its findings and recommendations. As a result, Coopers has made recommendations for change at the PIAA and its districts. (See Appendix 2 of the Special Committee’s Report.)

Findings of fact contained in the Coopers Review include the following.

1. Expense Report Approval Process. As a result of the current approval process, there are instances where the person approving expenses is responsible for approving his/her own expenses. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 54)
2. National Conference Expense Policy. Because the travel component of PIAA Board of Control members’ national conference expenses includes round trip mileage, meals and lodging regardless of whether a Board member actually drives to the conference, expenses may represent a figure that is in excess of the costs to actually travel to and attend a conference. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 60)
3. PIAA Sponsored Vehicles. The PIAA provides a vehicle to each of its four executive staff members and requires these executive staff members to use the vehicles to commute to and from work. This personal use may be a taxable fringe benefit that has not been reported as income by PIAA executive staff members. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, pp. 64 - 65)