|
|
|
|||||
PART 1. Findings of Fact A. Statement of the Issue As a non-profit organization representing approximately 1300 member schools and making decisions which affect approximately 250,000 student athletes, the PIAA Board of Control and executive staff members have wide-ranging authorities. Among others, these authorities include:
Several witnesses at the Special Committee’s fact-finding hearings have testified that the PIAA does not provide sufficient public notice of its meetings to ensure full and complete public access to PIAA deliberations.
B. Current PIAA Policy As a non-profit organization representing its 1300 member schools, the PIAA Board of Control generally holds meetings six times a year. (D 0286) Notice of these meetings is published in the PIAA Newsletter, which is mailed to member schools and to members of the General Assembly. (D 0288) Notice of these meeting is indicated on calendars provided to each PIAA member school (D 0302). Meetings are open to the public. However, notice of meetings is not published in newspapers of general circulation. (D 0303) As a result, the public at large does not have actual or constructive notice of meetings held by the Board of Control. Minutes of Board of Control meetings are kept and provided to Board of Control members. There is no clear PIAA policy providing public access to the minutes of these meetings. C. The Pennsylvania Sunshine Act of 1986 (65 P.S. sec. 271, et. seq.) The legislative findings and declaration of the Sunshine Act provide that "[T]he right of the public to be present at all meetings of agencies and to witness the deliberation, policy formulation and decisionmaking of agencies is vital to the enhancement and proper functioning of the democratic process and that secrecy in public affairs undermines the faith of the public in government and the public’s effectiveness in fulfilling its role in a democratic society." (65 P.S. sec. 272(a)) The Sunshine Act provides that actions of an "agency" as defined by the act must be conducted in public, that notices of agency meetings must be provided to newspapers of general circulation upon request, and that minutes of agency meetings must be maintained on file. (65 P.S. sec. 274, 276, 279) Court decisions, such as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s holding in Harristown Development Corporation v. Commonwealth, Department of General Services, have established that the General Assembly may enact legislation designating even non-profit corporations as agencies for the purpose of applying the Sunshine Act to their operations. (614 A. 2d 1128, 1130 Pa. Supreme, 1992)
PART 2. Recommendations A. Recommendations of the Advisory Committees Advisory committees representing Athletic Directors, Fans and Boosters, Media, Principals, School Boards and Superintendents recommended that the PIAA adhere to the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act or its principles. 1. Athletic Directors. The advisory committee on Athletic Directors recommended that the PIAA apply the Sunshine Act to all PIAA-related meetings, except in cases dealing with sensitive issues such as academic and health records. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 2) 2. Fans and Boosters. The advisory committee on Fans and Boosters recommended that the PIAA should be required to operate under the provisions of the Sunshine Act, with the allowance that the PIAA should be able to meet in executive session to discuss such things as matters that involve the names and status of student athletes. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 5) 3. Media. The advisory committee on Media recommended that the principles of the Sunshine Act be applied to the PIAA, on the same basis as PIAA’s sponsoring schools operate. This would include:
4. Principals. The advisory committee on Principals recommended that the Sunshine Act be applied to PIAA meetings at the state and district levels. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 9) 5. School Boards. The advisory committee on School Boards recommended that the PIAA open and advertise its meetings and distribute minutes at all levels. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 10) 6. Superintendents. The advisory committee on Superintendents recommended that all PIAA meetings should be held subject to the Sunshine Act. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 11)
Considering the fact that PIAA decisions have affects beyond the PIAA member schools who are represented on the Board of Control, that the PIAA has no policy for providing notice of meetings or access to information to the public at large, and that individuals involved in the operation of interscholastic athletics at the local level have recommended improved public access to PIAA information, it is clear that the PIAA must take additional steps to inform the public of its actions and so invite public comment. Although the General Assembly has the authority to designate the PIAA as an agency for the purposes of applying the Sunshine Act to PIAA operations, the Special Committee does not recommend the legislative action necessary to affect this designation. Rather, the Special Committee recommends that the PIAA take action to conform its operations to the principles of the Sunshine Act. However, the Special Committee takes note of the authority of the General Assembly to designate the PIAA as an agency under the Sunshine Act and takes note that this legislative action may be necessary if the PIAA fails to implement this recommendation. THEREFORE, THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS that the PIAA immediately implement a policy that conforms the PIAA’s operations to the principles of the Sunshine Act. This policy should include the following elements:
The PIAA must adopt a clear, written policy establishing a competitive bidding process through which bids are solicited from the public with regard to nonincidental merchandise and services to be provided to or on behalf of the PIAA, including, but not limited to, concessions, uniforms, equipment, game programs, and official merchandise. A clear explanation of both the process and the criteria for selection must be provided to potential bidders. PART 1. Findings of Fact The PIAA’s oversight and control of inter-district and championship events require that the PIAA contract with outside entities for purposes of providing nonincidental services, merchandise, etc. to the event. The process through which the PIAA awards these contracts is not public and in some cases does not exist. Consequently, the possibility that certain vendors may be unaware that they can submit a bid, may be prohibited from submitting a bid, or may be discriminated against if they do submit a bid, exists. Witnesses at the PIAA fact-finding hearings testified about the issue as follows:
Although the PIAA sells merchandise, clothing, programs, etc., the current Constitution and Bylaws do not set out a standard procedure for the bidding on and awarding of contracts to interested vendors. C. Analysis of Issue and PIAA Policy PIAA, ostensibly, contracts with a variety of vendors and other entities to provide supplies and services at PIAA events. Included among these supply and service contracts are PIAA merchandise (e.g., hats, sweatshirts, etc.), PIAA programs, "Official" equipment and "Official" sponsors. Currently, the PIAA does not have a standard, written policy for soliciting bids and awarding contracts on nonincidental services, merchandise, equipment, etc. This allows the PIAA to solicit bids without public notice, analyze bids without regard to any established, formal factors, and award bids based strictly on personal relationships, favoritism, discrimination, etc. PIAA practice in this area should be reevaluated to ensure that all interested entities are provided an opportunity to bid on PIAA contracts. PART 2. Recommendations The Media Advisory Committee recommended that the PIAA accept bids for all PIAA purchases, exclusivity rights, and game sponsorship. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 7)
The Special Committee recognizes the need for an open bidding process among potential PIAA contractors. By establishing a public bidding process, the PIAA will not only encourage vendors within the Commonwealth to submit contract proposals but also ensure that the organization is entering contracts favorable to the organization.
THEREFORE, THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS that the PIAA establish a competitive bidding process that enables the public to bid on the various services that PIAA provides in its staging of interscholastic athletic competitions. The bidding process shall include a public invitation for proposals, and a requirement that the PIAA supply a clear explanation of the process and selection to the public.
PART 1. Findings Of Fact One of the PIAA’s principal responsibilities is the organization and administration of championship-level athletic contests for member schools representing different PIAA districts. PIAA championship games produce approximately seventy per cent (70%) of PIAA’s annual revenues. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 8) The amount of this revenue totaled $2,532,316 in 1997. (A 1405) Key to this responsibility is the selection of a site at which championship-level games are to be played. The PIAA Board of Control has explicitly delegated this responsibility to PIAA Executive Director Bradley R. Cashman through a clause in his employment contract with the PIAA. (A 0373 - A 0380) This clause reads: "The executive director has authority to approve and/or select all inter-district playoff and/or championship sites." (A 0374) In recent years, the PIAA has realized that selection as a championship game site provides a host community with a potential economic benefit. (Bem, D 0514) This potential economic benefit has encouraged host communities to actively seek the opportunity to serve as championship sites. (Bem, D 0514) The PIAA has implemented a request for proposal (RFP) process for football championship sites and plans to implement one for basketball and wrestling when current basketball and wresting site contracts expire in 2000. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 49) However, as indicated by the RFP process used to select the site for the football championship, the unsophisticated approach that the PIAA continues to take to the selection of championship sites fails to address this increased level of interest. Several witnesses at the Special Committee’s fact-finding hearings have testified that the process the PIAA and Executive Director Cashman use to select sites for championship-level games is insufficient, because of the process’ failure to garner competitive bids from potential sites, because of the complete discretion of the executive director in making selections, and because of the lack of participation by member schools and Board of Control members in the identification of site criteria and the evaluation of bids.
B. Current PIAA Policy PIAA Executive Director Cashman currently has responsibility for selecting championship sites by virtue of his employment contract with the PIAA. (A 0374) The process that Mr. Cashman used for evaluating candidates for championship game sites is informal (Bem, D 0515), is not governed by written guidelines (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 45), and provides Mr. Cashman with a great deal of discretion. In determining past championship sites, the PIAA has largely relied on unsolicited submissions from interested candidates. 1. Requests for Proposal The PIAA has implemented a request for proposal (RFP) process for the selection of championship football sites (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 49) and plans to implement an RFP process for the selection of basketball and wrestling championship sites (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 49). (HERCO holds the current contracts to conduct the basketball and wrestling championships at Hershey Arena. These contracts do not expire until 2000. (C 0013 – C 0021) 2. Staff Development of Bid Criteria and Evaluation Process The RFP process used to select the football championship site was created by members of the PIAA executive staff. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 51) In November, 1997, the PIAA mailed RFP’s, containing fourteen (14) separate criteria, to interested bidders. On December 8, 1997, the PIAA mailed an addendum to the interested bidders which contained two (2) additional criteria. Three candidates completed the RFP and submitted it to the PIAA by the January 15 deadline. The three bids submitted by site candidates Altoona Area School District, HERCO, and Three Rivers Stadium were evaluated by Mr. Cashman, associate executive director Robert Lombardi and assistant executive director Elliot Hopkins (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 52). Based on their evaluations, the staff recommended that the PIAA award the contract for the 1998 and 1999 state football championships to HERCO. This recommendation was accepted by the Board of Control at its meeting on January 31, after a motion to set aside the executive director’s authority to make the selection failed by a vote of 3 to 13. (B 1069) 3. Staff Evaluation Process The staff evaluation process for the bids submitted included evaluations by Mr. Cashman, Dr. Lombardi, and Mr. Hopkins. The evaluation process included the following. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 52)
PART 2. Recommendations A. Recommendations of the Advisory Committees Advisory committees representing Principals, Coaches, and Fans and Boosters recommended that the PIAA improve its current policy and practices for the selection of championship sites.
B. Recommendation of the Special Committee Considering the facts that the PIAA’s current practice of determining championship sites lacks clear, written guidelines for the creation of requests for proposal and lacks clear, objective criteria for evaluating proposals by disinterested parties, there is little certainty in the process for potential bidders. Moreover, the complete discretion given to the PIAA executive director in crafting the selection process, overseeing the evaluation of bids and selecting the successful bidder deprives PIAA member schools, Board of Control members, and experts in individual sports of an opportunity to have their views considered in the process. Finally, the PIAA’s own admission that competition for future championship sites will increase suggests that the correction of deficiencies in the current system is ever more necessary and urgent. THEREFORE, THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS that the PIAA immediately adopt a clear written policy outlining a competitive bidding process through which RFP’s and evaluation processes are created by individuals with expertise in the championship sport. Individuals with expertise in the championship sport should also evaluate bids submitted and make a recommendation to the PIAA Board of Control. Finally, the policy should provide the PIAA Board of Control with the ultimate responsibility for selecting the championship site by a vote of its members. This clear, written policy must include the following elements:
In implementing this recommendation, the PIAA should take into consideration Recommendation of the Special Committee 7, which recommends additional responsibilities for the PIAA’s current sports specific steering committees.
The PIAA must revise its policy for granting rights to broadcast PIAA contests in order to provide additional public participation. This revision should include:
PART 1. Findings of Fact The broadcasting fees being imposed and collected by the PIAA do not appear to be based on any specific guidelines at the district or state level. The amount being charged for local district playoff coverage is determined differently from district to district. The system appears to be based on who can afford to pay rather than on providing the best coverage of our high school athletes. Broadcasting fees are not uniform. Rather, they are based on the classification of the event with quad A having the most expensive fees. The rights fees were developed to offset loss of revenue from fewer ticket sales at the gate due to the event being broadcast, thus the larger the school the larger the potential revenue loss. Several witnesses at the Special Committee’s fact-finding hearings have testified that the PIAA should consider the number of broadcast households when determining rights fees; that the PIAA’s fee structure for broadcasting and telecasting high school playoff events is too high and that an open and competitive bidding process is needed.
There are rules and regulations in the PIAA Handbook dealing with broadcasting, cablecasting and telecasting of interscholastic athletic events. Broadcasting, cablecasting/telecasting of any PIAA inter-district, regional or final athletic event is prohibited without the prior written consent of PIAA. The PIAA has established radio-broadcasting rights fees, which vary according to the sport and classification of the schools participating. (At its April 3-4, 1998 meeting, the PIAA Board of Control accepted the recommendation of the Budget Committee to discount broadcasting and telecasting rights fees for any member school-owned radio/television station for any inter-district contests. This change became effective July 1, 1998.) The PIAA has established minimum live cablecasting/telecasting rights fees for football and basketball, which vary according to the sport and classification of the schools participating. There are also minimum delayed cablecasting/telecasting rights fees. If the cablecast/telecast is delayed one to eight hours after the conclusion of the event, the fee is 80% of the minimum live cablecasting/telecasting rights fee; a delay of nine to sixteen hours results in paying 60% of the minimum fee; a delay of seventeen to twenty-four hours you pay 40% of the fee; and after twenty-four hours you are charged 20% of the minimum live cablecasting/telecasting rights fee. On October 28, 1998, The PIAA issued an RFP for the live distribution and tape delayed distribution and production of selected PIAA championship finals and the deadline to submit a proposal was November 2, 1998. PCN, a non-profit television service, was the only entity to submit a bid and it was accepted by the PIAA. PCN will have exclusive statewide rights to all PIAA state football, wrestling, basketball, soccer and field hockey championship games. Other broadcast stations will be able to carry the games on a delay basis. WITF will continue to produce and provide a live feed to PCN, at no charge, for the football, basketball, and wrestling championships. PART 2. Recommendations The Advisory Committee representing the media did not have any specific comments regarding the revision of the current PIAA fee structure for telecasting and broadcasting interscholastic sporting events but they did recommend that the PIAA eliminate "ridiculous and restrictive policies" such as the current broadcasting policy. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 7) B. Recommendation of the Special Committee Considering the fact that there are exclusive contracts for broadcasting rights at the local and state level and using a one hour delay coverage, it costs a local cable TV company approximately $12,000 in rights fees to follow a high school basketball team through districts and on to the state finals (Bell, D 0878) and it cost a school sponsored radio station over $5,000 in three years to cover football and basketball playoffs, (Wilsbach, D 0113-0114) it is reasonable to expect that high fees limit the number of events being televised and broadcast. Rights fees within the same sport vary depending on the classification of the schools involved and this is not fair to the athletes.
THEREFORE, THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS that the PIAA:
The PIAA must submit annually to an audit conducted by the Legislative Budget And Finance Committee, with results to be provided to all PIAA member schools and placed on file for public inspection. PART 1. Findings of Fact A. Statement of the Issue The PIAA has an annual operating budget of approximately $3,220,000 (A 1413), which includes revenue derived from the dues paid by member schools, the dues paid by PIAA game officials, the revenue from championship level contests, and the revenue from fees assessed to media that cover championship level games (A 1404-1406). PIAA expenses include compensation for paid staff, per diems for members of the Board of Control, actual expenses incurred by members and staff, and annual stipends provided for members and staff for participation in national conferences among others. In addition, the Special Committee’s auditing firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, has discovered a number of lax financial practices and has made detailed recommendations for improving those practices. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review) B. Current PIAA Policy The PIAA engages the auditing firm of Greenawalt and Associates to conduct an annual audit of its revenues and expenditures. Summaries of this audit are provided to PIAA member schools and to the Senate and House standing committees on Education. The Commonwealth does not audit the PIAA. PART 2. Recommendations A. Recommendations of the Advisory Committees Members of the Advisory Committees representing Fans and Boosters and Superintendents have recommended that the PIAA’s level of financial accountability to its member schools and to the Commonwealth should be improved. The advisory committee on Fans and Boosters has recommended that the Commonwealth’s Office of Auditor General be given responsibility for auditing the financial records of the PIAA. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, pp. 5, 11) B. Recommendation of the Special Committee Considering that the PIAA is responsible for managing funds that are derived from the public schools of this Commonwealth, from events that take place in facilities financed by taxpayer funds, and from activities in which the primary participants are the students of this Commonwealth, some degree of state oversight in the PIAA’s financial practices should be required. Moreover, the Special Committee’s factual record indicates that the current PIAA policy of conducting audits through a private auditing firm is insufficient to ensure fiscal accountability to the Commonwealth or PIAA member schools. In addition, a higher level of fiscal accountability to the PIAA’s member schools is required to ensure that member schools are aware of the financial practices that determine how funds that member schools contribute to or generate for the PIAA are spent. THEREFORE, THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS that the PIAA submit to an annual audit conducted by the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee, a non-partisan, institutional arm of the General Assembly. The results of this annual audit should be placed on public file and provided to each of the PIAA’s member schools.
The PIAA must amend its Constitution Article VI, Section 2 to increase membership on the Board of Control to include representatives of groups with a direct interest in interscholastic athletics. Such additions should include but need not be limited to:
PART 1. Findings of Fact A. Statement of the Issue The PIAA is governed by a Board of Control composed of representatives from its 11 districts and other interests including school boards, officials, athletic directors, and principals. These individuals are voting members of the Board. Advisory members to the Board of Control include representatives of the girls’ athletic and private schools PIAA steering committees, the Pennsylvania Department of Education, and school administrators. Several witnesses at the Special Committee’s fact-finding hearings have testified that the PIAA Board of Control does not have adequate representation of all of the groups which have a legitimate interest in the oversight of interscholastic athletics. In addition, it was recommended that certain advisory members of the Board of Control become voting members.
B. Current PIAA Policy Article VI, Section 2 of the PIAA Constitution establishes the membership of the Board of Control. 1. District Representatives Each district is entitled to one representative for the first 75 member senior high schools or fraction thereof. (PIAA Constitution, Art. VI, sec. 2) For each 75 additional member senior high schools or major fraction thereof, an additional representative is allowed. These members must be members of their respective district committees and must be school district professional employees certified by the Pennsylvania Department of Education. Currently, Districts 3 and 7 have two district representatives on the Board of Control. (PIAA Handbook, 1998-1999, p. xvii) The other nine districts each have one representative on the Board. 2. Voting Members In addition to the district representatives, the voting membership includes: (PIAA Constitution, Art. VI, sec. 2)
3. Advisory MembersAdvisory members to the Board include: (PIAA Constitution, Art. VI, sec. 2)
The members of the Board of Control serve for a period of one year beginning July 1st following their election, except the Junior High/Middle School representative and the representative of the Pennsylvania State Athletic Directors’ Association who serve for a period of two years. PART 2. Recommendations A. Recommendations of the Advisory Committees Advisory committees representing coaches, fans and boosters, officials, superintendents, athletic directors, the media, and school boards recommended that the membership of the Board of Control be expanded to include additional constituencies which have a legitimate interest in the oversight of interscholastic athletics.
B. Recommendation of the Special Committee Considering the fact that the PIAA Board of Control establishes policies and makes decisions which impact its member schools, school officials, sports officials, fans and approximately 250,000 student athletes and their families, it is only reasonable to expect that all of these interests would be represented, or represented adequately, on the Board of Control. THEREFORE, THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS that the PIAA amend its constitution to increase membership on the Board of Control to include additional representatives with a direct interest in interscholastic athletics. Such additions should include, at a minimum:
The Special Committee further recommends that certain advisory members on the Board of Control, such as the representatives from the Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators and the Pennsylvania Department of Education, become voting members.
The PIAA must establish advisory committees to address the concerns and issues of individuals with an interest in interscholastic athletics as well as individuals representing specific sports. This can be accomplished through a reorganization of the PIAA’s current sports-specific steering committees in order to create a formal process through which:
PART 1. Findings of Fact A. Statement of the Issue The PIAA Board of Control and Executive Staff make numerous decisions regarding the conduct of PIAA regulated sports, the rules and regulations governing PIAA regulated sports, and the eligibility of student athletes in PIAA regulated sports. Some of these decisions are made by the PIAA membership at large through ballots on amendments to the PIAA constitution. However, many judgments are made by the PIAA Board of Control. In addition, the PIAA Board of Control and its executive staff make significant decisions without any formal input from representatives of the sports and other interests that the PIAA represents. As an example of this practice, the decision about where to conduct interdistrict and championship games is made by the PIAA executive director alone. (A 0374; Appendix 2, Coopers Review, pp. 50, 51) Clearly, this broad authority has wide-ranging effects on the PIAA’s organization and its membership. In 1997, revenue from championship games accounted for seventy per cent (70%) of the PIAA’s income. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 8) In that same year, the PIAA made forty-four per cent (44%) of its expenditures on championship games. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 9) Finally, the current organizational structure of the PIAA is weighted heavilty toward member school building principals and so reduces the input of others involved in interscholastic athletics. The PIAA is structured to vest authority in PIAA member school building principals. (PIAA Constitution, Art. IX, sec. 1) Several witnesses at the Special Committee’s fact-finding public hearings testified that the PIAA should take action to improve the mechanisms by which it accepts input from individuals with an interest in interscholastic athletics.
B. Current PIAA Policy According to the 1998-99 PIAA Rules and Regulations there are currently eighteen (18) steering committees representing athletic directors, girls’ athletics, junior high/middle schools, private schools and fourteen specific sports. (PIAA Rules and Regulations, pp. 45 – 53) The only formal mechanism through which the steering committees can make recommendations to the PIAA is through annual workshops held in June of each year. (F 4213 – F 4336) Part 2. Recommendations A. Recommendations of the Advisory Committees Advisory committee representing athletic directors, officials, coaches, and media Recommended that the authorities of advisory committees or steering committess should be expanded to provide additional information to the PIAA Board of Control.
B. Recommendation of the Special Committee Considering the facts that the PIAA makes decisions that have lasting affects on all PIAA sports, that the structure of the PIAA relies largely on the input of member school building principals, and that the PIAA has no formal mechanism to accept recommendations from groups on which PIAA decisions have an impact, it is clear that the PIAA must improve the lines of communication between the Board of Control and the constituencies the Board of Control is supposed to represent. THEREFORE THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS that the PIAA immediately supplement the authorities granted to its eighteen steering committees by:
PART 1. Findings of Fact A. Statement of the Issue The PIAA is responsible for determining the athletic eligibility of all student-athletes at PIAA member schools. Eligibility rulings are handed down at the district level with each party having the right to appeal an adverse decision to the Board of Control. In certain circumstances, a party may appeal an adverse ruling by the Board of Control by filing suit in the Court of Common Pleas. If a member school decides to file such a suit against the PIAA and is unsuccessful, the PIAA may impose the requirements of Article VII, sec. 1(k), the Restitution Rule, on the member school. Witnesses at the PIAA fact-finding hearings testified that Article VII, sec. 1(k) of the PIAA Constitution has a direct effect on whether a member school will file a suit against the PIAA on behalf of one its student-athletes. Specific issues raised include the disparity in resources between a member school and the PIAA and whether the provision clearly outlines when a party is responsible for legal fees under the Article.
B. Current PIAA Policy Article VII, sec. 1(k) of the PIAA Constitution states that the Board of Control shall have the following powers and duties:
This Article was adopted in 1996 by a 539-178 vote. This vote was conducted by roughly one-half of the PIAA member schools. C. Analysis of the Issue and Current PIAA Policy Article VII, sec. 1(k) of the PIAA Constitution places the PIAA in a superior position when compared with its member schools in the PIAA decision, appeal, and litigation process. Some safeguards should be put in place which guarantee a student-athlete and a PIAA member the fundamental principles of due process and fairness which are inherent in the legal process. 1. Barriers to Court Access The PIAA, through Article VII, sec. 1(k), has essentially blocked access to the court system by member schools by placing the school district in the unenviable position of having to predict a judge’s decision correctly or pay the PIAA’s legal fees. Through this system, the PIAA can, in most cases, ensure the finality of its decisions. Consequently, Due Process, Equal Protection, and other constitutional violations may be perpetuated based on the reality that not all school districts can afford to challenge a PIAA decision in court. In school districts without a large general fund, the prospect of paying the PIAA’s exorbitant legal fees undoubtedly affects a district’s decision to file an appeal on behalf one of their student-athletes. 2. No Distinction Between Legitimate and Frivolous Appeals Article VII, sec. 1(k) of the PIAA makes no distinction between a "legitimate" appeal and a "frivolous" appeal for reimbursement purposes. Therefore, in a case where even the most blatant and egregious constitutional or other violations occur, a school district is still faced with the prospect of paying the PIAA’s legal fees should they somehow lose the case. 3. Barrier to Member Schools Representing the Interests of Student Athletes Undoubtedly, this rule affects a school district’s ability to protect the interests of its student-athletes. Moreover, as numerous witnesses have testified, the financial strain that is put on the student-athlete and his/her family when litigating against the PIAA on their own demands that the member schools be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to bring suit on behalf of the student-athlete. PART 2. Recommendations A. Recommendations of the Advisory Committees Although not specifically referenced in the Advisory Committee recommendations, the advisory committees strongly endorsed the need to ensure that member schools and student-athletes receive due process. B. Recommendation of the Special Committee Considering that Article VII, sec. 1(k) of the PIAA Constitution places the PIAA in a superior position when compared with its member schools in the PIAA decision, appeal, and litigation process, procedural safeguards should be put in place which guarantee student-athletes and PIAA member schools the fundamental principles of due process and fairness which are inherent in the legal process. Moreover, as numerous witnesses have testified, the financial strain that is put on the student-athlete and his/her family when litigating against the PIAA on their own demands that the member schools be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to bring suit on behalf of the student-athlete. THEREFORE, THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS that the PIAA repeal Article VII, section 1(k) of the PIAA Constitution in order to protect the student-athlete’s and member schools’ right to appeal a PIAA decision and to ensure that the school district can base a decision to challenge to a PIAA decision on merit rather than the potential financial burden that may be placed upon the school district under Article VII, sec. 1(k).
The PIAA must amend the PIAA Constitution to require that the PIAA Board of Appeals be a standing committee with members serving for terms of definite duration. PART 1. Findings of Fact A. Statement of the Issue The PIAA’s Constitution vests the power to determine all matters involving member schools, including the eligibility of Pennsylvania’s student-athletes, with the District Committees. Under Article VII, section 1(g), both parties to an eligibility or other dispute have the right to appeal an adverse decision to the PIAA Board of Control. The Board of Control is required to hear the appeal at its next regularly scheduled meeting unless the Executive Director or the District Committee certifies that immediate disposition of the matter by a Board of Appeal would be in the best interests of the organization. Either the Board of Control or the Board of Appeal makes the final decision regarding the matter. Many witnesses at the PIAA fact-finding hearings testified regarding the current PIAA appeals process. Most voiced concerns over both the scheduling of an appeal hearing, the hearing process, and the seemingly inconsistent and sometimes arbitrary and capricious decisions handed down by the Board of Control. Testimony regarding the issue included the following:
B. Current PIAA Policy Article VII, section 1(g) vests the power "to hear appeals from District Committees and make the necessary investigations and decisions" with the Board of Control. The Board of Control is required to hear all appeals at its next regularly scheduled meeting unless the Executive Director or the District Committee certifies that immediate disposition of the matter by a Board of Appeal would be in the best interests of the organization. If the Executive Director or the District Committee certifies the case to a Board of Appeal, the president of the PIAA is charged with promptly convening a Board of Appeal to hear and determine the appeal as expeditiously as possible. Membership on the Board of Appeal consists of at least one member of the Executive Committee and four voting members of the Board of Control designated by the president. No officer or voting member of the Board of Control may sit on Board of Appeal when the appeal involves the officer’s or member’s school or district. A decision by a Board of Appeal is binding upon all parties. The PIAA Constitution does not set out factors to be considered by the Executive Director or District Committee when analyzing whether an expedited appeal would be "in the best interest of the association." This is a purely subjective standard subject to inconsistent, arbitrary or discriminatory application by the Executive Director or the District Committee. Additionally, neither the procedural rules governing an appeals hearing nor the rights afforded to a student-athlete, or other individual, participating in the appeals process are set for the in the PIAA Constitution. Finally, areas such as evidentiary rules, standards of proof, burdens of proof, and use of precedent are conspicuously absent from both the PIAA Constitution and the PIAA Bylaws. PART 2. Recommendations A. Recommendations of the Advisory Committees Advisory committees representing Coaches, Fans and Boosters, Principals, and Superintendents recommended that the PIAA improve the process used to conduct appeals on eligibility matters.
B. Recommendation of the Special Committee Considering the fact that the PIAA’s District Committees and the Board of Control or a Board of Appeal are vested with the power to hear appeals and make the final determinations regarding all matters involving member schools, including student-athlete eligibility, the fact that the current Constitution does not adequately set out the instances where an expedited appeal will be granted, and the fact that the current appeals process allows for due process abuse and inconsistent eligibility rulings across the state, the Senate Special Committee on Interscholastic Athletics recognizes the need for the PIAA to establish an appeals process that will adequately protect the rights of student-athletes and other PIAA members across the Commonwealth.
THEREFORE, THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS that the PIAA:
The PIAA must create a Policy Manual to be followed by the Board of Appeals, hearing officers, all District Committees, and member schools, which outlines appeal procedures, decision rules, and the respective rights of the parties. PART 1. Findings of Fact A. Statement of the Issue Annually, the PIAA and its district committees hold hearings and make decisions on issues regarding the application of the PIAA Constitution, By-Laws and Rules and Regulations to conflicting fact situations. Most often, these conflicts center around the application of PIAA rules to questions related to athletic eligibility and transfers based on athletic intent. Many witnesses at the Special Committee’s fact-finding hearings have testified that there is no clear process in place to guide the PIAA or its district committees in the adjudication of these matters.
B. Current PIAA Policy In the ninety-seven (97) pages of PIAA Constitution, By-Laws and Rules and Regulations, there is no requirement that the PIAA create a clear written policy regarding the conduct of hearings or that the PIAA and its constituent districts observe any clear policy with regard to the conduct of hearings.
PART 2. Recommendations A. Recommendations of the Advisory Committees Advisory committees representing Athletic Directors, Fans And Boosters, Principals, Superintendents and School Boards recommended that the PIAA Board of Control establish clear policies for adjudicating disputes.
B. Recommendation of the Special Committee Considering the fact that no clear policy for adjudicating disputes exists in the PIAA rules and that so many witnesses have complained of mistreatment, inconsistency and improper notice due to the lack of clear policy guidelines, it is clear that a policy must be established, published and enforced. THEREFORE, THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS that the PIAA immediately create a written policy manual clearly identifying the procedures and format of any and all adjudicative hearings conducted by the PIAA or its constituent districts. The policy manual should be provided to each member school, each member of each district committee and should be placed on file for public inspection.
The PIAA must implement significant reforms with regard to the handling of the finances of the PIAA and the expenses of its employees, officers, and agents in order to be in accordance with best accounting practices, as well as federal and state laws and IRS regulations. This includes the implementation of all recommendations contained in the in-control services review submitted to the Special Committee by PricewaterhouseCoopers and included in Appendix 2 of this report. Part 1. Findings of Fact A. Statement of the Issue The Special Committee authorized committee chairman James J. Rhoades to retain the services of a reputable auditing firm. (D 0016 – D 0019) On June 10, Senator Rhoades announced that the auditing firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers (Coopers) had been retained to conduct a comprehensive review of the PIAA’s finances, financial practices, and internal procedures. (D 0206) On November 18, Coopers released an in-control services review which includes two hundred twenty-eight (228) pages of findings and recommendations related to the PIAA’s operations. The complete Coopers Review is included in Appendix 2 of this Report. B. Current PIAA Policy The Coopers Review details a number of PIAA policies which raise significant concerns about the PIAA’s compliance with financial laws and regulations. These findings of fact include the following:
Part 2. Recommendations After identifying individual findings of fact on the issues listed above, the Coopers Review made recommendations for improvements in these procedures.
Considering the factual findings contained in the Coopers Review and other information in the Special Committee’s factual record, the Special Committee remains concerned that PIAA procedures which may be in violation of IRS requirements could jeopardize the PIAA’s non-profit status. For this reason, the PIAA should carefully review the recommendations contained in the Coopers Review and take immediate action to correct these deficiencies. THEREFORE, THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS that the PIAA immediately implement the recommendations contained in the Coopers Review, Appendix 2 of this Report. Moreover, the Special Committee recommends that the PIAA take immediate action to rectify potential IRS violations, particularly those listed above.
The PIAA must reorganize its school classifications to more accurately reflect the realities of interscholastic athletics. Each classification should contain the same approximate number of schools with the same approximate number of students. PART 1: Findings of Fact A. Statement of the Issue As part of its function of organizing, administering and regulating interscholastic competition in athletics, the PIAA is responsible for developing a system of classification to ensure competitive fairness among its member schools. The need for such a classification system is based in the fact that the student population for the 657 member senior high schools ranges from less than 100 students to almost 3000 students. Several witnesses at the Special Committee’s fact-finding hearings have testified that the PIAA’s classification of sports (A, AA, AAA, AAAA) needs to be adjusted to eliminate an inherent flaw in the current system. The inequity impacts on the schools that fall into the largest classification category. The current system forces competition between schools in the largest classification (AAAA) with student enrollment that vary by as much as 1000 students while the student enrollment figures for the other classifications (A, AA, AAA) usually vary by less than 150 students. The witnesses believe the PIAA must modify the current system in order to produce a fair and equitable division and classification of member schools. 1. Mr. John Quinn. Mr. Quinn, coach of the Coughlin High School boys basketball team, testified that the classification of teams according to student enrollment figures needs to be adjusted because smaller teams are being forced to compete with schools that have three- to four-times more students. Coach Quinn believes the current system is particularly unfair to some schools in the AAAA classification. He illustrated the apparent inequity in the current system by discussing the enrollment figures used in establishing the classification criteria of boys basketball teams. At this time, a school that has 397 or more boys in senior high school is considered an AAAA school. The result is, a school with less than 400 boys in senior high school is forced to compete with a school that has 1,200 to 1,500 boys in the same grades. Coach Quinn believes that another class should be added to remove the discrepancy that now exists in the AAAA classification category. (D 0226 – D 0227) 2. Mr. John Monsell. Mr. Monsell, Athletic Director for Indian Valley High School, testified that in 1995, at the request of the Pennsylvania Athletic Director’s Association, he chaired a committee of seven athletic directors from across the state that studied a variety of issues and concerns including the current classification system. One of the committee’s findings was that the current classification system needed to be expanded to eliminate the inequities of the current system. The group issued a report to the PIAA and recommended that Pennsylvania’s current classification system be expanded to eliminate the disadvantages currently faced by smallest schools in the largest classification. The report, which included the results of a 260-school survey, was forwarded to the PIAA on June 14, 1995 and no response was ever received. (D 0340 – D 0341, D 0343) B. Current PIAA Policy School enrollment figures are the basis for the division of schools into competition classifications. Classifications, for each respective sport, are based on the total number of male or female students in grades 9, 10 and 11. The classifications are determined by using the enrollment figures reported in each odd numbered year in accordance with Article IV, Section 1 of the PIAA’s Constitution. Member senior high schools are divided each even-numbered year into a maximum of four classes with each class containing as nearly as possible an equal number of schools. Sports have ranged from a single enrollment classification where the number of participating schools is relatively small, through four enrollment classifications where participation is relatively large. PART 2. Recommendations A. Recommendations of the Advisory Committees Advisory committees representing Athletic Directors and Coaches have recommended that the PIAA Board of Control revise its current sports classification system and consider expanding the system to include additional classifications to eliminate the inequities within the current four-tiered system. 1. Athletic Directors. The advisory committee of Athletic Directors recommended that the PIAA Board of Control conduct a classification review for all PIAA championship tournaments. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 12) 2. Coaches. The advisory committee of Coaches recommended that the PIAA revise its current classification system by creating an additional class for every 100 schools participating in a particular sport. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 3) B. Recommendation of the Special Committee Considering that the PIAA already recognizes the relative size of competing schools as a viable consideration when attempting to ensure fair and equitable competition, it is not unreasonable to expect that such a principle be applied equally throughout any classification system. However, the concept of relative size of competing schools is diminished under the PIAA’s current classification system because of the PIAA’s insistence on utilizing a maximum of four classes and its desire to maintain as nearly as possible an equal number of schools in each classification.
THEREFORE, THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS that the PIAA:
The PIAA must institute an evaluation system for game officials and must afford all qualified game officials fair opportunities to officiate district and championship level games. PART 1. Findings of Fact A. Statement of the Issue There are approximately 8,000 PIAA officials in the Commonwealth and their annual dues account for approximately $350,000 of revenue to the PIAA. Some officials believe that there is a need to rate officials so as to provide a fair system and placement of qualified individuals at district and state level athletic events. Several witnesses at the Special Committee’s fact-finding hearings have testified that PIAA officials are being treated unfairly. In some cases, PIAA schools are faced with having officials that might not be the most qualified.
B. Current PIAA Policy Article VII, Section (F) of the PIAA Constitution states that the Board of Control has the following powers and duties: "To determine the method of and the qualifications for the registration of officials, to determine their powers and duties; and to make and apply necessary penalties and forfeits for the control of such officials." At the current time, there is no mandatory rating system for officials at the state or local level. PIAA currently sanctions local official chapters. The PIAA currently evaluates officials at district finals through state finals. An officials’ representative of the district, in which the host school is located, contacts an experienced official and he/she evaluates the officials using forms supplied by the PIAA. The completed forms are sent to the PIAA immediately after the event. These forms are currently utilized for soccer, wrestling, football, baseball, softball, and basketball. Rules interpreters for each of the sports receive copies of these rating forms. PART 2. Recommendations A. Recommendations of the Advisory Committees Members of the Advisory Committee on Officials recommended the following:
B. Recommendation of the Special Committee Considering the fact that there is no established rating system for officials in the PIAA Constitution, Rules and Regulations, or By-Laws and officials have complained that they have years of experience but are not chosen to advance to varsity or state playoff games, it is clear that a rating system is needed. This will allow officials to advance based on their experience and performance rather than whom they know. Criteria need to be established for choosing officials for the state playoffs. Officials also believe they need to be better informed and there should be a male and a female officials’ representative on the Board of Control. THEREFORE, THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS that the PIAA provide copies of their rating forms (Those being used to rate district finals through state finals) to all officials’ chapters in the state. Because the PIAA currently sanctions all chapters of officials in the state, they could also sanction that a rating system be put into effect. Criteria are needed when choosing officials for playoff games and a policy must be adopted stating that officials from the districts that are involved in the playoffs cannot officiate teams from their district. In order to formally disseminate information, elected district officials’ representative(s) should schedule and advertise an annual spring meeting to discuss PIAA policy, proposals and revisions, as they apply to officials within their districts and communicate, in writing, to the chapter presidents the results of that meeting. Most of the local PIAA districts currently have officials’ representatives for male and female sports, therefore the Board of Control should be expanded to include an officials’ representative for male and female officials.
The PIAA must establish clear conflict of interest and ethical rules to be followed by PIAA employees, officers, and Board of Control members. Such rules should, at a minimum, prohibit:
PART 1. Findings of Fact A. Statement of the Issue The PIAA has sole responsibility over administering interscholastic athletics within the Commonwealth. Currently, the organization operates without state supervision and without adequate rules governing ethical standards or conflict of interests. The PIAA has widely been referred to as a "good-ole boy network" where the officers, employees, and Board of Control members place their own self-interests above the interests of its student-athletes and member schools. Such a characterization not only fosters distrust of the organization but also undermines the ability of the organization to act effectively on behalf of all its members and the public in general. Witness testimony in this area included:
In addition, the Special Committee’s auditing firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and Special Committee Staff research has discovered a number of questionable actions by PIAA regarding expenditure policies.
B. Current PIAA Policy The PIAA’s current Constitution and Bylaws neither establish rules governing ethical behavior nor set out rules governing potential conflicts of interest with respect to the actions, activities, and outside interests of PIAA officers, employees, or Board of Control members. Moreover, the PIAA Constitution and Bylaws delineates no rules limiting what PIAA officials may accept in way of gifts, tickets, travel, or other items, from vendors or those who have a contractual relationship with the PIAA. Moreover, PIAA Executive Director Bradley R. Cashman, in a letter to Committee Chairman, Senator James J. Rhoades, dated August 14, 1998, stated that the PIAA does not have a record of the gifts received by the PIAA Executive Staff or Board of Control. Mr. Cashman stated that, "as part of normal and customary business practices," the Executive Staff and Board of Control have received "tokens of appreciation" from certain organizations with which the PIAA has done business. (E 0034) PART 2. Recommendations Although the Advisory Committees did not offer specific recommendations regarding the implementation of ethical rules to govern conduct of PIAA employees, officers, and Board of Control members, the Advisory Committees strongly advocated that the PIAA become a more open organization and more accountable to both the members schools and the public. B. Recommendations of the Special Committee Considering the fact that the PIAA’s current Constitution and bylaws do not set out policies regarding the ethical conduct of its employees, officers, and members of the Board of Control, nor do they set out policies governing conflicts of interest or policies governing the receipt of gifts or other items from vendors or persons under contract with organization, and the fact that the auditing firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers has uncovered some questionable accounting practices within the organization, it is clear that the PIAA must take additional steps to ensure that the interests of the student-athletes and the member schools are placed above the interests of those administering the organization. THEREFORE, THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS that the PIAA implement policies that strengthen the faith and confidence of the member schools, and the people of this State, in the PIAA by ensuring that the interests, actions, or activities of the employees, officers, and members of the Board of Control do not conflict with or undermine the interests and goals of the member schools or the public trust. At a minimum these policies should:
The PIAA must review and revise its current system of qualifying for statewide championship competition in the various sports with particular attention given to devising a system which includes assurance that each participating member school has an equal opportunity to be a representative in the state playoffs. PART 1. Findings of Fact A. Statement of the Issue The PIAA has approximately 1,300 member schools and 250,000 students participating in interscholastic athletics (PIAA Annual Report, 1998, p. 2) and it has the responsibility of organizing statewide championship competitions for participating member senior high schools in 19 different sports. (PIAA Annual Report, 1998) To provide a more manageable entity, the PIAA has divided its member schools into eleven districts for administrative function. The manner in which the districts have been formed is, quite logically, based on established geographical boundaries of counties.
However, the PIAA also relies heavily on the district concept for choosing qualifying teams to statewide championship competition in most sports. Unfortunately, because of the distribution of Pennsylvania’s population, the current geographical boundaries of those established districts do not provide for an equal number of member schools in each district. The disproportionate number of schools is further complicated by the fact that the member schools within a District are further divided into classifications based on student enrollment figures.
The current state playoff system employed by the PIAA is based on representation from each district and the geographical limitations of the districts results in unequal representation in the PIAA championships. The inconsistencies and inequities of the current system have been identified and discussed by several of the witnesses at the Special Committee’s fact-finding hearings. 1. Mr. John Monsell. Mr. Monsell, Athletic Director for Indian Valley High School, testified that in 1995, at the request of the Pennsylvania Athletic Director’s Association, he chaired a committee of seven athletic directors from across the state that studied a variety of issues and concerns including the state tournaments and participation in such tournaments. One of the committee’s findings was that the state tournaments are not being managed efficiently. In an attempt to make the state tournaments more cost effective and to ensure that the better qualifiers are participating in the state finals, the committee recommended that the regionalization of team sports be implemented in order to equalize representation between districts. (D 0338 – D 0362) 2. Mr. John Quinn. Mr. Quinn, the boys basketball coach at Coughlin High School, testified that there is a problem in the distribution of qualifiers for AAAA basketball at the state tournament level. He testified that the PIAA uses a 32-team bracket for the state basketball playoffs. The state is divided, for playoff purposes, between east and west and each area is assigned 16 qualifiers to be divided proportionately among its districts. While the 16 qualifiers represent equal representation between the east and west, it is vastly disproportionate at the district level because the east has 104 AAAA teams while the west has only 51 AAAA teams. Coach Quinn stated that a district such as district 11, in the east, gets two berths in the playoffs for its 15 teams, while in the west, districts 6, 8, 9, and 10 have a combined 16 teams playing AAAA boys basketball and yet are assured 8 state playoff berths. Mr. Quinn provided more information that further illustrates the inequity in the system. Two districts, both containing 35 AAAA schools participating in boys basketball, have a different number of representatives in the state playoffs. Under the current system, one district has eight qualifiers, while the other has only five qualifiers in the state playoffs. (D 0243 – D 0278) B. Current PIAA Policy The PIAA Board of Control has general control and responsibility of all PIAA championship tournament events - leading to, and including the PIAA state championship games. The manner in which PIAA championship events are handled vary based on the sport, some of which operate in a very fair and competitive nature. However, other sports fail to have the same spirit of equity when determining playoff berths.
Due to the large number of schools, the state has been divided into Districts. The dividing lines are concurrent with county boundaries. As stated in the PIAA Constitution, this has been done for the purpose of organization. Currently each District conducts and controls all District qualifying events. These events are to conclude with a championship which will determine final team placement within the District.
The PIAA uses the Districts, which were set up for administrative intentions, as the basis for establishing state playoff berths. This system does not take into account the disparity in the differing number of schools in each District, which is due to the unequal distribution of the Commonwealth’s population. PART 2. Recommendations A. Recommendations of the Advisory Committees Advisory committees representing Athletic Directors, Superintendents, and Coaches have identified problems in the current District qualifying system and have recommended that the PIAA eliminate its reliance on Districts for qualifying for state championship events in favor of a system which would result in more equal representation in state playoff entries. 1. Athletic Directors. The advisory committee of Athletic Directors recommended that the PIAA reconfigure the 11 current districts into six balanced regions. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 1) 2. Superintendents. The advisory committee of Superintendents recommended that the PIAA develop a plan to re-district the Commonwealth based upon the number of schools, leagues, conferences, and geography. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 11) 3. Coaches. The advisory committee of Coaches recommended that the PIAA review state playoff entries so that they are representative of the number of schools rather than region. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 13) B. Recommendation of the Special Committee In its Constitution, it is clearly stated that the PIAA’s utmost responsibility is to create an environment that ensures fairness and equity among member schools. This responsibility may never be more important than when attempting to determine a state champion in the various sports. It is obvious that a system that permits unequal representation from among established Districts in a state playoff tournament fails to address the basic concept and responsibility of ensuring fairness and equity among member schools.
A system of qualifying for state championship tournaments that is not founded in fair and equal representation will never produce results that are fair and equitable. THEREFORE, THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS that the PIAA devise and initiate a system of qualifying for state championship tournaments that is based on regionalization of teams in order to equalize representation of member schools from the respective Districts. Any such system should ensure that the number of qualifiers from a particular region is proportionate to the number of participating schools within that region and the ratio of regional qualifiers are equal on a statewide basis.
The PIAA must hire in-house legal counsel and end its relationship with its current law firm in an effort to ensure the most efficient use of PIAA funds. Part 1. Findings of Fact A. Statement of the Issue The PIAA currently retains the law firm of McNees, Wallace and Nurick for the purpose of providing the PIAA with legal counsel on a range of legal and other issues. 1. Billable Hours In the past four years, the PIAA’s legal counsel has billed the following amounts. a. 1995 $ 78,228.00 (A 1131) b. 1996 181,344.00 (A 1131) c. 1997 261,442.00 (A 1415) d. 1998 319,547.00 2. Range of Legal Counsel’s Involvement in PIAA Activities In addition, the current legal counsel’s involvement in PIAA activities is broad and extends beyond consultation on litigation. According to the billing records, a sample of these activities includes the following.
B. Current PIAA Policy As indicated above, the PIAA does not currently retain in-house legal counsel. Instead, the PIAA retains the firm of McNees Wallace and Nurick where the PIAA’s principal counsel bills the PIAA at a current rate of $195.00 per hour. (F 1123) Part 2. Recommendations
Considering the facts that the PIAA expends substantial funds on retained counsel, that this counsel provides substantial advice on the PIAA’s day to day operations, and that the amount spent on this counsel has increased by $241,319.00 since 1995, it is clear that the PIAA may make more effective use of its funds by employing an in-house legal counsel. THEREFORE, THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS that the PIAA immediately terminate its relationship with its current counsel and review the possibility of hiring in-house legal counsel.
The PIAA shall evaluate the performance of the PIAA executive director, associate executive director, and assistant executive director, to determine whether the executive director, associate executive director, and assistant executive director have complied with the provisions of their contracts and to determine whether the executive director, associate executive director, and assistant executive director should be terminated. Part 1. Findings of Fact The PIAA Board of Control vests broad authorities in the PIAA’s executive director. Through his contract, the Board of Control has provided the executive director with five general duties and twenty specific duties. (A 0374) Many of the executive director’s general duties are broad and involve a great deal of discretion. The amount of this discretion is significant, particularly in view of the fact that the PIAA Board of Control consists of part-time members who serve on a volunteer basis. Many of the issues and problems that have been identified in the Special Committee’s record correlate to general or specific duties in the executive director’s contract. General Duties General Duty 2. Supervise and evaluate all executive staff and support staff personnel of PIAA. General Duty 3. Approve and/or select all interdistrict play-off and/or tournament sites.Specific Duties Specific Duty 15. Maintains adequate records for the PIAA including a system of financial accounts. 1. General Duty 2: Supervision and Evaluation of Staff. Admissions Mr. Cashman himself made regarding the absence of conflict of interest rules at the PIAA and findings and recommendations included in the Coopers Review suggest that the executive director has not performed adequately in the following areas.
The PIAA keeps no documentation or records with regard to gifts it receives from individuals or vendors. (E 0034 – E0035). Although Mr. Cashman has the specific responsibility of supervising and evaluating members of the PIAA executive staff, the Coopers Review finds that the performance evaluation review process for these PIAA staff members is not documented in any way. According to the Coopers Review, the process involves a discussion between the executive director and each employee about the employee’s performance for the past year. "The process is very subjective and unacceptable from a legal perspective, particularly if you have an individual who is a poor performer. Documentation must be kept on employees concerning their performance." (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 14)
The Coopers Review identifies a number of PIAA practices related to the organization and oversight of site game managers. Many of these practices are inconsistent and may result in violations of IRS requirements.
Under his contract, the executive director has the sole responsibility for the selection of championship game sites. As an example of the extent of this authority, members of the PIAA Board of Control tried and failed to set aside the executive director’s authority to select the site for the 1998-2000 football championships. (B 1069) Mr. Dennis Nemes, a member of the PIAA Board of Control, testified that the Board decided not to allow Board members the opportunity to review competing proposals for the football championship site. (Nemes, D 0314) As an example of the importance of championship games to the PIAA, the Coopers Review points out that income from PIAA championships, t-shirt and hat sales, and broadcast fees constitutes 70% of the PIAA’s annual revenues. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 8) Although the executive director has previously selected championship game sites on an informal basis, the selection of the site for the 1998 – 2000 football championships was determined through a request for proposal (RFP) process. The Coopers Review indicates that the process used to create and administer this RFP process was deficient is certain important respects. a. RFP Creation and Evaluation Process. According to the Coopers Review, members of the PIAA’s executive staff were responsible for determining the RFP criteria, the evaluation criteria, and the evaluation process. The Coopers Review made recommendations on each of these elements.
According to the Coopers Review, the PIAA does not have formal written procedures developed for the RFP process nor for evaluating proposals received through the RFP process. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 45) Coopers recommended that the PIAA develop formal written policies. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 45) The Coopers Review recommended that the PIAA develop a standard scoring system, including a standard rating base, a scoresheet, and supporting detail for the scores awarded to bidders. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 45) b. RFP Process for Potential Bidders. According to Coopers Review, RFP criteria sent to potential bidders were amended after the initial announcement of the criteria to bidders. According to the Special Committee’s own analysis, the two criteria added by the PIAA executive staff were ultimately decisive in the selection of the football championship site.
a. Altoona Area School District. January 12, 1998 b. HERCO January 15, 1998 c. Pittsburgh Convention and Visitors Bureau January 16, 1998 c. Criticism of the RFP Process. Both the Coopers Review and PIAA President Stanley Bem recommended significant improvements in the current RFP process.
3. Specific Duty 15 – Maintain Financial Records. Under his contract, the executive director has the specific duty of maintaining adequate financial records for the PIAA including a system of financial accounts. The Coopers Review identifies a number of record-keeping and financial practices that are not in compliance with IRS guidelines. In the view of the Special Committee, the PIAA’s failure to comply with IRS guidelines in these areas may place the PIAA’s tax exempt status in jeopardy. a. PIAA Expense Reimbursement Policy. The Coopers Review cites a number of findings suggesting that the PIAA expense reimbursement policy should be strengthened.
b. 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 the PIAA has not included as income on the executive staff members’ IRS W-2 forms. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 65) c. PIAA Game Site Selection Practices. The Coopers Review finds that the PIAA does not have formal written procedures for the site selection request for proposals (RFP) process or for the evaluation of proposals received. There is no definitive guidance on items to be included in the RFP, the scoring of RFP’s submitted, or the ranking table used when evaluating the proposals. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 45) d. PIAA Game Manager Procedures. The Coopers Review finds that the PIAA does not have a system in place to select game managers, track amounts paid to game managers, or determine the level of compensation paid to game managers. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 29) As a result, the PIAA may not be communicating appropriate information to the Internal Revenue Service for tax purposes. B. Current PIAA Policy The executive director’s contract provides that the Board of Control must implement a six month remediation process upon the less than adequate performance of the executive director’s contractual duties. (A 0378)
Part 2. Recommendations Considering the above stated facts, Mr. Cashman could currently be in violation of several general and specific duties provided for in his contract. For this reason, the PIAA Board of Control may have grounds to implement the remediation process outlined in the executive director’s contract. THEREFORE THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS, that the PIAA Board of Control shall evaluate the performance of the PIAA executive director, associate executive director, and assistant executive director, to determine whether the executive director, associate executive director, and assistant executive director have complied with the provisions of their contracts and to determine whether the executive director, associate executive director, and assistant executive director should be terminated.
The PIAA must engage in a thorough review of its athletic eligibility rules including athletic intent, semester eligibility, medical exceptions, and Pennsylvania residency. Part 1. Findings of Fact Although not addressed directly by the Special Committee’s witnesses, consideration of several of the PIAA’s current rules regarding the eligibility of student athletes undergirded much of the Special Committee’s deliberations. These eligibility rules are key to the PIAA’s mission and central to the responsible conduct of PIAA contests. Because these rules are so engrained in the administration of the PIAA, they should be considered directly by the PIAA’s member schools. However, the Special Committee believes that such a thorough review is necessary. The Special Committee’s concerns center on four (4) PIAA rules. These concerns include:
Part 2. Recommendations Considering that the application of these rules can have a direct effect on not only a student athlete’s athletic eligibility but also on his or her academic performance, it is necessary that the PIAA engage in a thorough review of these rules, their application, and the possibility of substantial amendments. THEREFORE, THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS that the PIAA must engage in a thorough review of its athletic eligibility rules including athletic intent, semester eligibility and medical exceptions with all due consideration placed on the following.
The Senate of Pennsylvania should reestablish the Senate Special Committee on Interscholastic Athletics upon the reconvening of the Senate in January of 1999 to:
Part 1. Findings of Fact A. Statement of the Issue With the adoption of Senate Resolution 127 on February 10, 1998, the Senate of Pennsylvania evidenced its intent to conduct a thorough review of both the state of interscholastic athletics in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association (PIAA). Pursuant to this resolution, the Senate Special Committee on Interscholastic Athletics was formed and charged with carrying out the Senate’s mandate. Following nine months of hearings, document gathering, auditing, and general fact-finding, the Senate Special Committee on Interscholastic Athletics has produced a report on the state of interscholastic athletics within the Commonwealth which includes significant recommendations for change at the PIAA. The contents of that report and the evidence before the Special Committee strongly supports the reestablishment of the Special Committee and the continuation of this investigation upon reorganization of the Senate of Pennsylvania in January 1999. B. Current PIAA Policy Throughout this investigation, the Senate Special Committee has heard testimony from various individuals regarding the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association. This testimony was both informative and, at times, disturbing. Testimony regarding due process for student athletes, expense abuse and financial mismanagement, questionable business practices, and lack of accessibility by member schools, student-athletes, and parents highlighted areas of concern that must be addressed if the Pennsylvania interscholastic Athletic Association is to be both a national leader and a national model for administering interscholastic athletics. The student-athletes and citizens of the Commonwealth expect, and deserve, to be represented by the best organization possible. If that goal is to be realized:
Part 2. Recommendations THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS that the Senate of Pennsylvania reestablish the Senate Special Committee on Interscholastic Athletics immediately upon reorganization of the Senate in January 1999 in order for the Committee to complete its investigation of the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association. |
||