The Pennsylvania Senate - DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION

Find Members By
Zip Code: (Help) -
County: (Map)

RECOMMENDATION 1: COMPLIANCE WITH SUNSHINE PRINCIPLES. The PIAA must adhere to the principles of the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act of 1986 (65 P.S. sec. 271 et. seq.) to ensure that:

Meetings of the PIAA Board of Control and the PIAA’s District Committees Are Open to the Public,

Notices of Meetings Are Published in Newspapers of General Circulation, and

Minutes of all Board of Control and District Committee Meetings Are Made Available to the Public.

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:

An annual budget of approximately $3,400,000 (A 1413),

The disposition of eligibility disputes regarding student athletes and member schools (A 0468),

The establishment of fees related to media access to PIAA events,

The selection of sites for championship games (A 0374),

The organization of the PIAA’s constituent districts and school classifications (A 0467), and

The organization of the PIAA’s 13,000 registered officials (A 0468).

This considered, the affects of PIAA decisions extend far beyond the PIAA’s member schools and reach Pennsylvanians at all levels. However, even though this is the case, members of the public at large do not have full notification of or access to the PIAA’s decision-making process.

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.

Mr. Dennis Nemes. Mr. Nemes, a member of the PIAA Board of Control, testified that notices of PIAA Board of Control meetings are not published in newspapers of general circulation and that direct notice of meetings is confined to those individuals who receive the PIAA newsletter. (D 0303) These individuals include: member school principals, athletic directors, superintendents, school board presidents, school board secretaries, members of the General Assembly, and sports editors. (D 0288)

Mr. William Northrop. Mr. Northrop, publisher of the Observer-Reporter and past president of the Pennsylvania Newspaper Publishers Association, testified that the PIAA is analogous to an "agency" as defined by the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act. (D 0332). Mr. Northrop further testified that the PIAA should be placed under the requirements of the Sunshine Act, because the organization receives taxpayer funds through the payment of dues from its member schools. (D 0333)

Mr. Tom Bradley. Mr. Bradley, director of public relations for the Altoona Area High School, testified that proposals submitted to the PIAA for the selection of a site for championship football games in 1998 and 1999 were not made available to the public. (D 0409)

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:

Advertised and Open Meetings.

Written Meeting Minutes Provided to All Member Schools.

Public Access to Audit, Bid and Contract Documents. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 7)

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)

Recommendation of the Special Committee

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:

Published Notice. Notice of any and all meetings of the Board of Control, its standing committees or its select committees must be published in three (3) newspapers of general circulation sufficient to provide appropriate notice to the eastern, western and central regions of the Commonwealth.

Open to the Public. Any and all meetings of the Board of Control must be open to the public, with an opportunity provided for public comment.

Minutes Accessible. Any and all minutes of meetings of the Board of Control should be available for public inspection at a location convenient to the public at large and convenient to the proper administration of such access by the PIAA.

Published Notice of District Meetings. Notice of any and all meetings of the PIAA’s district committees, their standing committees or their select committees must be published in at least one (1) newspaper of general circulation sufficient to provide appropriate notice to individuals who reside in a PIAA district.

RECOMMENDATION 2: BIDDING PROCESS FOR MERCHANDISE.

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

Statement of the Issue

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:

Gorden Blain. Mr. Blain is the publisher of SPORTSfever Magazine, a Pennsylvania publication devoted to promoting Pennsylvania interscholastic athletics. He has attempted to contract with the PIAA to provide programs for state championship games. Blain testified that the PIAA contracted with an Illinois company to provide programs for the state basketball finals in Hershey. In early 1997, PIAA invited Blain to submit a bid for 1998-99 and 1999-2000. He is unaware of any formal bidding process the PIAA uses to select vendors. (D 0163, D 0166, D 0173)

Current PIAA Policy

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

Recommendations of the Advisory Committees

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)

Recommendations of the Special Committee

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.

RECOMMENDATION 3: BIDDING PROCESS FOR SITE SELECTION.

The PIAA must adopt a clear, written policy establishing a competitive process through which bids are solicited from the public with regard to site selection for championship games. A clear explanation of both the process and the criteria for selection must be provided to potential bidders and the public. The process must include:

Request for proposals (RFP’s) and RFP evaluation processes must be created by individuals with expertise in the sport that the championship site is to host,

Individuals in the sport that the championship site is to host must evaluate bids submitted and make a recommendation to the PIAA Board of Control, and

The PIAA Board of Control must have ultimate responsibility for selecting the championship site by a vote of its members.

PART 1. Findings Of Fact

Statement of the Issue

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.

Mr. Tom Bradley. Mr. Bradley, the director of public relations for the Altoona School District and the principal author of Altoona’s 1997 proposal to host the 1998 and 1999 PIAA football championships, testified that he was not notified of the PIAA scoring criteria that resulted in the award of the 1998 and 1999 football championships to the Hershey Entertainment and Resort Company (HERCO). (D 0409) Mr. Bradley further noted that he had not seen the successful HERCO proposal (D 0409) and that it was not provided to him after he requested it. Finally, Mr. Bradley noted that the timeframe for receiving and submitting the PIAA’s request for proposal (RFP) was postponed twice (D 0404) and that the PIAA provided an addendum including two additions to its original RFP in November, 1997. (D 0405)

Mr. Herb Schmidt. Mr. Schmidt, associate athletic director at the Pennsylvania State University, testified that the university never received a written list of criteria or application procedures even after the university expressed its willingness to host PIAA championship games at the Bryce Jordan Center in University Park. (D 0443) Mr. Schmidt also noted the university submitted correspondence to the PIAA regarding its interest in hosting basketball and wrestling championships in 1995, March, 1996, and April, 1996, but was not provided an opportunity to bid on the championship games. (D 0447) Finally, Mr. Schmidt testified that the university’s agreements to host PIAA championships are contained in a letter of agreement with the PIAA and not in a formal contract. (D 0459) The university’s principal PIAA contact person was Mr. Cashman. (D 0450)

Mr. Timothy Curley and Ms. Carol Sprague. Mr. Curley, athletic director at the Pennsylvania State University testified that the National Conference of Athletic Associations (NCAA) has an established process for selecting championship game sites. This process includes (D 0499):

Establishment of site criteria by sport specific committees.

Creation of RFP’s by sport specific committees.

Evaluation of bids by sport specific committees.

Recommendation of site to NCAA staff.

Recommendation of site to NCAA Championship and Competitions Cabinet.

Recommendation of site to NCAA Management Council.

Recommendation of site to NCAA Board of Directors.

Mr. Stanley Bem. Mr. Bem, President of the PIAA, testified that the PIAA needs "a comprehensive process of championship site selection which includes the Board of Control’s approval." (D 0512) Mr. Bem also testified that the current site selection process is informal and lacks formalized procedures. (D 0515)

Mr. Dennis Nemes. Mr. Nemes, principal of Northwestern Lehigh High School and a member of the PIAA Board of Control, testified that PIAA Board of Control members were denied the opportunity to review three competing proposals regarding potential sites for the 1998 and 1999 football championships. (D 0314) The Board of Control decided, by a vote of 3 to 13, to not allow members an opportunity to review the competing proposals.
(B 1069)

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)

Staff members reviewed the proposals individually.

Staff members met together and reviewed the proposals collectively.

Staff members reviewed the proposals individually a second time.

Staff members met together and reviewed the proposals collectively a second time.

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.

Principals. The advisory committee on Principals recommended that the PIAA establish and publicize clear criteria for site selection of championship games. The advisory committee further recommended that the PIAA Board of Control take power to approve championship sites from the executive director and place it with the Board of Control. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 17)

Coaches. The advisory committee on Coaches recommended that coaches should have input as to site selections for play-off and championship games. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 13)

Fans and Boosters. The advisory committee on Fans and Boosters recommended the following:

The PIAA should publish an RFP package containing criteria for championship sites and require interested applicants to submit the completed RFP to the PIAA by a date certain.

The PIAA should allow sports specific committees to develop criteria for championship sites in the sport the committee represents.

The PIAA should allow sports specific committees to review proposals received from potential championship sites in their sports.

The PIAA should allow the sports specific committees to issue written recommendations on the championship site they have selected to the PIAA Board of Control and should require that any deviation from the recommendations of the sports specific committees be accompanied by a written explanation. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 14)

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:

Formal RFP Process. A detailed RFP process as outlined below must apply to high profile sports such as football, basketball and wrestling. Steering committees on other sports should be vested with authority to determine whether a detailed RFP process should be used for their sports. In any event, the steering committees on those sports should recommend what process should be used to evaluate candidates.

Steering Committees Determine RFP Selection and Evaluation Criteria. The sports specific steering committees provided for on pages 45 to 53 of the PIAA’s Rules and Regulations must be given responsibility for determining the selection criteria included in the RFP and the evaluation criteria used to score bids submitted for championship sites in their sports.

Board of Control Approve Steering Committees Criteria. The sports specific steering committees must report their recommended selection and evaluation criteria to the Board of Control for approval. If the Board of Control fails to approve the recommendations of the steering committees, the steering committees must be advised in writing and given an opportunity to resubmit an amended recommendation.

Board of Control Directs Executive Staff. After the selection and evaluation criteria are approved, the Board of Control must direct the executive staff to advertise the solicitation of bids in newspapers of general circulation, send RFP’s to interested applicants by a date certain, and require applicants to return completed applications by a date certain. RFP’s will include the evaluation methodologies recommended by the steering committees and approved by the Board of Control.

Sealed Proposals Opened at Official Meeting. The Board of Control must direct the executive staff to receive sealed bid proposals and open them at a scheduled steering committee or Board of Control meeting.

Steering Committees Evaluate Proposals and Make Recommendation. The steering committees must evaluate proposals submitted through the RFP process based on evaluation criteria established by the steering committees and approved by the Board of Control. The steering committees must then make a recommendation on the site they have selected and report that recommended selection in writing to the Board of Control. The recommendation must include the scoring methodologies and scores of the recommended site and all other bidders.

Board of Control Approves Steering Committee Recommendation. The Board of Control must vote to approve the championship site that a steering committee has recommended and must provide written justification for any deviation from the steering committee’s recommendation.

Rescind Executive Director’s Sole Authority. The Board of Control must rescind the pertinent section of Mr. Cashman’s employment contract in order to eliminate the executive director’s sole authority to select championship sites.

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.

RECOMMENDATION 4: REFORM OF BROADCAST RIGHTS POLICY.

The PIAA must revise its policy for granting rights to broadcast PIAA contests in order to provide additional public participation. This revision should include:

A reduction in fees charged to radio and television broadcasters.
An open and competitive bidding process consistent with the above.
The elimination of fees charged to radio and television stations owned and operated by PIAA member schools.

PART 1. Findings of Fact

Statement of the Issue

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.

Mr. John Wilsbach. Mr. Wilsbach, advisor to Middletown High School student radio station, WMSS, testified that since WMSS is a student-run, educational tool, that it should receive a waiver from the PIAA for all or part of the normal broadcasting fees it charges to commercial stations to broadcast playoff games. (D 0114)

Mr. Dave Lewandoski. Mr. Lewandoski, Production Manager for WNEP-TV, believes that telecast/broadcast fees should be uniform and not dependent on the classification of the event. Quad-A, Triple-A, Double-A, and Single-A all have different fees for radio or television broadcast rights. (D 0131)

Mr. Louis Gattozzi. Mr. Gattozzi, General Manager of WJET-TV, testified that PIAA Rules and Regulations do not specifically address the process for awarding of bids for the telecasting of state playoffs. (D 0154, D 0156)

Ms. Kimberly Bell and Mr. Bob Capasso. Ms. Bell, General Manager of Blue Ridge Cable TV 13, and Mr. Capasso, Sports Director, testified that due to the high fees charged for the delayed-broadcasting right, Blue Ridge is limited in the number of events it can cover during the various playoff seasons, despite its desire to offer a full slate of playoff programming. They also commented that District 11 does not publicly advertise for bids for the exclusive rights to televise all District 11 championship sporting events; and there are no notices of when a current contract expires or what the criteria are for proposals. In addition, the current contract holder, RCN Cable, has the right to match any contract offer and it should be noted that RCN Cable covers less than half of District 11. (D 0875- D 0876, D 0882 – D 0883)

Mr. Bruce Shaak. Mr. Shaak, Director of Programming for Time Warner Cable’s Eastern Pennsylvania Division, testified that the PIAA broadcast fee structure is the only aspect of the broadcasting or cable business in which rights fees are fixed without regard to the number of broadcast households or the number of subscribers in a cable system. During Mr. Shaak's testimony, it was inferred that instead of having a competitive bid process for media coverage (which prevents many of the smaller cable and broadcast companies from carrying some of the championship events), a reasonable charge should be established so that anybody who wanted to broadcast local games of interest would be able to do so. More exposure to the various high school athletic events would actually generate a greater interest, and higher attendance in sports at the local level in the regular season, thus increasing the take at the gate. He cited the example of televising the Reading Phillies baseball team who wanted more households to see their games. Attendance for their games has gone up since the games are televised. Mr. Shaak also commented that one or two replays of an event in which a fee was paid for the original rights should not incur additional fees. (D 0911- D 0913, D 0915, D 0919 – D 0920)

Mr. Richard Wyckoff. Mr. Wyckoff, President of the Pennsylvania Association of Broadcasters, testified that television rights fees for PIAA high school basketball games at the state level are more expensive than fees to cover a national NCAA basketball championship or a pre-season professional football game. (D 0124)

B. Current PIAA Policy

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

Recommendations of the Advisory Committees

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:

Establish Reasonable Fees. Amend their Rules and Regulations and establish reasonable fees for the right to broadcast, cablecast/telecast PIAA contests and the number of broadcast households or number of subscribers in a cable system should be taken into consideration.

Media Advisory Committee. Form a Media Advisory Committee consisting of three representatives from each local PIAA district (representing radio, TV and print). The representatives would be appointed by the local district chairpersons and they would meet with the PIAA twice a year to discuss issues such as reasonable rights fees, whether minimum bids should be discontinued, whether there should be one exclusive production staff, whether cameras, other than those operated by the production staff, be allowed on the field at playoff events, and the arbitrariness of credentials. The PIAA should also advise this Committee of any media changes they are considering.

Eliminate Fees to PIAA Member Schools. Amend the PIAA Rules and Regulations so that fees charged to radio and television stations owned and operated by PIAA member schools are eliminated.

Uniform Rights Fees. Ensure that Rights fees within the same sport are uniform and not based on the classification of the school.

Open and Competitive Bidding Process. Amend the PIAA Rules and Regulations to establish criteria for an open and competitive bidding process for exclusive broadcasting contracts and for rights fees.

RECOMMENDATION 5: ANNUAL STATE AUDIT OF 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.

RECOMMENDATION 6: EXPAND BOARD OF CONTROL.

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:

A member representing coaches;

An additional member representing game officials so that both male and female officials are represented; and

Two members representing parents.

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.

Mr. John Quinn. Mr. Quinn, basketball coach at Coughlin High School in Wilkes-Barre, highlighted the fact that there is no coaches’ representative on the Board of Control. (D 0224)

Mr. Dennis Nemes. While Mr. Nemes, a member of the PIAA Board of Control, was being questioned he pointed out that coaches as a group are not represented at either the district level or on the Board of Control. (D 0316)

Mr. Stanley Bem. Mr. Bem, President of the PIAA Board of Control, recommended that voting rights be given to the representatives from the Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators (PASA) and the Pennsylvania Department of Education. (D 0511)

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)

One member elected at large by and from the Junior High/Middle Schools representatives of the district committees;
A representative of Pennsylvania School Boards Association;
One official elected from among their own number by the officials’ members of district committees;
A representative of the Pennsylvania State Athletic Directors’ Association; and

A representative of the Pennsylvania Association of Secondary School Principals.

3. Advisory Members

Advisory members to the Board include: (PIAA Constitution, Art. VI, sec. 2)

A representative of the Pennsylvania Department of Education appointed by the Secretary;
A representative of the Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators;
The chairman of the Girls Athletic Steering Committee; and,
A representative of the Private Schools’ Steering Committee.

The members of the Board of Control serve for a period of one year beginning July 1^st 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.

Coaches. The Advisory Committee representing Coaches recommended that the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Coaches Association be given seats on the PIAA Board of Control representing male and female interscholastic sports. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 3)

Fans and Boosters. The Advisory Committee representing Fans and Boosters recommended that the make-up of the voting Board of Control be broadened to include a woman’s sports representative, a superintendents’representative, a coaches’ representative, and a representative of the Pennsylvania Department of Education. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 5)

Officials. The Advisory Committee representing Officials recommended the inclusion on the Board of Control of one active PIAA official per district as a voting member. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 8)

Superintendents. The Advisory Committee representing Superintendents recommended that there should be a superintendents’ representative at both the state and local levels as appointed by and representing the superintendents’ organization. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 11)

Athletic Directors. The Advisory Committee representing Athletic Directors recommended that the 11 existing PIAA districts be reconfigured into six balanced regions. Under the new system, there would be 30 voting members on the Board of Control, five from each region. These representatives would include: one principal, one athletic director, one coach, one superintendent or school board president, and one at-large member. This group also recommended that there should be additional representation of athletic directors on the state Board of Control and district committees. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 1)

Media. The Advisory Committee representing the Media recommended that the PIAA broaden input into district and state-level decisions by giving coaches, parents, fans, and officials significant representation. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 15)

School Boards. The Advisory Committee representing School Boards recommended establishing a timeline to revamp the Board of Control organization in a timely manner with other rule changes to follow. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 18)

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:

Coaches. A member representing coaches,

Officials. An additional member representing game officials, and

Parents. Two members representing parents with children involved in interscholastic athletics.

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.

RECOMMENDATION 7: EXPAND PIAA ADVISORY COMMITTEES.

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:

The PIAA Board of Control can solicit advice from experts in each PIAA sport, and

The PIAA Board of Control can make informed decisions about issues that impact on each PIAA sport.

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.

Mr. John Quinn. Mr. Quinn, head basketball coach at Coughlin High School in Wilkes-Barre, testified that no formal process exists through which the PIAA solicits input from Pennsylvania coaches on issues related to school classifications. Rather, coaches must act through their principals or athletic directors. (D 0238 – D 0240)

Mr. John Monsell. Mr, Monsell, athletic director at Indian Valley High School in Lewiston, testified that the recommendations of an ad hoc committee formed by athletic directors in 1995 were not considered by the PIAA Board of Control. (D 0342 – D 0343) He further testified that "When the association was formed, the principals kept hands-on control. But, when the number of interscholastic sports and the number of schools in the PIAA ballooned, control became more complicated; plus principals faced increasing duties and responsibilities beyond athletics so that their hands-on vigilance waned. Input from the individual schools became too unwieldly, and the grass roots and its concerns were lost in the shuffle." (D 0345)

Mr. Norman Palovcsik. Mr. Palovcsik, principal of Bald Eagle – Nittany High School, testified that he conducted a survey of every high school in Pennsylvania regarding the site of the state wrestling championships, received 264 returns out of a total of 501 surveys, submitted the results to the PIAA and was told that there were too few responses to make the survey valid. (D 0487)

Mr. Richard Wyckoff. Mr. Wyckoff, president of the Pennsylvania Association of Broadcasters (PAB), testified that no liaison committee exists to work out problems that the PIAA or the PAB have with electronic press coverage of PIAA events. (D 0142)

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.

Athletic Directors. The advisory committee on Athletic Directors recommended that the PIAA establish steering committees for each sport with 1 coach and 1 athletic director from each region. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 2)

Officials. The advisory committee on Officials recommended that an officials’ representative serve on "any suboordinate governing committees." (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 8)

Coaches. The advisory committee on Coaches recommended that the advisory committees should be kept informed and included in further actions. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 13)

Media. The advisory committee on Media recommended that the PIAA should give coaches, parents, fans and officials significant representation. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 15)

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:

Composition of Steering Committees. Ensuring that an individual serves on only one steering committee.

Membership of Steering Committees. Allowing members of each district committee to select at least one member of each steering committee.

Authority of Steering Committees. Authorizing each sports-specific steering committee to make a bi-annual report to the Board of Control regarding recommendations for rules, governance, and oversight of activities relating to the sport that the steering committee oversees.

Meetings of Steering Committees. Requiring each sports-specific steering committee to meet with representatives of the Board of Control thirty days prior to the beginning of the sports season that the steering committee oversees and thirty days subsequent to the conclusion of the sports season that the steering committee oversees.

Consultation on Site Selection. Pursuant to Special Committee Recommendation 3, each sports-specific steering committee must have an active role in the process for selecting the site at which interdistrict and championship games in the sport that the steering committee oversees will be played.

RECOMMENDATION 8: REPEAL RESTITUTION RULE. The PIAA should immediately repeal Article VII, section 1(k) of the PIAA Constitution, known as the Restitution Rule.

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.

Mr. Gene Malarbi. Mr. Malarbi, Superintendent of the School District of the City of Monessen, testified regarding a lawsuit initiated against PIAA by the school district on behalf on one of its students. The District sought a Preliminary Injunction which would have stayed a suspension of a Monessen player. The trial judge refused to grant the injunction and the athlete served the suspension. Consequently, the District did not pursue an appeal as the issue was moot. The PIAA subsequently informed the District that it would be required to reimburse the PIAA approximately $6,000.00 for legal fees incurred during the litigation, pursuant to Article VII, sec. 1(k) of the PIAA Constitution. The District refused to pay the attorney fees arguing that they were not "ultimately unsuccessful" under the Article because the denial of a preliminary injunction is not a decision on the merits. PIAA later informed the District that they would face suspension if they did not remit the fees to the PIAA. At the time, the District had a fund balance of $36,000.00. The PIAA’s fund balance was in excess of $1 million. (D 0924 – D 0971)

Attorney John Minora. Atty. Minora represented David Bouselli, a student-athlete at Dunmore High School in Lackawanna County, in his lawsuit against the PIAA. Mr. Bouselli, who had been previously diagnosed with ADHD, was declared ineligible by the PIAA based on the PIAA’s Eight Semester Rule. Bouselli appealed the decision to the Board of Control who upheld the decision. Bouselli then filed suit in Lackawanna Court to have the decision overturned. Atty. Minora testified that Dunmore High School had filed the original appeal on Bouselli’s behalf but did not file any subsequent appeals because the PIAA informed them that the PIAA’s Constitution would require them to pay the PIAA’s legal fees if they were unsuccessful. There is no similar constitutional provision obligating the PIAA to reimburse legal fees if they should lose the appeal. (D 0086 – D 0111)

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:

"K. To require that any school district which has at least one member in PIAA, and any person affiliated with such school district acting in his official capacity, which or who files suit against PIAA or any of its personnel, or authorizes its or his solicitor or any other attorney-at-law to assist in any suit brought by any person against PIAA or any of its personnel, which school district or personnel is ultimately unsuccessful in obtaining the relief requested in the suit (including the effect of any appeal) reimburse PIAA for the legal fees and expenses incurred by it or any of its personnel in defending such suit (including any appeal)."

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).

RECOMMENDATION 9: BOARD OF APPEALS.

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:

Mr. and Mrs. Frank Wallace. Mr. and Mrs. Wallace testified as to their experience before the PIAA Board of Control when pursuing an appeal of an adverse decision levied by PIAA District 7 against their son Jonathan. Specifically, they testified that they were not informed of the procedures for appealing a decision from District 7, they were forced to proceed without their attorney present, and were denied the opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses from the complaining school district. Finally, they testified that a member of District 7 Committee that handed down the initial decision was allowed to sit with the Board at the appeal. (D 0023, D 0026, D 0038)

Mr. Pete White. Mr. White stated that he felt the lack of due process before the PIAA is the most important issue before the Special Committee. He also testified as to his own experiences before the PIAA. Specifically, he noted in his experience that the PIAA does not have a stenographer present at the hearings, voting members leave the room during testimony, PIAA witnesses hear all testimony while other witnesses are sequestered, witnesses are not required to attend hearings thus prohibiting an individual from confronting and cross-examining the witness, and hearsay evidence is frequently relied upon by the Board in its decision making. (D 0245 – D 0246)

Mr. Jack McCurry. Mr. McCurry, Principal of the North Hills School District, testified regarding the seemingly arbitrary, capricious, and inconsistent ruling handed down by the PIAA. Specifically, he entered into the record a list of 28 cases where PIAA rules and regulations were seemingly applied inconsistently. (D 0055)

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.

Coaches. The advisory committee on Coaches recommended that eligibility appeals should be expedited to minimize the number of contests potentially affected by eligibility decisions. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 13)

Fans and Boosters. The advisory committee on Fans and Boosters recommended that an independent appeal board be established. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 4)

Principals. The advisory committee on Principals recommended that a detailed hearing process should be established on both the state and district levels and that the process be standardized to ensure consistency throughout the state. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 9)

Superintendents. The advisory committee on Superintendents posited that the best decisions regarding athletics are made at the local level and recommended that a local appeals board be created. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 11)

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:

PIAA Board of Appeals. Establish a standing committee, known as the PIAA Board of Appeals, to hear, in an expedited manner, all appeals from all matters, including eligibility decisions, originally decided at the district level.

Composition of the Board of Appeals. The Board of Control shall be responsible for determining the composition of the Board of Appeal.

Evidentiary Rules for Board of Appeals. The Board shall be required to adopt evidentiary rules, establish standards of proof, assign burdens of proof, and develop a system whereby the use of precedent will facilitate uniform application of PIAA rules and regulations across the Commonwealth. In protecting such due process rights, the Board shall provide all participants the right to be represented by counsel at any proceeding, have any proceeding recorded and transcribed at the requestor’s expense, and have a final decision rendered before any PIAA sanction may be imposed.

Amendments to PIAA Governing Instruments. The PIAA must also amend its bylaws to reflect the changes made pursuant to the above recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION 10: APPEAL PROCEDURES POLICY MANUAL.

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.

Mrs. Frank Wallace. Mrs. Wallace testified that she and her husband were not informed of procedures related to an appeal of a District 7 decision regarding the athletic intent of their son Jonathan incident to his transfer from Gateway High School to Vincentian Academy. The lack of clear procedures resulted in a hearing during which they were denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses from the complaining school district and were forced to have a member of the District 7 committee in the hearing with them as they presented their case. (D 0025, D 0026)

Mr. John Bernauer. Mr. Bernauer, president of the North Hills School Board, entered into the record a list of twenty-eight (28) District 7 decisions that represented an inconsistent application of PIAA rules regarding athletic intent and semester eligibility. (D 0055)

Mr. Joseph Bonazza. Mr. Bonazza testified that his son Joseph was exonerated for an alleged infraction of a PIAA Rule, but that the Deer Lake School district baseball team, on which Mr. Bonazza, Jr. is a member, was still required to forfeit its first place ranking. (D 0790)

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.

Fans and Boosters. The advisory committee on Fans and Boosters recommended that the PIAA establish a completely new dispute resolution process. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 4)

Principals. The advisory committee on Principals recommended that the procedures for adjudicating disputes be standardized throughout the PIAA. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 9)

Superintendents. The advisory committee on Superintendents recommended that the district committees should be empowered to make decisions on eligibility matters. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations,
p. 11)

Athletic Directors. The advisory committee on Athletic Directors recommended that the PIAA must ensure consistency in its decisions. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 12)

School Boards. The advisory committee on School Boards recommended that the PIAA policies be revised to ensure that all parties’ due process rights are observed. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 18)

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.

RECOMMENDATION 11: IMPROVED FINANCIAL CONTROLS.

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:

PIAA Budgeting. The Coopers Review notes that the PIAA currently allocates its expenses on a natural rather than a functional classification. As a result, the use of a natural classification process prohibits the PIAA from identifying the portion of expense that relates to its mission and how much expense is related to administrative activities. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 4)

PIAA Expense Reimbursement Policy. The Coopers Review cites a number of findings suggesting that the PIAA expense reimbursement policy should be strengthened.

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)

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)

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, p. 64)

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)

PIAA Game Manager Procedures. The Coopers Review finds that the PIAA does not have a system in place to track amounts paid to game managers, or determine the level of compensation paid to game managers. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 29)

Part 2. Recommendations

Recommendations of the Coopers Review

After identifying individual findings of fact on the issues listed above, the Coopers Review made recommendations for improvements in these procedures.

PIAA Budgeting. The Coopers Review recommends that the PIAA develop a method to track expenses internally on a functional basis to identify the amount of expense related to program services and the amount related to overhead. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 4)

PIAA Expense Reimbursement Policy. The Coopers Review makes the following specific recommendations with regard to the PIAA’s expense reimbursement policies.

Expense Report Approval Process. The Coopers Review recommends that the PIAA implement a policy which prohibits an individual from approving his/her own expenses. The Coopers Review further recommends that where more than one PIAA employee is incurring expenses on behalf of the PIAA, the most senior employee or representative should be required to pay for the services for the entire group and submit an adequately documented receipt for reimbursement. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 54)

National Conference Expense Policy. The Coopers Review recommends that the PIAA improve its policy for providing national conference expenses in three major areas.

Travel Component. The PIAA should modify the travel component of the conference allocation to be the lower of driving or flying. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 61)

Expense Component. The PIAA should modify the expense component of the conference allocation so that the expense component is treated as taxable income, or so that individuals provide adequate justification to prove that the expense is a business expense, or so that advanced amounts not justified as business expenses are returned to the PIAA. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 62)

Dependants of Participants. The cost of travel expenses for dependants of conference participants should be treated as income to the participants. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 62)

c. PIAA Sponsored Vehicles. The Coopers Review recommends that the value of the personal use of employer-provided vehicles must be included in the employee’s gross income. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 65)

PIAA Game Site Selection Process. With regard to the selection of game sites that are determined through requests for proposal (RFP), the Coopers Review recommends that the PIAA develop written policies and procedures to govern the RFP and site selection process. "The policies should detail items to be included in the RFP, develop a standard rating base, and also develop a scoresheet that gives documentation and supporting detail to substantiate the scores awarded to sites by the PIAA for the various categories of information requested in the RFP." (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 45)

PIAA Game Manager Procedures. The Coopers Review recommends that PIAA "conduct a review of the requirements relating to the various paid positions for the championship and inter-district events in light of the Internal Revenue Service Guidelines and make a formal determination as to their classification." (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 29)

B. Recommendation of the Special Committee

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.

RECOMMENDATION 12: EXPAND SCHOOL CLASSIFICATIONS.

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:

Review and Revise Current Classification System. Review and revise its current system of classification of its member schools in the various sports to ensure fair and equitable competition across all classes within the system.

Additional Classifications. In keeping with the concept of relative size of competing schools, special consideration should be given to expanding the current classification system to include one or two additional classes.

Eliminate Equal Number Requirement. Additionally, the PIAA should eliminate its requirement that each class have as nearly as possible an equal number of schools. An adequate number of schools in each class is more important than an equal number of schools and such flexibility in a classification system is more conducive to designing a system which best achieves the goal of matching competing schools based on their enrollment figures.

RECOMMENDATION 13: EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR OFFICIALS.

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.

Mrs. Becky Bolyard. Mrs. Bolyard, a 20-year PIAA basketball official and junior high coach, testified that people officiating at numerous district interscholastic athletic events and championship games are there because of whom they know not because of their experience or ability. (D 0712-0713)

Mr. William Schirf. Mr. Schirf, President of the Blair County Keystone chapter of the PIAA Girls Softball, also concurred with Mrs. Bolyard’s comments and further stated that some local official chapters do employ a rating system but at times this can be unfair such as having the official with the lower rating advance faster than the official with the higher rating.
(D 0835, 0853) Senator Mellow also recalled an incident where the PIAA requested a retired official to rate a football official at a state playoff game. After the game, the evaluator official stated that the behavior of this referee would necessitate that he not be put in another playoff game. The following week, this football official was officiating another playoff game. (D 0723-0724)

Mr. Robert Bassett. Mr. Bassett, a football official from District 3, testified that the local football officials chapter he belongs to has a rating system based on judgment, poise, and rules knowledge. Each coach and official within a game rate one another. The National Association of Sports Officials spotlighted this rating system. (D 0812-0815)

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:

Statewide Rating System. PIAA should implement a mandatory and uniform statewide rating system for regular varsity season and play-off officials. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 8)

Board of Control Members. The PIAA Board of Control, should include representation for one active PIAA official per district as a voting member and the same representation on any subordinate governing committees. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 8) In the past, the officials’ representative on the Board of Control requested that the Board expand to include a women officials’ representative. The Board voted this down. (Bassett, D 0794) All, but two local districts (4 and 9), have a male and a female officials representative at the local district level.

Selection of Play-Off and Championship Officials. Establish a new body of PIAA officials to select individuals to officiate play-off and championship competitions. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 8) The current Rules and Regulations (p. 11 of 1998-99 PIAA Rules and Regulations) of the PIAA states that officials for all district events will be selected by the various district committees. For all events following district competition, officials will be assigned by the Executive Director or his appointed representative.

Steering Committee on Officials. Elected district officials’ representative(s) should become a new standing steering committee. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 16) Each year officials elect an officials’ representative(s) to each of the PIAA District Committees, and that group together constitutes the Officials’ Council, which is one of numerous PIAA steering committees that meets each June to discuss issues and advance recommendations to the Board of Control for consideration at its next meeting in July. The Officials’ Steering Committee is not listed with the 18 Steering Committees in the 1998-99 PIAA Handbook (pp. 45-53 of 1998-99 PIAA Rules and Regulations).

Annual Meetings. Elected district officials’ representatives 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. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 16)

Office Candidates. A brief biography must accompany those candidates running for office in each local district. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 16)

PIAA Officials Newsletter. The annual PIAA officials' newsletter should include all district representatives: Names, addresses, phone numbers, etc. (Appendix 1, Advisory Committee Recommendations, p. 16)

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.

RECOMMENDATION 14: CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES.

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:

Contracting with a relative of any PIAA employees, officers, and Board of Control members, unless full public disclosure and Board of Control approval is attained.

The receipt of any undisclosed gifts by PIAA employees, officers, and Board of Control members from entities with whom the PIAA contracts.

The payment of monies by PIAA to, or on behalf of, family members of PIAA employees, officers, and Board of Control members, unless such payment is in connection with official business and approved by vote of the Board of Control.

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:

Mr. Stanley Bem. Mr. Bem, President of the PIAA Board of Control, testified that the PIAA has 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. (D 0590)

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.

Expense report approval process. PIAA’s current policies regarding expense report approval procedure often results in the Executive Director or an Assistant Executive Director approving his/her own expenses. This process can result in an individual approving inappropriate or invalid expenses. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, p. 54)

Expense reimbursement policy. PIAA’s current policy regarding expense reimbursement for National Conferences does not require an individual receiving a cash advance to account for the use of the advance, nor does it require that the individual return any of the unused funds to the PIAA. Consequently, an individual receiving a cash advance can use the funds for any purpose. Members of the PIAA Executive Staff have used this advance to pay travel expenses for their dependents, which do not have a bona fide business purpose for traveling with the conference participants. (Appendix 2, Coopers Review, pp. 59 - 61)

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

Recommendations of the Advisory Committees

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