Prior Story: Foreign Students Sent to The Stands by proposed CIF Rule Change

Click here for background story

(April 15, 2010) The California Interscholastic Federation’s (CIF) proposed change to Bylaw 209 (Click here to read CIF document in full) effectively eliminates foreign students’ ability to participate in sports at the varsity level in any sports the student participated in during the twelve months preceding enrollment. The CIF plans to vote on this proposal at its May 7-8 Spring meeting in Sacramento at the Embassy Suites. (Note: see end of story for “How you can help stop this” information)

CIF believes recent violations of recruiting rules by a few exchange programs requires action – drastic action – to be taken to keep things right.

“It has been extremely apparent the last few years that more and more students are not being randomly placed in approved foreign exchange programs.  Rather, through various means the foreign student is asking to be placed at a specific school [for] athletically motivated reasons. Four (4) foreign exchange programs have been placed on probation for this year for violating CIF 510.” (Click here to read CIF document in full)

The proposed change addresses CIF concerns by allowing exchange and foreign students varsity participation only in sports they had not participated in, at any level, during the past twelve months:

“Foreign Exchange students transferring under the auspices of a CIF-approved foreign exchange program from a school located outside the United States, a U.S. Military Base, a U.S. Territory or Canada to a CIF member school may be granted residential eligibility for all CIF athletic competition EXCEPT varsity level competition in sports in which the student has competed at any level of play for a school or club during the 12 calendar months preceding the date of transfer to the CIF member school. (Click here to read CIF document in full)

Simply put, no matter the level of participation during the preceding twelve months, an exchange or foreign student would not be given varsity status. JV to varsity? No. Freshman to varsity? No. Club to varsity? No.

While seemingly sensible given the proposed rules’ congruence with similar eligibility and transfer rules for US students, the rule change when understood in context of US Immigration rules around foreign and exchange students, winds up creating a situation where these students won’t be able to participate in varsity sports.

Here’s why.

First, foreign exchange programs limit student’s attendance at US High Schools to a maximum of one academic year. Once a student’s exchange year is completed, the student is required by US immigration law to return to their home country for two years before returning to the United States. (Click here to read US Immigration Laws related to exchange students)

Second, foreign students attending high school in the US on an F-1 Visa are limited by law to one year of public high school attendance. There is no limit placed on these students’ attendance at private schools. (Click here to read US Immigration Laws related to foreign students)

Given US law limits foreign exchange and foreign students attendance at public schools to one year, no foreign exchange or foreign student attending a public high school would be able to participate in a varsity sport after the limited eligibility period expired since they’d no longer attend the school or would have returned to their country of origin.

The only possibility for foreign students to play varsity sports would be through attendance at a private school since US law does not restrict the length of foreign students attendance at private schools. Here a student would have to wait one year before playing a varsity sport but the student would still be around since the one-year rule only applies to public schools.

The short here is an exchange or foreign student attending a public high school will not be able to participate in his or her “sport of record”. That’s the price they’d pay for electing to participate in an exchange program or attend high school in the US. That’s also the price they’d pay for historical recruiting rules violations done by a few schools.

Our view is this is the classic case of “kick the dog”. The real culprits are not the students. The real culprits are the exchange programs and coaches who deliberately “work the system” to get star players into varsity programs.

A better solution to enact would be to seriously penalize exchange programs, schools and coaches found to be violating CIF rules. “Probation” for violations isn’t enough. It’s a slap on the wrist that causes no pain to a program, school or coaching staff. It just means they’ll work harder to not get caught the next time.

Why not impose sanctions that matters? Something with teeth in it like forfeited games for first time violations. That would put violators on notice and certainly decrease the number of attempts to “work the system.”

Penalizing students is not the right way to handle this problem. There are more students following the rules than not. Why throw the baby out with the bath water?

If you’re reading this CIF, go after the violators not the students.

How can you help?

If you’d like to voice your displeasure with the proposed change to CIF Bylaw 209, contact CIF Executive Director, Marie Ishida via email at ishidasan@cifstate.org or call her at (916) 239.4477.  You can find CIF section commissioner contact information at http://cifstate.org/about/sections/index.html.

Rumor: I’ve now heard the entire coaching staff (varsity, JV and freshman) resigned, not just Taylor. Can anyone validate this? If true, what was the reason given?

News Story (4/9/2010) – Auburn Journal – Rocklin’s Taylor resigns as basketball coach

UPDATE (4/9/2010): Word coming in now is Steve Taylor has resigned as coach for Rocklin varsity boys basketball. More to come as information rolls my way.

(4/9/2010) Recent activity on this web site suggests something might be in the works regarding Steve Taylor’s tenure as Rocklin High School’s varsity boys basketball coach.

Was it something a note someone slipped my way on a napkin? An anonymous email or post? Neither. It was something found in this site’s readership reports. Specifically site search terms and pages read.

Over the past week a couple of things have caught my eye.

First, when some arrives on this site as a result of a Yahoo, Bing or Google search, the search terms used to get here are captured and displayed to me as the site administrator. During the past week, I noted quite a few people arrived at the site using search terms containing one or more of the following words or strings:

- Steve Taylor
- Rocklin
- Resigned
- Rockin High School
- CIF sanctions
- recruiting violations

Second, the first story I ever published on this site, Rocklin and Roseville High School recruiting violations, has recently seen a resurgence in activity. The original story was posted on March 2, 2010. One would expect readership of the story to decrease over time, which it had. That was until last week when traffic began to climb again.

Now, I am not in the know as to whether Steve Taylor is going to resign, but if I were a betting man…

In the end, the truth will come out. I may be wrong in my analysis, I may be right. Either way, the data analysis certainly is interesting… even as a conversation piece.

(April 5, 2010) California’s club soccer programs – specifically girls and boys U14, U15, U16, U17 and U18 teams – are about to get kicked to the curb by the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF). It seems CIF has had it with players doing double duty on high school and club teams during soccer season. They want to end this practice and force kids into playing for their high school teams only during soccer season.

Player double-duty is not a new problem. Club soccer and high school soccer seasons happen at the same time and CIF has historically allowed players to “double up.” Whether it’s fall for the boys or spring for the girls, there’s alway something going on as far as Club teams are concerned. Maybe not so much in the spring for girls high school, but the fall… well, we all know the mayhem.

The Bylaw change, if approved, will have an enormous effect on California’s club soccer programs. Most would argue it may not be that bad for club soccer since when given a choice between high school and club soccer, the sane player would likely choose club given these programs are for the most part better than high school. However, the reality is dilution to club program will be the likely result with some players choosing club and others high school. The end result will be damaged Club programs since they rely on player fees not taxes to survive.

A damaged club program is not good for US soccer in general or competition. Like it or not, these programs, not high school soccer, are where most US soccer stars are trained and groomed for the big stage.

So, here’s the skinny on what going to be voted on by CIF on May 7th and what you can do to protest. The below was taken directly from CIF documents:

Revision of CIF Bylaw 600 (Outside Competition-soccer)

This revision would mandate that students could not compete on an outside team in the sport of soccer while competing for their high school team, regardless of the season in which soccer is played. Currently, our students can compete on outside teams because we play during the fall (boys) and the spring (girls).

CIF State description on why Bylaw change is needed - Click here to read CIF document
CIF State Bylaw 600 revision – Click here to see actual Bylaw changes

CIFWatchdog Comment: This may cause serious damage to club soccer in the state of California since both high school and club have co-existed for quite some time. Club soccer is no small entity and, in fact, considered to be of higher quality than most high school programs. Many players feed into ODP and State programs from club programs.

This change effectively forces players to choose between club and high school programs. Not a good choice. I am not sure which program will suffer more, but either way, both programs lose.

If you believe this is change for the worse, I urge you to contact your CIF Section Commissioner (Click here for phone an email contact information) to voice your concerns. If you’d like to contact CIF State, direct your communication to its president, Marie Ishida at ishidasan@cifstate.org or 916-239-4477.

The more people knowing about this and complaining the better the chance of derailing it – Please send this link to your friends -  http://cifwatchdog.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/club-soccer-gets-kicked-in-the-rear-by-cif/

By Christian Hendricks, chendricks@cifwatchdog.com

Remi Barry Recruiting Website – Click here

Credit: Christian Hendricks

LOOMIS, California – Remi Barry, the French national transfer student denied eligibility to play high school basketball by the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), will finally hit the floor Saturday when the YBA Dawgs open up the Spring AAU competitive basketball season at Hardwood Palace in Rocklin. The 6’7” Del Oro High School transfer student will play alongside a lineup of Sierra Foothills League (SFL) star players from Nevada Union, Rocklin, Granite Bay and Del Oro. Also included on the roster is 6’9” Yuba City star Zack Nelson. Other key players from Colfax and Vista Del Lago are likely to join the squad.

Barry hasn’t played in a high school game since February of 2009, but worked out with the Golden Eagles all season. “I’m really excited about playing this weekend,” Barry said, “I really would have liked to play high school basketball this year, but AAU is a good substitute since I’ll be playing with and against the area’s and nation’s best players.”

Barry did not suit up for the Golden Eagles this season after the CIF ruled his transfer violated its bylaws. Barry’s appeal of the CIF ruling was denied by a CIF appeals-panel in January. Barry and his lawyer then filed for a Stay in Placer Superior Court that would have allowed him to play prior to a court hearing on the merit of the CIF’s initial denial. The plea for a Stay was unsuccessful and Barry was resigned to cheering for his teammates from the bench for the remainder of the SFL season and post-season play.

Coached by Millard “Doc” Haynes, the YBA Dawgs varsity-level travel team is expected to fair well locally and at NCAA-sanctioned tournaments in the Bay Area, Los Angeles and Las Vegas. “Last year, we put a lot of top-tier teams on notice at sanctioned events, “said Coach Haynes, “This year we expect to do even better. We expect to win.”

Founded in 2004, YBA basketball teaches local youth basketball players the fundamentals of the game in a competitive environment and provides older players with the opportunity to be seen by college coaches and potentially secure scholarships.

Barry is still a highly recruited D1 college prospect despite missing his senior year.  “We’re confident YBA will provide Remi and our other seniors with greater exposure to college recruiters and coaches,” said YBA Program Director Ken Gee, “These are talented kids who will likely be scholarship players in college next fall.” During the past seasons, several YBA players secured playing commitments and scholarships to Harvard, St. Michael’s, St. Mary’s and UC Davis among other schools.

Saturday’s tip-off is at 3:30PM on Court 2 at Hardwood Palace. YBA matches up against Carson Valley AAU out of Minden, Nevada. Hardwood Palace is located at 1091 Tinker Road in Rocklin. For more information call (916) 543-4433.

Related links:

Youth Basketball Academy – http://www.ybdawgs.com
YBA Dawgs Varsity – http://www.ybadawgs.com/P.aspx?PageId=58426
Hardwood Palace – http://www.hardwoodpalace.com/
Tournament Schedule – http://xtremehoops.us/schedule/current.pdf

According to CIF rules, a student has the right to appeal a decision made by CIF regarding eligibility at an appeals hearing set by CIF. As detailed in Parent Handbook II: Understanding the Transfer Eligibility Appeal Process, appeal hearings are held before an impartial review officer or impartial panel of three persons.

A cursory review of the rules and words used to describe said hearing would lead most reasonable people to believe the process to be no different than a traditional court of law. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

According the Parent Handbook:

“Appeals Panel members or Review Officers may be current or retired school district administrators or athletic directors, retired or current athletic administrators or retired Section officers. No Appeals Panel member may be employed by, or retired from, the schools, school districts, leagues or conferences involved in your appeal. The State Appeals Office sets the Appeals Panel.”

So, in the case of a CIF appeal hearing, it’s truly not possible for panel members to be impartial (definition) since the all have current or previous ties to CIF, be it directly or indirectly. A recent Auburn Journal story by Eric Gourley offers good insight into the appeals panel selection process.

Given panel members’ ties to CIF, it’s not unfair to conclude each would naturally have a predisposition to find in favor of and protect CIF. Even if panel members didn’t, the mere perception of partiality should cause one pause. It’s akin to having a fraternity brother or cousin on the jury at your own trial. No lawyer would allow such a thing to happen. It wouldn’t be fair. What CIF has is not impartial. It’s a process slanted in favor of CIF.

There is a simple solution to this problem. Add non-related individuals to the appeals panel. CIF would no doubt fight this, arguing non-related individuals wouldn’t be familiar with CIF Bylaws. While this perspective sounds reasonable, it’s a ruse. The assumption that CIF-related panel members understand the rules is simply wrong. The appeals panel I am familiar with wasn’t as familiar with the rules as one would hope and believe, especially with so much at stake. Sadly, nor was the CIF lawyer. Regardless, we’re not talking about rocket science here. It wouldn’t take too long for an “outsider” to bone up on CIF Bylaws and listen to a student-athlete’s case before making a decision.

So, what’s CIF afraid of here? Probably what it professes to seek, fairness. Introducing outsiders to the appeals process and panel instantly introduces transparency and fairness while, at the same time, eliminating cronyism and favoritism, perceived or real. We all know the stories. School A violates rules and CIF looks the others way. School B violates rules and the book gets thrown at them. CIF answer to this is, all cases are different. Alright then, if this isn’t the case, CIF should be willing to prove it by releasing facts around cases instead of hiding behind statements like, “It’s not CIF practice to release information…”

The use of the word “hearing” by CIF should also make one shudder. Clearly, CIF wants people to believe its “hearing” process is similar to that of a true court of law. You know, the one with due process and rules of evidence. Unfortunately, CIF’s “hearing” is not even a distant cousin of how you probably think a hearing is conducted. CIF’s Parent Handbook is clear about its appeal hearing procedures, “The technical rules of evidence and rules for the examination of witnesses do not apply.”

So, let’s break this down. The simplest summary is, California Rules of Evidence are NOT followed and, as such, hearsay evidence and innuendo are fully admissible and given standing. What’s that mean? It means CIF doesn’t have to prove its case with facts. A statement made by a third-party to the effect of, “I heard so and so say…” can lead to the denial of eligibility for a student athlete. Period. It’s truly an anything goes situation. The infamous, “he said, she said,” we all try to avoid is in full play.

Evidence as presented by CIF need be nothing more than innuendo and hearsay. Regardless of fact-based submissions in defense of the student athlete, ALL submissions are tragically treated equally and evaluated by an “impartial” (see above) appeals panel. Would you favor your fraternity brother or a stranger in a “he said, she said” argument?

CIF has in effect created a Kangaroo Court.

As I’ve said in previous posts, most people are too lazy to research and truly understand CIF Bylaws and rules.  Instead people take what’s implied in CIF statements at face value. The Kangaroo Court used for eligibility appeal hearings is a far cry from a true court of law. In the case of student athletes, it merely a tool for CIF to fool the public into believing there’s an appeals process, appeals panel and appeals hearing that’s fair and follows due process like our true court of law.

In the end it’s a way for CIF to continue its unfair and biased way of dispensing its version of fair while keeping the public at bay. This is indeed a sad situation for schools and student-athletes and is likely the underpinning of CIFs image problem with the public.

The fix is easy. CIF needs to establish a true appeals process for student-athletes. This is not too big an “ask” as far as I can tell.

So, what are you waiting for CIF?

“If we start interpreting every single rule, we would be so bogged down,” [CIF] Southern Section spokesman Thom Simmons said. “It would bring this organization to a standstill.” (story)

No one wants to be bogged down or at a standstill, right? In my opinion, the potential standstill or bog-down aren’t the real issue though. It’s really about the potential increased cost of having someone interpret the rules and apply them based on the circumstances. CIF believes it costs more to be reasonable. Lord knows our real judicial system relies on interpretation and gives plenty of consideration to circumstance. So why can’t CIF?

Bogged down? More expensive? Sounds plausible, but let’s think it through for a second. If reasonably-minded adults evaluated CIF decisions without its Bylaws, I bet their “performance” would be better than CIFs and it would cost a whole lot less to defend challenged decisions. As a matter of point, CIF spends more than $1.1 million each year on legal fees (document). The majority, more than $800,000, apparently is straight-up legal fees associated with defending itself at appeals hearings and in court challenges.

Here are a couple of real-life scenarios to consider – First, in 2005, “A high school relay team, among the fastest in California, is disqualified from a championship race because one of the runners is wearing different-colored underpants.” (Story) Second, “A baseball team wins its first-round playoff game, 4-0, then must forfeit because its coach, who had been suspended for a game, is seen watching — but not coaching — from down the street.” (Story)

Yes, this sounds ridiculous but in both cases CIF rules were upheld. In the case of the baseball coach, he should have probably watched the game at home via streaming video or at least from two or more blocks away. And I’m sure track fans were aghast at the sight of three chaps wearing one color underpants and their amigo wearing another.

Could CIF think for a second and be fair and reasonable here? Heck no! No one wants to get bogged down, you know. I don’t even need to go further here to have proven my point and won my bet. Any reasonably-minded adult would have clearly looked beyond these “infractions”. Especially when considering what was at stake.

Sadly, stories like this abound in California. Ask around and I’m sure you’ll quickly find someone who can tell you a story of the rigidity demonstrated by CIF in applying its rules – Rigidity that flies in the face of common sense and fairness as we know it.

 In a sorry attempt to clarify CIF’s position in regards to the relay and baseball teams, Jim Staunton, then commissioner of CIF Southern Section had this to say, “It can even appear to be a minor or a small point, but … our obligation is to uphold [CIF rules] as much as, maybe personally, we may not like to. Otherwise, there are no rules.”

Hey Jim, I hope when you and others at CIF wind up in a court of law looking for leniency, the judge looks you square in the eye and says, “No interpretation here folks. We can’t afford to get bogged down.”

Apparently, CIF officials know this all to well and have no problem invoking the same strategy when it comes to getting what they want. Especially when that something is winning an appeals case or making CIF and its commissioners look good in the eyes of peers, the press, CIF members, parents, the public and, most importantly, the legal system.

In a recent article, State CIF Appeals Coordinator, Bob Wallace told the Auburn Journal, “…the CIF hears more than 100 appeals challenging section rulings statewide each year, on average. Nearly 60 percent favor the athlete appealing…” That does sound awfully good – six of ten athletes appealing a CIF decision win upon appeal. That kind of number makes it look like CIF is actually listening to appellants and upon hearing “evidence” contrary to CIF findings, overturning its original decision. On the flipside, it makes the 40% of denied appeals seem to be really bad since CIF is, after all, so accommodating when it comes to appeals.

Mother always said, “If something sounds too good to be true, it usually is too good to be true.” That’s right everyone, what Bob Wallace said was factually incorrect. Not true. Flat our wrong.

According to a CIF Economic Viability Report submitted to the State Legislature and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in January of 2010, CIF eligibility decisions were overturned on appeal less than 40% of the time. The facts show CIF decisions were overturned only 30.4% and 36.8% of the time during the 2007-08 and 2008-09 academic years respectively. For those interested in how their section fared, the document breaks out appeals hearing results by CIF section.

Seems like the headline for this story and my mother were right.

The main thrust of Assembly Bill 352 (AB 352) requires CIF to comply with the Calfornia Public Records Act. As such, CIF will be treated as a public agency and required to provide the public with access to all records related to its operation. AB 352 also includes language permitting CIF to redact sensitive personal information when releasing records to the public, but does not allow withholding of records or documents for this reason.

The passage of AB 352 will finally lift the veil of secrecy CIF has operated under for years. No longer will CIF’s media silence and refusal to produce documents related to its activities and decision be allowed. The public will finally gain access to CIF records. A new era of CIF transparency and accountability will arrive when this Bill is passed.

As you probably guessed, CIF has lobbied hard to kill this Bill. This despite a unanimous committee vote by the Assembly in April of 2009 to move the bill along. They don’t want people knowing the truth. On the other side of the coin, the California Newspaper Publishers Association (CNPA) publicly supports passage of AB 352. In June of 2009, CNPA sent a letter to Assemblywoman Strickland detailing its support of the Bill.

So where is AB 352 today? In May of 2009, it was referred to the Committee on Rules (document) which is chaired and vice-chaired by Ted Lieu and Ted Gaines respectively. It sits in Committee today, waiting to be finalized and passed. Unless the public lets the legislature know it wants AB 352 to pass, it is likely to die in Committee.

How can you help?

Contact the following people to let them know your story and that you want AB 352 passed now. Also, tell your friends to do the same:

Assemblywoman Audra Strickland (Author of AB 352)
Phone: 916.319-2037
E-Mail: Assemblymember.Strickland@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblyman Ted Lieu (Chair, Committee on Rules)
Phone: 916.319-2053
E-mail:Assemblymember.Lieu@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblyman Ted Gaines (Vice Chair, Committee on Rules)
Phone: 916.319.2004
E-mail: Assemblymember.Gaines@assembly.ca.gov

Let’s work together to let the State know we’ve had enough of status quo from the CIF and passage of AB 352 is a big step in the right direction towards changing the organization for the better.