Legislation Not Needed For NSAA Changes

Details: 05 March 2010

During the remaining couple dozen working days in their current session, Nebraska legislators are likely to spend some time and energy deciding the extent to which they should use state law to dictate organizational, governance and policy changes regarding the Nebraska School Activities Association.

LB 1021 deals with this subject matter. It was advanced to the full Legislature by the Education Committee, albeit with a recommended amendment that would pare its impact. It is the priority bill for Lincoln senator Bill Avery; having been designated for that status, there’s little doubt the bill will be addressed on the floor of the Unicameral.

Among all the many issues, concerns and problems the Legislature can and does deal with, matters such as tax and fiscal policy, energy, health and welfare, the core of education, higher education, roads and infrastructure, water, law enforcement, criminal justice, etc., etc., giving attention to this one is a bit of a head-scratcher. It is connected to education, but only in the context of extracurricular activities.

The Nebraska School Activities Association has a 100-year history of governing and managing interscholastic competition and contests involving high schools statewide, encompassing both public and private high schools.

The NSAA is not a governmental agency. It is not part of, or beholden to the state Department of Education. It is an independent, non-profit, membership-based, self-governing organization with a constitution and by-laws and its own representative, legislative, and judicial processes. Its members are the high schools. They pay dues and activity fees, but by far the greatest amount of revenue is generated from admission and concession sales involved with well-attended district and state contests in athletics primarily; music, drama, speech, debate and journalism are also sanctioned activities.

If the reported numbers are correct, about five percent of NSAA’s annual budget is tied to tax dollars. That budget is $3.5 million, of which $210,000 is paid by the member schools in dues and fees. But that number drops to $182,500 as the public-school, tax-supported share, since approximately 13 percent of the member schools are private and non-tax-supported.

The independent, membership-governance model and the small amount of tax support notwithstanding, Senator Avery and some others apparently have concluded that there are enough public-interest and quasi-governmental elements in the NSAA to justify involvement by the Legislature. He is urging legislative action to address issues he has identified with respect to fairness, accountability, transparency and oversight.

Legislative interest in the NSAA was originally prompted by concerns some parents had in recent years with rules that limited “dual participation” in non-school “club programs” during the concurrent interscholastic sports seasons. From the NSAA’s perspective, this was a matter of protecting the integrity of the high-school programs and watching out for the welfare of the student athletes. For the parents and club coaches it was viewed as an intrusion upon their rights to enable their children and athletes to train and compete to the extent they desired.

The parents and club coaches took their concerns to state legislators, such as Sen. Avery, who, upon examination, identified broader issues of concern.

Make no mistake, there are legitimate issues involving the structure and governance of the NSAA, especially with regard to equity and fairness in the representation to which the association has been accustomed. Senator Avery points to the fact that over 100 years, the NSAA’s top level of governance, its elected, six-member Board of Control, has never had a member of a racial minority and only one female.

Interestingly, as far as we have been able to determine, there never has been a board of control member from other than a public school either. What’s more, there have been rules that have been unfair to private-school members, particularly strict reliance upon public-school-district boundaries for residency, eligibility and transfer rules. Nonetheless, changes have been made over the years and matters have improved.

Obviously, private schools are a minority in the NSAA membership, but they participate actively in the elections and processes and seem generally satisfied with the relationship. By no means are they advocating for intervention by the Legislature in the governance of the NSAA. Like their public-school counterparts they have doubts and concerns about the looming presence of LB 1021 and its repercussions for an independent, non-governmental association.

To its credit, the Legislature’s Education Committee has recommended that LB 1021 be scaled back to a point that it only would impose requirements for open meetings and open records, similar to those that apply to governmental subdivisions. The committee has proposed an amendment to accomplish this. But even that might be going too far. It is unnecessary legislation with consequences for the independence of an organization that ought to be independent. The NSAA’s governing authority and its member schools cannot have been oblivious to the clamor. They have gotten the message. Changes will be made. The Legislature need not dictate change, but should watch it happen.