Opinion ID: 848690
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The MHSAA is Created By School Districts

Text: Under 1923 PA 237, the superintendent of public instruction was delegated the authority to supervise and control interscholastic athletic activities. The MHSAA was first organized in 1924 for the purpose of coordinating and regulating interscholastic athletic activities. [1] Within the first year of its creation, the MHSAA presented a Suggested Set of Standards and Practices of Athletic Administration. Regarding these standards, the superintendent of public instruction wrote: Any athletic program to be worth having at all must contribute something to the educational value to its board. To do that it must be the result of the cooperative effort on the part of the superintendent, principal, athletic director, and student body. Complete control of the program must remain in the school itself. Any set of standards and practices must guide all these various groups.[ [2] ] Until 1972, the MHSAA was apparently housed within the Michigan Department of Education, and its Executive Director was known as the `State Director of Athletics.' Communities for Equity v. Michigan High School Athletic Ass'n, 178 F.Supp.2d 805, 810-811 (W.D.Mich., 2001). The MHSAA's handbook, rules, and regulations were part of the Michigan Administrative Code. Id. at 811. In 1972, the School Code was amended and the authority over interscholastic athletics was moved from the State Board of Education to individual school districts. Id. The Legislature expressly provided that school districts could join an organization, association or league which has as its object the promotion of sport ... and regulation of athletic... contests.... Former MCL 340.379. Although the statute did not expressly designate the MHSAA as the official organization for interscholastic athletics, it did provide that  An association established for the purpose of organizing and conducting athletic events, contests, or tournaments among schools shall be the official association of the state. Id. (emphasis added). It has been assumed that the Legislature was referencing the MHSAA. See Communities for Equity, supra at 811. Also in 1972, the MHSAA reorganized as a private not-for-profit corporation. The MHSAA's purpose remained essentially unchanged after 1972. As stated in the 1972 articles of incorporation, the MHSAA was intended to create, establish and provide for, supervise and conduct interscholastic athletic programs throughout the state consistent with the educational values of the high school curriculums [sic].... [3] As under the former law, membership in the MHSAA was voluntary. Nevertheless, once a school district joins the MHSAA, it was and is bound by the MHSAA's rules. [4] There is no express mention of athletics in the school code as revised in 1995. The law now simply authorizes school districts to join organizations as part of performing the functions of the school district.  MCL 380.11a(4) (emphasis added). However, the Revised School Code further provides that the powers of school districts are not diminished [u]nless expressly provided in the amendatory act.... MCL 380.11a(9). Thus, it can be concluded that the provision of athletics remains a proper function of school districts. It is also undisputed that the MHSAA remains the primary statewide organization that coordinates the interscholastic athletics for public school districts in Michigan. [5] Given this history, the majority's suggestion that the MHSAA is a wholly different organization from the entity that was at one time legislatively designated as the official organization for the regulation of interscholastic sports in Michigan and that was housed within the Michigan Department of Education, ante at 647, is inaccurate. As noted above, the MHSAA was not expressly named in the statute as the official state interscholastic organization after 1972. Further, the majority suggests that the voluntary nature of membership in the MHSAA is a new reality under the 1995 Revised School Code. This is not true. Membership has always been and remains voluntary. At any point since 1924, a school district could decide to not participate in interscholastic athletics and to not join the MHSAA. School districts allow the MHSAA to coordinate sports events because the MHSAA is the dominant statewide organization of interscholastic athletics, and failure to join and comply with the MHSAA rules would effectively prevent the schools from participating in interscholastic athletics. Moreover, the MHSAA's written materials demonstrate that the MHSAA is intertwined with the school districts. Specifically included in the MHSAA's eligibility guidelines are requirements that the student athlete passes at least twenty credit hours and not have been enrolled in more than eight semesters in high school. [6] Thus, not only is the MHSAA involved in the athletic activities of the students, it also establishes rules concerning the scholastic performance of the student athletes. As noted in Communities for Equity, supra at 811, the 1995 amendment of the Revised School Code, resulted in no substantive changes in the structure or operation of the MHSAA or in its relationships with its member schools. The MHSAA was created by school districts that came together in 1924 to organize interscholastic athletics, and the organization of interscholastic athletics remains the MHSAA's purpose. When school districts join the MHSAA through annual resolutions passed by the school boards, they adopt the MHSAA's constitution, by-laws, rules and regulations as their own. [7] Therefore, under the FOIA the MHSAA should be treated as a public body because it is created by state or local authority. The United States Supreme Court case of Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass'n, 531 U.S. 288, 121 S.Ct. 924, 148 L.Ed.2d 807 (2001), supports the conclusion that the MHSAA is a public body that was created by state or local authority. In Brentwood, the United States Supreme Court held that the Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (TSSAA) was a state actor subject to constitutional limitations. While it is unnecessary to decide whether the MHSAA is a state actor to determine whether the MHSAA is subject to the FOIA, the Brentwood Court's discussion of the TSSAA is of interest and relevant to this case because of the TSSAA's similarities to the MHSAA. In Brentwood, the TSSAA, like the MHSAA, was a not-for-profit corporation that was formed to oversee the interscholastic sports programs among public and private high schools in the state. The TSSAA imposed sanctions against plaintiff Brentwood Academy based on recruiting violations. In finding that the TSSAA was a state actor, the United States Supreme Court noted that the nominally private character of the Association is overborne by the pervasive entwinement of public institutions and public officials in its composition and workings ... Id. at 298, 121 S.Ct. 924. Brentwood also noted the TSSAA's membership consisted of predominantly public schools, its revenue came from its membership dues and gate receipts from tournaments held at member schools, state officials were given ex officio status on the legislative council, and TSSAA employees were eligible for the state employees retirement system. Id. at 298-300, 121 S.Ct. 924. [8] It is notable that before the United States Supreme Court in Brentwood reversed the Sixth Circuit's conclusion that the TSSAA was not a state actor, the MHSAA argued that it was very similar in structure to the TSSAA and that the nature and function of the MHSAA is virtually identical to that of the TSSAA. See Communities for Equity, supra at 846-847. To suggest that an entity like the MHSAA could be a state actor, but not also a public body under the FOIA would undercut the stated purpose of the FOIA that [a]ll persons ... are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government.... MCL 15.231(2). B