New NCHSAA law throws uncertainty into rules, eligibility

A controversial N.C. Senate bill that hands over high school athletics oversight to the State Board of Education became law Monday after Gov. Roy Cooper declined to issue a veto while calling it "a solution in search of a problem."

The changes made in Senate Bill 452 are set to go into full effect on July 1.

SB452 cleared the legislature Sept. 22 following a last-minute, Republican-sponsored insertion of the high-school sports language into what had been a N.C. Insurance Department omnibus bill. The House passed the revamped version by a 67-43 vote at 12:26 a.m. Sept. 22, while the Senate approved it by a 43-0 vote at 10:27 a.m.

Perhaps the most noteworthy shift is that the state superintendent of Public Instruction — a statewide elected official held by Republican Catherine Truitt — is now in charge of reaching any future memorandums of understanding with the NCHSAA.

Cooper said in a statement in addressing SB432 that "legislators shouldn't insert politics into schools and sports, but instead allow the bipartisan compromise approved last session (House Bill 91) to continue so students can compete fairly with the support they need."

NCHSAA commissioner Que Tucker said during a press conference Tuesday that SB452 "handcuffs the means to which the NCHSAA can operate."

"While we agree with the governor's sentiment, we do wish that he had utilized his veto power, forcing the senators to again garner the vote to override the veto."

Tucker said the NCHSAA board of directors may consider legal steps regarding SB452 following ongoing conversation with its 436 member schools.

Tucker said she believes the memorandum of understanding with the SBE will remain in effect for the rest of the 2023-24 school year.

A Sept. 22 news release from the primary bill sponsors of Senate Bill 636 — whose language was inserted into SB452 — stated that the legislation "is a culmination of three years of efforts to gain access to materials, financial records and policies related to how high school athletics are governed."

"The bill provides much needed transparency and accountability in our public high school athletic system and removes the ability of a private organization to unilaterally make life-changing decisions for our student athletes."

Primary SB636 bill sponsor Sen. Vickie Sawyer, R-Iredell, has butted heads repeatedly with NCHSAA leadership and its board in recent years addressing high school participation rules.

Tucker said "certainly there could be some personal issues going on ... some personal agendas" with some legislators in terms of SB452.

"I'm sure there are certain legislators who feel this bill is a win, but (the NCHSAA) will do all we can to ensure that it is not a loss for the student-athletes of North Carolina," Tucker said.

Tucker said a litmus test will be to see if any legislators step in —"walk us back" — if SB452 fails to properly protect student-athletes from eligibility and participation harm.

Uncertainty

With SB452 becoming law, it interjects uncertainty into the NCHSAA's oversight role that it had held since 1913.

SB452 would require the SBE to adopt new or revised temporary rules in interscholastic sports for the 2024-25 school year, and then adopt permanent rules for the 2025-26 school year.

That includes establishing and overseeing all student participation rules, such as academic standards, attendance requirements, enrollment and transfer requirements, hardship exceptions, medical eligibility requirements and recruiting limitations.

Tucker said a new memorandum of understanding with Truitt will need to begin negotiations soon.

Tucker stressed there's no certainty that the NCHSAA and Truitt will be able to agree on the next memorandum of understanding, which she said could lead to a "wild, wild West" scenario for competition rules and regulations.

That includes in particular which group oversees postseason events that lead to state championships.

"That's my fear, that we could be someone who is making up those rules as they go along without a lot of foresight to it," Tucker said.

Tucker said there is a possibility that some, possibly a majority, of NCHSAA members may not agree with whatever new memorandum of understanding that Truitt signs off on.

The N.C. Athletics Directors Association also came out strongly against the passage of SB452, saying it "interjects unnecessary politicization into an organization that has seen its members successfully govern their affairs" for 110 years.

Closing loopholes

Republican bill sponsors of SB636 have claimed their legislation is necessary to close what they considered loopholes in House Bill 91 that provided the framework for a four-year memorandum between the SBE and NCHSAA that began with the 2023-24 school year.

Those loopholes included banning transgender children from playing the sport of the gender they identify with.

It also establishes an eligibility appeal process to a planned state education committee that would allow for direct appeals by students and their parents to the state superintendent.

SB452 also keeps language that would allow the SBE to regulate name, image and likeness deals for high school athletes rather than the NCHSAA.

Sen. Todd Johnson, R-Cabarrus, and Sawyer repeated claims made during the HB91 debates that high school athletic and administration officials are often too intimidated by the NCHSAA to pursue appeals.

The appeal process allows the superintendent to appoint an independent appeals board that would hear appeals not only directly from schools, but individual students and their parents. The NCHSAA would not be allowed to change the new appeals process.

"At the end of the day, a parent, a caregiver and a student-athlete should ultimately be able to control their own destiny, and they should be able to appeal," Johnson said.

Sawyer said bill sponsors' intent is not to appeal "balls and strikes, the call at the plate ... but rather eligibility guidelines and rules. This isn't 'I lost the big game and now I want to appeal it.' "

However, Sawyer didn't have an answer to a scenario in which an athlete/parent successfully appeals an eligibility issue, but the school or coach still chooses not to play them.

"I hope our membership will demand — whoever is administrating high school athletics — that we can't truly become the wild, wild West, and that rules and regulations in the next memorandum of understanding makes sense, and doesn't make them too loose ... and affect fair play," Tucker said.

"My fear is that we may get to the point that we rule this way in Case A, and then differently in Case B because we feel bad for this family.

"That's a terrible way to govern high school athletics."