The High Schools : Holcomb Case Defined Limited CIF Power

After Buzz Holcomb swooped into Pacoima and took three young athletes back to his Westlake Village home, Southern Section officials made an impressive show of force. They called all the shots in setting up a meeting with Holcomb, insisting that he tell his story and leave his lawyers home.

The officials conducted a two-hour meeting at Westlake High to determine whether Holcomb violated Southern Section rules by using “undue influence” to recruit the boys to Westlake. Holcomb denied those charges, saying he grew close to the boys’ families when his son Erik competed with the boys on the same youth football and track and field teams in the San Fernando Valley.

He claimed he and his wife opened their home in an affluent suburb to the three talented athletes to help them escape their disadvantaged neighborhood. His reasons were educational, not athletic, he said.

But it was clear who shouldered the burden of proof. After the meeting, Holcomb compared the ordeal to an audit by the Internal Revenue Service.

Southern Section officials sent Holcomb away with plenty of homework. He had to document court-ordered legal guardianship for Brian Brison, Leonice Brown and Mukasa Crowe, and demonstrate that there was hardship involved in their move from Pacoima. Southern Section Commissioner Stan Thomas said it might take two weeks to rule on the case.

But Holcomb had his own homework planned: a meeting with his lawyers. It proved unnecessary. The morning after the Holcomb meeting, Andy Patterson, who serves as the Southern Section and California Interscholastic Federation lawyer, informed Thomas he had no case. Holcomb was free of all charges.

On the surface it seemed like another case of a frightened bureaucracy ducking a fight. But Thomas, who had no doubts that Holcomb violated the spirit of the undue-influence rule, was prepared to act on that belief until he learned he lacked the power.

The Southern Section, as part of the CIF, is mandated to govern high school athletics, but has only limited authority. If nothing else, the Holcomb case served as a primer for those who want to circumvent recruiting rules.

To violate the rule, a member of a CIF school or an authorized booster club must approach an athlete and persuade him or her to switch schools. By most accounts that happens regularly throughout Southern California. Few incidents result in prosecution because proving such charges is difficult.

CIF officials need witnesses. Not only does Joe Coach or Joe Booster have to approach Joe Athlete with a sweet sales pitch, but Joe Witness must be present to document the exchange.

The clever recruiter has numerous options. First, find a third party, someone with no ties to the school, to close the deal. The Holcomb case demonstrated that CIF officials have no jurisdiction over private citizens.

One Valley-area football coach brought recruiting charges to his school principal last year after his star running back received an offer to switch schools. The player rejected the offer and because the alleged recruiter was neither a school member nor booster-club representative, there were no grounds for a case.

A second tactic for the canny recruiter is to prey on youth. The Holcomb case also showed that athletes are fair game before they enter a CIF member school. Because Brison, Crowe and Brown attended grammar schools and junior highs last year, the CIF had no jurisdiction over them.

Are these helpful recruiting hints seditious? Not really. The prime ingredient in cheating remains the same for high school athletics as in other walks of life: desire. If you want to cheat, there are ample ways to get the job done. The Holcomb case just further defined the rules.

But those rules may soon change. Section commissioners throughout the state are reviewing the CIF constitution, and adopted changes will take effect for the 1989-90 school year. The undue-influence rule may undergo significant changes.

“Counsel has indicated a need to do major revisions, putting all the rules in order legally,” City Section Commissioner Hal Harkness said. “The rules need to be more clear and precise. Undue influence in the present form is in real jeopardy if it got to court.”

In the meantime, CIF officials fight an uphill battle against recruiting.

All this should not be read as an indictment of Holcomb. No one can look inside the man and see his motivations. He and the Pacoima parents claim the school switch was made strictly for academic reasons, not for athletics.

But even if he did recruit the boys and exercised undue influence, it still would be difficult to find fault with the man. CIF bylaws aside, the greater good seems to have been served.

Whatever the facts prove about the differences between Pacoima and Westlake Village, the parents favored a move for their boys. They were willing to take the extreme step of signing over legal guardianship to a man they knew for little more than a year.

The act of denying the boys athletic eligibility under those circumstances would have found little support from any jury.