Council Discusses Transfer Proposal

The California Interscholastic Federation’s proposed statewide pre-enrollment contact form that aims to curb violations of undue influence rules would not necessarily prevent school officials from lying to enroll athletic transfers, a section commissioner conceded Friday after the state’s federated council discussed the issue during its regular meeting at the Los Angeles Airport Marriott.

But the form would serve as a deterrent and could document dishonesty if a transfer was later found to have been recruited by school officials or intermediaries, Southern Section Commissioner Jim Staunton said.

“I don’t think there’s any way to prevent dishonesty,” Staunton said. “However, if you signed a form and put your name to it, this society thinks that’s pretty significant. So if a principal found that a coach had physically put his name on a document and lied, that could have some serious consequences at the school site and as far as CIF is concerned.”

The proposed form would require principals, athletic directors and coaches to certify that no one connected with booster clubs or athletic department had contact with prospective transfers. The form would have to be signed by officials at the former school and the new school, as well as by the transferring student and his parents.

Under the proposal, prospective transfers would have to submit the pre-enrollment contact form in addition to a form requesting transfer eligibility if they were utilizing an open-enrollment transfer. Those transferring through a change of address would not have to submit the contact form unless questions arose concerning possible recruitment.

Penalties for failing to disclose pre-enrollment contact would include: forfeiture of games in which the student was a member of the team, disqualification of the student’s team from the playoffs and forfeiture of championships won while the student was a member of the team.

Staunton would rule on penalties for the Southern Section, while a discipline panel would rule in the Los Angeles City Section. The proposal could face a vote in May.