Transfer Proposal Passes, Goes Into Effect This Fall

In a decision that underscored growing disdain for the statewide surge in transfers for athletic purposes, the California Interscholastic Federation’s federated council on Friday overwhelmingly approved a proposal that aims to curtail recruiting in high school sports.

The proposal, adopted by a 97-23 vote at the Ontario Airport Marriott, will require school officials to certify that no one connected with their booster clubs or athletic programs has had contact with transfers. The new rule takes effect on a two-year trial basis starting next school year.

“This has been a significant piece of legislation to get through,” said Southern Section Commissioner Jim Staunton, a member of the committee that developed the proposal. “Now we’re going to focus on folks literally saying, ‘I did not talk to this kid before [he or she transferred],’ and hopefully forcing the issue as to whether people are talking to get kids to make transfers.”

The Los Angeles City Section was one of only two sections that opposed the measure. Barbara Fiege, director of interscholastic athletics for the City Section, said her constituents agreed with the intent of the proposal but were concerned that it would force athletes awaiting approval to sit out games while administrators sorted through paperwork.

Still, the action could be construed as moving one step closer to adopting more restrictive statewide transfer legislation, such as a proposal recently adopted by the Southern Section council that will prohibit students who transfer without moving from participating in varsity sports for one year, beginning with the 2003-04 school year.

The City and Central sections are already considering similar proposals. The City Section is expected to vote on the issue next March.

Marie Ishida, executive director of the CIF, said two potential stumbling blocks are the possibility of costly litigation and negative publicity generated by students who feel they are being unfairly denied the chance to compete in athletics.

“That’s my concern at the moment,” Ishida said. “It’s not a concern about the rule. Ultimately, all the sections could decide that we should have that rule statewide.”

Recent litigation has centered on whether participation in interscholastic athletics is a right or a privilege. In an opinion upheld by the California Supreme Court, the 4th District Court of Appeals in San Diego ruled that athletic participation is a privilege, boosting the legitimacy of the Southern Section’s new rule.

In other action, the council unanimously passed a proposal that will eliminate at-large entries into the state cross-country meet starting next fall. The proposal guarantees each section a certain number of automatic entries based on an established minimum, plus additional entries based on previous state meet performances.