The Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association, Inc. (MIAA) has brought the present petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, challenging a preliminary injunction issued by the Superior Court, which ordered MIAA to allow the Pioneer Valley Regional High School (the School) boys varsity basketball team to compete in the upcoming Division 3 Tournament. A Single Justice of the Appeals Court denied MIAA’s petition for interlocutory relief pursuant to G. L c. 231, § 118. Because tournament play starts tomorrow, MIAA can not obtain relief through the normal appellate procedure of an appeal to a full panel of the Appeals Court. Contrary to the School’s argument, MIAA does have a substantial claim at issue in this matter, as the conduct of the upcoming tournament in accordance with MIAA Rules (including rules pertaining to eligibility) affects the integrity of the competition for all teams and players, and MIAA has a substantial interest in upholding the integrity of any competition conducted under its auspices. This court will therefore entertain MIAA’s petition on the merits.

In order to obtain relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, MIAA must show that there was an abuse of discretion in the issuance of the injunction or in the Appeals Court Single Justice’s denial of the G. L. c. 231, § 118, petition. MIAA must therefore show that the record presented below would be insufficient, as a matter of law, to sustain the determination that the School had a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and the determination that the School would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted.

As to the likelihood of success on the merits, the issue is close. While the School posits a significant argument that MIAA Rules do not address eligibility for play in the case of a "dual enrollment" student, MIAA has demonstrated that it warned members (via two newsletters) of the eligibility complications that might ensue when a student was taking courses at a different institution (and specifically identifying "dual enrollment" as problematic for eligibility purposes). Given that the School itself originally took the position that the student was ineligible for play (a position that it changed based on alleged additional information), it would not appear that MIAA was acting in "bad faith" when it also concluded that the student was ineligible.

Nor does it appear likely that MIAA denied the School or the student any "due process."   While the School complains about the hasty nature of the hearing, and the fact that it was conducted via teleconference, the School itself is fully aware that time was of the utmost essence in this matter, as the problem surrounding this student’s eligibility surfaced only towards the very end of the season (at which point the School agreed that the student was ineligible) and the School only alerted MIAA to the fact that it disputed the assessment of ineligibility sometime in mid-February, with the seeding for the Division 3 Tournament only a matter of days away. "Due process" is a flexible concept, and MIAA’s effort to afford the School a hearing prior to the tournament seeding is not any denial of due process merely because, in light of those time pressures, the procedures used may have been less formal than what would be ideal.

The difficult issue is one of contract interpretation. The School has made a preliminary showing that it has a contract with MIAA, the terms of that contract including the provisions of the MIAA Rules. At this juncture, the court does not have before it the entirety of the MlAA Rules, nor the full record of the proceedings held by MIAA, nor the formal articulation of MIAA’s final decision, nor the complete facts surrounding this particular student’s academic history. In the absence of any express rule governing "dual enrollment" students, and in the absence of any express requirement that "dual enrollment" students obtain a "waiver" from MIAA in order to compete, there is some persuasive force to the School’s argument that the sudden application of such a requirement to its student violated the terms of the School’s agreement with MIAA. While MIAA suggests that there were other problems with this student’s record (and not just his status as a "dual enrollment" student), that evidence is not before the court and was not before the trial court at the time the decision was rendered on the School’s motion. The final merits of this case appear difficult to predict, but I can not conclude that the judge below abused his discretion in concluding that a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits had been demonstrated.

As to irreparable harm, there is little dispute that, if the team is prevented from participating in the tournament, a later ruling in the School’s favor would not repair the lost opportunity for the members of the School’s basketball team. The judge below clearly had an ample basis for determining that irreparable harm would flow to the School and its players if the injunction were denied.

The judge below also had ample ground for determining that the harm to MIAA from the issuance of the injunction would be curable. Specifically, the inclusion or exclusion of the School from the Division 3 Tournament does not affect the entitlement of other schools to participate.¹   The School acknowledged in its memorandum below that the MIAA Rules include provisions concerning games played under protest, and allow for retroactive adjustment of competition results if a team is ultimately disqualified or deemed ineligible for some reason. Thus, if MIAA ultimately prevails in its contention that the School’s team is ineligible for this tournament, the School has agreed that MIAA will have the power and the authority to adjust the tournament results and awards accordingly.

The injunction issued below, as worded, is somewhat ambiguous on this final point, as it declares that the School’s team is to be placed in the tournament and in the seedings "in accordance with its regular season record of 18 wins, 2 losses" and that the student whose eligibility is at issue "is eligible to participate in said tournament."²  In conformity with the School’s acknowledgment that final determinations of eligibility can, under the protest rules, be made after the games have been played, the wording of the injunction should be modified to reflect that fact. The motion judge did not have the authority to make a final determination on the claims concerning the student’s eligibility (and probably did not intend to), but the wording of the injunction, as issued, could be misread to preclude any post-competition adjustment of the player’s or the School’s eligibility. MIAA has both the authority and a compelling interest to uphold its eligibility requirements, for the sake of all the competing schools, and, if the final outcome of this litigation upholds MIAA’s determination that this particular student was ineligible, MIAA should be allowed to adjust and record the tournament results in accordance with that determination. Accordingly, the injunction issued below should be modified to add the condition that all tournament games in which the School’s team participates will be deemed to be played under protest in accordance with MIAA’s Rules.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed in part and denied in part, and the injunction issued below is to be modified in accordance with this opinion.

_____________________

¹   If the injunction remains in place, the School plus fifteen other teams will be participating in the tournament. If the injunction were vacated, the School would not participate, but the same fifteen other teams would take part. The School’s participation is not to the exclusion of some other team that would otherwise be eligible to compete in the tournament.

2  lf the student in question was not eligible to play during the regular season, the School would have to forfeit most of its regular season wins, which would make the school ineligible to participate in the tournament entirely. Obviously, a tournament team (even if it had legitimately earned a spot in the tournament) that played a tournament game with an ineligible player on the team would result in a forfeiture of that team’s tournament games. Thus, the eligibility of this particular player is critical to the School’s ability to participate in the tournament and, if the player in question is on the team during the tournament, to the validity of the School’s results in tournament play.

Franklin, MA, February 28, 2001 -- The MIAA has exercised its right to request consideration from the full Appeals Court, and expects a response to this request later today.

Franklin, MA, February 27, 2001 - - The Board of Directors of the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association voted today 14 to 3 to appeal the decision of a Franklin Superior Court Judge which overturned the Association’s ruling on the eligibility of a Pioneer Valley Regional School basketball player.

As a result the start of the Western Division II and Division III Boys Basketball tournaments have been delayed until an Appeals Court hearing can be held.

The MIAA filed a motion today with the Appeals Court in Boston asking for a single justice review of the Franklin Superior Court’s ruling issued Monday. In that decision the Court ordered the MIAA to seed Pioneer Valley Regional School into the Division III tournament with its record of 18-2 intact.

"We regret very much the uncertainty and inconvenience that will result from our decision to appeal the Court’s decision," Richard F. Neal, MIAA Executive Director, said. "However, the Board felt it has an obligation to our members schools and student athletes to make sure our rules and procedures are followed. We are confident the Appeals Court will agree with our original decision regarding this player’s eligibility."

The Board had ruled the player was ineligible to participate this year because his major course load did not meet the minimum level to qualify as a full time student. School administrators initially certified the player believing he was taking four courses at Greenfield Community College (GCC) under the Commonwealth’s Dual Enrollment program. Pioneer school officials did not learn until late January that he had dropped one of the courses at GCC and in mid-October substituted an alleged school-to-work internship at a local physical therapy office.

Following a decision by Mr. Neal that the student was ineligible an appeals hearing was conducted on February 23^rd. Following the hearing which included testimony by Pioneer and Greenfield CC officials and an examination of the written record by MIAA Board (which includes school committee members, school superintendents, high school principals and athletic directors) confirmed that the player was ineligible and Pioneer Valley should forfeit 18 games in which he played.

The Board decision was based on its belief that the school-to-work activity was not a qualified academic course as defined by both the United States and Massachusetts Departments of Education. Additionally, the Massachusetts Department of Education informed MIAA that the student was not a participant in its Dual Enrollment program.

"We believe Pioneer Valley officials failed to exercise the required supervision to ascertain the student’s attendance and academic progress," Mr. Neal said. The principal at Pioneer testified that he did not exercise supervision of attendance or academic standing for this student during either the first or the second marking periods. It was only after he learned of the changes in the student’s academic plan in late January that he began looking into the matter."

Among the admissions made by Pioneer Valley school officials and entered in the written record were the following:

• The principal admitted when he certified academic eligibility for all Pioneer athletes in November he had neither received nor sought information on this student’s status at GCC. The student had only attended Pioneer for one, 45-minute physical education class per week. The principal testified that the student’s first quarter report card contained only one grade, that for the once-a-week physical education class.

• In January Pioneer officials learned about the dropped course at GCC and the addition of the alleged school-to-work course that had been arranged. Pioneer’s documentation of this course to the MIAA included end-of-year evaluations on a checklist form supplied by the Regional Employment Board. In addition, MIAA received the student’s final paper that indicated he spent more than half his time at the physical therapy office receiving treatment for a shoulder injury.

• Greenfield CC officials reported during the appeal that they considered the student to be an "early entrant" to the college. His family was paying his tuition, contrary to DOE’s Dual Enrollment Program whereby the state or school district pays tuition. GCC officials admitted exercising little if any supervision of the student’s attendance or academic progress stating, "That is the responsibility of each professor."

• The written record indicated the student was taking a course at GCC for which he had already received credit at Pioneer Valley additionally precluding the required full course load.

"In light of the above, the Board felt it had no alternative but to appeal this decision and have the Appeals Court judge our ruling," Mr. Neal said.

Franklin, MA, February 26, 2001 - The MIAA Board of Directors will meet tomorrow (2/27) to determine its response to the court decision made late this afternoon that the Pioneer Valley boys' basketball team should be seeded into the MIAA Western Mass. tournament.

At a hearing with Pioneer Valley officials last week, the Board of Directors confirmed that an ineligible student had been participating on the Pioneer Valley boys' basketball team.

Franklin, MA, February 23, 2001 - - The Board of Directors of the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association reaffirmed an earlier decision by its administration that Pioneer Valley Regional High School must forfeit all basketball games in which an ineligible player participated. The ruling came today after the Board conducted an appeals hearing with school administrators and MIAA officials.

"These decisions are always painful because they impact student athletes who have done nothing wrong. However, after extensive discussion and examination of the record we had no choice. It is clear to us that that the player in question failed to meet Association eligibility requirements," Richard Neal, MIAA’s Executive Director said.

Pioneer Valley administrators had first brought their concerns about the player’s eligibility to the attention of the MIAA last month. In early conversations and written correspondence school officials admitted the player did not meet eligibility requirements. The ineligibility was confirmed by the MIAA executive director who requested that the required letter of forfeiture be written to PVRS opponents. PVRS appealed the executive director’s decision to the MIAA Board of Directors, which denied the appeal by a vote of 9 to 3.

In its appeal filing PVRS officials said the student was taking a physical education class one day a week at the school and three courses at Greenfield Community College as an alternative Dual Enrollment student. School officials contended he was maintaining his full student status with a School to Work activity at a local Physical Therapy office.

In its ruling the MIAA Board failed to qualify this out of school activity as a full course and, therefore, determined that the player was not taking a sufficient number of courses to qualify as a full-time student. The Board was concerned that this activity did not begin until October , several weeks into the first quarter marking period of the school year. The Board also believed a significant portion of the four hours per week the player spent at the physical therapy office was devoted to his personal rehabilitation of an injured shoulder. Moreover, there did not appear to be any formal education plan in effect, with much of the additional time spent observing the staff.

MIAA rules require the controlling high school to monitor off campus education programs carefully to ascertain the academic quality of the course, the student’s attendance and grades in a timely fashion. Pioneer Valley officials acknowledged their failure to do this during the first two quarters of the school year. They testified that they did not receive any reports from the Work to Study program until sometime in January.

"There were other concerns about Pioneer Valley’s adherence to our regulations and procedures in this case that added to the concerns regarding this students eligibility, making it difficult to rule otherwise. Mr. Neal said. "It is always a concern that cases such as this by necessity affect the remaining players on the team. However, we must enforce our rules fairly in order to maintain consistent standards for all teams, and to ensure fairness in behalf of all student athletes.," Mr. Neal said.

# # #