Two appeals have been filed challenging a vote last month to realign high school sports leagues in the Central Section of the California Interscholastic Federation.

Beating last Thursday's filing deadline was an appeal filed by the East Sequoia League, representing the Sequoia Division, and another by the Garces Rams of Bakersfield, reported Jim Crichlow, the section's commissioner.

Crichlow conferred with Mike Henson, president of the Central Section's Executive Committee, then announced Friday that a special meeting would be held Aug. 13, at a site and time to be determined, to hear the two appeals and take a final vote on realignment.

"I need to get the paperwork out to everybody so they can review the documents and make their plans to speak at the meeting or whatever they might want to do," Crichlow said.

Sparking the appeals was a final vote taken May 14 in Porterville during a special meeting of the executive committee to realign all sports leagues in the Central Section for the 2004-2006 seasons.

East Sequoia League schools, joined by those in the Central Sequoia League, including Kingsburg and Selma, opposed the approved lineup for the Sequoia Division. It would create two eight-team leagues and one six-team league for the division's 22 schools. North Sequoia League schools, led by Washington Union of Easton, supported that arrangement, and got enough voting help from schools in the Yosemite and Sierra divisions to push the matter through by a slim 17-14 margin.

Led by principals and superintendents in Orosi, Kingsburg and Exeter, a decision was made to file an appeal in the hope the Sequoia Division would be allowed to determine its own alignment, largely because schools in the Yosemite and Sierra divisions were satisfied with their alignments.

Schools in opposition to the 8-8-6 alignment, in the ESL's appeal, have proposed that at least four leagues be created, with from five to six teams in each league.

"We are trying to get six-team leagues," said Gene Etheridge, principal of Orosi High School. "We are hopeful of reopening the dialogue and getting all of the concerns discussed and not being ramrodded into action by whoever."

Etheridge personally carried the East Sequoia's appeal to Crichlow's office in Porterville. He said it was filed on behalf of Woodlake, Corcoran, Exeter, Dinuba, Lindsay and Orosi. He indicated support was coming in from other Sequoia Division schools, particularly those in the CSL.

"We support Gene and the ESL and we plan on being there when this is heard again," said Linda Clark, superintendent and principal at Kingsburg.

Etheridge explained that the ESL's appeal focused on three points that came out of the May 14 meeting and final vote:

How the due process rights of schools were violated,

Concerns raised by leagues about the realignment plan, and

Counterproposals submitted by the ESL "which includes every school affected by the proposed change."

"All the Sequoia schools will be able to show their support or non-support of this," Etheridge said of three counterproposals the ESL submitted. About the May 14 vote he added, "All we want to do is make sure that everything was followed properly."

Etheridge said he believes due process was violated because a requested "roll call of committee members present and record of vote of each league placement committee member during the placement committee meetings [held prior to the May 14 meeting] has been requested and not received," the appeal stated.

The time line established in the section's constitution and bylaws (under legal procedures) for conducting the realignment process "has not or continues not to be followed," the appeal stated. The process was supposed to have started in April with an organizational meeting, followed in May by submission of league proposals and requests. In September, a hearing and review of the proposals and requests was supposed to have been conducted. In October, a further hearing and submission of a final proposal to the executive committee was called for, with the committee holding a first reading. A second reading and final adoption was set to occur in November.

Instead of this process, Etheridge said the section's placement committee began meeting in February and the final vote was taken on May 14.

"We are either a half-year behind or a half-year ahead in our process," Etheridge said. "I think that is not good when we are trying to teach kids how they should follow rules and be accountable."

The ESL's appeal also noted concerns about the economic impact of the 8-8-6 alignment, which would result in significant increases in travel mileage to games for many schools and would take students out of their classrooms for longer periods.

"The plan is in direct violation of the guidelines supported by the superintendent's Inter-League CIF Council concerning student/athletes academic time out of class and the increased economic impact for many schools and leagues," the ESL's appeal stated. "Those are solid concerns and open for debate," Etheridge added.

"As it stands this plan [8-8-6] would be financially unacceptable to us," Clark said. She said it would double her school's transportation mileage to more than 9,700 miles, increase travel costs by double, and add 250 more hours to the time students spend out of class traveling to and from games.

Cutting the Sequoia Division from its current four-league alignment to three leagues would reduce voting opportunities for the division on the executive committee, the appeal stated. Each league currently gets two votes on the panel.

A majority of Sequoia Division schools opposed the 8-8-6 realignment plan, the appeal stated. In a poll taken May 14 prior to the final vote, 10 Sequoia schools voiced their opposition, four supported the plan and three decided to leave deciding the matter up to the executive committee.

The ESL's appeal added that "the number of schools [eight] in three of the realigned leagues gives limited opportunity to have contests with schools outside the league."

In the realignment plan approved May 14, three leagues -- two in the Sequoia Division and one in the Sierra Division -- would each have eight teams. Etheridge said those leagues are too unwieldy and are the major cause for increased costs and time out of school.

Clark said that if an appeal is successful in overturning the approved plan, the Sequoia Division would ask that only its releaguing alignment be considered, since schools in the Yosemite and Sierra divisions appear happy with their alignments. That might not remain the case when two of the three counterproposals submitted by the ESL, and Garces' appeal, receive hearings in August.

"We would want to break off from the others and decide among just the Sequoia Division schools how the leagues would be structured," she said.

ESL proposal No. 1 would create a 5-5-6-6 alignment within the current 22-school division.

Proposal No. 2 would keep those 22 schools and add two schools -- Firebaugh and Liberty of Madera Ranchos -- from the approved eight-team West Sierra League to the new North Sequoia League. Immanuel of Reedley would move from the North to the new Central Sequoia League, creating a 6-6-6-6 look.

Proposal No. 3 would basically create the same 6-6-6-6 arrangement, but instead of Firebaugh, Caruthers and Liberty would come up from the West Sierra League to round out the North Sequoia League, after Immanuel moved over to the Central.

Garces's appeal centers on its concern that its football teams would be greatly outmanned by the larger schools in the Southeast Yosemite League, against which it is expected to compete in 2004-2006.

In its counterproposal Garces has asked that the 18 schools that form the Southeast and Southwest Yosemite leagues and the South Sequoia League be "divided into three leagues, based on competitiveness," for football only. A second football-only counterproposal would have Garces go back to the six-team South Sequoia League with Arvin, Shafter, Taft, Wasco, Tehachapi and Golden Valley of Bakersfield, leaving the Southeast Yosemite with five Bakersfield schools -- Bakersfield High, East, Foothill, Highland and Liberty.

Etheridge fired one final warning shot at the executive committee well in advance of its August special meeting.

"If this [appeal] is not approved, it goes right to the Federated Council of the state," he said of an appeal step beyond the section's executive committee. "I believe it will be overturned there, because they [Central Section] are not following the rules."

(June 03, 2003 Newspaper Publication)