IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
ST. PAUL’S EPISCOPAL SCHOOL, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * CIVIL ACTION NO. CV-18-241 * The ALABAMA HIGH SCHOOL * ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and * STEVEN P. SAVARESE, as Executive * Director of the Alabama High School * Athletic Association, * * Defendants. *
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
Plaintiff St. Paul’s Episcopal School (“St. Paul’s”) brings this civil action against
Defendant Alabama High School Athletic Association (the “Association”) and Defendant Steven
P. Savarese, its Executive Director, seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive and declaratory relief to invalidate the Association’s newly-implemented classification rule on constitutional and other grounds. The new rule improperly singles out one class of Association members (private schools) for adverse and discriminatory treatment and exposes private school students competing in contact and collision sports to greater risks of injury.
A companion motion for preliminary injunction and expedited hearing will follow. TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ...... 4
III. PARTIES ...... 4
A. St. Paul’s Episcopal School ...... 4 B. The Association and Savarese ...... 6 i. The Association serves both private and public schools...... 6 ii. The Association’s governing structure...... 8 iii. The Association is a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the U.S. Constitution...... 8 IV. FACTS ...... 10
A. The Association Exists to Promote Athletic Participation and Pure Competition Among All its Member Schools...... 10 B. The Association’s Authority to Classify Schools to “Promote Athletic Competition”...... 12 C. The Association’s Private School “Student Multiplier” Rule: The First Act of Discrimination...... 14 D. The Association’s New Private School “Competitive Balance Factor.” ...... 15 i. Bias persists against private schools. Lawmakers threaten action...... 16 ii. The Association acts to keep lawmakers satisfied...... 18 iii. The Association receives warnings about the safety of the CBF...... 19 iv. The Association adopts the CBF despite warnings from medical experts.21 v. Alabama stands alone in its treatment of private school students...... 23 vi. St. Paul’s asks the Association to reconsider the CBF...... 23 E. The Effect of the CBF on Private School Athletic Programs...... 25 F. The CBF Does Not Offset Any Purported “Unfair Advantages” of Private Schools...... 27 i. Public schools regularly engage in open enrollment...... 27 ii. The Alabama Accountability Act promotes and subsidizes open enrollment...... 29 iii. The Accountability Act scholarships/tax credits directly impact athletic programs...... 31 iv. Open enrollment does not necessarily mean broad geographic enrollment...... 32 v. Open enrollment does not determine athletic achievement...... 32 G. The CBF, By Design, Exposes Private School Student-Athletes to Higher Risks of Personal Injury...... 38 i. Student-athletes from small schools are at the highest risk of personal injury...... 38 ii. The CBF, by design, increases the risk of personal injury among private school student-athletes...... 43 iii. The Association consciously disregarded known risks to player safety... 44 V. CAUSES OF ACTION...... 47
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ...... 54 I. INTRODUCTION
1. This action arises from the Association’s adoption of arbitrary and discriminatory measures that favor public school athletic programs, penalize private school success, and create greater risks of injury for private school students participating in contact and collision sports.
2. The Association is an organization of public and private schools formed by its members to promote their athletic programs, coordinate fair and balanced rules of competition, and “[e]nhance the health and safety of all participants.”1 Since 1948, the Association has classified all its member schools into separate divisions on the basis of enrollment.
Classification based on school size is universally accepted as critical to providing opportunities for fair competition and enhancing the safety of those students engaged in competition. This especially is understood to be true and necessary in collision sports, such as football, where teams with fewer and smaller athletes will be expected to incur far more injuries if required to compete against larger teams. However, at times in the past and again just recently, the
Association’s governing body has used its “classification authority” to appease demands of state lawmakers and certain public schools that private school members, solely because of their private character, must be treated differently than public schools.
3. In 1999, the Association was pressured to eliminate private schools from the organization, or at least segregate them to a separate playoff system.2 Short of eliminating these institutions, the Association adopted a measure (the first of its kind in the United States) to artificially inflate private school enrollment numbers by a factor of 1.35 to force them to play
1 2017–2018 AHSAA Handbook at 1, 94. 2 John T. James, How Much Does a Private School Student Count? A Critical Analysis of the Athletic Multiplier, 10 J. CATH.EDUC. 409, 410 (2007) (explaining that the Association “had two proposals from the membership that sought to eliminate private schools from the association or to create a separate association.”). 1 against larger schools. The premise of this “Student Multiplier” was founded on an unsubstantiated assumption that all private schools, as a class, enjoy “unfair” advantages against public schools because, reportedly, private school students “participate” in sports in greater percentages than public school students. The Student Multiplier caused many private schools, like St. Paul’s, to play at least one class above their true enrollment numbers.
4. The Student Multiplier, of late though, has failed to pacify lingering prejudices against private schools. In 2016 and again in 2017, Alabama lawmakers introduced bills to segregate public and private school competition in the Association. Fueled by new public pressure to do something, anything, the Association “convened” a task force to respond to a purported “private vs. public school problem.”
5. But while Association leaders instructed their task force to focus on private schools as the root of public school problems, it cannot be denied that many of the most difficult challenges confronting public schools in all endeavors (athletic and scholastic) are socioeconomic. In Alabama, as in all America, “the most successful public schools are in wealthier zip codes, and the worst public schools are in the poorest zip codes.”3 According to one task force member, the “haves and have nots,” the urban/rural divide, and the proliferation of
“city school districts” that siphon tax revenue out of county coffers, further limiting the resources available to already struggling schools, are issues the task force considered but refused to tackle.
Instead, to forestall government intervention, the Association capitulated to public pressures by endorsing a narrative that private schools continue to have “unfair” advantages because, the
Association suggests, private schools have no geographic boundaries. The Association calls this new culprit “open enrollment.” The Association has not, however, explained how the notion of
3 V. Strauss, Public Education’s Biggest Problem Gets Worse,WASH.POST (Sept. 14, 2011). 2 open enrollment benefits athletic pursuits. Moreover, the idea that open enrollment is unique to private schools is a fallacy. Between the Alabama Accountability Act of 2013 (“Accountability
Act”)4 and the non-resident enrollment policies now existing (and advertised) at most public schools, open enrollment has become the law of the state.5
6. Nevertheless, in the name of “fairness,” the Association adopted a new classification rule in November 2017, which impacts private schools in the upcoming school year
(2018–2019). The new rule, the “Competitive Balance Factor” (“CBF”), combines the existing
1.35 Student Multiplier with a new “Success Test” to penalize successful private schools by requiring many of them to compete, as in the case of St. Paul’s, two classes above their true enrollment and against school programs two to three times their size for the next four years. The
CBF does not apply to public schools. Even those public school teams that experience the same or even greater levels of success as their private school counterparts are exempt.
7. The CBF is patently unfair and discriminatory. But more importantly, it is unsafe. The Association adopted the CBF in conscious disregard of physician warnings and in the face of substantial medical expert literature showing that ignoring true enrollment and requiring certain private schools to move up two classifications will place private school students at the highest risk of personal injury, concussions, and chronic traumatic encephalopathy
(“CTE”). And the Alabama Association stands alone in this action. While other states have adopted competitive balance rules, no other state in the country combines a success test on top of a student multiplier, and no state in the country applies any sort of competitive balance rule to private schools only.
4 Ala. Code § 16-6D-1, et seq. 5 School choice allows students to move from public schools in one zone to public and even private schools in another zone. 3 8. The Association’s disparate treatment of private schools and private school students bears no rational connection to any legitimate state interest. Rather, the Association’s imposition of arbitrary, discriminatory, and dangerous measures against private schools and private school students was motivated by a bare desire to harm and disadvantage a politically unpopular group. Through its arbitrary and reckless conduct, and by designating private schools as an inferior, unequal class of institutions, the Association (a state actor for purposes of this
Complaint) abdicated its duties to private school members and violated their rights under the
U.S. Constitution, as well as those rights existing in the Association’s Handbook, Constitution, and Bylaws.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
1343(a)(3). The claims set forth in this Complaint arise under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and the Alabama Declaratory Judgment Act, Ala. Code §§ 6-6-220 through 232 (1975).
Supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 exists as to those claims that are so related to the federal claims in that they form part of the same case or controversy. The facts giving rise to this Complaint have created a justiciable matter of controversy between the parties.
10. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the
Defendants reside and are subject to personal jurisdiction in this district.
III. PARTIES
A. St. Paul’s Episcopal School
11. St. Paul’s is a co-educational, independent, Christian school founded in 1947. Its campus is located at 161 Dogwood Lane, Mobile, Alabama. The school serves grades pre-
4 kindergarten through 12 and had an enrollment of 310 students in grades 10th through 12th in the
2017–2018 academic year. The Head of School is Blair Fisher, and the Director of Athletics is
Steve Mask.
12. St. Paul’s educational framework is based on a doctrine of four pillars:
Academics, Fine Arts, Athletics, and Spirituality. These building blocks position St. Paul’s educators to thoughtfully prepare St. Paul’s students for their future. The school prides itself in providing a strong educational experience within a warm and diverse community dedicated to the values of character, scholarship, creativity, and love for one another and the community.
13. Above all, St. Paul’s seeks to create opportunities for the individual student to realize his or her own potential in all aspects of life. One pillar of this mission is St. Paul’s commitment to providing high quality athletic programs to all its students. St. Paul’s athletics are not a frivolous distraction; nor are they simply about winning trophies. St. Paul’s views sport as a nonpartisan, equal opportunity teacher to instill lessons in ethics, morality, perseverance, commitment, trust, leadership, and fairness. The school has created a culture where students are actively encouraged to participate in sporting endeavors.
14. That philosophy of athletic participation and inclusiveness has been effective.
Generally, about 70% of St. Paul’s upper school students participate in at least one sport, and a number of teams have won state championships.6 The lessons learned by athletic participation are also tangible in the classroom: 82% of the Class of 2017 were offered merit-based scholarships and are currently attending 30 different colleges in 12 states.
6 St. Paul’s Episcopal School, “A Look Inside,” available at http://issuu.com/epistle/docs/sps _viewbook_horizontal_2016?e=1643044/47971730 (last accessed May 2018). 5 15. The success of St. Paul’s student-athletes is explained by a simple, replicable formula: St. Paul’s combines individual student-athlete effort and achievement with superb intrapersonal and team building skills to create competitive teams.
16. St. Paul’s is a dues-paying member of the Association, and its students regularly participate in athletic contests sanctioned and administered by the Association.
17. St. Paul’s is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of Alabama and is a “person” within the meanings of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the 14th Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.
B. The Association and Savarese
18. The Association is an unincorporated organization formed by its member schools to promote and control their athletic programs.7 The Association is composed of approximately
408 public and private schools from the State of Alabama. The Association’s principal office is in Montgomery, Alabama.
19. Defendant Steven P. Savarese has been the Executive Director of the Association since 2007. On information and belief, he is a citizen and resident of Fairhope, Alabama. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Savarese was an employee of the Association and has acted as an actual and ostensible agent of the Association. Defendant Savarese is sued only in his official capacity.
i. The Association serves both private and public schools.
20. The Association was founded and organized in 1921 by its member schools. It is composed of approximately 359 public schools and 49 private and independent schools.8 Article
7 2017–2018 AHSAA Handbook at 94. 8 B. Thomas, Private vs. Public Schools: Will There Soon be Another Change in the Playing Field?,AL.COM (June 25, 2017). 6 II of the Association’s Constitution declares that, “[t]he object of this Association shall be to promote pure amateur athletic competition in the high schools of Alabama.”9
21. Private schools have been “charter members” of the Association for 97 years.10
Accordingly, despite public schools comprising approximately 88% of the Association, the
Association exists to equally serve and protect the interests of private and public schools. One of its declared purposes is “to regulate, coordinate and promote the interscholastic athletic programs among its member schools, which include public, private and parochial institutions.”11 Among its stated goals in that context is “enhance[ing] the health and safety of all participants.”12
“Major aims of the [Association] are to serve the needs of its member schools in conducting their interscholastic athletic programs and to assist member schools in reaching the educational objectives as established by their school systems.”13
22. Although Alabama high schools are technically free to conduct athletic programs without joining the Association, it is extremely difficult, as a practical matter, for schools to compete in high school athletics (whether inside or outside the state) without being a member of the Association. Association member schools are prohibited from competing against non- member schools.14 And high schools in other states are generally prohibited by their respective
9 2017–2018 AHSAA Handbook at 16 (emphasis added). 10 See J. McWilliams, Unfair Advantage: Public vs. Private Debate Rages On, TimesDaily (June 21, 2015) (quoting Defendant Savarese, stating in 2015, “Our private schools have been charter members of our association for 94 years and the public and private issue always comes up.”). 11 2017–2018 AHSAA Handbook at 94 (emphasis added). 12 Id. (emphasis added). 13 Id. 14 Id. at 41 (“An AHSAA member school may not play a contest (including scrimmages) against a non-member school . . . .”). 7 athletic associations from playing Alabama high schools that are not members of the
Association.15
ii. The Association’s governing structure.
23. The Constitution of the Association vests management of the Association’s affairs in a Legislative Council and a Central Board of Control.
24. The Legislative Council is a thirty-two member body vested with authority over the Association, which includes the authority to amend the Constitution and Bylaws.16
25. The Central Board of Control (“Board of Control”) is the Executive Body of the
Association. It has broad authority to interpret the Constitution and Bylaws, carry out the rules and regulations, and adopt new rules and regulations. There are fifteen voting members on the
Board of Control, fourteen of whom are employed by public schools or the Alabama State
Department of Education.17
iii. The Association is a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the U.S. Constitution.
26. The Association has been found to be a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and the U.S. Constitution. See Lee v. Macon County Bd. of Educ., 283 F. Supp. 194
(M.D. Ala. 1968).
15 See, e.g., Georgia High School Athletic Association 2017–2018 Constitution and Bylaws at 36 (“[M]ember schools shall compete, practice or scrimmage only against other member schools or against schools who are full members, with no restrictions, of the State Association in their respective states.” (emphasis in original)). 16 The Legislative Council is composed of the members of the Association’s eight local District Boards. Each District Board consists of four members elected from the local district. District Board Members must be superintendents, assistant superintendents, principals, assistant principals, or teachers in the high schools of the local district. 17 See 2017–2018 AHSAA Handbook at 4. Members of the Board of Control are not elected by Association member schools. One Board member is appointed by the Alabama State Superintendent of Education and the remaining members are “designated by the said Board” at its annual meeting. See AHSAA Const., art. IV(d). Rules adopted by the Board of Control are not subject to any democratic process or even subject to appeal as a matter of right. 8 27. The functions of the Association, to administer and regulate secondary school athletics, are so closely identified and pervasively entwined with state activities that the
Association is subject to the constitutional limitations placed upon state action by the Fourteenth
Amendment.
28. Some of the facts evidencing the Association’s state actor status include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Public schools comprise approximately 88% of Association member schools;18
b. Under the Constitution of the Association, the Board of Control must include one voting member from the Alabama State Department of Education, appointed by the Alabama State Superintendent of Education;19
c. Fourteen of the fifteen members of the Association’s Board of Control are employed by public schools or the Alabama State Department of Education;20
d. The Alabama State Department of Education defers to Association rules, in part, to determine student eligibility for extracurricular athletic participation in public schools;21
e. The Alabama legislature requires all private schools to comply with the Association’s Constitution and Bylaws to participate in Association functions;22
f. Employees of the Association, including Defendant Savarese, are allowed to participate in the Teachers’ Retirement System of Alabama;23
g. Portions of the Association’s revenue are derived from dues paid by member schools, which overwhelmingly are public schools;
h. A significant portion of Association-sanctioned events are held in government- owned buildings, stadiums, and arenas;
i. Between 2000 and 2017, the Association disbursed approximately $11.8 million in funding to its member schools, the majority of which, again, are public schools;24
18 See supra ¶¶ 20–21. 19 See AHSAA Const., art. IV(d). 20 See 2017–2018 AHSAA Handbook at 4. 21 Ala. State Dep’t Educ., Admin. Code 290-3-1-.02(18)(b) (Dec. 31, 2016). 22 Ala. Code § 16-1-11.6. 23 See Ala. Code § 16-25-7. 9 j. Public school principals are given a number of duties and responsibilities in the Constitution and Bylaws of the Association;25
k. District Board Members must be school superintendents, assistant superintendents, principals, assistant principals, or teachers; an overwhelming majority of these individuals are public school employees;26 and
l. The District Board Members serve on the Association’s Legislative Council; as of the 2017–2018 academic year, 30 of the 32 members were public school employees.27
IV. FACTS
29. This action arises from the Association Board of Control’s discriminatory use of authority to levy punitive, arbitrary, and dangerous measures against private schools and their student-athletes. These wholly irrational measures were designed and adopted to appease unsubstantiated, biased opinions espoused by state lawmakers and certain public schools that private schools possess unfair advantages in athletic competition.
A. The Association Exists to Promote Athletic Participation and Pure Competition Among All its Member Schools.
30. Athletics are an integral part of the American educational system. Participation in interscholastic sports programs teaches students real-life lessons of diligence, leadership, and mutual respect. As Defendant Savarese recently wrote: “Educational athletics, at their best, teach characteristics and develop habits that prepare students to become better individuals, adults, husbands, wives, parents, citizens, and overall better human beings.”28
24 Record $2 Million in Revenue Sharing for Schools Approved by AHSAA Central Board of Control, AHSAA NEWS (July 26, 2017). 25 See, e.g., 2017–2018 AHSAA Handbook at 74 (noting that the principal is responsible for member schools’ observance of Association rules and bylaws, the conduct of spectators at athletic events, and for member schools’ contracts and reports). 26 See AHSAA Const., art. IV(c); see also 2017–2018 AHSAA Handbook at 5. 27 See 2017–2018 AHSAA Handbook at 5. 28 S. Savarese, I Still Believe . . . , AHSAA UPDATE at 2 (May 2017). 10 31. The Association was created by its member schools to promote athletic participation and fair competition among Alabama’s high schools. The National Federation of
State High School Associations (“National Federation”), of which the Association has been a member since 1924, further calls on the Association to encourage athletic participation from all students in all schools to develop better citizens, enhance education outcomes and a student’s sense of belonging, and to encourage healthy lifestyles.29
32. At its heart, athletics teach life lessons through competition. Competition provides educators a unique atmosphere in which to motivate student-athletes to endeavor to be better, individually and collectively, in pursuit of common goals. Although achievement should not come at an “all-cost” mentality, it is undeniable that pure competition is what makes interscholastic athletics so effective in the development and molding of young men and women.
It is, thus, the constitutional object of the Association to “promote pure athletic competition in the high schools of Alabama.” AHSAA Const. art. II (emphasis added).
33. To the object of pure competition, the Association has adopted rules to remove unfair competitive advantages. See, for example, Association rules pertaining to recruiting,30 player eligibility, unsportsmanlike conduct, and off-season practices.31 On the other hand, the object of pure competition allows students to learn the value of fair competitive advantages achieved through hard work, discipline, commitment to team, and preparation. Indeed, the
29 See The Case for High School Activities, Nat’l Fed. State High School Assoc’ns. 30 In 2016, the Association formed an Investigations Team specifically to address recruiting. Armed, at least initially, with a $100,000 annual budget, the Investigations Team’s mission is to investigate recruiting allegations and student-athlete transfers among member schools. See J. Bean, AHSAA Investigations Team Armed With $100,000 Budget Will Concentrate on Transfers, AL.COM (Aug. 16, 2016). 31 2017–2018 AHSAA Handbook at 22–38, 41–42, 46, 61–64. 11 Association espouses in its Handbook a basic belief that pure competition offers opportunities to pursue fair competitive advantages and to be evaluated on the execution of those opportunities:
Any athletic competition to determine a so-called champion shall provide opportunities for schools to demonstrate and to evaluate the best taught in their programs with the best taught in other schools from other areas of the state.32
B. The Association’s Authority to Classify Schools to “Promote Athletic Competition”
34. Pure competition for all member schools begins with the fair exercise of the
Board of Control’s authority “to classify member schools into two or more divisions for the purpose of athletic competition.” AHSAA Const. art. VII(4)(j). As Defendant Savarese recently wrote in November 2017, classification is accomplished “[i]n an effort to provide fair play among its member schools.”33
35. Since the Association’s membership was first divided into two classes in 1948, the Board of Control has generally used its authority to classify member schools on the basis of enrollment. There are now seven classifications, with the creation of the seventh class occurring in 2014. According to the 2017–2018 AHSAA Handbook:
Classification is based on Average Daily Membership (ADM) figures furnished by the State Department of Education for the upper three grades, plus ninth grade students that are retained in the ninth grade.34
36. Classification based on school enrollment furthers the Association’s goal of promoting fair and safe competition among all schools for all participants, by ensuring that schools of similar size (with similarly sized teams and student-athletes) compete against one another.
32 2017–2018 AHSAA Handbook at 15 (emphasis added). 33 S. Savarese, Classification Process Important to Balancing AHSAA’s Changing Membership, AHSAA NEWS (Nov. 28, 2017). 34 2017–2018 AHSAA Handbook at 88. 12 37. Pitting small schools against much larger schools is not only inherently unfair, but it places student-athletes at smaller schools at a heightened risk of personal injury in contact and collision sports.35 Smaller teams (with fewer and smaller athletes) would be expected to sustain far more injuries when competing against larger teams with more and bigger players.36
38. The Board of Control reclassifies its member schools every two years. No school may move up or down a classification once a two-year “classification period” has been established. For the upcoming 2018–2020 classification period, the enrollment figures for member schools within each classification range from:
a. 1A: 19 – 158.76
b. 2A: 159.95 – 223.1
c. 3A: 225.4 – 297
d. 4A: 297.9 – 377.45
e. 5A: 377.95 – 604.15
f. 6A: 605.7 – 1045.6
g. 7A: 1046.55 – 2176.8
39. Each school is also assigned to one of eight geographic regions within its class.
Schools compete against other schools within the same class and region to qualify for playoff positions in each sport.
35 Contact sports sanctioned by the Association include soccer and basketball. Collision sports include football and, eventually, lacrosse. 36 T. Jackman, Parents Say Loudoun Valley Football Team Faces Danger Playing Much Larger Schools,WASH.POST (Aug. 4, 2013). See also Affidavit of Timothy P. Hecker, M.D., attached hereto as Exhibit A. 13 C. The Association’s Private School “Student Multiplier” Rule: The First Act of Discrimination.
40. Although the Board of Control’s classification authority exists to promote fair play and to enhance safety among “all participants,” this authority has been commandeered in recent years by privately-held biases and animus toward private schools.
41. According to published reports, animus toward private schools first manifested in
1999 following public backlash against the athletic success of some private schools.37 The
Association faced demands from certain public schools to either eliminate private schools from the organization, or segregate private schools to their own division.38
42. As an alternative to eliminating private schools altogether, the Association mandated a 1.35 “multiplier,” whereby the enrollment of private schools (and only private schools) would be artificially inflated by a factor of 1.35 for classification purposes. For example, a private school with 100 students would have an adjusted enrollment of 135 for
Association classification purposes. As Defendant Savarese explained, “[e]ach private school student counts 1.35 for classification purposes.”39
43. Alabama became the first state to apply a Student Multiplier concept against any school, public or private. The Student Multiplier has remained in effect since the 2000 – 2001 school year and, in that period, has typically forced private schools to “play up” at least one
37 See T. Altork, Local Coaches Weigh in on Competitive Balance Between Public, Private Schools,RANDOLPH LEADER (June 28, 2017) (noting the private vs. public debate “is a contention that goes back almost two decades for county teams,” and that the success of some private schools contributed to the institution of the Student Multiplier following the 1999 season). 38 John T. James, How Much Does a Private School Student Count? A Critical Analysis of the Athletic Multiplier, 10 J. CATH.EDUC. 409, 410 (2007) (explaining that the Association “had two proposals from the membership that sought to eliminate private schools from the association or to create a separate association.”). 39 S. Savarese, Classification Process Important to Balancing AHSAA’s Changing Membership, AHSAA NEWS (Nov. 28, 2017). 14 classification. For example, St. Paul’s true enrollment of 310 students would classify it as one of the smallest 4A schools in Alabama (297.9 – 377.45 students). However, the Student Multiplier artificially inflates St. Paul’s enrollment to 418.5, requiring St. Paul’s to “play up” as a 5A school (377.95 – 604.15 students) for all athletic competition.
44. The Student Multiplier was premised on the unfounded perception that all private schools (as a class) possessed an intrinsically unfair advantage over all public schools in athletics. The majority members of the Association attributed this “unfair advantage” to a statistic indicating that the rate of athletic participation among private schools was 35% higher than that in public schools.
45. However, there was (and is) no evidence that a school’s rate of athletic participation is related to a school’s success in athletic competition. Further, there is no evidence that student participation levels are the product of any unfair or improper advantage. After all, student participation in high school athletics is a specific goal and highly encouraged by both the
Association and the National Federation. (See, supra, ¶ 31.) Nonetheless, a handful of other states possessing their own biases against private schools, and believing the Association had identified the source of an “unfair advantage,” levied their own multipliers against private schools.40
D. The Association’s New Private School “Competitive Balance Factor.”
46. The Association’s use of the Student Multiplier, which was intended to artificially advantage public school athletic programs to the detriment of private schools, violated the
40 See John T. James, How Much Does a Private School Student Count? A Critical Analysis of the Athletic Multiplier, 10 J. CATH.EDUC. 409, 410–17 (2007) (outlining the states that followed Alabama’s lead, “[t]he first state to adopt a multiplier”). St. Paul’s accepted the Student Multiplier in 1999 because there simply is no practical alternative to the Association. The Association has been the only real avenue through which a private school can provide students a quality, competitive, and diverse athletic experience. 15 Association’s mission, its charter, and its commitment to promote the programs of all member schools. Nonetheless, on November 28, 2017, the Association’s indifference to the quality, safety, and promotion of private school athletic programs turned to reckless abandonment of these ideals with its adoption of the CBF.
i. Bias persists against private schools. Lawmakers threaten action.
47. While most states were abandoning their versions of the Student Multiplier, the
Association was pressured to apply even more punitive measures against private schools as controversy continued to brew around the “public vs. private” high school debate.41
48. In 2016, Representative Ritchie Whorton (R – Owens Cross Roads) and five other lawmakers sponsored H.B. 364, a bill to “require the Alabama High School Athletic Association to adopt a rule to allow its public school members to compete only against each other for state championships.” Representative Whorton represents a portion of Madison County that includes
Madison County High School. Published reports suggest that Representative Whorton’s primary motivation in sponsoring H.B. 364 was to penalize the achievements of Madison Academy, a private high school in Whorton’s neighboring district. According to reports, “Whorton said he filed his bill – HB364 – after talking to people in his home district who believe private schools, especially Madison Academy, have an unfair athletic advantage.”42
49. Determined to force the Association to take action, Representative Whorton sponsored H.B. 9 (a bill identical to H.B. 364) in or around February 2017, to, again, “require the
41 See T. Gayle, New AHSAA Competitive Balance Ruling Has Local Coaches Baffled,RIVER REGION SPORTS (Dec. 1, 2017) (noting that the Student Multiplier formula “originated in Alabama,” and that most of the states that followed suit have now abandoned the idea). 42 J. Bean, Lawmaker Says Private Schools’ Use of Athletic Scholarships Motivated Bill to Separate AHSAA Playoffs,AL.COM (Mar. 9, 2016). Madison Academy is one of the private schools most affected by the CBF. See D. Boyette, What Private School Teams Are Moving Up Because of Competitive Balance?,AL.COM (Nov. 30, 2017). 16 Alabama High School Athletic Association to adopt a rule to allow its public school members to compete only against each other for state championships.”
50. Public tension manifested around the “public vs. private school” debate at a
March 15, 2017 hearing on H.B. 9 in Montgomery attended by lawmakers, coaches, and
Defendant Savarese. Lawmakers argued that private schools (as a class) possess “unfair advantages” in athletics and that public schools must be “protected.” Representative Ed Henry
(R – Hartselle) said, “At the end of the day, we are responsible for the public schools and keeping government out of the private schools. If you [the Association] can’t protect the public schools from an unfair playing advantage, I think at some level it’s our [the legislature’s] responsibility.”43 AL.com reported that Defendant Savarese urged that “competition should be handled by the AHSAA, not the legislature.”44 To gain their deference, he assured the lawmakers that, “[we] know there is a problem, and a task force has been meeting to find a solution.”45
51. Noteworthy here is that the lawmakers, like their public school constituents, stressed that recruiting was the problem. For example, “Whorton spoke passionately about the problem that has been created by allowing private schools, who are able to recruit, to compete with public schools.”46 And Representative Jim Patterson (R – Meridianville) said, “Recruiting is at its worst as it’s ever been in the history of Alabama, and anybody who denies that is living in a dream world.”47 Unfortunately, Defendant Savarese said nothing to dispel the lawmakers’
43 T. Crain, Lawmakers and Coaches Square Off Over Public and Private School Playoffs, AL.COM, March 15, 2017 (emphasis added). 44 Id. 45 Id. (emphasis added). 46 Id. 47 Id. (emphasis added). 17 opinion, though he knew them to be mistaken. In 2015, Defendant Savarese spoke to this very issue:
Everybody likes to talk about recruiting, but in recruiting, we have more instances of public schools recruiting than private schools recruiting. You know it’s true. You hear about it all the time. I hear about it all over the state . . . . If the adults keep the integrity and character in sports, it’s really not a public or private issue, it’s a character and integrity issue and that’s what I encourage our coaches to follow, and they know that’s the foundation of athletics.48
ii. The Association acts to keep lawmakers satisfied.
52. It is clear the Association’s task force was convened on a pretext: to “fix” the public vs. private school problem, when Defendant Savarese had already determined there was no problem to fix.49 The true goal was to appease partisan voices of animus and prejudice towards private schools and keep the legislature at bay. Without some meaningful action,
Association leaders feared the legislature would intervene and “tell the organization what to do.”50
53. It has been reported that the task force considered several options, including action that would expel or segregate private schools, raise the Student Multiplier to a range of
1.85 or 2.25, or adopt a rule that would retain the Student Multiplier but then apply a second classification adjustment that would be triggered by playoff success — i.e., the CBF.
48 See J. McWilliams, Unfair Advantage: Public vs. Private Debate Rages On,TIMESDAILY (June 21, 2015). 49 See id. (quoting Defendant Savarese, “it’s really not a public or private issue.”). Indeed, the goal was never to fix an unfair advantage. The Association has rules to address those issues. See supra ¶ 33. The real motivation, sadly, was more like pettiness. As one member of the Board of Control (from Marengo County) told St. Paul’s Director of Athletics, “It’s time to let someone else win.” 50 T. Crain, Lawmakers and Coaches Square Off Over Public and Private School Playoffs, AL.COM (March 15, 2017) (“Members of the [Association] spoke against [H.B. 9], saying the legislature did not need to tell the organization what to do.”). 18 54. In or around late summer or early fall of 2017, the task force recommended that the Board of Control adopt the CBF. As explained, the CBF combines the 1.35 Student
Multiplier and a new Success Test that will penalize “successful” private schools (again) by forcing them to play two classifications above their true enrollment, against schools two to three times their size.
55. Private school representatives on the task force had little to no choice but to support the recommendation, knowing that the alternatives were far worse. A private school ban or raising the Student Multiplier to something near 2.0 or higher would be disastrous for all private schools in Alabama. Indeed, inflating the Student Multiplier to the levels threatened by the Association would push nearly every private school up two classes, and cause a handful to play up three classes.51
iii. The Association receives warnings about the safety of the CBF.
56. News that the Board of Control was considering a rule that would require private schools to move up two classifications sparked concern among physicians that private school students would be subjected to heightened risks of injury, especially concussions, in contact and collision sports. Local medical experts expressed concern that moving private schools up additional classifications (schools that had already been moved up one classification under the
Student Multiplier) would result in a dangerous mismatch between smaller private schools and larger public schools.
51 See T. Gayle, New AHSAA Competitive Balance Ruling Has Local Coaches Baffled,RIVER REGION SPORTS (Dec. 1, 2017) (explaining that a 1.85 multiplier would move 20 schools up two classifications and three schools up three classifications, and that a 2.25 multiplier would move 14 schools up three classifications). 19 57. On October 11, 2017, Jeff Conrad, M.D.,52 director of the Sports Medicine Center at The Orthopedic Group PC in Mobile, Alabama, whose practice covers 17 of the local high schools in Mobile, wrote directly to Defendant Savarese to express his concerns that the CBF (as designed) would exacerbate the risk of injury for student-athletes at private schools. Dr. Conrad appended two medical journal articles to support his opinion that the CBF would increase the number of injuries (especially concussions) that student-athletes could sustain by requiring certain private schools to play two classifications above their true class.
58. Dr. Conrad asked Defendant Savarese whether the Association had consulted its own Medical Advisory Committee to consider the impact of the CBF. Defendant Savarese’s reply was dismissive at best, stating only that he would share Dr. Conrad’s concerns “with our board and classification committee when and if applicable.” (emphasis added).
59. In or around early November 2017, Juan Ronderos, M.D., a neurologist specializing for over 30 years in spinal injuries and neurological disorders, wrote a similar letter to the Association and the Association’s Medical Advisory Committee. Dr. Ronderos explained:
[The CBF] places the students at the smaller schools at a higher risk of traumatic brain injury, especially concussions throughout the season of sports. This is much more dramatic and dangerous to the students that play football.
***
Simply put, with a much larger talent pool, the schools with larger enrollment place a much higher percentage of larger and higher caliber athletes on the playing field. This discrepancy and disparity will most assuredly put the private schools at a competitive disadvantage. Most importantly, this will put high school students at a higher risk of concussion and CTE.
52 Dr. Conrad completed his fellowship in sports medicine at Duke University and is the team doctor for Spring+ill College, University of Mobile, University of South Alabama, the Senior Bowl, and Pro Cycling Tour de Georgia. See Jeff Conrad, M.D. Physician Profile, available at http://www.theorthogroup.com/ (last accessed May 2018). 20 As a medical professional who has treated high school and college athletes for over a decade for concussions and CTE, I urge you to consider the fact that you will be placing our students in harm’s way if this measure passes.
60. On November 9, 2017, Defendant Savarese acknowledged receipt of Dr.
Ronderos’ letter but simply stated that the Association would discuss his concerns at the Board of Control’s November 2017 meeting.
iv. The Association adopts the CBF despite warnings from medical experts.
61. Neither Dr. Conrad nor Dr. Ronderos heard from the Association again. No one called; no one asked for additional information; no one asked the doctors to explain their concerns. The Association, in fact, did nothing to investigate, or even seriously consider, the medical concerns expressed by Dr. Conrad and Dr. Ronderos. (See infra ¶ 131.) Indeed, from all that appears, the Board of Control adopted the CBF at its November 2017 meeting in conscious disregard of the clear warnings from these medical experts and ignored substantial medical literature documenting the risk implications to private school student-athletes. The
CBF, in its published form, is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
62. This is how the new rule works: First, the old Student Multiplier (1.35) is applied to all private schools. This requires many private schools, like St. Paul’s, to play in a class above their true enrollment. Then, the Association evaluates every private school team’s performance over a three-year period (the “Review Period”). Points are then imposed by the Association based on the team’s overall playoff finish for each year within the Review Period. Points are allocated as follows:
a. Quarterfinal Appearance: 1 point
b. Semifinal Appearance: 2 points
c. Final Appearance: 4 points
21 63. A private school team’s points are combined for each year within the Review
Period. If a team’s cumulative points during the Review Period exceed a specified threshold, the
Association will push the team up yet one more level.53
64. There is no ceiling on how high an individual team can be required to “level up.”
Under the new rule, “[a] team could potentially raise one class/division every classification period.”54 Teams may level down only one class in the subsequent classification period, “but may never drop below the 1.35 multiplier.” (See Ex. B.)
65. The draconian impact of the CBF is best illustrated by example using St. Paul’s football team. For the new classification period (which begins this fall), the Association considered the team’s success in the 2014–2015, 2015–2016, and 2016–2017 academic years.
During those years, St. Paul’s football team was tremendously successful by any measure, winning two state championships and reaching the quarterfinal in the third year.55
53 The threshold to trigger another move-up depends on whether the sport is a “single sport” (e.g., football, volleyball, golf, baseball, softball, and wrestling) or a “coed sport” (e.g., basketball, soccer, swim, tennis, cross-country, indoor track, outdoor track, and bowling). For single sports, a team will level-up one class if the team earns more than six points in the Review Period. For coed sports, a team will level up one class if the school earns more than eleven points in that sport. Notably, the points for boys and girls teams in coed sports are combined, and both teams are equally affected, under the CBF. For example, the points earned by the St. Paul’s girls’ basketball team will be combined with the points earned by the St. Paul’s boys’ basketball team. If the St. Paul’s boys’ basketball team finishes in the final round in each year of the Review Period, both the girls’ and boys’ teams will level up one class. This is the result even if the St. Paul’s girls’ basketball team did not win a single game in the three-year period. 54 The CBF imposes different rules once a team is moved up to a new classification. For single sports, a team may level back down one class in the subsequent classification period if it earns 0 to 1 points in the new classification period, but will remain in its current class if it earns 2 to 6 points in the new classification period. For coed sports, a team may level down one class in the subsequent classification period if it earns 0 to 3 points in the new classification period, but will remain in its current class if it earns 4 to 11 points. 55 Established in 1947, St. Paul’s won its first ever football title in 2007. When the Association expanded to 7 classes in 2014, 5A Region 1 powerhouses like Spanish Fort and Saraland moved up to 6A, which created a vacuum in 5A. Over the next 4 years, St. Paul’s won 3 state titles. 22 66. Having earned 9 total points during the Review Period, St. Paul’s football team exceeded the 6-point CBF threshold for a single sport and will be required to “level up” one class. However, because the CBF integrates the 1.35 Student Multiplier, St. Paul’s football team is required to level-up two classes from its true 4A classification to 6A beginning this fall (2018).
This will mean that St. Paul’s football team (a school with a true enrollment of 310 upper-class students) will be required to go head-to-head with schools ranging from nearly twice to more than three times its size (605 to 1,045 students) for the next four years.
v. Alabama stands alone in its treatment of private school students.
67. The Association’s adoption of the CBF (as designed) is wholly unprecedented at a national level. Although other states have adopted “competitive balance” measures, no other state association has applied such a system to private schools alone; and no other state has stacked a Success Test on top of a Student Multiplier.56
68. The adoption of the CBF was not based on informed deliberation, data, or study; rather, it was motivated by the Board of Control’s effort to appease irrational, ill-informed animus toward private schools and to stave off government intervention.
vi. St. Paul’s asks the Association to reconsider the CBF.
69. Concerned principally for the safety and health of its students, and firm in its belief that the CBF (as designed) would make it nearly impossible for its students to compete in athletics, St. Paul’s asked the Board of Control to reconsider its adoption of the new rule.
70. Neither the Constitution nor the Bylaws of the Association permit a member school to appeal any Association rule, bylaw, or constitutional amendment as a matter of right.
56 In fact, most state associations have abandoned their versions of the Student Multiplier. See T. Gayle, New AHSAA Competitive Balance Ruling Has Local Coaches Baffled,RIVER REGION SPORTS (Dec. 1, 2017). 23 Nonetheless, St. Paul’s was given approximately thirty minutes to present its concerns to the
Board of Control at its quarterly meeting in Montgomery, Alabama on January 31, 2018.57
71. In its presentation, St. Paul’s Head of School and its Director of Athletics explained that the CBF, as designed, was inherently unfair, unsupported by evidence, and, most importantly, detrimental to the safety of students attending St. Paul’s and other private schools.
St. Paul’s formally requested that the CBF be repealed or, at least, postponed until the rule’s safety and efficacy could be studied.
72. Defendant Savarese gave a PowerPoint response concerning, he said, the process employed by the Board of Control in adopting the CBF. Defendant Savarese’s presentation and the comments of the Board of Control revealed the following facts:
a. That state lawmakers wanted the Association to take action against private schools;
b. That the Board of Control contends that its action was justified because enrollment at private schools is not limited by geographic boundaries, which gives private schools, the Board contends, an “open enrollment” advantage;
c. That the Board of Control, dominated by public school officials (14 of 15), was determined to take action against private schools as a class without actually determining whether open enrollment (as perceived by the Board) affords private schools, as a class, any unfair advantage or whether it is determinative of athletic achievement (or what it actually means to any given private school);
d. That many members of the Board of Control harbor a bias and animus against private school members of the Association based, at least in part, on an ill- informed, baseless perception that all private school members are competing unfairly;
e. That many members of the Board of Control believe that the achievements of private schools, as a class, are suspect and should be judged differently than the achievements of public schools;
f. That the Board of Control conducted no studies and did nothing to determine whether the CBF (as designed) would subject private school students to a greater
57 The AHSAA did not allow St. Paul’s legal counsel to speak at this meeting. See January 23, 2018 letter from Defendant Savarese to Mr. Blair Fisher, attached hereto as Exhibit C. 24 risk of significant injury when competing against substantially larger schools, especially in contact and collision sports;
g. That the Board of Control possesses no data to support (and did nothing to verify) the notion that so-called unfair advantages actually are systemic to private schools as a class;
h. That the Board of Control is ignoring the impact of socioeconomic factors on both the academic and athletic achievements of schools in the poorest areas of the state; and
i. That the Board of Control acted primarily to protect its control over high school athletics.
73. St. Paul’s requested copies of any documents, studies, data, or other evidence the
Association formulated or relied on in considering and adopting the CBF (including Defendant
Savarese’s PowerPoint presentation). (See St. Paul’s January 31, 2018 request for information to the Association, attached hereto as Exhibit D.) The request was denied.
74. On March 13, 2018, the Association invited St. Paul’s to register an “appeal.”
Once again, St. Paul’s explained the inherent unfairness of the CBF, presented evidence contradicting the purported rationale for the rule, and identified substantial medical expert literature showing that any rule that would require students to “play up” two classes would significantly increase their risk of personal injury in contact and collision sports.
75. The next day, March 14, 2018, Defendant Savarese notified St. Paul’s that its appeal had been denied, citing the Board of Control’s “power to classify member schools into two or more divisions for the purpose of athletic competition.”58
E. The Effect of the CBF on Private School Athletic Programs.
76. The integration of the Student Multiplier and a Success Test in the CBF
(something no other state association has done) was designed to penalize, harm, and
58 Notably, the Board of Control did not allow St. Paul’s legal counsel to speak at this “appeal,” and charged St. Paul’s $1,695.66 for the cost of the meeting. 25 disadvantage successful private school athletic programs, beginning with the 2018–2019 academic year. And solely because they were successful.
77. Twenty-three of the 49 private schools in the Association are impacted by the
CBF.59 Those that are not affected are primarily very small rural schools.
78. No private school is affected by the CBF more than St. Paul’s. Fifteen different teams within nine sports will move up two classifications: football, volleyball, golf (boys), outdoor track (girls and boys), indoor track (girls and boys), cross country (girls and boys), soccer (girls and boys), tennis (girls and boys), and swimming (girls and boys).60
79. St. Paul’s football and soccer teams (contact/collision sports) will move up from their 4A classification to class 6A until at least 2022.61 In other words, St. Paul’s (a school with just 310 upper-class students) will compete against teams at schools with over 1,000 students for the next four years based, in part, on the prior achievements of teams whose oldest athletes are now seniors in college.
59 See D. Boyette, What Private School Teams Are Moving Up Because of Competitive Balance?, AL.COM (Nov. 30, 2017). 60 See id. 61 The CBF forces St. Paul’s teams to compete in 6A for two classification periods (four years). Under the CBF, points are earned “based on the team’s overall finish each year over the past three seasons.”(See Ex. B.) Once a team has been “leveled up” under the CBF, the team remains in the new class for the subsequent classification period if, during the prior three years, the team earned 2–6 points (for single sports) or 4–11 points (for coed sports). The 2020–2022 classification period will consider St. Paul’s success in 2018–2019 (St. Paul’s first year in 6A) as well as 2017–2018 and 2016–2017 (St. Paul’s last two years in 5A). All 15 St. Paul’s teams moving up under the CBF earned enough points in 5A in the years 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 that they will be forced to remain in 6A until at least 2022. This was confirmed by Defendant Savarese, who advised St. Paul’s Head of School and Director of Athletics that St. Paul’s football team would not have an opportunity to “level down” to 5A until 2022. Thus, St. Paul’s performance in 5A will keep it in 6A for years 2018–2022. 26 F. The CBF Does Not Offset Any Purported “Unfair Advantages” of Private Schools.
80. The pretext for the CBF was the Association’s desire to at least appear to be addressing the purported unfair advantages that enable private schools to achieve unwarranted athletic success. These premises are not only false and based on unsubstantiated assumptions, they are pretenses motivated by bare animus, bias, and other self-interests.
81. Although the Association has never publicly identified the perceived “unfair advantage” that the CBF is intended to address, the Board of Control advised St. Paul’s in its meeting on January 31, 2018, that it designed and adopted the CBF to apply solely to private schools because non-public schools have the ability to selectively enroll students without being restricted by geographical boundaries (a notion referred to as “open enrollment”).
82. There is no evidence, however, that open enrollment is either unique to private schools or that it produces a determinative competitive advantage in athletics.
i. Public schools regularly engage in open enrollment.
83. The premise that open enrollment (the notion of relaxed or broad geographic boundaries) exists only at private schools is false. Public schools regularly engage in open and selective enrollment of students from beyond their geographical boundaries. In fact, open enrollment is now officially endorsed by the State of Alabama. See infra ¶¶ 87–93.
84. There are 71 public “city” school districts62 in the Association, a substantial majority of which allow non-resident (open) enrollment. Of these 71 districts, 57 have published policies concerning non-resident enrollment. Of those 57 districts, 39 allow non-resident
62 For the purposes of this Complaint, a “city” school district is a school district that has broken away from a larger county school system. To date, there are 140 public K–12 school districts: 69 county and 71 city districts. See Ala. State Dep’t Educ., Systems Listing, available at http://web.alsde.edu/home/schoolinfo/ (last accessed May 2018). 27 enrollment without restriction and 12 allow non-resident enrollment with some conditions.
Combined, 89% of city school districts with publicly available information offer some form of non-resident (open) enrollment. (See Affidavit of Hart Benton concerning open enrollment of city school districts, attached hereto as Exhibit E, at ¶ 5.)
85. Many public “city” schools openly market, advertise,63 and selectively enroll non- resident students at their schools; some even provide non-resident “scholarships,”64 and many will even waive “non-resident” fees for select students.65 In fact, the entry fees for public schools engaging in selective enrollment are significantly less than most private schools.66
86. Even county public school systems foster open enrollment. For instance, the
Mobile County Public School System (“MCPSS”), the largest school system in Alabama, permits any student to transfer out of their assigned school zone to another public school to attend a “special program.”67 This rule permits students to transfer between schools for the sole purpose of competing in another school’s athletic program; indeed, students have transferred out
63 For example, Demopolis City Schools’ website features a rolling banner advertisement on its home page that states: “DCSS is Now Accepting Applications for Non-Resident Students. There is a $50 Application Fee.” See Demopolis City Schools Website, available at https://www.dcsedu.com/ (last accessed May 2018). 64 See, e.g., City of Chickasaw School System, Tuition Guidelines and Scholarship Agreement, available at http://images.pcmac.org/Uploads/ChickasawCitySchools/ChickasawCitySchools/ Sites/DocumentsCategories/Documents/Tuition_Guidelines_and_Scholarship-Agreement_1.pdf (last accessed May 2018). 65 See, e.g., Saraland City Schools Non-Resident Student Policy, available at http://saralandcity. schoolinsites.com/; Satsuma City Schools, Policies and Procedures ch. 5.10.3(IV) (outlining criteria for tuition waiver for students in their second year of enrollment); S. Ericson, Satsuma Schools’ Tuition Waiver Provides Fresh Incentive for Students,AL.COM (Jan. 13, 2014). 66 See, e.g., Enterprise City Schools, Tuition Schedule, available at www.enterpriseschools.net (last accessed May 2018) ($150 student tuition for non-resident students); Satsuma City Schools, Non-Resident Students, available at www.satsumaschools.com (last accessed May 2018) ($850 tuition for non-resident students). 67 MCPSS Policies, Rule 5.09. 28 of their assigned school zones for the express purpose of athletic competition.68 Moreover, the receiving school may selectively enroll transfer students as it has no obligation to accept any transfer.69
ii. The Alabama Accountability Act promotes and subsidizes open enrollment.
87. The Association’s premise under the CBF, that only private schools can openly enroll students, is further contradicted by Alabama law. Alabama actively promotes (indeed, subsidizes) the open and selective enrollment at public schools through the Alabama
Accountability Act of 2013 (“Accountability Act”), Ala. Code § 16-6D-1, et seq. Simply put, open enrollment is now the public policy of Alabama.
88. The Accountability Act furthers the State’s express goal of providing “educational choice”70 to public school students by offering: (i) scholarships for income-eligible students71 to attend any public or qualifying private school of their choice, and (ii) refundable tax credits for parents who move their child out of a “failing public school” and into a non-failing public or qualifying private school.72
89. Eligible students may use Accountability Act scholarships to transfer to any public school outside of the student’s district, or to any qualifying private school. In 2016, the last year of publicly available data, scholarships totaling $21,457,097 were awarded to 4,132
68 Based on undersigned counsel’s conversation with an MCPSS Student Services representative in May, 2018. 69 Id. 70 See S.B. 71, Act No. 2015-434 (Ala. 2015) (amending the Accountability Act to “clarify and confirm that the intent of the Alabama Accountability Act of 2013 is educational choice.” (emphasis added)). 71 Students are eligible for scholarship if their family income does not exceed 185% of the federal poverty level ($45,510 for a family of 4 for the 2018–2019 academic year). 72 A qualifying private school is a private school that chooses to participate in the Accountability Act scholarship program and satisfies the ten requirements of Ala. Code § 16-6D-4(13)(a). St. Paul’s does not participate in the Accountability Act program. 29 students to attend the public or qualifying private school of their choice. Since 2013, over $93 million has been raised through tax-deductible donations to benefit students under the
Accountability Act scholarship initiative to move to other schools (public and private) in and out of their districts.73
90. The Accountability Act also provides a refundable income tax credit to parents who transfer a student from a failing public school to any non-failing public school or a qualifying private school. The credit can be claimed for the total cost of transferring the student, including tuition and fees, up to approximately $3,500. As of January 2018, the tax credit was available to benefit parents of more than 37,000 students.74
91. In fact, the Accountability Act specifically mandates open enrollment by certain public schools. Under the Accountability Act, local school systems must offer students from failing public schools the opportunity to enroll in another public school within that local school system, even if it is outside the student’s school zone. Ala. Code § 16-6D-8(b)(4)(b).
92. More broadly, the Accountability Act allows selective open enrollment by all public schools to accept non-resident students from failing schools on their own terms: “A local school system may accept the student on whatever terms and conditions the system establishes....” Ala. Code § 16-6D-8(b)(5) (emphasis added). The same is true for any public school that chooses to accept a scholarship student: “A public school, school system, or school district . . . may develop the terms and conditions under which it will allow a student who receives a scholarship . . . to be enrolled.” Id. at § 16-6D-9(g)(2). Moreover, the subsidies even
73 L. Lee, Alabama Accountability Act: By the Numbers,ALA.POLITICAL REPORTER (Nov. 1, 2017). 74 See T. Crain, Few Alabama Students Use Choice Given Under Accountability Act,AL.COM (Feb. 9, 2017) (noting that more than 37,000 students were enrolled in Alabama’s 75 failing public schools). 30 exist to pay for private school tuition. See id. at § 16-6D-4(13) (defining a “qualifying school” at which scholarships may be used as either a “public school . . . or any nonpublic school”
(emphasis added)).
93. The Association itself has even embraced Alabama’s policy of open enrollment in public schools. While Association eligibility rules generally require a student-athlete to “sit-out” one year after transferring to a different school, the Association creates an exception for students who transfer from a failing school to a non-failing school within the same school system.75 In fact, Association eligibility rules give preferential treatment to any public school student who transfers to another public school rather than a private school.76
iii. The Accountability Act scholarships/tax credits directly impact athletic programs.
94. Moreover, the Association, through Defendant Savarese, has acknowledged a direct correlation between the millions of dollars offered under the Accountability Act and athletic achievement at schools receiving those funds.77 Thus, the prevailing policy of the State
75 See S. Savarese, AHSAA PowerPoint Presentation to the Alabama Association of Prevention Attendance and Support Services at 30, available at https://www.dropbox.com/ s/33obtuyq3hecti2/AAPASS%202017.pptx?dl=0 (last accessed May 2018). 76 As a general rule, any student who enrolls in one school and later transfers to another school cannot participate in athletic contests for one year. 2017–2018 AHSAA Handbook at 31. However, the “Bonda Fide Move” exception allows a transferring student to maintain eligibility for the first year at the transferee school if the student’s “parents make a bona fide move completely out of one school zone and into another . . . .” Id. at 32 (emphasis added). While a public high school’s zone is typically confined to a smaller area within city or county limits, the AHSAA defines private school “zones,” for purposes of this exception, as either the entire city limits (if the private school is within a municipality) or county limits (if the private school is outside a municipality). Id. at 35. Thus, a private school zone overlaps all public schools within the city (or county) limits so that no public school student can make a “bona fide move” to a private school if the original school is within the same city (or county) limits as the private school. On the other hand, a student may transfer from one public school to another within the same city or county and maintain eligibility after the transfer. 77 T. Crain, Lawmakers and Coaches Square Off Over Public and Private School Playoffs, AL.COM (March 15, 2017) (noting Defendant Savarese’s statement that the Association “[has] looked at the data,” and “there is a correlation between the number of tax credit scholarships 31 of Alabama, which endorses and in fact subsidizes a policy of open enrollment, has directly impacted athletic competition at receiving schools. Put bluntly, Accountability Act scholarships and tax credits are being used to improve athletic performance at schools that have agreed to participate in the program.78 And the Association has adopted rules to make that possible.79
iv. Open enrollment does not necessarily mean broad geographic enrollment.
95. The rationale underlying criticisms of open enrollment in private schools, that private schools are enrolling students from much broader geographic areas than public schools, is similarly unsubstantiated. For example, 82% of St. Paul’s students (in the classification grades) live within a 7-mile radius of the St. Paul’s campus. (See Affidavit of Blair Fisher, attached hereto as Exhibit F, at ¶ 4.) Indeed, St. Paul’s students (in the classification grades), on average, live only 4.6 miles from the St. Paul’s campus. (Id.) On the other hand, the attendance zones of
Murphy,80 Theodore, and Mary G. Montgomery (all Mobile County public high schools) extend more than 9, 16, and 21 miles, respectively. (See Affidavit of Hart Benton concerning public school zone sizes, attached hereto as Exhibit G, at ¶ 3.)
v. Open enrollment does not determine athletic achievement.
96. The Association’s premise that open enrollment alone gives a class of schools a determinative competitive advantage is also without support. There is no evidence that open enrollment is causally related to athletic success among any class of schools in the Association, public or private. a school receives and improvements in a school’s athletic programs.” (emphasis added)). St. Paul’s does not participate in the Accountability Act scholarship program. 78 T. Crain, Lawmakers and Coaches Square Off Over Public and Private School Playoffs, AL.COM (March 15, 2017). 79 See S. Savarese, AHSAA PowerPoint Presentation to the Alabama Association of Prevention Attendance and Support Services at 30, available at https://www.dropbox.com/s/33obtuyq3 hecti2/AAPASS%202017.pptx?dl=0 (last accessed May 2018). 80 Murphy High School’s attendance zone actually covers the St. Paul’s campus. 32 97. Assuming that (i) open enrollment was a determinative factor of a school’s athletic success, and (ii) that only private schools are able to openly enroll students, then private schools should be dominating every sport at every division. This simply is not the case.
98. Moreover, by the Association’s own estimate, public “city” schools that bar admission of non-resident students should be at a competitive disadvantage. However, although most city school districts practice open enrollment, the few public city schools that do not enroll non-resident students have literally dominated high school athletics. Amazingly, 5 closed- enrollment schools,81 which comprised only 5% of the 6A and 7A classifications in 2017 (the last year of publicly available data), won 51% of all 6A and 7A titles from 2000 – 2017. (See
Affidavit of Hart Benton concerning playoff success, attached hereto as Exhibit H, at ¶ 6.)
That’s 5 public schools (out of roughly 100) that won 51% of every state title (23 sports) during the past 18 years. In fact, those 5 public schools won at least 52% and up to 88% of all state titles in the following 11 sports during that 18 year period, including football:
a. Indoor Track (Girls): 88%
b. Tennis (Boys): 86%
c. Tennis (Girls): 81%
d. Cross Country (Boys): 82%
e. Cross Country (Girls): 77%
f. Outdoor Track (Girls): 76%
g. Golf (Boys): 67%
h. Golf (Girls): 67%
81 The schools include: Hoover High School, Homewood High School, Spain Park High School, Vestavia Hills High School, and Mountain Brook High School: 5 public schools in affluent metro areas that separated from county school districts to keep local tax dollars in smaller “city school districts.” 33 i. Indoor Track (Boys): 59%
j. Football: 55%
k. Wrestling: 52%
(Ex. H at ¶ 6.)
99. The fact that 5 public schools that do not allow open enrollment collectively won over half of all state titles in their classes over the past 18 years clearly demonstrates that open enrollment is not causally related to athletic success.
100. The Association’s premise that open enrollment creates a determinative athletic advantage is also contradicted when sports are considered individually. For example, McGill-
Toolen Catholic High School, a private school in Mobile, should be dominating in 7A tennis based on its purported competitive advantage of open enrollment. However, between 2000 and
2017, 35 of the 36 tennis titles in McGill’s class were won by just four public schools from city school districts that do not permit open enrollment.82
101. Consider also Hoover High School’s football program, a public school in a city school district that does not permit attendance by non-resident district students, i.e., no open enrollment. By the Association’s estimate, the absence of this “advantage” should mean that
Hoover’s athletic program is at a competitive disadvantage. However, Hoover has won 11 of the
18 state football titles between 2000 and 2017, the greatest number of state titles of any single football program in any class during that period. (See Ex. H at ¶ 11(a).) Hoover’s football program, in fact, was so successful that its dynasty was chronicled in Two-A-Days, an MTV reality television series.
82 See Tennis Past State Champions (Boys and Girls), AHSAA, available at http://www.ahsaa. com/Sports/Tennis#64372-history. The only title in McGill’s class not won by one of the above- mentioned 4 public schools was the 2015 Girls’ 7A Tennis title, which was won by Huntsville High School (a public school). 34 102. The Association’s broader view that private schools are “winning too many championships” is further devoid of factual support. Public schools, not private schools, have in fact dominated many sports, including a majority of the Big 5 sports in Alabama high school athletics: basketball, baseball, volleyball, softball, and football. More member schools (public and private) compete in these 5 marquee sports than all others. (Ex. H at ¶ 8.) Between 2000 and 2017, public schools won 107 of 111 girls’ basketball titles (96%); 93 of 111 boys’ basketball titles (84%); 96 of 112 football titles (86%); 89 of 108 softball titles (82%); and 75 of
111 baseball titles (68%). (Ex. H at ¶ 9.) Only in volleyball did public school dominance slip.
But even then, public schools won 58 of the 112 titles (52%).83 (Ex. H at ¶ 9.)
103. Public school dynasties have thrived in every one of the Big 5 sports. In football alone, between 2000 and 2017:
a. Sweetwater won six 1A titles;
b. Leroy won five 2A titles;
c. Maplesville won three consecutive 1A titles;
d. Leeds won four titles between 3A and 4A;
e. Spanish Fort won four titles between 5A and 6A;
f. Homewood won four 5A titles;
g. Prattville won four 6A titles; and
h. Hoover won an incredible eleven titles between 6A and 7A.
(Ex. H at ¶ 11.)
83 In fact, public schools dominated in 4 of the 7 classes in volleyball from 2000 to 2017, winning: 14 of the 18 4A titles (78%), 3 of the 4 7A titles (75%), 12 of the 18 1A titles (67%), and 12 of the 18 6A titles (67%). (Ex. H at ¶ 10.) 35 104. For sure, private schools as a group have had significant success outside the Big 5 sports, and detractors would say that those achievements were disproportionate given that private schools comprise only 12% of the Association. However, looking only at the overall number of private schools in the Association is misleading in this context. In reality, private schools make up a far greater percentage of the schools actually participating in many of these sports. For example, private schools comprise:
a. 72% of the competition in girls’ 1A-3A84 tennis;
b. 67% of the competition in boys’ 1A-3A tennis;
c. 67% of the teams in 1A-3A girls’ soccer;
d. 65% of the teams in 1A-3A boys’ soccer;
e. 45% of 1A-2A boys’ and girls’ cross country teams;
f. 40% of the teams in 1A-5A boys’ and girls’ swimming & diving;
g. 34% of the schools competing in 1A-2A boys’golf;
h. 32% of the schools competing in 1A volleyball; and
i. 31% of the schools competing in 1A-3A girls’golf.
(Ex. H at ¶ 14.)
105. One would expect, therefore, that private schools would indeed be achieving more playoff experience in those sports.
106. Another perfect example of the irrational and discriminatory results of the CBF is how it impacts Mobile’s Faith Academy baseball team. Russellville High School (a public
84 The Association consolidates 1A through 7A classifications for the smaller sports into a 1A- 2A class (cross country, boys’ golf), a 1A-3A class (soccer, tennis, outdoor track, girls’ golf), and a 1A-5A class (swimming and diving, wrestling). In these three classes, private schools comprise 55% of all teams competing in class 1A-3A sports, 42% of class 1A-2A sports, and 31% of all class 1A-5A sports. (Ex. H at ¶ 14.) 36 school) was the 2015, 2016, and 2017 5A baseball state champion. Faith Academy (a private school) squared off against Russellville in two of those championship games (2016 and 2017) and lost. Under the CBF, however, Faith Academy’s baseball team will have to “level-up” to 6A until 2022, while Russellville remains in 5A. The three-time state champion does not move up
(because it is a public school), but the private school it beat head-to-head is moving to 6A.85
107. In fact, if the CBF applied to all schools, 121 public school teams would have exceeded the Success Test threshold. (Ex. H at ¶ 20, Ex. 1.) None of those 121 teams, however, will be told to move up a classification next year. Teams like Lanett’s boys basketball (2A champs ‘16, ‘17, and ‘18), Brantley’s softball (1A champs ‘14, ‘15, ‘16, and ‘18), Wenonah’s girls basketball (5A champs ‘14, ‘15, ‘16, and ‘17), Springville’s softball (5A champs ‘15, ‘16,
‘17, and ‘18), and Scottsboro’s co-ed cross country teams that combined for 19 5A titles since
2003, just for example, all stay put. All protected. All exempt. But Westminster Christian’s swim team (one of the smallest schools participating in high school sports) will have to play against teams more than 10 times its size beginning next year because of the CBF.86 So when
Defendant Savarese said in 2014 that the Association considered a “success based classification system,” “[b]ut quickly determined that [such a system] simply wasn’t right for Alabama,” he apparently was only talking about public schools.87
85 This was the case even before Faith beat Russellville in the 2018 title game. The point is that Russellville’s success is celebrated, while Faith Academy’s is penalized. 86 See AHSAA 2018–2020 Reclassification, available at http://www.ahsaa.com/Portals/0/PDF's/ AHSAA/AHSAA/Re-Classification/2018-20/2018-20%20Classification.pdf?ver=2017-11-29- 212635-493. 87 R. Carter, AHSAA’s Expansion to Seven Classes “Creates More Opportunities,” Savarese Says,N.JEFFERSON NEWS (Jan. 22, 2014). 37 G. The CBF, By Design, Exposes Private School Student-Athletes to Higher Risks of Personal Injury.
108. The CBF, by stacking the Success Test on top of the Student Multiplier, is not only arbitrary and irrational, but, more importantly, it exposes private school students to greater risks of personal injury. The Association consciously disregarded these known risks to ensure the CBF’s passage and to assuage the political pressure from state lawmakers and certain public schools.
i. Student-athletes from small schools are at the highest risk of personal injury.
109. The CBF, as designed, forces smaller private schools to play against far larger public schools. Substantial medical expert literature recognizes that this mismatch will place private school students playing contact sports (basketball and soccer) and collision sports
(football and, eventually, lacrosse) at a heightened risk of injury, particularly traumatic brain injury (“concussions”) and cumulative mild traumatic brain injury (“sub-concussions”).88
110. The American Academy of Neurology defines concussion as “a trauma-induced alteration in mental status that may or may not involve a loss of consciousness and whose
88 C. Tagge, A. Fisher, A. Minaeva, et al., Concussion, Microvascular Injury, and Tauopathy in Young Athletes After Impact Injury and an Impact Concussion Mouse Model, 141 BRAIN 422, 452 (2018) (finding “that repetitive neurotrauma, independent of concussion, may induce early CTE brain pathologies, even in teenagers and young adults. Cumulative exposure to such injuries may also increase risk for other tau protein neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease.”); see H. King, S. Campbell, M. Herzon, et al., Epidemiology of Injuries in High School Football: Does Size Matter?, 12 J. PHYS.ACT.&HEALTH 1162 (2015) (“[W]e believe the significant association between school size and incidence of injury might be attributable to increased impact play exposures (athletes playing both offense and defense and minimal substitutions) that may be seen in smaller players . . . . as well as the . . . size and speed of players and opponents . . . .”); see also G. Couchman, M.D., S. Forjuoh, M.D., G. Bartels, M.D., et al., Incidence of Concussion in Central Texas High School Varsity Football Athletes, AM.J.MEDICINE &SPORTS 107, 111–12 (2004) (noting that team size “would obviously increase [athletes’] exposure to injury as well as contribute to fatigue, which could have been a contributing factor for the observed increased risk of concussion.”). 38 hallmark is confusion.”89 The physiological effects of concussions are well documented by medical literature.90 Concussions are known to cause a wide range of functional short and long- term consequences affecting a student-athlete’s memory, reasoning, sight, balance, communication, and emotional health.91 Even in young athletes, repeated concussions may cause early-onset Alzheimer’s, dementia, chronic traumatic encephalopathy (“CTE”), depression, and death.92 In fact, the Boston University CTE Center recently discovered CTE in the brain of an 18-year old high school football player, the earliest evidence of CTE ever recorded.93
111. High school football accounts for the highest volume of concussions in sport at any level, followed by boys’ and girls’ soccer.94 Further, the developing adolescent brain makes high school athletes particularly vulnerable to the effects of concussions.95 Researchers have
89 D. Kimbler, M. Murphy, K. Dhandapani, Concussion and the Adolescent Athlete, 43 J. NEUROSCIENCE NURSING 286 (2011). 90 See Nat. Inst. of Health, Nat. Inst. of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Traumatic Brain Injury, NIH Pub. No. 16-158 (Sept. 2015). 91 Id. at 1. 92 C. Tagge, A. Fisher, A. Minaeva, et al., Concussion, Microvascular Injury, and Tauopathy in Young Athletes After Impact Injury and an Impact Concussion Mouse Model, 141 BRAIN 422, 452 (2018) (finding “that repetitive neurotrauma, independent of concussion, may induce early CTE brain pathologies, even in teenagers and young adults. Cumulative exposure to such injuries may also increase risk for other tau protein neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease.”); see also D. Daneshvar, D. Riley, C. Nowinski, et al., Long Term Consequences: Effects on Normal Development Profile after Concussion, 22 PHYS.MED.REHAB. CLIN.N.AM. 683 (2011). 93 Boston U. CTE Center, 18 Year Old High School Football Player, available at http:// www.bu.edu/cte/our-research/case-studies/18-year-old/ (last accessed May 2018). 94 L. Gessel, S. Fields, C. Collins, Concussions Among United States High School and Collegiate Athletes, 42 J. ATHLETIC TRAINING 495 (2007). 95 D. Daneshvar, D. Riley, C. Nowinski, et al., Long Term Consequences: Effects on Normal Development Profile after Concussion, 22 PHYS.MED.REHAB.CLIN.N.AM. 683 (2011). 39 documented that a single concussion significantly impairs a teen’s ability to process and store short-term information in the brain, which is necessary for learning.96
112. More recently, medical experts have discovered that irreversible neurological trauma can be caused by repeated head impacts in high school football that do not result in any observable symptoms of concussion.97 These are known as sub-concussive impacts, and data suggests that the number of sub-concussive impacts a student-athlete sustains may do more damage than clinically evident concussions.98 High school football players sustain a large number of impacts to the head, approaching more than 2,000 during a single season.99
Cumulatively, these sub-concussive impacts can cause measurable changes to cognitive functioning and verbal memory after just a single season of competition.100
113. Emerging research thus recognizes that commonly occurring sub-concussive impacts in high school football potentially contribute to the development of depression, post-
96 A. Baillargeon, M. Lassonde, S Leclerc, D. Ellemberg, Neurophysiological and Neurophysiological Assessment of Sport Concussion in Children, Adolescents and Adults, 26 J. BRAIN INJURY 211 (2012). 97 See, e.g., C. Tagge, A. Fisher, A. Minaeva, et al., Concussion, Microvascular Injury, and Tauopathy in Young Athletes After Impact Injury and an Impact Concussion Mouse Model, 141 BRAIN 422 (2018); S. Broglio, D. Martini, L. Kasper, Estimation of Head Impact Exposure in High School Football, 41 A. J. SPORTS MEDICINE 2877, 2882 (2013); E. Davenport, C. Whitlow, J. Urban, et al., Abnormal White Matter Integrity Related to Head Impact Exposure in a Season of High School Varsity Football, 31 J. NEUROTRAUMA 1617 (2014). 98 S. Broglio, D. Martini, L. Kasper, Estimation of Head Impact Exposure in High School Football, 41 A. J. SPORTS MEDICINE 2877, 2882 (2013). 99 S. Broglio, T. Eckner, D. Martini, et al., Cumulative Head Impact Burden in High School Football, 28 J. Neurotrauma 2069 (2011). 100 E. Davenport, C. Whitlow, J. Urban, et al., Abnormal White Matter Integrity Related to Head Impact Exposure in a Season of High School Varsity Football, 31 J. NEUROTRAUMA 1617 (2014). 40 traumatic stress disorder, CTE, dementia, post-concussive syndrome, and mild cognitive impairment at some point in life.101
114. Moreover, students at smaller schools have a greater risk of concussions and sub- concussive impacts than students at larger schools.102 As a general matter, the total rate of personal injuries, including concussions, among high school football student-athletes at smaller schools is nearly twice that of student-athletes from larger schools.103
115. This discrepancy is attributable to the greater exposure student-athletes at smaller schools have to live competition compared with athletes from larger schools.104 Teams from smaller schools generally have smaller rosters of athletes than teams from larger schools.105
Accordingly, student-athletes from smaller schools face more exposure to live competition because they are more likely to play both offense and defense, and are less likely to be
101 J. Bailes, A. Petraglia, B. Omala, Role of Subconcussion in Repetitive Mild Traumatic Brain Injury, 119 J. NEUROSURG 1235, 1241 (2013). 102 See H. King, S. Campbell, M. Herzon, et al., Epidemiology of Injuries in High School Football: Does Size Matter?, 12 J. PHYS.ACT.&HEALTH 1162 (2015); see also G. Couchman, M.D., S. Forjuoh, M.D., G. Bartels, M.D., et al., Incidence of Concussion in Central Texas High School Varsity Football Athletes,AM.J.MEDICINE &SPORTS 107, 111–12 (2004) (noting that the size of team rosters “would obviously increase [athletes’] exposure to injury as well as contribute to fatigue, which could have been a contributing factor for the observed increased risk of concussion.”). 103 H. King, S. Campbell, M. Herzon, et al., Epidemiology of Injuries in High School Football: Does Size Matter?, 12 J. PHYS.ACT.&HEALTH 1162 (2015). 104 See id. (“[W]e believe the significant association between school size and incidence of injury might be attributable to increased impact play exposures (athletes playing both offense and defense and minimal substitutions) that may be seen in smaller players . . . . as well as the . . . size and speed of players and opponents . . . .”); see also G. Couchman, S. Forjuoh, G. Bartels, et al., Incidence of Concussion in Central Texas High School Varsity Football Athletes,AM.J. MEDICINE &SPORTS 107, 111–12 (2004). 105 For example, the 2017 football rosters of public schools in class 6A, Region 1 were 135 students (Daphne High School), 107 students (Spanish Fort High School), and 97 students (Saraland High School). St. Paul’s 2017 football roster included only 73 students (40 of which were 9th and 10th graders). 41 substituted in the middle of play.106 Increased play-time among student-athletes from smaller schools also increases fatigue, further contributing to an increased risk of personal injury and concussion.107
116. Student-athletes from smaller schools are particularly vulnerable to the effects of sub-concussive impacts. (Ex. A.) One component of head impact exposure is the frequency of impacts.108 Because football players from smaller schools spend more time in competition,they sustain a greater number of impacts during a season.109 Greater exposure among student-athletes at smaller schools to head impacts makes them more susceptible to the cumulative effects of sub- concussive head trauma. (Ex. A.)
117. The already-present risks for student-athletes at smaller schools are only exacerbated if the school is unevenly matched against a school two to three times its size with a greater number of players, a greater number of larger players, and players who are not “playing both ways.”110 (Ex. A.) In addition to impact frequency, another component of head impact exposure is the magnitude of the impacts.111 On the football field, the magnitude of impact between a small player and large player is far greater than the magnitude of impacts between
106 H. King, S. Campbell, M. Herzon, et al., Epidemiology of Injuries in High School Football: Does Size Matter?, 12 J. PHYS.ACT.&HEALTH 1162 (2015). 107 G. Couchman, S. Forjuoh, G. Bartels, et al., Incidence of Concussion in Central Texas High School Varsity Football Athletes,AM.J.MEDICINE &SPORTS 107, 111–12 (2004). 108 R. Daniel, S. Rowson, S. Duma, Head Impact Exposure in Youth Football, 40 ANNALS OF BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING 976, 977 (2012). 109 S. Broglio, D. Martini, L. Kasper, Estimation of Head Impact Exposure in High School Football, 41 A. J. SPORTS MEDICINE 2877, 2883 (2013). 110 See, e.g., T. Jackman, Parents Say Loudoun Valley Football Team Faces Danger Playing Much Larger Schools,WASH.POST (Aug. 4, 2013). 111 R. Daniel, S. Rowson, S. Duma, Head Impact Exposure in Youth Football, 40 ANNALS OF BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING 976, 977 (2012). 42 players of similar sizes.112 According to Chris Nowinski, Ph.D., co-director of the Center for the
Study of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy at Boston University School of Medicine, “A smaller, weaker team would be expected to be at a greater risk of injury, including concussions.”113
ii. The CBF, by design, increases the risk of personal injury among private school student-athletes.
118. Students from small private schools are already at a heightened risk of personal injury because they face greater impact exposure than athletes from larger public schools.114 By combining two mechanisms (the Student Multiplier and the Success Test) to force private schools to “play up” one and two class levels, the CBF only worsens these risks by pitting small private schools against far larger public schools in contact and collision sports.
119. For example, St. Paul’s, which has a true classification enrollment of 310 students, is a 4A school. However, its football and soccer115 teams (the two sports generating the highest degree of concussions and sub-concussive impacts) will now compete against teams in 6A at schools three times its size. Indeed, B.C. Rain High School, the smallest school in 6A, has an enrollment nearly twice that of St. Paul’s.
112 See T. Jackman, Parents Say Loudoun Valley Football Team Faces Danger Playing Much Larger Schools,WASH.POST (Aug. 4, 2013) (“[T]here is a clear safety concern if two opponents are unevenly matched on size, strength, or speed,” according to Chris Nowinski, Ph.D., co-director of the Center for the Study of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy at Boston University School of Medicine). 113 T. Jackman, Parents Say Loudoun Valley Football Team Faces Danger Playing Much Larger Schools,WASH.POST (Aug. 4, 2013). 114 H. King, S. Campbell, M. Herzon, et al., Epidemiology of Injuries in High School Football: Does Size Matter?, 12 J. PHYS.ACT.&HEALTH 1162 (2015). 115 Notably, the St. Paul’s boys’ soccer team is forced to compete in 6A (at a heightened risk of injury) because of the achievements of the girls’ team, which made it to the finals in 2015 and 2016 and the quarterfinals in 2017. 43 120. Similarly, the CBF, as designed, forces Madison Academy, a private school with an unadjusted enrollment of 234 students, to move its football team from 3A (its true classification) to 5A. In 5A, Madison Academy will face teams from schools nearly three times its size with up to 604 students. While Madison Academy’s 2017 football team had just 1 player over 250 lbs., it will face teams that last year had 9 or more players over 250 lbs.
121. Smaller schools in the Association are already at a higher risk than larger public schools for student-athlete injury. The joint application of the Student Multiplier and the CBF’s
Success Test will increase this risk for students at smaller private schools by pitting them against larger schools three times their size. The obvious disparities in team and player size will exponentially increase the risk of personal injury and concussions and the frequency and magnitude of sub-concussive head impacts for students at small private schools. (Ex. A.)
iii. The Association consciously disregarded known risks to player safety.
122. The Association’s decision to levy the CBF against private schools was made with a deliberate indifference to, and a conscious disregard of, known, obvious, and well- documented risks of personal injury affecting private school student-athletes, especially those playing in contact and collision sports.
123. The Association was aware of substantial medical literature tending to show that the CBF’s joint application of the Student Multiplier with the Success Test (causing schools to move up two classifications) will increase private school student exposure to injury, concussion, and cumulative sub-concussive head impacts.
124. Notably, these very risks were documented in 2014 by the National Federation, an organization “of which the [Association] has been a member since 1924.”116 In 2014, the
116 2017–2018 AHSAA Handbook at 14. 44 National Federation convened a Concussion Summit Task Force of 28 physicians, Ph.D.’s, administrators, and coaches to consider and devise strategies to reduce head impacts and minimize concussion risks in high school football players. Based on a comprehensive study of relevant medical literature and expert opinion, the Concussion Summit Task Force published a six-page report entitled “Recommendations and Guidelines for Minimizing Head Impact
Exposure and Concussion Risk in Football” (the “Concussion Summit Report.”). The
Concussion Summit Report is attached hereto as Exhibit I.
125. The Concussion Summit Report presented several guiding principles for the
Association and other National Federation member schools to “reasonably limit overall exposure to multiple blows to the head and body (head impact exposure) and minimize concussion risk ....”
126. The Concussion Summit Report identified the following critical findings that specifically illuminate the dangers implicated by forcing smaller teams to go head-to-head with larger opponents:
a. “Team size dictates numerous variables that may affect an athlete’s potential head impact exposure.”
b. “An athlete playing on offense, defense and special teams will have greater cumulative head impact exposure and will be at higher risk for injury than an athlete playing a single position.”
c. “The fewer the number of players on a team, the greater the chance some players will need to participate in repeated drills, raising head impact exposure and potential injury risk.”
d. “The task force also recognizes multiple contributing factors that affect head impact exposure and the parallel effects on an individual football player’s brain. For example: . . . Two-way players versus those who only play offense or defense.”
127. The Association was aware of the Concussion Summit Report’s findings that players from smaller teams are at a heightened risk of injury, concussion, and head impact
45 exposure.117 Indeed, “size disparity” was one of the stated reasons the Association created the
7A classification in 2014.118
128. The Association was also confronted by physicians who explained the dangers of forcing smaller schools to play significantly larger schools in contact and collision sports. Both
Jeff Conrad, M.D., director of the Sports Medicine Center at The Orthopedic Group PC, and
Juan Ronderos, M.D., a neurologist specializing in spinal injuries and neurological disorders, wrote separately to the Association to express their concerns that the CBF, as designed, would increase the number of injuries (especially concussions) that private school students would sustain based on the mismatch in school sizes.
129. Dr. Conrad also appended two medical research articles showing that student- athletes at small schools are at a heightened risk of personal injury, concussion, and head impact exposure.
130. Dr. Ronderos, in part, also wrote that:
As a medical professional who has treated high school and college athletes for over a decade for concussions and CTE, I urge you to consider the fact that you will be placing our students in harm’s way if this measure passes.
131. Incredibly, Dr. James Robinson, co-chairman of the Association’s “Medical
Advisory Committee,” admitted at the Board of Control’s January quarterly meeting that the
Association had reviewed no data to determine if the CBF would increase the risk of injuries by forcing students to “play up” two classification levels above their school’s enrollment. A startling admission, given that the Association’s parent organization, the National Federation, cited no less than seven medical studies dealing with the issue in its Concussion Summit Report,
117 See M. Chou, NFHS Concussion Task Force Recommendations to be Discussed by State Associations for Implementation in 2015, AHSAA NEWS (Nov. 12, 2014). 118 R. Carter, AHSAA’s Expansion to Seven Classes “Creates More Opportunities,” Savarese Says,NORTH JEFFERSON NEWS (Jan. 22, 2014). 46 which, itself, makes numerous findings identifying the heightened number of brain injuries affecting football players at small schools. (See Ex. I.)
132. At the March 13, 2018 appeal presentation, St. Paul’s Head of School (Blair
Fisher) and Director of Athletics (Steve Mask) reiterated the prior warnings of medical experts and asked the Board of Control to study the medical literature addressing the inherent risks the
CBF posed to the safety of private school students. St. Paul’s recommended that, at a minimum, the Association should suspend enforcement of the CBF until a safety study and public review could be completed. The Board of Control rejected St. Paul’s request, and refused to re-consider its position.119
133. At all times relevant to these issues, the Association knew that student-athletes from small schools have a heightened risk of personal injury and concussion, and that they face the greatest exposure to frequent sub-concussive head impacts. The Association also knew that the CBF (by combining the Student Multiplier with its Success Test) would subject private school students to significantly heightened risks of personal injury and concussion and, moreover, a greater magnitude of frequent sub-concussive head impacts. Nonetheless, the
Association voted to adopt and strictly enforce the CBF with a deliberate indifference to known and extreme risks of serious injury to private school students.
V. CAUSES OF ACTION
State Action Allegation
134. St. Paul’s incorporates and realleges all the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs.
119 These decisions plainly and blatantly contradict the Association’s stated commitment to all member schools that it will at all times act to “[e]nhance the health and safety of all participants.” 2017–2018 AHSAA Handbook at 1. 47 135. The Association is a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the U.S.
Constitution.
Count I – 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment)
136. St. Paul’s incorporates and realleges all the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs.
137. The adoption of the CBF, by its design and by its application to private school members only, violates St. Paul’s constitutional right to equal protection of the laws under the
14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Association was moved to act and did act on bare animus, and the classification (i.e., public vs. private) was not rationally related to any legitimate purpose.
138. Any ostensible purpose for the Association’s consideration and passage of the
CBF was and is a mere pretext for the Association’s actual motivation: a bare desire to harm and disadvantage private schools (a politically unpopular and disfavored group), to appease certain public school officials and lawmakers, and thereby protect the Association’s authority over high school athletics.
139. There is no evidence that can support any finding that the classification of schools
(i.e., public vs. private), for purposes of applying the CBF (as designed and as intended), bears a rational relationship to any legitimate state interest. Indeed, as designed and applied, the CBF is irrational, irresponsible, reckless, and likely to do physical harm to certain private school students.
140. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, St. Paul’s has suffered substantial and irreparable injury for which it is entitled to appropriate relief.
48 Count II – 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Violations of the Substantive Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment)
141. St. Paul’s incorporates and realleges all the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs.
142. St. Paul’s has been deprived of its constitutional right to substantive due process by the Association and Defendant Savarese.
143. St. Paul’s has a legitimate claim of entitlement to certain constitutionally protected rights, including, but not limited to:
a. The right to the Association’s promulgation and application of rules (including its Constitution and Bylaws) in a manner that does not substantially increase the likelihood of personal injury and harm to students engaged in athletic competition;
b. The right to have the Association’s “power to classify” exercised in manner that does not discriminate against private schools (as a class), that does not penalize private schools (as a class) for athletic accomplishments that are encouraged and, indeed, lauded among public schools, and that does not penalize private schools (as a class) for fostering participation in school athletics;
c. The right to have the Association abide by its charter mission to provide fair and balanced sporting events, so that all student-athletes have the opportunity to participate in an environment of “pure” competition;
d. The right to the Association’s promotion of St. Paul’s athletic programs to the same degree as, and on equal footing with, the athletic programs of public schools;
e. The right to have the achievements of its student-athletes judged and evaluated in the same manner and on equal footing with the student-athletes of public schools; and
f. The right to not otherwise be treated disparately or unequally from public schools.
144. St. Paul’s entitlement to these specific benefits was created by express and/or implied contracts and mutually explicit understandings between the Association and all of its
49 member schools, including, but not limited to, the benefits, rights, and obligations created in the
Association Handbook, Constitution, and Bylaws.
145. The Association and Defendant Savarese deprived St. Paul’s of its aforementioned constitutionally protected rights by designing and applying the CBF so that all private school students in the classification grades (10th – 12th) are counted as 1.35 students, which automatically requires those students to “play up” a classification, and then penalizing those students (again) if they achieve success by moving them up yet another classification, assuming as the Association does, that the students achieved their success by some improper means or unfair advantage.
146. The Association’s exercise of government power in violation of St. Paul’s constitutionally protected rights was not rationally related to a legitimate purpose.
147. The Association’s exercise of government power in violation of St. Paul’s constitutionally protected rights was arbitrary, capricious, and conscious-shocking. The
Association acted, indeed, with a deliberate indifference to, and in conscious disregard of, excessive, known, and clear risks to the health and safety of private school student-athletes.
148. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, St. Paul’s has suffered substantial and irreparable injury for which it is entitled to appropriate relief.
Count III – 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Violations of the Procedural Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment)
149. St. Paul’s incorporates and realleges all the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs.
150. St. Paul’s has been deprived of its constitutional right to procedural due process by the Association and Defendant Savarese.
50 151. St. Paul’s has a legitimate claim of entitlement to certain constitutionally protected rights, including, but not limited to:
a. The right to the Association’s promulgation and application of rules (including its Constitution and Bylaws) in a manner that does not substantially increase the likelihood of personal injury and harm to students engaged in athletic competition;
b. The right to have the Association’s “power to classify” exercised in manner that does not discriminate against private schools (as a class), that does not penalize private schools (as a class) for athletic accomplishments that are encouraged and, indeed, lauded among public schools, and that does not penalize private schools (as a class) for fostering participation in school athletics;
c. The right to have the Association abide by its charter mission to provide fair and balanced sporting events, so that all student-athletes have the opportunity to participate in an environment of “pure” competition;
d. The right to the Association’s promotion of St. Paul’s athletic programs to the same degree as, and on equal footing with, the athletic programs of public schools;
e. The right to have the achievements of its student-athletes judged and evaluated in the same manner and on equal footing with the student-athletes of public schools; and
f. The right to not otherwise be treated disparately or unequally from public schools.
152. St. Paul’s entitlement to these specific benefits was created by express and/or implied contracts and mutually explicit understandings between the Association and all of its member schools, including, but not limited to, the benefits, rights, and obligations created in the
Association Handbook, Constitution, and Bylaws.
153. The Association and Defendant Savarese deprived St. Paul’s of its aforementioned constitutionally protected rights by designing and applying the CBF as described above, supra, ¶ 145.
154. The Association and Defendant Savarese violated the 14th Amendment by depriving St. Paul’s of its aforementioned constitutionally protected rights without due process,
51 including notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, and by applying the CBF in an ex post facto manner. At the time the CBF was adopted, the Association knew specifically how it would impact (in its initial application) each private school because the rule is based on and, in fact, penalizes prior athletic performance.
155. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, St. Paul’s has suffered substantial and irreparably injury for which it is entitled to appropriate relief.
Count IV – Ala. Code §§ 6-6-220 through 232 (1975)
(Declaratory Relief)
156. St. Paul’s incorporates and realleges all the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs.
157. St. Paul’s and all other member schools of the Association signed agreements to participate in high school athletic competition in accordance with the Constitution, Bylaws, and rulings of the Association.
158. The Association’s Handbook, Constitution, and Bylaws endow St. Paul’s and all other private school members with fundamental rights and assurances that all Association- sanctioned athletic competition will be pure, fair, equitable, and safe.
159. St. Paul’s and other private schools, as a general class of Association member schools, have certain legal rights, interests, and expectations under the Association Handbook,
Constitution, and Bylaws as member-schools of the Association. These rights include, but are not limited to:
a. The promulgation and application of rules by the Association (including its Constitution and Bylaws) in a manner that does not substantially increase the likelihood of personal injury and harm to students engaged in athletic competition;
b. To have the Association’s “power to classify” exercised in manner that does not discriminate against private schools (as a class), that does not penalize private 52 schools (as a class) for athletic accomplishments that are encouraged and, indeed, lauded among public schools, and that does not penalize private schools (as a class) for fostering participation in school athletics;
c. To have the Association abide by its charter mission to provide fair and balanced sporting events, so that all student-athletes have the opportunity to participate in an environment of “pure” competition;
d. To have the Association promote St. Paul’s athletic programs to the same degree as, and on equal footing with, the athletic programs of public schools;
e. To have the achievements of its student-athletes judged and evaluated in the same manner and on equal footing with the student-athletes of public schools; and
f. To not otherwise be treated disparately or unequally from public schools.
160. Similarly, the Association is obligated to act within the confines of the
Association Handbook, Constitution, and Bylaws, and to do all acts in furtherance of the mission with which it was charged by its member schools. These obligations and duties include, but are not limited to:
a. To treat all general classes of its member schools (i.e., public and private) equally;
b. To not disadvantage, harm, or otherwise injure the athletic programs of one class of schools (i.e., public or private) to the benefit of another class of schools;
c. To adopt and apply rules that improve and enhance the safety of athletic programs for student-athletes from all member schools; and
d. To refrain from adopting or applying rules (or engaging in other acts) that substantially increase the risk of personal injury and harm to student-athletes.
161. The Association adopted the CBF in breach of its duties, and in direct violation of the rights, interests, and expectations of its private school members, under the Association
Handbook, Constitution, and Bylaws.
162. Therefore, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between the parties so that a declaration of the parties’ rights and duties relative to the Association’s Handbook,
Constitution, and Bylaws is necessary and proper at this time to resolve questions pertaining to the rights, duties, and legal relations regarding the obligations, expectations, benefits, and
53 liabilities arising out of the parties’ contractual and associational relationship, including, without limitation, the Association’s violation of the rights of St. Paul’s and all other private schools related to its adoption of the CBF (as designed and applied).
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, St. Paul’s prays for judgment against the Association and Defendant
Savarese as follows:
a. Awarding permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the Association from applying
the CBF (as it is currently designed) against any private school member of the
Association;
b. Awarding injunctive relief requiring the Association to classify (unless otherwise
agreed by the parties) its member schools for the 2018–2020 classification period
using true, unadjusted enrollment;
c. Alternatively, awarding injunctive relief indefinitely suspending enforcement of
the CBF (as it is currently designed) against any private school member of the
Association until the CBF undergoes a comprehensive study by independent
medical experts, the results of which shall be subject to meaningful opportunity
for review and comment by the Association’s member schools, and which must
be approved by the Court;
d. Declaring the rights, obligations, and liabilities of the parties under the
Association Handbook, Constitution, and Bylaws, specifically:
i. That the Association is an organization that exists to serve the interests and promote the athletic programs of all its member schools, public and private;
54 ii. That St. Paul’s and all other private school members have a right to participate in Association programs to the same extent as, and on equal footing with public school members;
iii. That St. Paul’s and all other private school members shall not be treated disparately or unequally from public schools;
iv. That St. Paul’s and all other private school members shall not be subjected to Association bylaws, rules, or other actions that subject their student- athletes to greater risks of personal injury in athletic competition;
v. That the Association shall refrain from adopting rules, regulations or taking other actions that increase the risk of personal injury and harm to student-athletes of its member schools;
vi. That the Association is obligated to treat all general classes of its member schools (i.e., public and private) equally;
vii. That the Association shall refrain from action that disadvantages or harms the athletic programs of one class of schools (i.e., public or private) to the benefit of another class of schools;
viii. That the Association shall carry out and fulfill its commitment to adopt rules that improve the safety of athletic programs for student-athletes of all member schools;
ix. That the adoption of the CBF (as designed and applied) was a breach of the Association’s duties, and violated the rights of St. Paul’s and other private school members, under the Association Handbook, Constitution, and Bylaws;
x. That any action by the Association (or any of its governing bodies) that is intended to, or will otherwise, classify a member school on the basis of anything other than actual enrollment (without the school’s agreement) shall be subjected to procedural and substantive due process measures so that all student-athletes receive equal protection under the Association’s Constitution and Bylaws and that no student-athlete is subjected to any greater risk of physical harm than he or she would incur by participating in a classification based on enrollment; e. Awarding St. Paul’s its costs and expenses incurred in this litigation, including
reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert fees; and f. Awarding St. Paul’s such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
55 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Russel Myles RUSSEL MYLES rmyles @mcdowellknight.com HART BENTON [email protected] Attorneys for St. Paul’s Episcopal School
OF COUNSEL:
MCDOWELL KNIGHT ROEDDER & SLEDGE, LLC 11 North Water St., Ste. 13290 Mobile, Alabama 36602 (251) 432-5300 (251) 432-5303 (fax)
DEFENDANTS TO BE SERVED BY PERSONAL SERVICE AS FOLLOWS:
The Alabama High School Athletic Association 7325 Halcyon Summit Drive Montgomery, AL 36117
Steven P. Savarese Executive Director The Alabama High School Athletic Association 7325 Halcyon Summit Drive Montgomery, AL 36117
56 A
Timothy Paul Hecker, M.D., Ph.D.
3705 Tudor Lane [email protected] Mobile, AL 36608 (251) 343-0585 cell: 251-533-4606
Education: Doctor of Medicine (M.D.)-August 2004 The University of Alabama-Birmingham School of Medicine Medical Scientist Training Program, Birmingham AL
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)-August 2003 The University of Alabama-Birmingham School of Medicine Medical Scientist Training Program, Birmingham AL Dissertation: FAK Signaling Through the Ras/MAPK Pathway Promotes the Progression of Malignant Astrocytic Tumors
Bachelor of Science in Biology (B.S.)- May 1998 The Catholic University of America, Washington DC Honors: summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, Archdiocesan Scholarship, Phi Eta Sigma, Dean’s List, Barry Goldwater Scholarship Nominee, Howard Hughes Medical Institute Fellowship, Summer Research Fellowship USA-COM, NIH Summer Intramural ResearchTraining Award
Post-Graduate Work/Training/Positions: President, University of Alabama Medical Alumni Association University of Alabama School of Medicine, February 2017-present
Private Practice Neurologist, Coastal Neurological Institute Mobile, AL- November 2014- present
Private Practice Neurologist, Diagnostic and Medical Clinic Mobile, AL- August 2008- November 2014
Board Certified Physician, America Academy of Neurology and Psychiatry November 2008- present
Chief Resident, Department of Neurology, University of Alabama-Birmingham, July 2007-July 2008
Neurology Residency, University of Alabama-Birmingham, Birmigham, AL August 2005-August 2008
Internal Medicine Internship, The Baptist Health System, Birmingham, AL- August 2004-August 2005 EXHIBIT A-1 Undergraduate/Graduate Fellowships: Medical Scientist Training Program, University of Alabama-Birmingham Birmingham, AL—June 1998 to July 2004
NIH Summer IRTA Fellowship, National Institutes of Health (NICHD) Bethesda, MD – June 1997 to August 1997
Howard Hughes Medical Institute Fellowship, Catholic University of America Washington, DC – May 1995 to August 1995
Presentations: “42 year Old Black Male with Progressive Neurologic Decline” Neurology Grand Rounds, May 16, 2006; University of Alabama-Birmingham
“Myasthenia Gravis: Diagnosis and Treatment” Myasthenia Gravis Foundation Annual Meeting; June 17, 2006; University of Alabama-Birmingham
“Neurologic Morass of Lyme Disease: Understanding Neuroborreliosis” UAB Department of Neurology Grand Rounds, April 1, 2008
Publications/Abstracts: Available upon request
Seminars/Meetings: Management of Parkinson’s Disease and Multiple Sclerosis Conference—August 2006—Amelia Island, FL
American Society of Neuroimaging—MRI Fellowship—July 2006, Orlando, FL
Myasthenia Gravis Foundation—July 2006—UAB, Birmingham, AL
Neurology Grand Rounds—May 2006—UAB, Birmingham, AL
Honors/Awards: Chief Resident—Department of Neurology—July 2007-July 2008
Classification Plan: Competitive Balance (Proposal July 26, 2017) Beginningnning with the 20182018-19-19 AHSAA classificationclassification period, a competitive balance factor will be integrated with the 1.35 enrollment multiplier for private schools.
1. A 1.35 enrollment multiplier will be calculated for all private schools. 2. A competitive balance factor will be implemented when a private school’s sport meets the threshold on the championship data from the previous three years. Ɣ Points are earned by sport based on the team’s overall finish each year over the past three seasons. ż Quarterfinal (5-8 finish): 1 point ż Semifinal (3-4 finish): 2 points ż Final (1-2 finish): 4 points Points to level up oneOnce the Competitive BalancePoints to stay Points to level Competitive Balance Factor class is implemented in current classdown one class
Single Football, Volleyball, Golf, Single Football, Volleyball, Golf, Baseball,More than 6 Sports Baseball, Softball, Wrestling2 to 6 points 0 to 1 points Sports Softball, Wrestling Basketball, Soccer, Swim, Basketball, Soccer, Swim, Tennis,More XC, than 11 Coed ID Track, OD Track, Bowling Coed Tennis, XC, ID Track, OD4 to 11 points 0 to 3 points Track, Bowling • No ceiling: A team could potentially raise one class/division every classification period. • Teams that moved up according to the balance factor may level down only one class/division in the next classification period but may never drop below the 1.35 multiplier. • Single teams in co-ed classifications will use the Single Sport balance factor. • Once the Competitive Balance Factor has been applied for a classification period, the Factor will only be considered in the subsequent re-classification if the team in a single sport earns more than 2 points in the first year of the new class or more than 4 points in the first year of a coed sport. B C ST. PAUL’S EPISCOPAL SCHOOL
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
January 31, 2018
TO: Mr. Steve Savarese Executive Director AHSAA
The Alabama High School Athletic Association (“AHSAA”)
The AHSAA Central Board of Control (“CBOC”)
All Persons, Committees, and any Task Force under the direction or control of the AHSAA and/or the CBOC
______
Please provide the following information by Wednesday, February 7, 20181:
1. In connection with the adoption of the new Competitive Balance Rule (“CBR”), all minutes of meetings (or other recordings of meetings) at which new and/or additional competitive balance measures were discussed. This would include discussions/meetings of the Task Force, the CBOC, and any other persons affiliated with the AHSAA/CBOC.
2. Any studies, reports, analyses, and other similar materials (hereafter “data”) used or considered to evaluate the need, purpose, and/or adoption of the new CBR.
3. All data in your possession at the time the CBR was adopted on which you relied to conclude that private schools in Alabama (or any of them) possess an unfair competitive advantage in high school athletics.
4. All data in your possession at the time the CBR was adopted tending in any way to demonstrate that the perceived unfair advantage is in fact determinative of athletic success.
1 Use of the words “you” and “your” shall mean Mr. Savarese, the AHSAA, the CBOC, and any task force, committee and other persons under the direction and/or control of Mr. Savarese, the AHSAA, or the CBOC.
Page | 1 D 5. All data in your possession at the time the CBR was adopted tending to demonstrate that the pre-existing multiplier system is not sufficient to address the perceived unfair competitive advantage.
6. All data in your possession at the time the CBR was adopted reflecting any consideration that the CBR might present risks to the safety of private school players competing against larger schools, especially in contact/collision sports like football.
a. All data reflecting your conclusion about the above.
7. All data in your possession at the time the CBR was adopted reflecting any determination that the CBR would, under the circumstances, actually mitigate unfair advantages in high school athletics, especially in contact/collision sports like football.
8. All data in your possession at the time the CBR was adopted that identifies any other specific objectives intended to be accomplished by the CBR.
9. All data considered to conclude or believe that the new CBR is the best scheme to address the perceived unfair competitive advantage(s) of private schools in Alabama.
10. Please maintain and preserve all communications (including phone records, text messages, emails, and any social media communications) of Mr. Savarese, officers of the AHSAA, members of the CBOC, members of the Task Force, and any other person or persons affiliated with the above persons and/or entities, concerning the need, desire, and/or adoption of the new CBR.
Page | 2 $7
E
$7
F
$7
G
$7
H
Application of CBF Success Test to Public Schools (2014–2017)
Summary: The Alabama High School Athletic Association’s playoff data reveal that many public schools exceeded the CBF Success Test’s “point threshold” of playoff success between fall 2014 and spring 2017. These data show that at least1 121 teams from 51 different public schools exceeded the CBF during the same period in which the CBF considers private schools’ playoff success. These data further show that, if the CBF applied to all schools, at least 70 teams from 38 different public schools would be required to “play up” one class beginning next year. The below table lists the public schools that exceeded the CBF Success Test “threshold” of playoff success between 2014 and 2017 with respect to each sport.
Public Schools Exceeding CBF Threshold CBF Class (2014–2017) Alignment 2 Fyffe High School 2A to 3A Maplesville High School 1A to 2A Hoover High School * Elba High School 1A to 2A Football Clay-Chalkville High School 6A to 7A Leeds High School 4A to 5A Piedmont High School 3A to 4A Spanish Fort High School 6A to 7A
Addison High School 2A to 3A Mountain Brook High School * Volleyball Hoover High School * Meek High School 1A to 2A Spanish Fort High School 6A to 7A
Cullman High School 6A to 7A Russellville High School 5A to 6A Helena High School 6A to 7A Baseball Auburn High School * Gordo High School 3A to 4A Brantley High School 1A to 2A
Huntsville High School * Golf (Girls) White Plains High School 4A-5A to 6A
1 At the time these calculations were made, playoff data was missing from the Association’s website for the following sports: volleyball, baseball, softball, wrestling, golf (boys and girls), soccer (boys and girls), swimming and diving (boys and girls), and basketball (boys and girls). Accordingly, more public school teams likely exceeded the CBF Success Test point threshold in these sports than we were able to calculate with the limited, publicly available date. 2 An asterisk (*) denotes that the school exceeded the CBF threshold, but already competes in the Association’s highest classification (7A) and, therefore, cannot “move up” to a higher class. EXHIBIT H-1 Brantley High School 1A to 2A Springville High School 5A to 6A Pisgah High School 3A to 4A Softball Sparkman High School * Curry High School 4A to 5A Hale County 3A to 4A Baker High School *
Arab High School 1A-5A to 6A Vestavia Hills High School * Wrestling Leeds High School 1A-5A to 6A Southside High School, Gadsden 1A-5A to 6A Thompson High School *
Fairhope High School * Mountain Brook High School * Golf (Boys) Russellville High School 5A to 6A Spanish Fort High School 6A to 7A
Mountain Brook High School * Walker (Jasper) High School 5A to 6A Tennis Florence High School * Huntsville High School *
Homewood High School * Hoover High School * Mountain Brook High School * Indoor Track Opelika High School 6A to 7A Auburn High School * Winfield High School 1A-3A to 4A-5A
Homewood High School * Hoover High School * Falkville High School 1A to 2A Opelika High School 6A to 7A Auburn High School * Lafayette High School 2A to 3A Outdoor Track Beauregard High School 5A to 6A Cold Springs High School 2A to 3A Winfield High School 3A to 4A Brooks High School 4A to 5A Marion County High School 1A to 2A Mountain Brook High School * TR Miller High School 3A to 4A
Auburn High School * Swimming Huntsville High School *
2
Mountain Brook High School * Homewood High School * Pleasant Valley High School 3A to 4A Scottsboro High School 5A to 6A Auburn High School * Cross Country Cold Springs High School 1A-2A to 3A Lawrence County High School 5A to 6A Hoover High School * Hatton High School 2A to 3A Loveless Academic Magnet High 4A to 5A
Homewood High School * Deshler High School 4A to 5A Hoover High School * Basketball Spring Garden High School 1A to 2A Wenonah High School 5A to 6A Jemison High School, Huntsville 5A to 6A
Soccer Oak Mountain High School *
3
ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿ !ÿ" ÿÿ #$ÿ%&$ÿ ÿ'ÿ(ÿÿ)0ÿ ÿ
1ÿ) ÿÿ2ÿ"!3ÿ23ÿ4ÿÿ51)"26ÿ $ÿÿ3ÿ78ÿ9@ABÿ1)"2ÿ'ÿ2ÿC(ÿ)ÿÿ
ÿ
DEFÿHIPQRSITÿUFVFWIPQRSÿRXÿYPIPFÿ`QaEÿYbERRTÿcddRbQIPQRSdÿeHU`YfÿISVÿQPdÿgFghFWÿIddRbQIPQRSdÿ XQWgTiÿhFTQFpFÿPEIPÿIPETFPQbÿqIWPQbQqIPQRSÿhiÿdPrVFSPdÿqWRgRPFdÿEFITPEÿISVÿXQPSFddsÿIbIVFgQbÿ IbEQFpFgFSPsÿEFITPEiÿTQXFdPiTFdsÿISVÿaRRVÿbQPQtFSdEQquÿvEQTFÿPEFWFÿwQTTÿITwIidÿhFÿIÿWQdxÿRXÿQSyrWisÿ gQSQgQtQSaÿPEFÿWQdxÿRXÿEFIVÿPWIrgIÿISVÿbRSbrddQRSÿQSÿITTÿdqRWPdÿQdÿIÿqWQRWQPiÿXRWÿPEFÿHU`YuÿpFWÿPEFÿ qIdPÿdFpFWITÿiFIWdsÿPEFÿHU`YÿISVÿPEFÿHU`YÿYqRWPdÿFVQbQSFÿcVpQdRWiÿRggQPPFFÿeYcfÿEIpFÿ ÿ fÿ WRVrbFVÿIÿgQSrPFÿRSTQSFÿFVrbIPQRSITÿbRrWdFÿwQPEÿPEFÿFSPFWdÿXRWÿQdFIdFÿRSPWRTÿefÿ RSÿRSbrddQRSÿQSÿYqRWPduÿÿ fÿYqFbQXQbITTiÿIVVWFddFVÿbRSbrddQRSÿgISIaFgFSPÿQSÿPEFÿWrTFdÿhRRxdÿRXÿITTÿdqRWPdsÿQSbTrVQSaÿ XRRPhITTuÿÿ fÿvWQPPFSÿdFpFWITÿ RQSPdÿRXÿgqEIdQdÿQSÿPEFÿXRRPhITTÿWrTFdÿhRRxÿXRbrdFVÿRSÿTQgQPQSaÿEFTgFPPR EFTgFPÿbRSPIbPÿISVÿhTRwdÿPRÿPEFÿEFIVÿwQPEÿPEFÿdERrTVFWsÿXRWFIWgsÿISVÿEISVuÿ fÿQddFgQSIPFVÿgrTPQqTFÿqrhTQbIPQRSdÿWFaIWVQSaÿbRSbrddQRSÿgISIaFgFSPÿPRÿPEFÿgFghFWÿdPIPFÿ IddRbQIPQRSduÿ ÿ SÿrTiÿRXÿsÿIPÿPEFÿWFrFdPÿRXÿPEFÿHU`YÿRIWVÿRXÿQWFbPRWdsÿIÿPIdxÿXRWbFÿRXÿgFVQbITÿISVÿdbQFSPQXQbÿ FdqFWPdsÿEQaEÿdbERRTÿXRRPhITTÿbRIbEFdsÿdPIPFÿIddRbQIPQRSÿqFWdRSSFTsÿISVÿWFqWFdFSPIPQpFdÿRXÿdFpFWITÿ dPIxFERTVFWÿRWaISQtIPQRSdÿgFPÿPRÿVQdbrddÿdPWIPFaQFdÿPRÿWFVrbFÿEFIVÿQgqIbPdÿISVÿgQSQgQtFÿbRSbrddQRSÿ WQdxÿQSÿEQaEÿdbERRTÿXRRPhITTÿqTIiFWdÿVrWQSaÿbRSPFdPdÿISVÿqWIbPQbFdsÿIdÿwFTTÿIdÿVrWQSaÿIbPQpQPQFdÿ bRSVrbPFVÿRrPdQVFÿRXÿPEFÿPWIVQPQRSITÿXITTÿXRRPhITTÿdFIdRSÿedqWQSaÿISVÿdrggFWÿqWIbPQbFdfuÿDEFÿ UrSVIgFSPITdÿRrPTQSFVÿhFTRwÿWFqWFdFSPÿPEFÿefghÿijklmngÿWFbRggFSVIPQRSdÿISVÿarQVFTQSFdÿVFpFTRqFVÿ XRTTRwQSaÿPwRÿVIidÿRXÿqWFdFSPIPQRSdÿISVÿVQdbrddQRSÿRXÿPEFÿWFTFpISPÿgFVQbITÿTQPFWIPrWFÿISVÿbrWWFSPÿ FdqFWPÿRqQSQRSuÿÿ ÿ DEFÿgFghFWdÿRXÿPEFÿPIdxÿXRWbFÿXrTTiÿIbxSRwTFVaFÿPEFÿqWFdFSPÿTQgQPFVÿoÿPERraEÿFpRTpQSaÿoÿdbQFSPQXQbÿ FpQVFSbFÿIpIQTIhTFÿPRÿdrqqRWPÿPEFÿUrSVIgFSPITdÿRrPTQSFVÿhFTRwÿwQPEÿIhdRTrPFÿbFWPIQSPiÿISVÿFdqTQbQPÿ VFPIQTuÿcbbRWVQSaTisÿPEFÿRrPbRgFdÿISVÿbTQSQbITÿWFTFpISbFÿRXÿISÿQSbWFIdQSaÿSrghFWÿRXÿWFdFIWbEÿdPrVQFdÿ gIiÿFpFSPrITTiÿITPFWÿPEFdFÿWFbRggFSVIPQRSdÿISVÿarQVFTQSFduÿVFITTisÿPEQdÿFgFWaQSaÿVIPIÿwQTTÿbTIWQXiÿ PEFÿqRPFSPQITÿXRWÿTRSaPFWgÿIVpFWdFÿbRaSQPQpFsÿFgRPQRSITsÿISVpRWÿSFrWRTRaQbÿFXXFbPdÿXWRgÿbRSbrddQRSdÿ ISVÿWFqFPQPQpFÿhTRwdÿPRÿPEFÿEFIVÿPEIPÿgIiÿSRPÿWFdrTPÿQSÿPEFÿbTQSQbITÿdigqPRgdÿRXÿbRSbrddQRSuÿIdFVÿRSÿ wEIPÿQdÿbrWWFSPTiÿxSRwSsÿPEFÿarQVQSaÿqWQSbQqTFdÿQSÿVFpFTRqQSaÿPEQdÿWFqRWPÿXRWÿiRrSaÿIPETFPFdÿISVÿPERdFÿ wERÿRpFWdFFsÿdrqqRWPÿISVÿIVgQSQdPFWÿEQaEÿdbERRTÿXRRPhITTÿqWRaWIgdÿwFWFÿPRÿWFIdRSIhTiÿTQgQPÿRpFWITTÿ
ÿ ÿ I ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ!"#$%ÿ'()$01ÿ#2)3456#7ÿÿ8ÿ99ÿ @AÿÿBÿÿB ÿCÿÿBÿÿBÿÿDÿÿ9E9Fÿ ÿ GÿHÿÿ ÿBÿÿÿC ÿC ÿÿÿ9ÿÿ99D ÿ D ÿÿ ÿÿIPAQQQÿBÿ9ÿ BÿCÿ9 ÿÿ9 FÿGÿÿCÿ ÿ ÿ9ÿ ÿD ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿCÿDÿ FÿGÿ8ÿ9ÿ ÿD ÿÿ ÿCC9ÿRSÿRUVWXUXY`ÿÿÿ9ÿ FÿGÿD ÿ 9ÿÿ ÿ99ÿC ÿ ÿ BÿBFÿH ÿaÿ ÿ bÿcÿÿ BÿÿCCAÿCÿÿ9ÿÿÿDÿB ÿ9Dÿÿ 9ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿB ÿ @ÿC ÿd ÿÿÿÿ BÿÿBÿFÿÿ bÿGÿC ÿÿ ÿCÿ ÿÿÿAÿÿB ÿÿ99ÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ 9ÿÿ ÿ Aÿ Bÿÿ9ÿ ÿÿÿd ÿ @Fÿÿ ÿ cÿÿD9ÿ BAÿÿHÿÿDDÿÿ ÿ9ÿ ÿ ÿÿ 9DFÿeÿÿ9 ÿDÿCÿ@Bÿ@ÿÿ@ÿC 9ÿC ÿ@Bÿ ÿÿ ÿ 9C9ÿÿ BAÿ ÿÿ9ÿÿBÿÿC E9 ÿCÿ99ÿ!ÿÿÿ9ÿ 7ÿÿ@ ÿC9ÿÿD ÿ ÿFÿGÿ@ÿC 9ÿÿ 9B8ÿÿ 9 BÿC9 ÿÿCC9ÿÿ9ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿCC9ÿÿÿDÿCÿ fWRgXhY`ÿihRpSqÿrshÿXtRufWXaÿ ÿ bÿvÿ ÿ!ÿ 9Dÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿ7ÿ bÿGw ÿ ÿD ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿCCÿ ÿCÿ bÿG9@Bÿÿ9@Bÿ9Eÿ bÿv 99ÿC E9 ÿÿ ÿ bÿv ÿÿ 99ÿx ÿ9ÿÿÿDÿ!9ÿÿD ÿÿwD 7yÿ bÿ9ÿ ÿ bÿ9ÿ ÿÿ99ÿ ÿ ÿÿ"'4ÿ0316'51'ÿ$0136ÿ$4ÿ$%%#%ÿ13ÿ1"#ÿ%305(#1ÿÿ1"#ÿÿdefÿ ÿ gÿÿD ÿ@ ÿÿ9ÿÿÿÿEÿDÿCÿ 9ÿ ÿ9 ÿÿ99ÿÿ C ÿ ÿd Fÿeÿ ÿÿ9 ÿÿCDÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿEC ÿÿ 9ÿ ÿ 9 Aÿÿ@ÿC 9ÿ 9ÿ ÿBÿÿ9ÿ ÿ Bÿÿ Hÿ ÿFÿgDÿ @ÿC9 ÿÿ ÿCAÿ9ÿÿÿ Aÿ ÿÿÿÿCAÿÿ ÿ9EAÿÿÿÿ9 ÿÿBÿ99ÿ Fÿ ÿ ijklmnokpmqrÿstuÿvwkwnwxwkyÿzomlÿ{n|m}pÿ~|trjuoÿmklÿtk}jrrwtkÿwrÿwkÿittpmqqÿ ÿ IFÿÿHw99ÿÿÿÿ Bÿÿ B ÿAÿÿÿÿ Bÿ9D ÿÿCÿÿ ÿCÿCÿFÿH ÿ ÿCÿÿ 9ÿÿBAÿCw99ÿ sS`p`U`ÿs ÿisUVÿVÿRSÿpXÿUpsSÿ`pSÿUVXÿÿrssUiRWWÿCÿCÿ##4ÿ3ÿe31$01Fÿ ÿ ÿÿ ÿCAÿVÿpSsWX`ÿÿCÿ99ÿAÿ ÿÿAÿCÿÿÿÿ w ÿ ÿÿÿ@wÿÿÿB Fÿc99 B Aÿÿ@ÿC 9ÿ ÿ ÿÿ99Aÿ 9 ÿÿSÿp`ÿ`UÿR`ÿpsWXSUÿpUVÿVÿR`ÿpUVÿpXÿUpsSqÿ D Aÿÿ@ÿC 9ÿRW`sÿhXsSpX`ÿUVRUÿpXÿUpsSÿWpXWgÿRhhpX`ÿRÿVpVXhÿhp`ÿC ÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿ!"#$ÿ%&'!()ÿ0ÿ123ÿ4566ÿ7898@AÿCDÿECFGHIGÿ%PQRS)ÿ%T5U S)ÿ!ÿ %V"R"W)ÿR#ÿX"$Q!#R#!ÿ"Yÿÿ6UY`5`aÿ5ÿ ÿÿ6b5 ÿ5ÿc65`ÿÿÿ dÿ ÿ edÿÿfbÿ 5ÿ5 `5 ÿ 6ÿ` ÿ5ÿg5ÿhÿc ÿhÿ6bUÿ`5`ÿÿc5`` dÿ 0ÿ5 iÿh`ÿ U6ÿ`bb ÿh66Y`5`ÿÿ566pÿÿÿbÿ5ÿeYqÿc5`` ÿcÿpidÿ r 5ÿ 6ÿ56 ÿÿUgÿÿ6bUÿh66Y`5`ÿÿ` `gÿ5 ÿ5ÿ6bUÿh66Y`5`ÿ bÿÿÿbÿ5ÿqsÿb ÿcÿ5ÿ5ÿÿbÿ5ÿtsYusÿb ÿcÿpidÿÿ ÿ vwxywÿÿ0ÿ5 iÿh`ÿ5`ip6U ÿ5ÿÿ5ÿ hh`ÿ55ÿÿ c`hÿpÿ `5ÿ5ÿ 5`Yg565ÿ% #$ÿRXQX#$)ÿ 55ÿhÿ`5`ÿ6b5 dÿ2g56ÿ 5 ÿ 3655b5aÿ35aÿf565aÿ5ÿ05 ÿ5cÿg5Uÿ6b5 ÿÿ`5`ÿcÿÿÿ esqÿh566ÿ 5 dÿÿ6b5ÿÿICC@ÿdÿÿ g665`ÿ55ÿ UU ÿ ÿ 5 ÿ5gÿ ÿ5ÿ 5 `566ÿ Uh`5ÿ`5 ÿÿ`` ÿ5 ÿUÿc5`` aÿpÿ ÿ`5 ÿÿ`` ÿÿÿ ÿUÿU5b dÿÿÿÿ ÿ qdÿÿY 5 ÿc5`` ÿb5ÿeÿbÿh66Y`5`ÿbÿ5ÿc5`` ÿ``Uÿ65ÿÿÿ U65ÿ 5 aÿÿ566pÿhÿ5`Uÿh5b56 ÿpÿ hh`ÿcdÿ ÿ 3dÿY 5 ÿ5``6b55ÿc`6 ÿ5ÿU65 ÿU5Uÿ5ÿ5ÿ5ÿ5iÿ c`ÿ5ÿ 6ÿ56p5 ÿÿh66pdÿ Tdÿf6ÿ56ÿh66Y`5`ÿc5``ÿ5 ÿ5ÿbÿ6b5 ÿb5ÿÿ`5 ÿUÿÿcY 5 aÿÿbc5 ÿ 6ÿh` ÿÿÿccÿc`c6 ÿhÿ5`i6Uÿ5ÿ6`iUÿUÿÿ h ÿ g56ÿc5`` aÿ #g"R#ÿR"hR#$$Qhÿ"ÿ%&'!)ÿ!ÿ%iQj#ÿV"X()ÿÿÿ ÿ vwxywÿÿ0ÿ5 iÿh`ÿ5`ip6U ÿU65ÿ 5 ÿc5``ÿ6b5 ÿb5ÿÿÿÿ g ÿUÿÿcY 5 dÿ0 ÿ 6ÿÿÿÿ5ÿ c`h`ÿ5ÿ b5`ÿb5ÿÿ 566pÿ`5` ÿÿ cÿ hh`ÿbÿ5`Uÿccÿ5`i6Uÿ5ÿ6`iUÿ`e dÿ kbc5 ÿ 6ÿÿc65`ÿcÿc`ÿc65 aÿ5 ÿÿ 6p6ÿpiÿUÿ5`i6Uÿ 5ÿ6`iUÿcU ÿlQÿ%PQRS)ÿ%T5U S)ÿ!ÿ%V"R"W)ÿ Uÿÿ123ÿ4566ÿh ÿ hÿ%7898@AÿCDÿECFGHIGm)ÿ ÿ ndÿÿoUÿcY 5 ÿp`Y56ÿc5`` aÿ6ÿÿ ÿcÿ5ÿ 6ÿ`6ÿh66ÿ`5`dÿ ÿÿ vwxywÿÿ0ÿ56 `ÿ5ÿ ÿ hh`ÿ`gÿbÿh66pUÿh66Y`5`ÿ c5`` dÿpÿ5aÿ`` ÿ U ÿ5qÿ bcb ÿb5ÿÿg6cÿhÿ g56ÿ ÿ 5hÿÿ56ÿdÿ ÿ rdÿÿk5`ÿbbÿ 5ÿ5 `5ÿ 6ÿgpÿ ÿ`ÿc6` ÿU5Uÿ56ÿe5 ÿÿ U5b ÿc65ÿUÿ5ÿYpiÿbÿh5bdÿ ÿ vwxywsÿÿÿICC@ÿdÿÿ g665`ÿ55ÿ` 6ÿ pÿ5ÿ`bcÿ c ÿÿU ÿ iÿhÿ`` dÿ0ÿ5 iÿh`ÿ ÿ``ÿ5ÿc5`c5ÿÿ U5b ÿ5ÿb6c6ÿ6g6 ÿhÿ`bcÿUÿ5ÿ U6ÿpiÿ`5 ÿ iÿhÿ5ÿÿ5ÿ ` 56ÿ`5 ÿ5ÿbc5`ÿc dÿpÿ5aÿU5b ÿc65ÿÿ` `gÿ 5 ÿÿ ÿ `6ÿÿÿ 5bÿ5ÿ4 b5ÿ5ÿtÿu5 ÿU5b ÿÿtÿ u5 ÿ5ÿu5 ÿU5b ÿb5ÿÿ566pÿÿ5ÿ5ÿccÿÿ5e56ÿ`gdÿ r 5ÿ 6ÿÿUgÿÿb5Uÿ ÿ 5 ÿ5 ÿb`ÿ5 ÿc 6dÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿÿ !"ÿÿ"#$$%ÿ&ÿ !$ÿ !"%ÿ&ÿ $$" ÿ '%ÿ(ÿÿ$ ÿ ÿ)" & $ ÿ0ÿ(ÿ" &ÿÿÿ& ÿÿ (ÿÿ"&ÿ0 ÿ ÿ$"ÿ! $ ÿÿÿ ÿÿ! $ ÿ&ÿ ÿ 1ÿ ÿ ÿ2"&ÿ& $"&ÿ ÿ ÿ!ÿ&%ÿ ÿ&&%ÿ& 3ÿÿ! $ ÿ$$& 13ÿ ÿ 4567895@ABÿÿ2(ÿ!3&ÿ" &ÿÿÿ& ÿÿ(ÿÿ!ÿÿ !!" 3ÿÿ 1%ÿ!3 $ÿ$ 0 3%ÿ&ÿ' ÿ&0!ÿC0%ÿÿÿÿ "ÿ 'ÿÿ&ÿ !$ÿ !"ÿ&ÿ$$" ÿ&" 1ÿ3ÿ"#$$ÿ$ 0 3ÿ & ÿ"&ÿ(ÿ1 0ÿÿ 1 $3ÿ 1ÿÿÿ ÿÿ"ÿ$$ÿDÿ$ÿ ÿ$ &ÿ $"&ÿ ÿ!&ÿ $ÿÿ!0 "ÿ(ÿÿ&ÿÿ & 0 &"ÿ ÿ0ÿ$3ÿ(%ÿÿÿ$"3%ÿ! $ ! 1ÿ ÿÿ$$E$ ÿ!ÿF1%ÿ G$ÿC$'3%ÿH$%ÿI$$ÿ&ÿP 1Qÿÿ ÿ RÿÿS$ÿ(ÿÿ$ ÿ"&ÿ$ÿ"ÿÿ ÿ!$ 0ÿTUVUWÿY`VYaWTbÿVTT`YcVUc`dÿ`dÿ & 1 1ÿ&ÿ ! 1ÿÿ$$ÿ&"$ ÿ!1ÿÿ!!! 3ÿ 1ÿ3"%ÿ &&ÿ $%ÿ&ÿ 1ÿ$ÿ(ÿ!1ÿ ÿ03ÿ$" 3ÿeIfÿ2(ÿ&ÿÿg2CIÿ 2"&ÿÿ$ 1ÿ$"ÿ"&ÿ(ÿÿ! 3ÿ&"$ ÿ"$ÿÿÿ$$ÿ S&"$ ÿÿ$$ÿ"&ÿÿ $"&ÿÿ!!ÿ 1ÿ&ÿ$ÿÿÿ ÿÿ 4567895@ABÿÿhÿ1ÿÿ(ÿ$ "ÿÿ00ÿ&ÿ!!ÿ$$ 1ÿ$ i"ÿÿ$ÿ 0ÿ ÿ"&ÿÿ'! 1ÿÿ1ÿÿ&ÿ)3(ÿfÿ!!ÿ 1ÿÿ3ÿ!ÿ &$%ÿ("ÿÿ ÿ$$" ÿ 'ÿ ÿ pÿÿS$ÿ(ÿÿ$ ÿ"&ÿ1"3ÿ&"$ÿ ÿ$ÿÿ$"ÿÿ$$" ÿ ÿ&ÿ! $ ÿ&ÿ$"1ÿ$ÿÿ0ÿÿ ÿ$" ÿq1ÿr$ÿI$ÿ "&ÿÿ(ÿ$"1&ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ$$%ÿ!%ÿ&ÿ"&ÿ"3ÿ ÿ 4567895@ABÿÿq3ÿ$ÿ ! $ÿi"ÿ"0ÿÿf $ÿs $ÿ&ÿ$$ÿ tuWvwWdUÿxuWyuWTaWuTÿ`dÿTUVUWÿY`dYwTTc`dÿVTÿ&ÿ! $ ÿÿÿÿ!ÿ$$" ÿ 1ÿ!$ÿ"&ÿ(ÿ&ÿ0 (ÿÿ"ÿÿ$ÿÿ$"ÿ%ÿ&ÿ !!&ÿ%ÿÿ&ÿ$ 0ÿ$$" ÿ1ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿfÿS1$3ÿf$ ÿrÿFSfrQÿ ÿ$3ÿ& &ÿ ÿ&ÿ!$ $&ÿ!$ÿ"&ÿ(ÿ &0!&ÿ&ÿ ÿ!$ÿÿ03ÿ 1ÿ$ÿPÿ! (%ÿÿ $ÿ ÿ"&ÿ(ÿ!ÿÿ ÿ!$ $ÿ&ÿ1ÿÿ ÿ 4567895@ABÿÿfÿ$ 0ÿSfrÿ"&ÿ(ÿ ÿ!$%ÿÿÿ!!ÿ&ÿ!!! ÿ!ÿÿ3ÿ 1$3ÿ " ÿ$ÿ0ÿÿ ÿhÿSfrÿ"&ÿ(ÿ& 1&ÿ&ÿ!$ $&ÿÿ&&ÿÿ ÿF2%ÿ" ÿ 3%ÿ&ÿ 3Qÿ&ÿÿ!$ $ÿ&ÿ1ÿ ÿfÿ $ÿ ÿ ÿÿ'3ÿ$!ÿ ÿ3ÿ13ÿÿ ÿ )"3ÿ 'ÿ&ÿ! ÿ3ÿÿÿ ! $ !ÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ!"#$ÿ%& ÿ'()ÿ0 ÿ1)(2ÿ ÿ34$ÿ35ÿ67ÿ78ÿ)9@72@)72ÿ2ÿ#A""4ÿ(Bÿ "#)("@ÿ9#2ÿ2C)#D5ÿEÿGHIPQRIPS5ÿTUVWÿ174XVVY`abcVTWadea5ÿ ÿ #B74ÿ& ÿ679272ÿf ÿ34$ÿ3f ÿf7#$gÿh ÿi7#)gÿp ÿ'qh8ÿh ÿh2$ÿ ÿ&4#2rÿ& ÿ s$#ÿt ÿ1)(2ÿ%5ÿ7(@u2@ÿ@7##"ÿ78ÿD(A"7("@ÿ2BÿD(A"7("@ÿ 2)#7AuD77$@ÿ(A#(2"ÿ2ÿu$uÿ@u77ÿ877"95ÿEÿvwQxHy5ÿTUVTÿ%A#ÿWUXea`bcVTadT5ÿ ÿ #7$7ÿ! ÿ2")ÿ6 ÿs7ÿs% ÿs)g @rÿhf ÿh)"@u#ÿ ÿ!(ÿf ÿ74@uÿf@&7Bÿ35ÿ1"72ÿ %"u"@ÿ3#2#qÿ%7@"72ÿA7"72ÿ""(2"cÿ(2$(2"ÿ78ÿA7#"ÿ@72@)725ÿEÿÿPw5ÿTUVeÿ f#d%A#XeY`TbcTeada5ÿ ÿ #7$7ÿ! ÿf#"2ÿ ÿhA#ÿ& ÿ@g2#ÿ3 ÿh)"@u#ÿ5ÿ"("72ÿ78ÿuBÿ(A@"ÿA7)#ÿ2ÿu$uÿ @u77ÿ877"9cÿ(A@"72ÿ87#ÿ#$)"2$ÿ@72"@"ÿA#@"@5ÿxÿEÿQPRÿH5ÿTUVWÿ @XeV`VTbcTde5ÿÿ ÿ #7$7ÿ! ÿ@g2#ÿ3 ÿf#"2ÿ ÿ72788ÿ ÿh)"@u#ÿ ÿ62B7Auÿ5ÿ)()"4ÿuBÿ(A@"ÿ 9)#B2ÿ2ÿu$uÿ@u77ÿ877"95ÿEÿGHIPQPIx5ÿTUVVÿ'@"XT`VUbcTUYd5ÿÿ ÿ 42A7#"ÿf ÿtu"7 ÿ3 ÿp#92ÿ ÿA2Bÿf% ÿ)2$ÿi ÿ6729)(ÿ% ÿs7ÿs% ÿ!7 #ÿ%h ÿ ""rÿ ÿfBC2ÿ%5ÿ%927#(ÿtu"ÿf""#ÿ02"$#"Dÿ6"Bÿ"7ÿdBÿ0(A@"ÿA7)#ÿ2ÿÿ 72ÿ78ÿd$uÿ@u77ÿ#"Dÿe77"95ÿEÿGHIPQPIx5ÿTUVeÿ)ÿVe5ÿfA)9ÿuBÿ78ÿA#2"g5ÿ ÿ p#92ÿ ÿ42A7#"ÿf ÿs7(2ÿ% ÿfBC2ÿ% ÿtu"7 ÿ3 ÿ!7 #ÿ%h ÿ""rÿ5ÿ dBÿ(A@"ÿA7)#ÿ2ÿD7)"uÿ877"9cÿu$uÿ@u77ÿ$ÿVeÿ"7ÿVÿD#ÿ2Bÿ@)()"4ÿ(A@"ÿ 2D5ÿÿvwQxHÿhS5ÿTUVWÿ@XeV`VTbcTeed5ÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ijjklÿmnÿopÿqrstÿuv wvÿtxxwoÿyz{ÿr ÿwvÿi|oÿ}~ÿijjklÿmnÿopÿ qrstÿtiuÿwvÿ omÿ}~ÿzvlÿijjklÿmnÿopÿqrstÿzlÿ ÿw oÿwvÿ omÿ}~ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿ ¡¢ÿÿ
3uÿ1edÿ#$)#DÿB"#9)"ÿA7"72ÿ""(2"ÿ2Bÿ$)B2ÿ"7ÿA#7(7"ÿA)9@ÿ #2ÿ78ÿ@#"2ÿu"uÿ2Bÿ8"Dd#"Bÿ)5ÿ)@uÿ 287#("72ÿÿ2"u#ÿu)"4ÿ27#ÿ2@#DÿAA@9ÿ"7ÿÿ@#@)("2@ÿ7#ÿ2B4B) ÿ2Bÿÿ27ÿ)9"")"ÿ87#ÿ@72)""72ÿ "uÿAA#7A#"ÿ u"ud@#ÿA#78725ÿ"")" ÿ@7Bÿ7#ÿ24#72(2"ÿ@72B"72ÿ(Dÿ9ÿ#42"5ÿ1edÿA7"72ÿ""(2"ÿ7#ÿ$)B2ÿu7)Bÿ9ÿ@72B#Bÿ2ÿ @72C)2@"72ÿ "uÿ7"u#ÿA#"22"ÿ("#ÿ u2ÿ"g2$ÿ@"72ÿ7#ÿA222$ÿ@#5ÿ3uÿ1edÿ##4ÿ"uÿ#$u"ÿ"7ÿ#@2Bÿ7#ÿ(7B8Dÿ2Dÿ)@uÿB7@)(2"ÿ"ÿ 2Dÿ"(5ÿÿÿÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ!"#ÿ$%ÿ ÿ &'"ÿ("'%)ÿ01ÿÿ &%ÿ R%$)ÿ01ÿÿ 23456789ÿ2AAB768C6B9ÿBDÿE4F5BGBH678GÿIF5H4B9Aÿÿ 23456789ÿ278P43dÿBDÿE4F5BGBHdÿ 89PÿQB9H54AAÿBDÿE4F5BGBH678GÿIF5H4B9Aÿ ÿ ÿ 0"$#ÿd"R$)ÿe!ÿÿ 0R"%'ÿ(%$S%$)ÿTR1ÿÿ EWXIÿIUB5CAÿV4P67694ÿ2Pc6AB5dÿ 23456789ÿQBGG4H4ÿBDÿIUB5CAÿV4P67694ÿ QB336CC44ÿ ÿ ÿ &Rÿ('"#ÿÿ !$gÿd`'%g)ÿe!ÿÿ EWXIÿIC8DDÿ E8C6B98Gÿ2CG4C67ÿf586945Aÿ2AAB768C6B9ÿ ÿ ÿ &"Y%$ÿ"$`%")ÿ01ÿÿ %Y%ÿ0%$%g)ÿe!ÿÿ abaÿIUB5CAÿV4P67694ÿ2Pc6AB5dÿQB336CC44ÿ E8C6B98Gÿp9C45A7BG8AC67ÿ2CG4C67ÿ ÿ 2P3696AC58CB5Aÿ2AAB768C6B9ÿ (eÿ'S" %ÿÿ ÿ EWXIÿIC8DDÿ &%ÿ0g%$ÿÿÿ ÿ X48PÿWBBCr8GGÿQB87ÿiÿg69HD6A45ÿX6HÿI7BBGÿ 1"fÿ #)ÿTR1ÿÿ ÿ EWXIÿIUB5CAÿV4P67694ÿ2Pc6AB5dÿ !ÿ0%" %ÿÿ QB336CC44ÿ EWXIÿh54A6P49Cÿ89Pÿspphÿij47FC6c4ÿk6547CB5ÿ ÿ ÿ %$gÿ%%$)ÿ01ÿÿ q"$gÿ0%'"ÿÿ EWhÿiÿp9P6898UBG6AÿQBGCAÿ EWXIÿlB85PÿBDÿk6547CB5Aÿ89PÿgIXI22ÿij47FC6c4ÿ ÿ k6547CB5ÿ (eÿq"$`%$ÿÿ ÿ EWXIÿIC8DDÿ &Rÿe'% ÿÿ ÿ X48PÿWBBCr8GGÿQB87ÿiÿXBBc45ÿX6HÿI7BBGÿ ($"`ÿq"$$% ÿÿ ÿ EWXIÿWBBCr8GGÿsFG4AÿQB336CC44ÿ 0#%ÿT"m"`m'ÿÿ ÿ X48PÿWBBCr8GGÿQB87ÿiÿn878c6GG4ÿX6HÿI7BBGÿ q%$$gÿq")ÿTR1ÿÿ ÿ tuvwxyÿ vwÿwuÿÿ &RÿT"$)ÿTR1)ÿe!ÿÿ ÿ EQ22ÿIUB5CÿI764974ÿp9AC6CFC4ÿ (''ÿ%)ÿ01ÿÿ ÿ EWXIÿIUB5CAÿV4P67694ÿ2Pc6AB5dÿQB336CC44ÿ &ÿ!%m$)ÿo`1ÿÿ ÿ EWXIÿIC8DDÿ #ÿÿ%$%''ÿÿ ÿ I2ÿWBBCr8GGÿ !``ÿ!R"$mÿÿ ÿ EWXIÿWBBCr8GGÿsFG4AÿQB336CC44ÿ "$gÿ%''%$)ÿ01ÿÿ ÿ 23456789ÿ5CBU84P67ÿIB764Cdÿ %Yÿp"' %$)ÿ01ÿÿ BDÿIUB5CAÿV4P67694ÿ 23456789ÿ278P43dÿBDÿh4P68C567Aÿ ÿ ÿ 0R"%'ÿ% %$)ÿ01ÿÿ ($"ÿpR %ÿÿ I22ÿIUB5CAÿV4P67694ÿ2Pc6AB5dÿQB336CC44ÿ X48PÿWBBCr8GGÿQB87ÿiÿX6GG685Pÿk8c6PAB9ÿX6Hÿ ÿ I7BBGÿ ÿ ÿ