DECISION OF APPEALS PANELIN RE: TIMPVIEW HIGH SCHOOL
On October 19, 2012, an Panel of five members of the Board of Trustees (BOT Panel) of the Utah High School Activities Association (UHSAA or Association) was convened to hear anappeal of decision of the Panel of the Executive Committee (EC Panel) of the Association. TheEC Panel had taken evidence and heard arguments from Timpview and Region 8 regarding anadmission from Timpview that an ineligible player had participated on the Timpview HighSchool football team during the 2012 regular season. The EC Panel found, as fact, thatTimpview had played an ineligible player and imposed the penalty that Timpview must forfeitany contest in which it used an ineligible player. The EC Panel further levied a fine of $1500.00to the school and approved the other educational sanctions imposed by Region 8.Timpview has requested an appeal of the decision of the EC Panel.1 At the argument,Timpview self-reported that its ineligible player had participated in one more game than hadoriginally been discovered. Timpview argued that the decision, in which it had participated, thatof Region 8, should be reinstated. Timpview did not seek nor present any argument or refer toany evidence suggesting that the Panel should use discretion to avoid a substantial or harsh result
1 After the outlines of our decision had been announced but before this written decision was issued, Timpview
suggested that this Panel had exceeded its jurisdiction by hearing Timpview’s appeal. Timpview took the position
in an open meeting at the UHSAA
that the Region 8 decision was based on a “hearing” and that the EC Panel was,
in force and effect, the appeal. Under this argument, the BOT Panel would have had not authority to hear the matterbecause the EC Panel would have been deemed to be the appeal. We reject that argument on several grounds. First,by seeking and participating in an appeal without objection, Timpview has waived whatever impropriety it now seesin the process. Additionally, at the beginning of our BOT
Panel’s review of the
Timpview matter, the processes andprocedures were explained, Timpview was advised that the Association had considered the EC Panel to be a
and Timpview was, again, given an opportunity to object. It did not.
The Association’s counsel saidthe following: “There being no objection we will deem your participation to be a waiver of any objection to the procedures and will go forward.” Timpview
did not object at the time and, thus, waived any later objection. Finally,because the Region reviews, whether called hearings or recommendations, come from a group with an inherentconflict of interest, the usual safeguards of impartiality and objectivity cannot be met. For example, in this verymatter, Timpview participated in the decision on its violations and voted against imposing any forfeiture on itself.
The Association does not consider them “hearings” within the meaning of the rules related to appeals.