STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 6352

April 8, 1986

OPEN MEETINGS ACT:

Hearings of committees of private organizations of which school districts are members

SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS:

Violation of rules for interscholastic athletics

Participation in tournaments sponsored by private organizations

A public school district which is a member of the Michigan High School Athletic Association and adopts the rules of the association as its own rules is not bound by the rule violation determinations of the association.

The Michigan High School Athletic Association, a private organization, may condition eligibility for and participation of school districts in its tournaments on compliance with its rules and its determinations concerning rule violations and the penalties imposed for violation of its rules.

Hearings before the executive committee or representative council of the Michigan High School Athletic Association, a private organization, are not subject to the provisions of the Open Meetings Act.

Honorable H. Lynn Jondahl

State Representative

The Capitol

Lansing, Michigan

Honorable William A. Sederburg

State Senator

The Capitol

Lansing, Michigan

Honorable Doug Cruce

State Senator

The Capitol

Lansing, Michigan

You have requested my opinion on two questions concerning the relationship between the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) and public school districts. Your first question may be stated as follows:

The first two situations raised in your question were specifically addressed in OAG, 1977-1978, No 4795, p 190, 196 (August 11, 1977). That opinion noted that the MHSAA is a private, nonprofit corporation and that all high schools, junior high schools, or other schools doing grade of work corresponding to such schools, both public and private, may become members of the MHSAA. That opinion went on to conclude:

OAG, 1977-1978, No 4795, concluded that boards of education of local school districts could not delegate the regulation of interscholastic athletics to MHSAA. The opinion further stated that boards of education could join an association and voluntarily adopt its rules, but the enforcement of such rules would be the responsibility of each board of education as to its own schools. OAG, 1977-1978, No 5346, p 563 (August 3, 1978), similarly concluded that a MHSAA rule is not binding upon a board of education but the rule may be enforced by the board of education if the board has adopted the MHSAA rule as its own.

The third situation raised in your question involves participation in state tournaments sponsored by MHSAA. OAG, 1977-1978, No 5348, p 566 (August 8, 1978), noted that sponsorship of high school tournament games is within the stated corporate purposes of MHSAA. OAG, 1977-1978, No 5346, noted that MHSAA, which is a private, nonprofit corporation, may adopt such rules as it deems appropriate to further its corporate objects and purpose. OAG, 1977-1978, No 4795, stated that boards of education may elect to participate in state-wide interscholastic tournaments sponsored by MHSAA.

MHSAA is not an agency or instrumentality of the state. The tournaments sponsored by MHSAA are a private corporate activity of the association. Public high schools may participate in such tournaments. MHSAA may establish whatever conditions and requirements it sees fit for participation in these tournaments.

It is my opinion, in answer to your first question, that a public school district, which becomes a member of the Michigan High School Athletic Association and adopts the association's rules as its own, is not bound by decisions rendered by the Michigan High School Athletic Association regarding possible rule violations by the member school district and penalties to be imposed as a result of such violations. It is my further opinion that, whether the violations involve athletic contests between high schools within the same district or between different school districts, each board of education which has adopted the rules as its own is ultimately responsible for their enforcement in its schools. It is my further opinion that, while a school district is not bound by decisions rendered by MHSAA regarding rule violations, the Michigan High School Athletic Association may condition eligibility for and participation in its tournaments on compliance with its rules and its determinations concerning rules violations and the penalties to be imposed upon school districts for violations of its rules.

Your second question is:

A review of the constitution of the MHSAA, published in its handbook for the 1985-1986 school year, indicates that the representative council functions as the board of directors of MHSAA. The executive committee consists of the three elected officers and two other members of the representative council. The representative council has adopted a procedure for determining violations of MHSAA rules and penalties to be imposed. Under this procedure, a preliminary determination is made by the association's executive director. A party may request an evidentiary hearing before a hearing officer who shall render a decision. This decision may be appealed to the executive committee and its decision may be appealed to the representative council.

The Open Meetings Act, MCL 15.261 et seq; MSA 4.1800(11) et seq, applies to meetings of public bodies. Section 2(a) of the act, in pertinent part, defines a 'public body' as:

The representative council of the MHSAA and its executive committee are not state or local legislative or governing bodies. They are not empowered by the state constitution, statute, charter, ordinance, resolution or rule to exercise authority. The representative council, rather, is the board of directors of a private, nonprofit corporation which has as its members both public and private schools. The Open Meetings Act does not purport to apply to private, nonprofit corporations.

It is noted that the Louisiana Supreme Court, in Spain v Louisiana High School Athletic Association, 398 So 2d 1386 (La, 1981), held that the Louisiana Association, a private, unincorporated voluntary association, was a 'public body' under the Louisiana Open Meetings Law. The Louisiana statute, however, contained a very broad definition which was not limited to bodies created by 'state constitution, statute, charter, ordinance, resolution or rule' and which included bodies with advisory functions. In any event, the Michigan Act does not apply to bodies with merely advisory functions. OAG, 1977-1978, No 5183, p 21, 40 (March 8, 1977).

It is my opinion, in answer to your second question, that hearings before the executive committee or representative council of the Michigan High School Athletic Association regarding possible rule violations, held pursuant to the association's due process procedure, are not subject to the provisions of the Open Meetings Act.

Frank J. Kelley

Attorney General