Wright City Pub. Sch. v. Okla. Secondary Sch. Activities Ass'n

• Decision Date: 31 May 2013
• Docket Number: No. 111,729.,111,729.
• Citation: 303 P.3d 884
• Parties: WRIGHT CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS and Wright City Board of Education, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. OKLAHOMA SECONDARY SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION, Defendant/Appellant.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

303 P.3d 884

WRIGHT CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS and Wright City Board of Education, Plaintiffs/Appellees,

v.OKLAHOMA SECONDARY SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 111,729.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

May 31, 2013.

On Appeal from the District Court, McCurtain County, Oklahoma.

¶ 0 On April 30, 2013, the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association determined that the Wright City Public School violated the Association's rules when the varsity baseball team engaged in team play with the Idabel junior varsity team and the Valliant varsity team. The Executive Director imposed a forfeiture penalty, requiring the Wright City team to forfeit the next two games. The penalty eliminated Wright City from the 2013 Class A state tournament scheduled for May 2 and 3, 2013. On May 1, 2013, Wright City sought judicial relief. On May 3, 2013, the McCurtain County District Court, the Honorable Michael DeBerry, presiding, entered a temporary restraining order and a temporary injunction against the Association. The Association appealed. On May 6, 2013, this Court retained the appeal.

DISTRICT COURT TEMPORARY INJUNCTION DISSOLVED; CAUSE REMANDED TO DISTRICT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

Kevin T. Sain, Idabel, Oklahoma, and Mark E. Fields, McAlester, Oklahoma, for appellee.

Mark S. Grossman, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for appellant.

TAYLOR, J.

¶ 1 The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the trial judge erred in issuing the temporary injunction. The substantive issue in this appeal is whether the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association (OSSAA) acted in an unreasonable and arbitrary manner when he imposed a forfeiture penalty against Wright City Public School (Wright City) for violation of OSSAA's 22–game limit baseball rule.

I. Facts and Proceedings

¶ 2 The following are facts and circumstances gleaned from the parties' filings and testimony at the evidentiary hearing before the McCurtain County District Court. Having won the district and the regional tournaments, Wright City's varsity baseball team qualified for the eight-team, single-elimination Class A state championship tournament. The state tournament was scheduled for May 2 and 3, 2013.

¶ 3 The Wright City coach testified that on Monday, April 22, 2013, after winning the district tournament, he scheduled and the team participated in a five-inning, three-out/three-run game with the Idabel junior varsity team and he posted the results on-line at OKrankings.com. On Monday, April 29, 2013, after winning the regional tournament, the Wright City coach scheduled and the team participated in a five-inning, three-out/three-run game with Valliant. The coach considered the Idabel game to be a practice and the Valliant game to be a scrimmage. The coach was aware of the 22–game limit. OSSAA General Baseball Regulations, Section VI(H) provides that “game limits for varsity games are 22 games and three tournaments.” With the unfolding of events on April 30 and May 1, 2013, the coach testified that any mistake in scheduling or playing Idabel and Valliant was his fault and the team should not be punished.

¶ 4 The OSSAA assistant administrator in charge of fall and spring baseball, a staff member under the supervision of the Executive Director, testified that on April 30, 2013, he received a telephone call from an unidentified person suggesting that Wright City exceeded the 22–game limit rule. The assistant administrator testified that he checked the on-line Okrankings.com and then contacted the school principal, the athletic director, and the coach. The Wright City principal and the coach admitted the team had participated in the Idabel junior varsity and the Valiant games. The coach explained that he thought the 22–game limit applied to regular season play but did not apply to post-season play.

¶ 5 Upon inquiry, the assistant administrator learned that four schools had violated the softball game-limit rule in the fall of 2012 and were given forfeiture penalties which eliminated two of the schools from the state championship tournament and placed the other two schools in the loser bracket. The assistant administrator testified that after “visiting with staff it was apparent that to the majority of us that this situation was similar to the softball situation so forfeit games would be appropriate.” Tr., p. 67. The assistant administrator advised the Executive Director of the telephone tip and his investigation.

¶ 6 By letter dated that day, April 30, 2013, the OSSAA Executive Director advised Wright City of the 22–game limit violation and the coach's explanation. The letter explained that the game limit prevents some teams from gaining a competitive advantage and avoids overemphasis on one sport and advised that no exception exists for additional games beyond the 22–game limit in Section VI(H). The letter set out the penalty for the rule violation:

Generally when a team has participated in more contests than permitted under the rules and regulations for that sport, the team is required to forfeit or sit out of an equal number of contests after the violation has been discovered. In this instance, Wright City is required to forfeit its next game, which is the first round of the state championship tournament. This forfeit will eliminate the team from the state tournament and completes the baseball season for the team. Because Wright City played in a second game in excess of the limitation, the team also will be limited next year to 21 match games and three tournaments in spring baseball, in addition to any state championship playoff games. The school further will be placed on warning for one year, meaning that the discovery of any other rule violations during the next year could result in the imposition of additional sanctions and penalties.

¶ 7 By letter dated May 1, 2013, the Wright City Board of Education and Superintendent requested a reconsideration of the Executive Director's April 30th forfeiture penalty. The request asserted that the coach has taken full responsibility and is remorseful for his mistake, and it asked that the penalty be revised to suspending the coach and forfeiting the opportunity to host a district or regional tournament in 2014 under the “precedence set in similar situations last spring at Guthrie and Sand Springs.” It further urged that the penalty resulted in unfair tournament brackets.

¶ 8 Also by letter dated May 1, 2013, Wright City's coach sought reconsideration of the Executive Director's April 30th forfeiture penalty. The coach asked that the Guthrie situation serve as a guide:

Last Spring the Guthrie baseball team violated the amount of games played. It states in that article that team would be allowed to continue in the playoffs but without their head coach. They were forced to forfeit their last game that would have been the 23rd scheduled game. Forfeiting a district game should have prevented the team from playing in the post season, but OSSAA changed their ruling in favor of the kids to allow them to participate in the playoffs. They removed the probationary status and placed the school on warning status for one calendar year.

As to the issue of the teams unfair advantage, the coach urged:

Also, if this issue is about advantage by eliminating my team from the state tournament and making it a 7 team tournament with the # 2 seed Sterling receiving the bye, it puts the other 6 teams in the tournament at a disadvantage. With the pitching rule in place along with the all teams having to play and face elimination the first day, it will allow Sterling a major advantage of preserving their pitching staff. This will not be fair. The tournament is set up to be an 8 team tournament, and for the integrity of the tournament, it should remain so.

¶ 9 On the same day that the Wright City's superintendent, school board and the coach submitted their requests for reconsideration, May 1, 2013, the school board sought injunctive relief in the district court to allow Wright City to participate in the first round of the tournament on May 2, 2013. The petition alleged that OSSAA's refusal to allow Wright City to participate in the state tournament was arbitrary and capricious and that OSSAA violated its own due process rules and procedures. The district court entered an ex parte temporary restraining order against OSSAA. The restraining order found that Wright City would be irreparably harmed on and after May 2, 2013, if the team is not allowed to participate in the state tournament and the harm cannot be repaired by money damages.

¶ 10 Also on May 1, 2013, the Executive Director responded to the request for reconsideration from the Superintendent of Wright City. The Executive Director acknowledged receipt of the letters seeking reconsideration and service of process in the suit for injunction. The Executive Director pointed out differences in the Sand Springs and Guthrie situations and the Wright City situation and claimed that Wright City's situation gave rise to a presumption that Wright City gained an unfair competitive advantage. He admonished Wright City for the coach's error, for seeking judicial relief, for misinforming the court, and for any disruptive delay of the tournament. He did not treat Wright City's requests for reconsideration as a request for a meeting with the investigator under OSSAA's Constitution, Article IV, Section 6(c) or an appeal to the OSSAA Board of Directors under Section 6(f).

¶ 11 At the hearing on the temporary injunction on May 3, 2013, the Executive Director testified extensively about the Guthrie and Sand Springs situations. In summary, he testified that in the Guthrie situation the coach for the varsity spring baseball team scheduled twenty-three games; Guthrie brought their junior varsity team to play the twenty-third game scheduled against El Reno and asked that it be counted as a junior varsity game; El Reno refused to count the game as a junior...