State ex rel. Ohio High School Athletic Ass'n v. Judges of Court of Common Pleas of Stark County

• Decision Date: 21 March 1962
• Docket Number: No. 37342,37342
• Citation: 19 O.O.2d 52,173 Ohio St. 239,181 N.E.2d 261
• Parties: , 19 O.O.2d 52 The STATE ex rel. OHIO HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASS'N et al., v. JUDGES OF the COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF STARK COUNTY.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 239

173 Ohio St. 239

181 N.E.2d 261, 19 O.O.2d 52

The STATE ex rel. OHIO HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASS'N et al., v. JUDGES OF the COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF STARK COUNTY.

No. 37342.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

March 21, 1962.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A public-school board of education is vested with the discretionary authority to authorize one of the schools within its district and under its control to become a member, on a year to year basis, of the Ohio High School Athletic Association, an unincorporated voluntary association not for profit, the object and purpose of which is to promote and maintain pure wholesome amateur athletics among its members.

2. A court has no authority to control the discretion vested in a board of education by the statutes of this state or to substitute its judgment for the judgment of such board, upon any question the board is authorized by law to determine. (Brannon v. Board of Education of Tiro Consolidated School District of Crawford County, 99 Ohio St. 369, 124 N.E. 235, approved and followed.)

3. The Ohio High School Athletic Association is an unincorporated association, and the decisions of the tribunals of such association with respect to its internal affairs will, in the absence of mistake, fraud, collusion or arbitrariness, be accepted by the courts as conclusive.

This is an orginal action brought by the Ohio High School Athletic Association, through its president, commissioner executive officer and other officials of the association, seeking a writ of prohibition, directed to the Common Pleas Court of Stark County, commanding the court and each judge thereof to refrain from enforcing a restraining order heretofore issued by the court in an injunction action entitled, State, ex rel. Putman, Pros. Atty., v. Board of Education of Steubenville City School District, a political subdivision of the state of Ohio, 44 other city, local and village boards of education in Ohio and nine individuals who are members of the board of control and officers of the association, being case No. 104091 in the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio.

Paul M. Herbert, Carlisle O. Dollings and William D. Edwards, Columbus, for relators.

Norman J. Putman, Pros. Atty., for respondents.

Mark McElroy, Atty. Gen., Hugh A. Sherer and Wm. E. Knepper, Columbus, for the State.

O'NEILL, Judge.

The relators allege:

That the Ohio High School Athletic Association, hereinafter called association, is an unincorporated voluntary association, not for profit, and that its membership consists of approximately 1,500 junior and senior high schools, public, parochial and private and accredited by the Department of Education of the State of Ohio, and that the object and purpose of the association is to promote and maintain pure wholesome amateur athletics among its memvbers;

That the association has adopted a 'constitution and rues' designating and defining the duties of its officers and the conduct of athletics among the members of the association to maintain pure and wholesome amateur athletics;

That relators do not receive or disburse any tax money, nor do they take any part in the internal management or operation of educational and school functions of the members, nor do the relators, in their official capacity or as individuals, have any civil or property rights whatsoever in the membership schools of the association;

That any school becoming a member of the association agrees to conform to and abide by the constitution and rules of the association;

That the association does not have any contractual or other connection with any school board or any of its membership schools and does not in any way control or have any voice in the proceedings of any school board, nor does any school board have any voice or control over the affairs of the association;

That Canton McKinley High School and Portsmouth High School are members of the association and, upon becoming members of the association, agreed to abide by and conform to the constitution and rules, bylaws, interpretations and decisions of the association;

That membership in the association must be renewed annually;

That the most recent Canton McKinley High School membership agreement was entered into in September 1961;

That the membership agreement was signed by Paul A. Schott, administrative head of the high school, and reads as follows:

'I hereby agree that the Canton McKinley High School will conduct its athletics for the year 1961-62 in accordance with the constitution, rules bylaws, interpretations and decisions of the Ohio High School Athletic Association.'

That the Board of Education of the Canton Public Schools, Canton, Ohio, authorized such membership;

That Section 2 of Rule 8 of the rules of the association provides as follows:

'The use of undue influence by any person connected or not connected with the school to secure or to retain a student or the parents of a student shall cause the student to be ineligible and shall jeopardize the standing of the school in the association.'

That there is a booster organization in Stark County, Ohio, interested in high school athletics;

That on or about the 29th day of August 1961, H. W. McKelvey, Superintendent of Schools of Portsmouth, Ohio, addressed a letter to W. J. McConnell, commissioner of the association, wherein Superintendent McKelvey complained that 'Canton McKinley stole one of our football players' That McConnell, acting in his official capacity in the association, caused a thorough investigation of the charge to be made, including the securing of affidavits and statements of every person connected with the charge, so far as possible;

That after careful and complete consideration of all the evidence, the board of control of the association found and determined that the family of two boys, members of the Portsmouth High School football squad, James Austin, a. k. a. James Lee Brown, and his brother Larry Austin, a. k. a. Larry Brown, had moved with the boys from Portsmouth to Canton immediately before the football season of 1961, and that the moving of the family and boys was in violation of the undue influence rule, Section 2 of Rule 8;

That Canton McKinley High School was suspended by the board of the association from playing interscholastic football during the school year of 1962-1963 and the two boys were declared ineligible for interscholastic athletics at Canton McKinley High School;

That an appeal was permitted and a full rehearing was had on November 8, 1961;

That present at this rehearing, among others, were H. W. McKelvey, Superintendent of Portsmouth Public Schools, Otto F. Appel, Jr., of the Portsmouth, Ohio, Board of Education, Sanford Lazarus, President of the Board of Education of the Canton City Schools, Gordon Humbert, Superintendent of Canton Public Schools, Paul A. Schott, Principal and Administrative Head of Canton McKinley High School, and Harold DeHoff, City Solicitor of Canton, Ohio, representing Canton McKinley High School;

That the entire matter was fully reviewed and every opportunity given for the expression of opinion or to add additional information;

That the former action of the board of control was then affirmed;

That on November 22, 1961, Norman J. Putman, Prosecuting Attorney of Stark County, brought an action for injunction in the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County (case No. 104091), entitled State ex rel. Putman, Pros. Atty., v. Board of Education of Steubenville City School District, a political subdivision of the state of Ohio, 44 other boards of education in Ohio, and nine individuals;

That neither Canton McKinley High School nor the association was made a party to that action;

That on that same day, November 22, 1961, the Common Pleas Court of Stark County, without notice, issued a temporary order restraining and enjoining the Board of Education of the Steubenville City School District, 44 other boards of education in Ohio and their agents and employees, all members of the association, nine individuals who are members of the board of control and officers of the association, and all persons with knowledge of that order:

1. From enforcing or attempting to enforce or doing or permitting to be done any acts tending to enforce the order suspending Canton McKinley High School from engaging in interscholastic football during the 1962-1963 school year;

2. From any activity suspending or preventing or interfering with Canton McKinley High School's engaging in interscholastic football during the school year 1962-1963;

3. From impairing or interfering with the presently existing contractual obligations respecting interscholastic football with Canton McKinley High School during the school year 1962-1963.

The relators allege further that the plaintiff in the Stark County action, the Prosecuting Attorney of Stark County, is not a member of the association and can not assert any interest or right in its management or insist upon participating in any of the interscholastic athletic activities or tournaments which the association may from time to time hold. Relators allege further that the action in Stark County does not involve any civil or property rights of the Prosecuting Attorney of Stark County and that, therefore, the Common Pleas Court of Stark County has no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the cause of action and is without jurisdiction to issue such restraining order and to grant the relief prayed for in the petition;

That such action seeks and the restraining order was obtained to force the association to violate its compact with the other member schools by allowing and permitting Canton McKinley High School to participate in interscholastic contests in violation of the constitution and rules as determined by the association's official governing body, the board of control, and in effect would cause the association to cease to function as a voluntary association.

The relators allege further that, unless a writ of...