It has been months since the final decision was rendered regarding the Camas football program — there was a violation of the spirit of the recruiting rule, according to the WIAA, and the school’s athletic program is on probation.
Yet the initial ruling by the Class 4A Greater St. Helens League — which included suspensions for two coaches — has some at Camas High School questioning the process.
How is it that a league can penalize its own? How is it that athletic directors who double as coaches are allowed to vote on sanctions against another coach?
The system used by the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association to enforce its rules usually calls for a league to begin the process. The league recognizes a violation and then issues the penalty. After that ruling, the parties involved have the option to use three more steps in an appeals process. Camas and the district athletic directors utilized the appeals process that led to the final outcome.
Still, some of the reaction to the original ruling has led to hard feelings among the athletic directors who voted unanimously for penalties.
An open letter last spring signed by 12 members of the Camas Coaches Association called the penalties excessive, noting “it must be vindictive.” The letter wondered if the penalties were due to “jealousy” of a successful program.
In the introduction to that letter, Camas soccer coach Roland Minder wrote in an e-mail addressed to the WIAA and the media saying the process does not pass the “smell test.”
“Something is amiss here when the football coaches of a particular league/district double as ADs,” he wrote, adding that another AD also is a soccer coach.
The athletic directors, Minder continued, “cannot separate personal interest and emotion from objective observation and judgment.”
Cale Piland, who is the athletic director for Evergreen Public Schools, said it is disappointing for anyone to believe the athletic directors conspire with one another against a school for any reason. For the record, the athletic directors from Battle Ground and Skyview high schools (non-coaches) voted for sanctions, as well.
“Our expectation is when our ADs have their AD hats on, they don’t have their coaching hats on,” Piland said. “Having done the job myself, I understand how it works. You have to make decisions that are best for the league. I have all the confidence in the world that the people we have in those positions are fully able to complete their administrative duties without the influence of whichever coaching position they might have.”
The 4A GSHL consists of seven high school representing four school districts — Battle Ground, Camas, Evergreen, and Vancouver.
Two of the athletic directors — Adam Mathieson of Mountain View and Gary McGarvie of Union — are also the football coaches at their schools. Keenan Burris is the boys soccer coach and the AD at Evergreen. Heritage also is in the league, which means four of the schools are from one school district. Piland, the former football coach at Union and Evergreen, is the supervisor of those four athletic directors.
Camas athletic director Rory Oster said he does not agree with everything in Minder’s introduction nor the open letter — coaches doubling as athletic directors is not uncommon, he said — but he is against leagues sanctioning their own teams.
“I think the WIAA does most things wonderfully,” Oster said. “But I prefer the method they use in Oregon.”
Oster was the athletic director at Madras High School — and for one season there he was an AD and a head coach — before moving to Camas prior to the 2014-15 school year.
The Oregon School Activities Association confirmed to The Columbian that leagues do not sanction their own programs. Instead, after a report of a violation, an official with the OSAA in charge of a sport assesses the situation and makes a ruling.
“It’s much cleaner,” Oster said. “For me, it alleviates the possibility (of conflict of interest).”
While one league might take a strong approach to sanctions, another league might want to protect a school or a favored coach, handing down a weak penalty. The Oregon way takes those possibilities away from the leagues.
Oster said Washington’s system allows for a perception problem, even if there is no wrongdoing at a league meeting.
“I would like to think everyone in our league that is doing (double duty as an AD and coach) is professional,” Oster said.
Minder said earlier this month that he thought the initial ruling was “unfair” and he and his fellow coaches wanted to be heard.
“In a court of law, if I’m a judge and I have a vested interest in a case, I have to recuse myself. Why is there a difference? I am not against sanctions against a program or an individual if it’s warranted,” Minder said. “But it must be done on an ethical basis … and by a body that is not emotionally vested in the decision.”
Mathieson, the AD and coach from Mountain View, has heard all the accusations, including that he was ordered by Piland to vote a certain way. Not true, he said.
As an athletic director, Mathieson said he reads the WIAA Handbook every August. He takes the AD’s rule test. And he takes the coach’s rule test for his sport.
“The WIAA is clear in what the rules are, and they are trying to become more clear about the consequences of breaking those rules,” Mathieson said. “I take my job seriously. As an AD, I’m called to administer policy.”
Mike Colbrese, the executive director of the WIAA, said this is the first time he has received a complaint questioning the dual role of athletic directors who also are coaches. There are several AD/coaches throughout the state, he said.
Plus, the system allows for review.
“If there is a concern at one level, it can work its way up to the next level. Then the next level,” Colbrese said regarding the appeals process.
For the system to change, five schools would have to propose an amendment before it could even get to a vote.
That, Colbrese said, seems unlikely. About 20 years ago, he said, the WIAA suggested to its members to adopt a system similar to what is now used in Oregon. That idea went nowhere. Colbrese said there has been no talk of such a change since then. For the most part, he said, leagues want initial control over local issues.
Of course, a lot has changed in those 20 years. While leagues have always been able to sanction programs, it has only been three years since leagues have had the option to penalize coaches. There is now a penalty phase in the WIAA Handbook, which the 4A GSHL ADs referred to when issuing their penalties against Camas football.
Colbrese also said the WIAA is going to suggest to the board that “we begin training at least one person in every league who would be that league’s penalty person.”
But for now, the system is not going to change.
There are athletic directors who also are coaches.
They make the rulings. And then there is an appeals process.
The healing process, though, can take longer.
