Copyright© 1999 by School Services of California, Inc.

August 20, 1999

Discontinuation of Intercollegiate Athletic Team Legislation Fails

In recent years, a number of collegiate athletic programs have been discontinued, primarily because of a lack of funding. In some instances, the elimination has come with little notice to properly allow athletes, coaches, students and the community an opportunity to make the necessary adjustments. There is also a concern that an athlete whose team is discontinued, has not had the ability to transfer to another school and continue their collegiate athletic career because of insufficient lead time. As a result of these concerns, Senator Cathie Wright (R-Simi Valley) introduced SB 338, which would require the University of California, the California State University, and California Community Colleges to provide a one-year notice when discontinuing an intercollegiate athletic program at one of their respective campuses.

Specifically, SB 338 which will not be enacted this year, would have required public higher education institutions to do the following:

• Provide written notice of the proposed discontinuation of an intercollegiate athletic program to the student body organization of the campus.
  
• Provide written notice of the proposed discontinuation of an intercollegiate athletic program in the newspaper of the community in which the campus is located.
  
• Provide written notice of the proposed discontinuation of an intercollegiate athletic program to those persons offered admission to that campus that have expressed an interest in the athletic program.

All three segments of public higher education had concerns with the bill. The most obvious concern was the one-year notification requirement before the next scheduled competition. Most team discontinuations take place for financial reasons, and a team is typically well into a season before this information is available. Most administrators indicate that with the one-year requirement if effect, they would be more likely to announce team elimination even though a solution might be found later.

During a hearing on the bill in the Assembly Higher Education Committee, amendments were proposed to change the time notification from one-year to 30-days after the last competitive event of the season for the sport in question. However, Senator Wright did not support the 30-day notification suggestion. During a lengthy committee discussion of the bill, committee members raised numerous questions and concerns. Some committee members expressed concerns that athletic programs were being treated differently than academic programs. Examples were given pertaining to community college academic courses that may be discontinued before the end of the semester or quarter do to insufficient student enrollments. Students enrolled in these programs may have little notification when these programs are discontinued. Therefore, it was argued there should not be a different standard for athletic programs.

The committee members were sympathetic to Senator Wright's issue, but did not believe that SB 338, in its current form, was the correct answer to the problem. Thus, they recommended that the bill be held in committee as a "two-year bill." This means that the issue is "dead" for the remainder of this year. Senator Wright could bring the bill back for hearing during the 2000 legislative session.

-- Arnold Bray