March 20, 2019 at 2:48 pm #10890
I can’t get most of it to transfer over nicely. If anyone else wants to post it go for it.
This is just some of it:
Note: This was a working meeting and no binding votes were taken on any proposals.
After President White called the meeting to order, he turned it over to Chairman Miller.
Miller: This is our third meeting and I think we need to start taking some straw votes to see what direction we are
going in. This doesn’t have to be finished by the April meeting, but we need to see where we are.
Miller then asked the committee if the GHSA office should send out a survey to member schools asking if they
favored six or seven classifications. Drew added that the survey should ask what concerns the schools have. Executive
Director Robin Hines said the office would do the survey and added that a mock-up of what the alignment of schools
would look like under six classes and under seven classes would be included with the survey.
Miller then said that some different proposals had been sent to him and he called upon the authors of the proposals
to speak on their ideas.
Justin Brown, from Trion High School, spoke of his proposal to split Class A schools into separate playoffs using
a combination of existing regions and “wild card” power rated regions. (See Addendum No. 1)
No one was present to speak on proposal No. 2 (See Addendum No. 2) so Miller asked the committee to read it
and voice any questions. There were none.
Adam Lindsey from Gainesville High School, then spoke on his proposal to use GADA points to create
“competition-based” classifications instead of the traditional classes based on school enrollment size. (See Addendum
Miller then spoke on the fourth proposal, which was his idea. (See Addendum No. 4). He said he worked on the
idea of combining two regions into “Super Regions” for the purpose of scheduling cross-over football games to help
alleviate the issue of smaller regions several schools complained about with seven classes.
Miller then started a discussion on whether or not to go back to the two-year reclassification cycle or stay with the
current four-year plan. Crews and several long-time committee members pointed out that reclassification was basically
a never-ending process with a two-year cycle, but the committee agreed that the majority of member schools wanted
to return to the two-year cycle regardless.
Miller asked for a show of hands to return to the two-year cycle among committee members and this straw poll
was unanimous to do so.
Minutes – March 18, 2019
Miller then started a lively discussion about the pros and cons of the 3% Reclassification Attendance Zone
Restriction currently being used or the GHSA office proposal for a true multiplier on all students from outside a school’s
designated attendance zone.
Several members of the audience joined in this discussion, with opinions ranging from using no multiplier at all to
staying with what we have to using the GHSA office’s idea. Discussion also took place about what exemptions would
be included, such as not penalizing a school for students from outside their attendance zone if their parents were
certified teachers anywhere within that school system.
Miller asked for another straw poll, this one on whether or not children of certified teachers within a school system
would be exempt from the multiplier. The committee unanimously agreed they would be.
Wood pointed out that, in the current system, Buford and Bremen were disadvantaged by having to designate one
county as their attendance zone despite the fact the two city schools actually reside in parts of two counties. Wood:
We had to choose Gwinnett County despite the fact there are kids living in Hall County who are mandated to attend
Buford. That’s not right.
Miller asked for another straw poll on allowing Buford and Bremen to use their actual attendance zones for the
purposes of any GHSA multiplier instead of having to choose just one county. The straw vote was unanimous to allow
those two schools to do so.
The discussion also included whether or not Class A private schools could be forced up into a higher class by
whatever multiplier is ultimately decided upon (currently this is NOT allowed to happen).
A lively debate ensued after which Miller asked for a straw vote on the issue. It was 15-1 to keep things as they
are and NOT allow Class A schools to be bumped into a higher class by whatever multiplier is adopted.
The discussion returned to the difference between the 3% Attendance Zone Restriction currently being used or
the idea of a true multiplier. White then asked the committee if any of them were opposed to staying with the 3%
Restriction. None raised their hands, but several mentioned that the criteria for making exemptions to the restriction
needed to be reviewed and well documented this time.
Adams: It was sort of ad-hock last time. We need to write down exactly what the exemptions are this time around
so people will know what their appeals can be based on.
White then asked the committee if they were willing to show hands on whether they currently favored staying with
seven classifications or returning to six. The straw vote was 13-3 in favor of staying with seven.
A member of the audience from Sandy Creek HS spoke up: I want to stress my concern about the small size of
regions with seven classes having a huge impact on my school, and I am sure I am not alone.
Miller said the committee understood there were problems with smaller regions. He added: We have more meetings
to have and more discussion. Please understand that nothing that happened today is set in stone.
Miller then adjourned the meeting.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.