Haywood County school board approves revised extracurricular eligibility policy after heated public debate

The Haywood County Schools Board of Education approved a revised policy on student eligibility for extracurricular activities, known in board materials as 3620R, after an extended public and board discussion about transfers and competitive balance in athletics.

The policy change, described by board members and staff during the meeting as a move toward a 365-day waiting period for athletic eligibility following certain transfers, was the focus of a lengthy exchange among board members, school leaders, legal counsel and two members of the public during open comment.

Why it matters: Board members said the change is intended to limit transfers motivated primarily by athletics and to protect smaller programs from losing players midseason. Opponents and some speakers urged the board to adopt formal procedures, exemptions and an appeals process before putting a 365-day restriction into effect.

Public comment and staff advice Tyler Tranthan, a resident who identified himself as a parent and former student-athlete, urged the board to take more time to study causes for transfers before changing policy, saying, "If we're losing students, not just in county, to out of county schools, let's address it. Let's find out why they don't want to be a part of Haywood County Schools." He asked the board to prioritize solutions that would make students want to stay.

A second public speaker who described himself as a volunteer coach warned of a "snowball effect" when a small number of transfers can cripple a program, saying the transfers have had "negative consequences on the school and the kids."

Legal counsel cautioned the board that while it has the authority to adopt a more restrictive local rule, enforcement and appeals would be complex. The counsel said, "Legally, you can do this, but the legal issue I see is not that you can do it, but it's the enforcement side of it," and pointed to custody disputes, bona fide moves and the existing pupil-reassignment process as areas that would require clear written exemptions and procedures.

Board action and next steps Earlier in the meeting a motion to table consideration of policy 3620 for 30 days so staff could return with more information was made and seconded, but that motion failed on a roll-call/division vote. The board later took a separate action to approve the revised regulation 3620R on its second reading. The board directed staff to develop procedures and to convene a work session to draft detailed language, including suggested exemptions and an appeal process, before final administrative implementation.

The board did not record a detailed, itemized vote tally in the public transcript for the approval; minutes indicate the motion to adopt 3620R carried.

What the policy change would affect Board and staff discussion noted several administrative implications: a strict 365-day rule without exemptions could prevent students who move for court-ordered custody reasons or legitimate family relocations from immediate athletic participation; pupil-reassignment approvals from other districts can presently permit out-of-county transfers to play if both districts sign the NCHSAA form; and an appeal or exemption mechanism would likely be needed to address special circumstances.

Board members asked staff and the policy committee to prepare options and recommended language for the appeals process and list of exemptions to present at a forthcoming work session.

Ending: The board’s approval of 3620R sets the district on a path to limit athletic eligibility after certain transfers while staff and board members continue to work through enforcement, exemptions and appeals procedures.