Salt Shaker Press: Paying twice for the same service?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While it is true that homeschool parents pay local property taxes, those taxes do not function as a per-student tuition account, nor do they cover the state-level funding that powers local school operations.

The rationale behind the state’s fee requirement comes down to the mechanics of the West Virginia Public School Support Program (PSSP) and the legal nature of property taxes:

1. Property Taxes Are a General Civic Levy, Not Tuition

Property taxes are assessed on all real and personal property owners—including childless homeowners, retirees, and commercial businesses—to fund public infrastructure as a general civic obligation.
Paying property taxes does not establish an individual credit balance or an à la carte entitlement to public school services.

2. State Aid Follows Headcount, Not Property Tax

Local property tax collections make up only the county’s "Local Share." The remainder of a school district’s operating budget comes directly from State Aid.
Under W. Va. Code § 18-9A, State Aid is calculated based on Net Enrollment (enrolled student headcount).
When a parent chooses to homeschool, that student is not counted in the county's net enrollment. As a result, the county receives $0 in state foundation aid for that child.
When that student joins a public school team, the school incurs real marginal overhead—catastrophic athletic insurance riders, helmet reconditioning, coaching stipends, transportation, and WVSSAC dues—without receiving any state funding to offset those expenses.

3. The Hope Scholarship Factor

If a homeschool family utilizes the Hope Scholarship, the state redirects roughly $5,400+ per year of public education funding into a private Education Savings Account (ESA) for that student.
The Hope Scholarship statute explicitly designates public school extracurricular and co-curricular participation fees as an approved qualifying expense.
The West Virginia Department of Education’s position is that if the state has already transferred public education dollars into a parent's private account for the child's schooling, the local school board should not absorb the athletic costs using its own constrained general fund.

The Counterargument

The counterpoint—raised by board members like Sam Gibson—is one of equity and community inclusion:

Homeschool families contribute to local excess levies and school bond issues through their property taxes.
When public transfer students move in from neighboring counties, the receiving county absorbs them into athletic programs without demanding an upfront fee, even if net enrollment counts have already locked for the school year.

The West Virginia Legislature attempted to strike a balance between these two views in W. Va. Code § 18-2-25(d): it granted homeschoolers the legal right to participate in public school athletics, but gave school boards the statutory tool to charge a "reasonable fee" so that non-enrolled participation does not strain local instructional budgets.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The legal tension confronting the Pocahontas County Board of Education centers on the word “may” versus the West Virginia Department of Education’s (WVDE) interpretation of “reasonable fees” under W. Va. Code § 18-2-25(d).

While the statute states that "Reasonable fees may be charged to the student to cover the costs of participation," the WVDE rejected Pocahontas County’s attempt to set that fee at $0 or $1, viewing a nominal fee as an impermissible total waiver that shifts operational costs onto the county’s Public School Support Program (PSSP) allocation.

The BOE has several statutory drafting pathways and policy options to satisfy state oversight while minimizing friction for local families.

Policy & Drafting Options for Policy 9270

1. The "Actual Marginal Cost" Formula (Direct Cost Recovery)

Rather than adopting an arbitrary fraction of the Hope Scholarship (like Greenbrier County’s 1/6th formula, or $905.94), the BOE can draft Policy 9270 to define "reasonable fee" strictly by marginal out-of-pocket costs incurred per participant.
Drafting Structure: Itemize only non-reusable student costs: catastrophic insurance rider premiums, personal uniform items retained by the athlete, and direct WVSSAC registration/concussion testing fees.
Impact: For sports like track or cross country, this fee might be $25–$50; for football, it might reach $100–$150. This creates an objective, defensible accounting basis that directly satisfies the statutory phrase "to cover the costs of participation" without pricing out families.

2. Tiered Activity Fee Schedule (The Jefferson County Model)

As noted in the state’s comparative list, Jefferson County uses a bifurcated structure ($150 for Tier 1 athletics; $250 for broader extracurriculars).
Drafting Structure: Classify extracurriculars into tiers based on equipment intensity and coaching stipends:
- Tier I (Low/No Equipment / Clubs): Academic bowl, band, speech, tennis, cross country ($25 – $50).
- Tier II (Moderate Overhead): Basketball, baseball, softball, soccer ($75 – $150).
- Tier III (High Contact / Equipment Intensive): Football ($200 – $250).
Impact: Satisfies WVDE's insistence on comparable multi-county standards while keeping low-overhead sports accessible.

3. Hardship, In-Kind, and Booster Parity Offsets

Public school athletes frequently offset team dues through booster fundraising, concession shifts, or equipment drives.
Drafting Structure: Insert a clause into Policy 9270 providing that any participation fee may be satisfied via:
- Established school athletic fee waivers (mirroring the Title I / USDA free-and-reduced lunch threshold, protecting non-Hope homeschoolers).
- Documented participation in approved team/booster fundraising programs on equal footing with enrolled student-athletes.
Statutory Defense: This avoids disparate treatment challenges under equal protection principles, ensuring low-income homeschoolers are not barred by fees their public school peers can fundraise away.

4. Statutory Challenge on Discretionary Authority ("May" vs. "Shall")

W. Va. Code § 18-2-25(d) uses permissive drafting: "Reasonable fees may be charged..." It does not state fees shall or must be charged.
Administrative Argument: County boards hold broad statutory governance under § 18-5-13 to control local property and secondary school extracurricular programs. The BOE could challenge the WVDE's administrative disapproval on the grounds that the legislature granted county boards the discretionary option to assess a fee, not an affirmative mandate to do so.

The Policy 2371 Interaction (Curricular vs. Extracurricular)

The table below outlines how state funding formulas interact with the two pending policies:

Category	Governing Policy	State Funding Mechanism	Fee Authority Under WV Code
Extracurriculars / Sports Only	Policy 9270	No state aid under PSSP formula; student remains entirely off local enrollment rolls.	Discretionary fee authorized under § 18-2-25(d) to cover participation costs.
Part-Time Academic Coursework	Policy 2371	County can claim fractional net enrollment / FTE for PSSP state basic aid formula.	Restricted; § 18-5-15g prohibits charging fees greater than those charged to enrolled public students.

If the BOE seeks to avoid charging homeschoolers out of pocket while capturing revenue, the practical workaround is encouraging dual enrollment: a student taking a single academic or CTE period on campus generates fractional state basic foundation aid under Policy 2371, which offsets athletic department overhead without triggering an extracurricular assessment under Policy 9270.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This newspaper clipping is from Page 2 of The Pocahontas Times (published September 10, 2026), featuring two local reporting pieces written by AMR reporter Tim Walker.

1. BOE Must Charge “Reasonable Fee” for Home School Sports and Extracurricular Participants

Core Issue: The West Virginia State Department of Education (DOE) rejected a proposal by the Pocahontas County Board of Education (BOE) to allow homeschooled students to participate in extracurricular activities and sports (like football) for free or for a nominal fee of $1.
State Guidance: The state mandated that the county BOE must charge a "reasonable fee" aligned with other districts. Example fees provided by the state ranged from:
- High end: Greenbrier County charges $905.94 for football (one-sixth of the annual Hope Scholarship allocation).
- Low end: Jefferson County charges $250 for extracurriculars, with only $150 for "Tier 1" athletics.

Board Reaction & Deliberation:

Board member Sam Gibson voiced strong opposition to charging homeschooled students, noting that public school transfer students from other counties face no such fee to play football.
The BOE tabled the third reading of Policy 9270 (fees for extracurricular activities) and Policy 2371 (fees for attending curricular classes, which also requires state-mandated revisions).
State officials Jeff Kelly (Associate Superintendent) and Alex Criner attended the meeting.

Would you like a specific transcription, legal/policy context regarding West Virginia's Hope Scholarship and extracurricular participation rules, or further analysis of either issue?
A "reasonable fee" is generally defined in law and administrative practice as a charge that bears a rational, proportional relationship to the actual, direct costs of providing a specific service, rather than an arbitrary figure, a punitive barrier, or a commercial profit-making price.

In the specific context of W. Va. Code § 18-2-25(d) and county school extracurricular policies, the term carries distinct statutory benchmarks:
- Direct Cost Recovery: The fee must be calculated to "cover the costs of participation" incurred by the school system for that student. This includes measurable, out-of-pocket overhead such as mandatory athletic insurance riders, helmet/gear reconditioning, non-reusable uniforms, and administrative sports association fees.
- Proportionality to Comparable Public Districts: As demonstrated by the West Virginia Department of Education’s comparative benchmark list, reasonable fees across the state range from:
  - Low-overhead athletics/activities: Around $150 to $250 per season (such as Jefferson County's tier structure).
  - High-overhead/contact sports: Up to $905.94 (such as Greenbrier County's fee for football, which pegs the charge to a 1/6th installment of the Hope Scholarship).
- Non-Nominal Requirement: The state Department of Education rejected Pocahontas County's proposed $0 or $1 fee on the grounds that a nominal fee is an impermissible de facto waiver, failing to reflect any actual accounting cost.
- Non-Exclusionary Cap: While the fee cannot be $0 under the state's reading, it also cannot be arbitrarily inflated to penalize homeschool or nonpublic families or to generate general fund revenue. An objective breakdown of program expenses is required to withstand administrative or legal challenge.
  
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under West Virginia law and administrative standards, establishing an enforceable, non-exclusionary cap requires tethering the fee directly to an auditable cost-accounting framework.

If a fee is challenged—either by a parent under the Fourteenth Amendment / equal protection principles or through administrative appeal—courts and hearing examiners apply specific benchmarks to determine whether a charge is an allowable cost recovery or an impermissible barrier:

1. Direct Marginal Costs vs. General Operating Overhead

To survive legal scrutiny, the fee can only capture direct, participant-specific marginal costs. It cannot be used to subsidize fixed institutional overhead that the district incurs regardless of the homeschool student's presence.

Permissible Inclusions (Direct Marginal Costs):
- Catastrophic injury insurance riders specific to secondary athletics.
- Personal uniform pieces, game jerseys, or practice gear retained by the student.
- Reconditioning and recertification of individual protective gear (e.g., helmet testing and sanitization).
- Direct athlete registration fees, baseline concussion software licenses, or entry fees paid directly to the West Virginia Secondary School Activities Commission (WVSSAC) or tournament hosts.
Impermissible Inclusions (Fixed Overhead / General Fund Subsidies):
- Pro-rata shares of head coaching salaries or athletic director contracts.
- Capital debt service or long-term field maintenance (e.g., stadium turf replacement, stadium lighting electric bills).
- Routine bus fleet depreciation or standard transportation maintenance costs.
- General facility wear-and-tear already underwritten by local bond levies.

2. Legal Vulnerabilities of the "Hope Scholarship Max" Model

Greenbrier County’s approach—pegging a football participation fee to exactly 1/6th ($905.94) of the annual Hope Scholarship allocation—creates distinct legal vulnerabilities if challenged:

Revenue-Targeting vs. Cost-Accounting: Under W. Va. Code § 18-2-25(d), fees are authorized "to cover the costs of participation," not to capture a predetermined percentage of an external state entitlement. Setting a fee based on how much cash the state deposited into an Education Savings Account (ESA), rather than what the sport actually costs per player, risks being struck down as arbitrary and pretextual.
The Non-Hope Homeschooler Problem: Not all homeschoolers receive the Hope Scholarship. For a family providing home instruction under § 18-8-1(c) that chooses not to participate in the Hope program, a $900+ fee functions as an outright constructive exclusion. A fee that excludes an entire demographic of non-enrolled students based on ability to pay undermines the legislative intent of the 2023 access statutes.

3. What an Auditable, Defensible Fee Schedule Looks Like

For a county board like Pocahontas to craft a Policy 9270 that passes both WVDE review and legal scrutiny, the fee schedule must be supported by an Itemized Cost Ledger adopted on the record:

Cost Component	Typical Out-of-Pocket Expense	Defensible In Fee?	Justification Under § 18-2-25(d)
WVSSAC / Concussion Registration	$15 – $25	Yes	Direct administrative fee incurred specifically for that participant.
Catastrophic Insurance Surcharge	$20 – $40	Yes	Required supplemental coverage for interscholastic collision sports.
Protective Equipment Maintenance	$40 – $75	Yes	Actual per-player cost for annual helmet/pad reconditioning and safety certification.
Uniform / Gear Retained by Athlete	$50 – $100	Yes	Direct consumable cost not returned to the school inventory.
Coach Stipends / Travel Pro-Rata	$250 – $600	No / High Risk	Represents fixed athletic department operations funded via general/booster funds; vulnerable to challenge as arbitrary cost-shifting.
Total Objective "Reasonable Fee" Range	$125 – $240	—	Fully defensible, cost-supported, and closely mirrors Jefferson County’s $150–$250 tier structure.

4. Necessary Policy Safeguards

To ensure the fee remains strictly non-exclusionary, the policy text must include two procedural guardrails:

Hardship / Free-and-Reduced Waiver: The policy should incorporate an income-based waiver (benchmarked against federal poverty guidelines or USDA school lunch income thresholds) to shield low-income homeschool families from economic exclusion.

Booster / Fundraising Parity: The policy must grant non-enrolled student-athletes the identical right to satisfy athletic fees through booster club fundraising or community sponsorships on the same terms as enrolled public school athletes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Integrating an income-based hardship waiver into Policy 9270 directly resolves the primary constitutional and statutory vulnerability of charging participation fees under W. Va. Code § 18-2-25(d).

Without a waiver, a mandatory fee acts as a wealth test for public access. For families choosing traditional home instruction under § 18-8-1(c) who do not receive Hope Scholarship funds, an unyielding fee converts statutory eligibility into de facto economic exclusion.

Key Legal & Policy Justifications

Equal Protection & Non-Exclusionary Intent: The West Virginia Legislature enacted House Bill 2820 to grant nonpublic, homeschool, and Hope Scholarship students access to secondary extracurriculars in their home attendance zones. Conditioning that access strictly on cash solvency—without a relief mechanism—creates an irrational classification between affluent homeschoolers (or Hope recipients with state accounts) and low-income families exercising their statutory right to home instruction.
Parity with Public Student Fee Waivers: Under state constitutional jurisprudence (Article XII, § 1—the Thorough and Efficient Education Clause) and state board precedent (Pauley v. Kelly), public school districts routinely provide fee waivers or offsets for curricular materials, course fees, and athletic participation to prevent indigent students from being turned away. Extending that mechanism to home-instructed students maintains procedural parity.
Overcoming WVDE Scrutiny: The Department of Education rejected Pocahontas County's universal $0–$1 proposal because it was a blanket waiver that failed to account for program costs. However, establishing a standard fee schedule paired with an income-qualified hardship exception satisfies the state’s demand for a "reasonable fee" baseline while preserving an equitable safety net for qualifying families.

Model Drafting Language for Policy 9270

A county board can insert the following targeted clause into Policy 9270:

Section X. Economic Hardship & Fee Waiver Provisions

A. Eligibility Criteria: Any student participating under W. Va. Code § 18-2-25(d) whose household meets the income eligibility guidelines established annually by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals, or whose household currently qualifies for Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), may apply for an extracurricular participation fee waiver.

B. Waiver Scope: Upon timely submission and administrative verification of qualifying income documentation to the Superintendent or their designee:

Households meeting the Free Meal income threshold shall receive a 100% waiver of assessed extracurricular participation fees.

Households meeting the Reduced-Price Meal income threshold shall receive a 50% reduction of assessed extracurricular participation fees.

C. Confidentiality: All applications, financial statements, and documentation submitted under this section shall be treated as confidential student records exempt from public disclosure pursuant to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and W. Va. Code § 29B-1-4.

D. Alternative Satisfaction via Booster/Fundraising Parity: In lieu of, or in conjunction with, an economic waiver, any participating non-enrolled student shall be afforded full, equal opportunity to satisfy assessed fees through participation in approved team, school, or athletic booster fundraising activities on identical terms as enrolled public school students.

Administrative Mechanics: Verification Without Public Enrollment

Because homeschooled students do not participate in standard National School Lunch Program (NSLP) roster submissions, the administrative mechanism must be handled with care:

Direct Verification: The board’s policy should route verification through the Central Office attendance or finance director rather than athletic coaching staff to preserve family privacy and prevent stigma.
Documentary Proof: Rather than requiring intrusive tax returns, the policy can accept standard third-party documentation, such as a state Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR/DoHS) SNAP/Medicaid benefits verification letter or standard USDA income declaration forms.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Routing fee waiver determinations through a designated central office administrator rather than athletic coaching staff provides three critical institutional protections:

Statutory Privacy Shield (FERPA & WV FOIA Exemption): Placing income verification in the hands of coaching or building staff risks improper disclosure among parents, booster clubs, or peers. Under W. Va. Code § 29B-1-4(a)(2), personal financial information and individual student records are strictly exempt from public disclosure. Central office administration ensures documents remain sequestered in confidential personnel/attendance files.
Separation of Evaluation from Roster Decisions: If a coach knows which student-athlete applied for an economic hardship waiver, it introduces potential bias—conscious or unconscious—regarding equipment allocation, team travel opportunities, or varsity roster selection. Removing the coach entirely from the financial ledger ensures that athletic participation remains strictly merit-based.

Streamlined "Clearance Slip" Workflow: Rather than transmitting financial forms to the school level, the process mirrors standard medical clearance procedures:

The parent submits the USDA income declaration or DHHR/DoHS benefit letter directly to the county Attendance Director or Treasurer.
The central office issues a simple, binary Participation Fee Clearance Slip (e.g., "Cleared – Statutory Compliance Confirmed") transmitted directly to the high school athletic director.

Neither the athletic director nor the head coach receives income amounts, benefit types, or specific payment sources—only confirmation that the participant is officially cleared for practice.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "Hope Scholarship Max" formula creates serious administrative law and constitutional vulnerabilities because it conflates a student’s funding source with the actual cost of an extracurricular activity.

When evaluated under administrative standards and equal protection principles, pegging a public school sports fee to an external voucher allocation fails three core legal tests:

1. Administrative Law: The "Cost-of-Service" Doctrine

Under West Virginia administrative law, when an enabling statute permits a governmental body to charge a fee "to cover the costs of [a service]" (as codified in W. Va. Code § 18-2-25(d)), the agency cannot convert that fee into a revenue-raising tax or an arbitrary assessment.

The Rational Nexus Requirement: An agency fee must bear a direct, demonstrable nexus to the actual expenses incurred by the provider.
The "Penny-Matched" Arbitrariness: Calculating a fee by dividing an Education Savings Account (ESA) by six ($905.94) is an accounting fiction. Football costs do not vary based on the state’s annual per-pupil Hope allocation. If the Legislature raises or lowers the Hope Scholarship amount next session, the fee moves despite athletic expenses remaining unchanged.
Vulnerability to APA Challenge: In an administrative challenge or circuit court petition under the State Administrative Procedures Act (or common law certiorari), a court will evaluate whether the county board conducted an empirical cost study. If the administrative record demonstrates that the BOE arrived at $905.94 solely by calculating an installment of an ESA rather than totaling invoices for helmets, catastrophic insurance, and tournament registrations, the rate is vulnerable to being invalidated as arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of administrative discretion.

2. Equal Protection: Disparate Impact on Traditional Homeschoolers

The statutory framework governing non-enrolled access encompasses distinct legal categories under W. Va. Code § 18-2-25(d):

Traditional home instruction students under § 18-8-1(c).
Hope Scholarship recipients under § 18-31-1 et seq.
Microschool and learning pod participants.

The Wealth Test Barrier: While a Hope Scholarship recipient can draw down state funds deposited into their digital account to cover a $905.94 assessment, a traditional homeschool family exercising statutory rights under § 18-8-1(c) must pay entirely out of pocket.
Creation of an Impermissible Sub-Class: A $900+ fee creates an irrational classification among non-enrolled students: it provides a state-funded gateway for Hope participants while operating as an economic bar against traditional homeschoolers of modest means.
Defeating Legislative Intent: The primary purpose of House Bill 2820 was to grant broad access to public secondary school sports for all community youth residing in the local attendance zone. Using an ESA balance as a price-fixing benchmark subverts that statutory purpose by transforming public facilities into "pay-to-play" programs accessible only to those with state vouchers or substantial personal wealth.

3. Comparison of Policy Vulnerabilities

The table below illustrates the legal standing of the two fee models:

Legal Benchmark	The "Hope Max" Model (Greenbrier Model: ~$906)	The "Itemized Marginal Cost" Model (Jefferson Model: ~$150–$250)
Statutory Alignment with § 18-2-25(d)	Weak: Pegged to an ESA deposit balance rather than actual athletic overhead.	Strong: Directly supported by line-item invoices (helmets, insurance, WVSSAC fees).
Administrative Record Defense	High Risk: Easily shown to be pretextual and divorced from real-dollar costs.	Defensible: Withstands judicial review under the rational basis test.
Traditional Homeschool Impact	Constructive Exclusion: Renders participation prohibitive for non-Hope families.	Accessible: Modest base fee that can be realistically offset by booster fundraising.
State DOE Review Status	Disapproved by WVDE as an inflated target or criticized as cost-prohibitive.	Accepted by WVDE as a reasonable fee tier structure.

Practical Exposure for the Board

If a county board adopts the Greenbrier formula without an itemized cost basis, it exposes itself to immediate administrative appeals and potential litigation from local non-Hope families.

A board seeking to charge a defensible fee that satisfies the Department of Education's rejection of nominal rates should calculate the actual marginal cost per athlete and adopt that figure on the public record, avoiding any mathematical link to the Hope Scholarship program.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Building an administrative record capable of withstanding circuit court scrutiny or a grievance appeal requires shifting from theoretical criticism to actionable legal mechanics.

Procedural Pitfalls in the Greenbrier Model

If a county board models its policy on Greenbrier’s 1/6th formula, it exposes itself to immediate procedural defects under the West Virginia State Administrative Procedures Act (W. Va. Code § 29A) and common-law certiorari:

Disbursement Misalignment: For the 2026–2027 school year, the Hope Scholarship transitions from bi-annual tranches to a quarterly disbursement schedule (August 15, October 15, January 15, and April 15). Pegging a fee to "one-sixth" ($905.94) is an anachronism tied to outdated bi-monthly parent draws, creating an immediate administrative mismatch with actual state accounting schedules.
Failure to Conduct a Local Cost Audit: Under State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger, an administrative body’s rate or fee determination will be overturned if it lacks a factual foundation in the evidentiary record. Adopting another county's fee without an on-the-record Pocahontas County cost study constitutes an arbitrary exercise of delegated authority.
The "Tax vs. Fee" Trap: Under the West Virginia Supreme Court’s long-standing test in City of Huntington v. Bacon, a charge is a valid regulatory fee only if the revenue generated is dedicated to defraying the specific cost of regulating or providing the service. If the board collects $905.94 per athlete when the actual per-player equipment/insurance cost is $200, the remaining ~$700 functions as an unauthorized, non-uniform tax levied on a specific class of county residents.

Step-by-Step Blueprint for Adopting a Defensible Policy 9270

To satisfy the State Department of Education while establishing an ironclad administrative record against litigation, the Pocahontas County Board of Education should follow a strict four-step sequence:

1. Commission an In-House "Per-Athlete Operational Audit"

Direct the county Athletic Director and Treasurer to compile an itemized cost sheet for each sport over the trailing three fiscal years.
Include exclusively direct, student-specific outlays:
- Helmet/pad reconditioning and recertification invoices divided by active roster size.
- Catastrophic insurance rider premiums divided by total participating athletes.
- Individual athlete WVSSAC registration and concussion-management software seats.
Exclude head coaching stipends, facility construction/bond debt, and general transportation fuel.

2. Establish a Tiered "Cost-Recovery" Schedule

Adopt a transparent fee schedule on the record that mirrors actual cost tiers rather than a flat, across-the-board number:
- Tier 1 (Non-contact / Low equipment): Cross Country, Track, Tennis, Golf (~$50–$75).
- Tier 2 (Moderate equipment / Facility wear): Basketball, Baseball, Softball, Soccer (~$100–$150).
- Tier 3 (High equipment / Reconditioning intensive): Football (~$175–$250).

3. Codify an Objective Hardship and Fundraising Offset

Insert language automatically granting a 100% waiver to any household meeting the USDA Free Lunch income threshold, and a 50% waiver for the Reduced Lunch threshold.
Affirm the right of non-enrolled athletes to offset fees dollar-for-dollar through booster-sanctioned sales, corporate banner sponsorships, or concession operations.

4. Route Approvals Privately via Central Office

Mandate that all financial reviews and fee transactions occur at the Central Office level, delivering only a binary "Participation Fee Cleared" slip to coaching staff.

Model Motion for the Board Agenda

When taking Policy 9270 off the table for its third reading, the board can introduce an amendment to replace arbitrary figures with an audit-backed schedule using this formal resolution:

"I move to amend proposed Policy 9270 by striking the proposed flat fee and establishing an Itemized Direct-Cost Recovery Schedule, supported by the Superintendent’s audited athletic cost study. Said policy shall set tiered participation fees limited to actual equipment, insurance, and association costs, not to exceed $250 for Tier 3 contact sports, and shall incorporate standard USDA income-based hardship waivers administered confidentially through the Central Office, alongside full booster fundraising parity."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salt Shaker Press

Search This Blog

Paying twice for the same service?