Task force recommendations for CIAC sparse, more answers needed

News broke in early August the General Assembly had passed a bill to establish a task force charged with investigating the governance structure and internal procedures of the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference.

And wouldn’t you know it? Within a few weeks, the Day of New London reported that nearly all 11 of the league commissioners from around the state had cosigned a letter to voice their backing for the CIAC.

“Recently, it seems the CIAC has been unfairly attacked in the press,” the letter, as reported by the Day, read. “As league presidents/commissioners we wanted to share our support of the CIAC and those who are charged with running it.”

When the letter was entered as Appendix C in the State Task Force Report on Dec. 20, the part about being unfairly attacked by the press was no longer there. But the rest of the glowing words about the CIAC listening to suggestions, vetting them through proper protocols and adopting changes in the best interest of the student athletes were.

Southern Connecticut Conference

commissioner Al Carbone, who was appointed co-chair of the task force, did not sign the letter. Xavier AD Dave Eustis, SCC president, did.

That left only the Eastern Connecticut Conference.

There ECC has an executive board of five athletic directors and one of them, Jim Buonocore of Ledyard, said a decision was made to bring the letter to the entire advisory board of all 19 ADs.

“We discussed the makeup of the letter and we agreed unanimously not to sign it,” Buonocore said. “It was not something we didn’t sign because we felt the CIAC was failing us in any particular situation.

“We just didn’t understand the concept of what the letter was trying to accomplish. There was no reason for it to come out at that point. There were clearly some concerns from individuals at the legislative levels. Let the task force do its job and see what comes from it.”

The ECC did the right thing. By firing off a letter backing the CIAC so quickly and universally — bang, bang — the leaders of the other 10 conferences left a smell of backroom cronyism.

That’s exactly the problem that led some legislators, former legislators and coaches like Lou Marinelli of New Canaan, the state’s all-time winningest football coach, to voice their criticism in the first place. Len Fasano, former President Pro Tempore of the Connecticut Senate, called the CIAC out of control with no oversight.

For those looking for substantial change, the legislative appointments to the task force didn’t do much to inspire confidence.

From the start it was made clear CIAC executive director Glenn Lungarini (or his CIAC designate) would be part of the task force.

Think about this.

The legislature wanted to investigate the inner workings of the CIAC and it named the guy running the CIAC as co-chair of the task force.

I would submit a more neutral review should have been held.

In a 2016 report by the Office of Legislative Research it was determined who the CIAC reports to in the General Assembly. The answer effectively was nobody. It is a self-governing board, only answering to its internal elected board that is tasked with upholding its own constitution and bylaws.

In response to the House’s Raised Bill 7253, Section 16 calling for a task force at that time, Connecticut Association of Athletic Directors executive director Fred Balsamo wrote that it was “an attempt to create unwarranted oversight and involve outside interests into high school sports to the detriment of student athletes.”

Balsamo wrote the answers to the stated concerns easily could be attained by speaking to most principals or athletic directors.

No need for a task force! Guess who was on the 2022 task force? Fred Balsamo.

In Appendix C of the 2022 report, an unsigned letter from CAAD read, “While it may be healthy to revisit the governance structure and internal procedures of the CIAC once in a while, CAAD is strongly opposed to any legislative involvement in this review. Politics should never be involved in the governance of high school sports in Connecticut.”

The letter said CAAD, which is independent of the CIAC, plays a major role as a consultant on all CIAC committees. And that along with Connecticut High School Coaches, CAAD considers itself as already providing oversight to the governance structure of the CIAC.

Allowed by the bill to go beyond the charge of looking into structure and procedure of the CIAC, the task force did not stray at all. Twelve pages explained the working parts and onerous rules of the CIAC. It was spiced by periodic praise. The only negative was the media sometimes “propagates the misconception” that CIAC rules are made by a few individuals.

There was one quarter of a page on recommendations. The CIAC should …

• Consider making an annual presentation to the General Assembly to update them on the association’s activities.

• Consider opportunities to assist member school administrators and athletic directors in educating parents about CIAC bylaws, rules and regulations.

• Consider using its website and social media to provide short reference tutorials about commonly asked questions to assist stakeholders in understanding bylaws, rules, regulations, appeal processes and violation reporting procedures.

• Consider that sport committee chairs are active CIAC school and district leaders.

• Continue to develop innovative diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives that promote minority engagement in academic and interscholastic athletic positions of leadership.

As noble as the last recommendation is, among the task force’s 11 commendations was that the CIAC already has demonstrated statewide leadership in equity, diversity and inclusion initiative.

We’ll stop right here to scream the chasm of athletic opportunity between city schools and suburban high schools in Connecticut is the single biggest challenge facing the CIAC.

Getting all active CIAC leaders to chair committees is a nice step into the present. Welcome to 2023. And the first three recommendations are a step toward fuller transparency, which is something the CIAC really struggles.

Like the NCAA, CIAC rules for hundreds of disparate schools are rarely perfect. And if they are, time and circumstance change the equation. It’s healthy to have spirited, public debate. Too often the leaders of the CIAC are thin-skinned.

Asked if he was satisfied with the results of the task force?

“Yes,” Carbone said.

In his letter in Appendix C, Carbone wrote during his early years as SCC commissioner (starting in 2004) he was frustrated by difficulty in getting information and inability to weigh in on topics. He wrote the inclusion of league leaders by the CIAC is much improved in recent years and helped bring about the football Alliance scheduling.

He also wrote that the CIAC has a commitment to make member schools (and leagues) better informed as the landscape continues to change — whether it be addressing out-of-season coaching, the impact of NIL, etc.

The task force report gives credit to the CIAC for changes to the basketball shot clock and breaking ties in soccer finals with penalty kicks, but those debates had gone on forever.

Allowing coaching out of season, something that can help city schools, has gone on longer than forever. Carbone did say, “I’m confident there will be something on that in the near future. Two proposals are being looked at.”

By contrast, the CIAC Board of Control swiftly and unanimously approved language to its handbook on name, image, likeness (NIL) last winter and didn’t announce it. Six months later, Opendorse, a company designed to maximize an athletes’ brand while safeguarding eligibility, broke the news. Lungarini told Hearst Connecticut it was communicated to the state’s ADs, but ADs I talked to hadn’t known anything about it.

The CIAC needs to provide more expansive guidance, oversight and education on the huge NIL domain. While the CIAC does say athletes are required to give their school copies of any NIL agreements, Newington girls basketball player Bela Cucuta signed with I Believe Skills and declined to give the particulars of the agreement to the Hartford Courant. She said her agent told her she didn’t have to go through the CIAC.

Although the offer reportedly has since been submitted to the CIAC, it demonstrates Carbone’s point about a quickly changing landscape.

There are so many rules and nuances to the CIAC handbook. In pushing for one school one vote for all CIAC changes last August, I tried to explain the onerous process of committees, etc., to the final Board of Control vote for sports specific rules. While it was all true, I omitted — by my lack of knowledge — that changes to CIAC bylaws must be approved by the legislative body of all schools at its annual meeting. My bad. Here’s the thing, I had reached out to Lungarini to discuss the merits of oneschool, one-vote and he didn’t return my message.

After the task force had made its sparse recommendations in late December, Balsamo told News 12 Connecticut, “We don’t need any further oversight from anyone else. When the membership speaks, the CIAC Board listens.”

When legislators get their chance to review the task force recommendations and determine their next move, wonder if they’ll take Balsamo’s advice and get lost? Here’s the thing. The CIAC, a private, non-profit organization, takes in more than $1 million a year in dues from its members and the overwhelming number are public schools. That means it’s taxpayer money. The Speaker of the House shouldn’t be drawing up the football playoff format, but, damn straight, the legislature can stick its nose in CIAC business.