Here's a fish tale school administrators should learn from | Eastern North Carolina Now

    This is a story about a big fish tale. The fish itself was big and the consequences of the dispute are big. About a million dollars worth.

    The N. C. Supreme Court Friday (1-25-13) rendered a decision in the Big Rock Fishing Tournament dispute in which the winning entry was disqualified because of a rules violation. Evidence at trial showed that the rules required all crew members of a boat to have state Commercial Fishing License (CFL). But the first mate of the 'winning' boat did not have a CFL at the time the fish was caught.

    The Big Rock Tournament Committee and Board of Directors ruled that the boat and crew of the Citation were not eligible to claim the top prize because one of the crew members did not have a CFL. They awarded the prize to the "second place" winner. The Citation crew filed suit but a Superior Court Judge threw the case out, in favor of the defendant Tournament Committee. The Citation crew appealed to the N. C. Court of Appeals. The COA upheld the Superior Court judges' ruling. Friday the Supreme Court overturned the COA, agreeing instead with the dissenting opinion at the COA level.

    You can read all the factual details in the COA decision by clicking here. You will want to read Justice Robert C. Hunter's dissent (P. 18f) as it will become the controlling law in the case.

    You can read the one-paragraph Supreme Court decision by clicking here.

    For the legal eagles among our readers there are a couple of interesting points raised by this case. The first is whether the trial judge should have recused himself when challenged to do so because he had served as a law partner six years earlier with the firm representing the defendants in the case. Worse than that, he had socialized with an attorney in the case while the case was pending before him. Justice Hunter did not find either offense to be a reason for recusal but he did find that the judge should have let another judge rule of the recusal issue.

    But the essence of the dispute was contract law. The question was whether the Tournament Committee had sufficient grounds to disqualify the boat and crew because of the CFL matter.

    The rules (contract) required a CFL. No body contested that. And the First Mate on the Citation did not have a CFL when the fish was hooked. But before the boat returned to shore he acquired one online.

    The issue, according to Justice Hunter, was whether the violation of the CFL rule was a "material" breach of the contract sufficient to relieve the Committee from paying the agreed upon prize. The dissent indicates that based on the record before the court it did not appear to Justice Hunter to be a material breach of contract, primarily because it gave no competitive advantage to the boat and crew. But he felt the summary judgment (throwing out the case) should be overturned and the case sent back to the trial court for a rehearing, presumably with the original trial judge having another judge determine whether he should recuse himself and then try the case with a rendering of facts and conclusions of law, specifically on the issue of whether having the CFL was a material requirement of the contest.

    Commentary

    This case should be read by anyone who runs any kind of contest where prizes are given and rules govern the contest. But it should also be read by school administrators. It goes to the heart of "rule making and enforcement." Many people think "a rule is a rule and if you violate the rule you suffer the consequences." But the problem is that in many instances when administrators are called upon to apply rules they fail to remember that, separate and apart from contract law issues involved in this case, the question is usually whether the rules are reasonable and whether they are enforced in an arbitrary, capricious or reasonable manner. Substantive due process requires that rules have a purpose designed to accomplish a legitimate purpose and that they be administered in a fair, impartial and reasonable manner.

    What the Tournament Committee will be wise to do in the future is to clearly explain what the intent and purpose of the rules are and what the consequences will be for violating any particular rule. Justice Hunter makes that perfectly clear in his dissent.

    All too often school administrators make rules that are poorly constructed and they enforce them arbitrarily. Dress codes and the enforcement thereof are but one example. "Because I said so" is not a legitimate basis for imposing stiff sanctions. This is particularly true in athletics--an area that one will find many very detailed rules and an area where enforcement yields few exceptions. It is my understanding that the same is applicable to such sports as NASCAR. Making and enforcing rules is not as simple as it might appear sometimes. Justice Hunter's "material difference" standard is one that should get careful attention. The Big Rock Tournament people learned this the hard way.

    Andy Gay and Darren Jackson were the winning attorneys.

    Delma Blinson writes the "Teacher's Desk" column for our friend in the local publishing business: The Beaufort Observer. His concentration is in the area of his expertise - the education of our youth. He is a former teacher, principal, superintendent and university professor.