Part-time Coach in Exchange for Tuition NOT a Violation?

[BiggestElk]

Sorry I have not waded through all the current posts on this topic, but could someone comment on the following:

 

 

Tuition and Financial Aid

Section 16. If tuition is charged, it must be paid by parent, bona fide guardian or other family member. If a parent, guardian or other family member secures a loan for payment of tuition, it must remain an obligation of the parents, guardian or other family member to repay the principle and interest in full with no exceptions. Financial aid will be allowed under the following conditions:

1. Children of full-time faculty members may be given financial aid, but such students, if transfers, shall be ineligible for 12 months in any sport in which they have an athletic record for the previous or current year.

 

 

How is it that, after this issue was investigated thoroughly, it was not considered a violation that a part time coach was given tuition remission for two family members? I could understand if it was a full time faculty member, but for a part time faculty member to be given tuition remission seems a blatant violation.

[maj]

Sorry I have not waded through all the current posts on this topic, but could someone comment on the following:

Tuition and Financial Aid

Section 16. If tuition is charged, it must be paid by parent, bona fide guardian or other family member. If a parent, guardian or other family member secures a loan for payment of tuition, it must remain an obligation of the parents, guardian or other family member to repay the principle and interest in full with no exceptions. Financial aid will be allowed under the following conditions:

1. Children of full-time faculty members may be given financial aid, but such students, if transfers, shall be ineligible for 12 months in any sport in which they have an athletic record for the previous or current year.

How is it that, after this issue was investigated thoroughly, it was not considered a violation that a part time coach was given tuition remission for two family members? I could understand if it was a full time faculty member, but for a part time faculty member to be given tuition remission seems a blatant violation.

 

 

 

I don't know any details on this particular case but I wouldn't lump bartering one's time with financial aid. Two different subjects.

 

If a hypothetical coach supplies his time to a school and in exchange recieves tuition credit for his kids based on the fair market value of his time, either for all of it or a certain percentage I fail to see a problem. The school is paying for the coach's time not his kids athletic participation as you seem to imply. Unless you can show me where the value of the tuition credits greatly exceeded the fair market value of the coach's time you are really tilting at windmills. I guess the school could have paid the coach ( or paid him more ) for his time and the coach could have then written a check to the school for the full cost of tuition but what is the difference ? The bartering process simplifies things maybe saves someone a few bucks on taxes and appears to be an equitable arranement for all.

[RedUp]

I don't know any details on this particular case but I wouldn't lump bartering one's time with financial aid. Two different subjects.

 

If a hypothetical coach supplies his time to a school and in exchange recieves tuition credit for his kids based on the fair market value of his time, either for all of it or a certain percentage I fail to see a problem. The school is paying for the coach's time not his kids athletic participation as you seem to imply. Unless you can show me where the value of the tuition credits greatly exceeded the fair market value of the coach's time you are really tilting at windmills. I guess the school could have paid the coach ( or paid him more ) for his time and the coach could have then written a check to the school for the full cost of tuition but what is the difference ? The bartering process simplifies things maybe saves someone a few bucks on taxes and appears to be an equitable arranement for all.

 

 

How can you fail to see a problem if the rules that govern TSSAA specify clearly that a full time employee (and only a full time employee) can have tuition remitted for their child? Its not about if it seems fair, or fair market value, or tuition credits, or not writing a check to the school, or bartering. It is about black and white wording, about rules that all schools are bound to go by, and I can't imagine how the interpretation of this rule was rendered favorably.

[Baldcoach]

How can you fail to see a problem if the rules that govern TSSAA specify clearly that a full time employee (and only a full time employee) can have tuition remitted for their child? Its not about if it seems fair, or fair market value, or tuition credits, or not writing a check to the school, or bartering. It is about black and white wording, about rules that all schools are bound to go by, and I can't imagine how the interpretation of this rule was rendered favorably.

 

 

Tuition remittance is the waiving of tuition in ADDITION to a salary. What seems to have happened with Coach Skogen and Temple is that the school paid him for his time but didn't cut a check, instead they applied the accrued balance directly to the tuition bill. While the IRS might find this arrangement interesting, especially if there was no claim of it on an income tax form, there is no violation of TSSAA rules here. Money is fungible.

[maj]

How can you fail to see a problem if the rules that govern TSSAA specify clearly that a full time employee (and only a full time employee) can have tuition remitted for their child? Its not about if it seems fair, or fair market value, or tuition credits, or not writing a check to the school, or bartering. It is about black and white wording, about rules that all schools are bound to go by, and I can't imagine how the interpretation of this rule was rendered favorably.

 

 

You are confusing two different issues. Read this again.

 

The school is paying for the coach's time not his kids athletic participation as you seem to imply. Unless you can show me where the value of the tuition credits greatly exceeded the fair market value of the coach's time you are really tilting at windmills.

 

Seems perfectly clear to me, and the favorable rendering should surprise no one.

[mtnman]

this does open the door to schools to "hire" a part-time coach so that they can get their kid in the school without having to pay tuition. I would hope schools would not do this, but it does set a precedent.

 

Obviously, this did not happen at Temple. Skogen had been there for 10 years or so. He volunteered for a long time and never got paid.

 

It was a "clerical" error. They should have given him a bill and he should have been paid for coaching. Not really a big deal.

 

But you can't just allow schools to work out some kind of deal with part-time coaches. There should be a contract and I wouldn't even have a problem saying TSSAA has to approve it. I don't want to give TSSAA more power but schools can't just make verbal/secret agreements. There is too much temptation to stretch the rules.

[BiggestElk]

I see your points. I guess it really is how you read it and my reading (which of course doesn't count!) is that there was financial aid given to a faculty child and that faculty member was not full time, but part time.

 

Section 16 says that, if tuition is charged, it must be paid by the parent. Then the rule goes on to say in 1. that children of full time faculty members may be given "financial aid", which can be interpreted as the tuition remission which was granted in this case.

 

Again, the problem for me is in the part time teacher receiving the benefits of a full time faculty member, which the rule clearly stipulates against.

 

There is inherent contradiction in the definition of "financial aid". The rule states that DI schools may not give "financial aid", unless the recepient is a child of a full time faculty member. That implies that tuition remission is "financial aid". Seems there needs to be another term used here, because the rule then goes on to say that all "financial aid" must be "need based". DII schools jump through a bunch of hoops to document and prove financial grants do not exceed need. If they do, that athlete can not play varsity sports. However, neither DI nor DII schools who have children of full time faculty members have to document anything in that area.

 

 

My bet is that this rule will be seriously clarified when the new edition of the bylaws rolls out in the Fall of '08, and the "frequently asked questions" section will once again grow.

[OnlineLC]

I am not a lawyer but as I see it, the only way it can only legally be covered is for a check to be cut to the employee (part time or full time) or have it deducted in some way on the pay stub which the IRS receives.

 

This also holds true for work study students.

 

If anything else is being done, the TSSAA would be the least of their worries.

[Green_Acres]

There is no question that the paperwork should have been handled differently. And, there is no question that it was not financial aid that was given. This is a dead horse. Quit using terminology that is not in the handbook, like tuition remission. BiggestElk, have you ever had a jingle stuck in your head before and you could not get it out? Same thing here. You have this idea stuck in your head that you cannot get out that there was a tuition remission. It simply is not so. Go outside and clear your head.

[BiggestElk]

And, there is no question that it was not financial aid that was given. This is a dead horse.

 

 

Do you have a name for it then? Please give me a name for it so I can go outside and clear my head as you suggest.

 

Here is what the bylaws call it:

 

" 1. Children of full-time faculty members may be given financial aid, but such students, if transfers, shall be ineligible for 12 months in any sport in which they have an athletic record for the previous or current year."

 

 

Do you have a name for it, besides illegal?

[reaction]

This will be anever ending argument of what it was. I see it how it is, as a "clerical error." The way I see it, people that want a split and things like that are going to argue it was financial aid, even though the TSSAA cleared it as it wasn't. I mean what more do you want when they have investigated the issue and dismissed it? Should it of been handled differently by the school, Yes. Is it illegal what they did, no.

[Green_Acres]

Do you have a name for it then? Please give me a name for it so I can go outside and clear my head as you suggest.

 

Here is what the bylaws call it:

 

" 1. Children of full-time faculty members may be given financial aid, but such students, if transfers, shall be ineligible for 12 months in any sport in which they have an athletic record for the previous or current year."

Do you have a name for it, besides illegal?

 

 

I do, actually. It is called bartering. Or, if you prefer, you can call it a verbal agreement. That is the way they used to do it years ago and often it was accompanied by a hand shake.

 

Again, it is that jingle, stuck in your head thing. You have it so set in your head that it is a certain way that you cannot see past the nose on your face. You have posted a quote from the handbook that does not even contriubte to your argument. It is like you are saying, "Stop confusing me with the facts."

 

Let me give them to you one last time. Kevin Skogen was to receive payment for his services as a part-time head football and basketball coach. He asked that he be paid the same amount as what his kids tuition would be. He did not receive a check and he did not receive a bill. He did, however, (eventually) receive a 1099. Now, here is where you really have to think, ok? If he had received tuition remission as you are so stuck on thinking, he would not have received a 1099 from the school for him to report on his income taxes. Tuition remission would not have been considered income. Since he did receive a 1099 then he did receive reportable income, therefore he did not receive financial aid or a tuition remission. Is that simple enough?

 

Listen, you can wish for Santa Claus to come down your chimney and bring you toys as hard as anything, but surely, by now you know that Santa Claus is not real. It is time for you to grow up, just a little more.

 

I really am not trying to be mean, but I am trying to get your attention.