97.1FM The Talk Devore lawsuit is filed details linked
- Thread starter Anon1754760634
- Start date
Good interview. If true, the ignoring of what ihsa SMAC prefers and Andersen being coerced without board of directors approval is concerning. The emails are.... interesting.
I do not know how culpable the IHSA Executive Director may turn out to be in this matter, but I feel for the guy. I doubt if he signed up for this development of being part of making potentially life-and-death decisions. Also, if IDPH and J.B. are breathing down your neck, I can understand some quick compliance in the interest of erring on the side of caution.
Rather than watch the squirrels in my back yard attempt to scale the bird feeder, I read Mr. DeVore's complaint against the IHSA and the local school district. ttps://edgarcountywatchdogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/DeVore-vs.-IHSA-Complaint.pdf
I was left wondering why the IHSA is a defendant in his lawsuit.
Some thoughts;
DeVore admits that the initial plan (July 3) was correctly adopted by the IHSA
DeVore contends, and Anderson admits, that the July 9 additions to the plan were not correctly adopted by the IHSA
Anderson states that these are plans are merely guidance and not rules and the IHSA has no intention to police or enforce the guidelines.
In par. 30 of DeVore’s complaint he states that Andersen sent an email to his administrators advising them that they were required to “fall in line” with the Governor’s office and IDPH. If Mr. DeVore is referring to the email from Anderson to his administrators which states as follows; “You will see that IDPH is requiring us to modify our guidelines to fall in line with the recommendations that are currently part of the ISBE guidance.”
The school where Mr. Devore’s children attend adopted these guidelines, both the July 3 and July 9 guidelines, as a condition of participating in sports activities.
DeVore request the Court to throw out both the initial July 3 plan and the July 9 initial plan in that they were both beyond Anderson’s authority and prevent the IHSA and the school where his children attend from enforcing the guidelines.
I do not know why the IHSA is a defendant in this lawsuit in that they promulgated “guidelines” that they admittedly do not intend to police or enforce. DeVore’s issue appears to be with the school that his children attend that have adopted the IHSA guidelines as a condition of participation in sports.
I was left wondering why the IHSA is a defendant in his lawsuit.
Some thoughts;
DeVore admits that the initial plan (July 3) was correctly adopted by the IHSA
DeVore contends, and Anderson admits, that the July 9 additions to the plan were not correctly adopted by the IHSA
Anderson states that these are plans are merely guidance and not rules and the IHSA has no intention to police or enforce the guidelines.
In par. 30 of DeVore’s complaint he states that Andersen sent an email to his administrators advising them that they were required to “fall in line” with the Governor’s office and IDPH. If Mr. DeVore is referring to the email from Anderson to his administrators which states as follows; “You will see that IDPH is requiring us to modify our guidelines to fall in line with the recommendations that are currently part of the ISBE guidance.”
The school where Mr. Devore’s children attend adopted these guidelines, both the July 3 and July 9 guidelines, as a condition of participating in sports activities.
DeVore request the Court to throw out both the initial July 3 plan and the July 9 initial plan in that they were both beyond Anderson’s authority and prevent the IHSA and the school where his children attend from enforcing the guidelines.
I do not know why the IHSA is a defendant in this lawsuit in that they promulgated “guidelines” that they admittedly do not intend to police or enforce. DeVore’s issue appears to be with the school that his children attend that have adopted the IHSA guidelines as a condition of participation in sports.
This may be a WAY of base Analogy but: (and I'm not awake yet!)
A teacher or authority figure tells you "you need to modify your behavior or actions (or) I'm going to kill you!" but then says "but I have no intention of carrying out or enforcing that threat" does that actually absolve that authority figure from saying something detrimental?
A teacher or authority figure tells you "you need to modify your behavior or actions (or) I'm going to kill you!" but then says "but I have no intention of carrying out or enforcing that threat" does that actually absolve that authority figure from saying something detrimental?
My point is that the IHSA guidelines are not preventing DeVore's children from playing sports. The school where his children attend, and which have have adopted the IHSA guidelines as a condition of engaging in sports, are preventing his children from engaging in sports unless they conform to the IHSA guidelines which the school has adopted.
I agree. The point of contention appears to be with either the school district or the governor's office, not with the IHSA. The IHSA has merely provided guidance (not a mandate) to the schools as to what it has been told by the governor's office will comply with the governor's executive orders. Although it is under appeal, my understanding is a judge has ruled that the governor's executive orders are not in compliance with Illinois statutes. That would mean, as things presently stand, that the requirements laid out for conducting high school sports in this state are not enforceable (at least by the state). Individual school districts might choose voluntarily to adopt the requirements, and enforce the requirements, but the state cannot unless the state legislature passes a new law which is then signed by the governor.