Brodey Hasty 4:01.75

Williamson County and the TSSAA are 100% negligent in this matter. Between Avery and Kinder this has been going on for over 10 years. Everyone in the state knew about it but the Williamson County Schools and TSSAA? I think not.

Never really understood that arrangement, and now I see why. Always wondered why he wasn't coaching one of the private schools in the area.

Hasty is a heckuva talent and Avery has a long history of successful high school runners. It will be interesting watching this play out.

shrtrack wrote:

Williamson County and the TSSAA are 100% negligent in this matter. Between Avery and Kinder this has been going on for over 10 years. Everyone in the state knew about it but the Williamson County Schools and TSSAA? I think not.

Clearly this is a violation of the principles of fair play and common decency. On the other hand, T$$AA isn't truly about those principles.

I think there is something to be said for a guy who shows results. Nobody forced those parents to pay the fees in the first place. It appears to have been some sort of retainer. The volunteer part was just on paper.

No one argues that the guy did not do his job or that he did not show results. Fair and Decent - can get a different interpretation if you move to another state or another country.

It would be nice to offer a better upside to Public Schools. Not everyone has to been doomed to mediocrity. And, I would like to stop shopping for "talent" overseas and begin to develop it here.

Simple, run for dudes club snd not the school..

School facilities (track, weight room, pool) are needed.

I am saying there is no simple solution and there may be other determinants rather than what is arbitrarily "fair".

How old is Brodey Hasty?

HE FACTS

Avery's small group of privately-coached athletes has tallied 170 state champion medals, 31 All-American medals, 2 National podium Cross Country Club team finishes and 2 All-Time National Records and a National Champion, in distance running.

About 95% of his privately-coached athletes were the school record holders at their respective schools in cross country and the distance events in track. At last count, 62 out of his 65 privately-coached athletes went on to become collegiate runners over the last 8 years, with most garnering significant scholarships. Two of Guy’s runners include a National Champion, who is currently the top-high school recruit in the country, along with another top-10 recruit in the country.

At Brentwood, the Brentwood Boys' Cross Country Club, recognized as one of the best programs in the entire country, operated 100% independently from the school team, as required by national sanctioning. Club teams cannot compete as school teams.

There was never any "pay for play" in effect. In fact, the single disgruntled parent who made these accusations, actually had his "pay for play" demand rejected, before falsely claiming "pay for play" against Avery.

Varsity teams were determined in the most objective and simple merit-based way possible: If you raced as a top-7 runner on the team, you were varsity regardless of whether you were a coaching client of Avery’s. Everyone knew this policy and it was followed. This varsity team policy was 100% fair and was stated at the start of the Summer and Fall and reiterated before and after every cross country meet by the school coaches, including Boys' coach, Billy Anderson and Girls' coach, Lara Whitaker.

Avery refused offers by the Athletic Director to be hired and paid as a school coach and he never accepted a penny from Brentwood High School or Williamson County School District.

In the two Fall seasons when Avery was listed as a volunteer, no athlete that was not already privately-coached, ever paid for coaching services, and no athlete was ever asked to pay for coaching services.

Avery volunteered his time to help the school's varsity teams and any runner with varsity level ability, was freely coached. In both cross country and track, dozens of athletes were freely helped every season by Avery, without compensation.

Avery was given permission and encouraged to use the Brentwood track by the Brentwood HS Athletic Director, Ron Seigenthaler. Both the BHS Principal, Kevein Keidel and BHS Athletic Director, Ron Seigenthaler, were fully aware of the occasional track usage for privately-coached athletes. It is a matter of public record that even the WCS Athletic Director, Jeremy Qualls, was aware of Avery's occasional track usage. The large majority of Avery's private training group practices were not on a track and were held off-site and were always held completely separate from school practice times. In contrast, it is common knowledge that Gary Kinder was a paid Brentwood High School track coach, who used Brentwood facilities almost daily for the past decade, while also charging Brentwood and other athletes, for private coaching.

Avery absolutely did not refuse to meet for this investigation. In fact, Avery offered to meet with Human Resource Specialist, Lindsey Quirk, on 24-hour notice to clarify all accusations and yet he was still not interviewed, nor were the large consensus of facts presented by the large majority of parents, included in the WCS report.

You forgot the T on your copy paste job!

Yes, I saw that after I posted.

Thanks.

Are posters required to type all posts?

Yeah that sounds like a really small group of privately coached kids.

Sounds like Avery was making good money and getting good results. Can't blame him if the parents were willing to pay for his expertise.

Classic conflict of interest and poaching a captive audience. Parents will do everything they can to help their children. The schools job is to protect the kids and parents from financial predators within the public school program. How about this idea? Run with the school team and school appointed coach, then hire private coaches for supplemental training? Kind of like an after school tutor. Kids and parents that want more can pay for that. But to have a school coach who controls practice and position on the varsity team charge for his services is setting up a perfect pay to play system.

This are very strong words, poaching, predators. Why are you so intense and interested in this? You are the most vocal on this board that is against Avery and with such venom. Sounds like something personal.

Coach Avery had been coaching athletes (distance runners) for many years that were from many different schools in the area. More recently he had a concentration of Brentwood kids. He didn't advertise or push them to train with him. The parents, like you said, would do everything they can to help their children. They came to him. He accepts checks and cash but not credit cards.

His athletes get results. So with one school having more kids train with him, naturally the team was getting better. The parents and the school loved the notoriety and the accolades. Give parents a little taste of winning at a national level and they go nuts. The dreams of "my kid went to Nationals" Add in "they were on the podium!"

Now more parents wanted Guy Avery coaching their kid. He didn't need to push. And his fee was his fee. So what. a hundred bucks a week for unlimited coaching access. He puts in a great deal of time and effort. It's not, we just meet a couple of times a week for a couple of hours.

Parents saw the potential of college scholarships. and loved the attention they were getting through their kids, Not all parents, but enough.

This was a situation that over time, just evolved. It was not intentional by any means.

He was not a school coach. He only became a volunteer coach when the school came to him and asked him to help out at BHS. Maybe at the insistence of the parents.

He did not control position on the team. If you made the varsity team, you made the varsity team. You didn't need to be coached by Guy to be on varsity. You just had to run fast enough to do so. Now of course, the athletes he coached probably ran faster than most. And the parents wanted their kid on the varsity team that would potentially go to Nike Nationals.

With field events and sprinting you can do supplemental training. Not healthy to do that with distance running.

Again, Guy Avery had his coaching business, he became and still is very successful,which made more parents coming to him to have him coach their kid.

As for rules, the school ought to have known the rules, abided by the rules and they ought to have notified the volunteer coaches of the all the rules.

Response to Lindsey Quirk’s Report, Concerning BHS Track and Guy Avery

This is a response to Lindsey Quirk’s report, following, what I believe, was an incomplete investigation of supposed complaints regarding Guy Avery. I say, “supposed,” because the track ordeal at BHS began with one complaint, only, from a source, whom I believe, lacks credibility related to his complaint, as I will show. I am sure that he solicited others to bolster his complaint, but his complaint dealt only with a perceived, “Pay to play,” situation. Complaints prior to 2017 had already been investigated and Mr. Avery was found to have been eager and happy to comply with rules he was informed of, and was found to be compliant regarding other policies, according to a Qualls investigation, Dr. Farmer’s correspondence, and a response to a Franklin High School coach, by Dr. Looney, in 2015. “Complaints,” #2 and #3, listed in The Report, are not complaints, at all, I believe, but simply issues the Central Office decided to include, when they discovered there was a, “perceived,” noncompliance with Mr. Avery using the BHS track, and their concern over Mr. Avery being a Volunteer BHS coach, while also being a personal/private coach to some of the same athletes. My response is on behalf of myself, not another, and represents my opinion and beliefs.

I urge the Central Office to include my response, along with any other response, as a part of the official record containing Ms. Quirk’s report. In my mind, an investigation is not considered complete until opposing views can be heard and honestly considered. The purpose of welcoming opposing views is to adequately vet incorrect information and arrive at a place closer to the truth. Then, we can work together to reach more productive and agreeable solutions. This is in keeping with the spirit of many School Board policies promoting healthy collaboration.

I assumed I would be interviewed by Ms. Quirk, since my son trains with Guy Avery, and since I was actively involved in trying to resolve the situation. Finally, after waiting, but not being contacted, I requested to be interviewed by Ms. Quirk because I believe I was closer to the breaking out of the BHS track situation than the other parents and I had other pertinent information to provide. She did not return my call, concerning my desire to be interviewed.

I wanted to share that, for two cross-country seasons, my son received coaching from Guy Avery, while he was a volunteer BHS coach, and was never required or compelled by him to pay him. My son was not kept out of any meets, and was given every opportunity others had to run in events. He also was daily running with the top athletes on the team, and was not prevented from doing so, simply because he was not compensating Mr. Avery. He understood that Mr. Avery was a paid private coach of some BHS athletes and others in the county and across the state, but was volunteering at BHS, since BHS did not have an adequate cross-country coach, or mid-distance track coach. When my son was presented with the opportunity to train more extensively with Mr. Avery, and compensate him for his services, we decided not to, since we already had committed funds for travel soccer. However, Mr. Avery did not want finances to be a reason why a talented athlete would be prevented from the training he needed, so he offered to train him, without receiving compensation. When soccer ended, we began compensating him for his private coaching, and are glad to do it. It is bothersome and curious to me that, although the Central Office has received several testimonies similar to mine, The Report is completely absent of them, and therefore, skewing the perception of Mr. Avery toward a negative bias.

If The Report had adequately considered and included some of these stories, it might have satisfied itself regarding the, “pay to play,” perception.

I also thought it was relevant that my son was involved in the situation that led to this track upheaval. My son, a sophomore, travelled with the top four runners on the team to Virginia to run in a national competition. Elias was given the opportunity to run in a couple of relays, which Brad and Brenda Vroon became extremely upset over, due to some expectations they had for the top four runners to run a relay together, (as shared to me by the Vroons). I believe it was their anger with Mr. Avery that led them to file a complaint against him, within weeks, which led to this semester-long turmoil. I believe his complaint had nothing to do with good intentions and everything to do with vindictiveness. But, without knowing the back story, the Principal and Athletic Director, not to mention the Central Office, gave credence to someone who lacks credibility in this matter. Everyone believed, hook, line, and sinker the man complaining about, “pay to play,” not knowing that Vroon had just proposed pay to play, but was rejected by Mr. Avery, as I will show.

I am involved because it is offensive to me that the Central Office has fixated itself on making Guy Avery out to be, “The bad guy.” In my very first conversation with Dr. Farmer, he was already referencing that there had been a number of complaints against Avery in prior years, as though that made Avery guilty of something. Somehow, he failed to mention that every single complaint ended in either Avery being made aware of a rule, and then complying, or that Avery was found to be in compliance, already. This bias against Avery has been clear from the beginning, and is evident in this report. So, regarding this report:

1. The Report begins with an inaccurate statement, saying, “Mr. Avery refused to comply with the investigation and to meet. (Appendix 1)”

I am glad The Report included in Appendix 1 its email correspondence with Mr. Avery, in which he writes:

a. “Please communicate with me after you have interviewed everyone else in your investigation...”

b. “Like I said, when you’ve completed all of your interviews, I am open to clarifying anything you sincerely seek clarity on...”

c. “Please let me know when you’re done with all your other interviews regarding this matter, and I’ll be happy to arrange my schedule in order to meet with you for the clarity you are seeking.” ”In most cases, all I need is a 24 hour notice.”

There is no place in any of his correspondence where he says he will not meet. Any reasonable person would understand that Mr. Avery is requesting to be interviewed last, so that he could address complete information. He does not want to be followed by other interviewees, who might provide new information that he is not privy to and to which he would not be able to respond.

Saying that an interviewee does not get to dictate the terms of an investigation is a valid point. However, issuing a report without interviewing the person being investigated is irresponsible and validates claims of bias and unfair treatment. The Central Office should not have a posture of, “lording over,” any interviewee, and should operate in the spirit of cooperation with all parties, complying with

numerous School Board policies, concerning cooperation. Any defensive attitude, concerning who gets to set the terms of an investigation, is not a reasonable justification for completely leaving out Mr. Avery’s contribution to this, “investigation.”

2. The Report does not provide any supporting evidence of a complaint by a parent.

I would think, at a minimum, that a copy of a complaint would have been included in The Report. I am aware of the complaint concerning, “perceived,” “pay to play.” But, I find it hard to believe that any parent would have complained about Avery using the track, since they would not have even known the policy concerning its use. The concern over BHS track use originated at the Central Office. So, I guess Ms. Quirk is investigating your own complaint.

3. The Report reveals a lack of understanding of what, “pay to play,” means, and provides no evidence that it has occurred.

The Report states in Complaint #1, “Parents were paying Mr. Avery for coaching services (pay for play)...” “Pay for play,” in sports, involves paying someone to be allowed to participate in that sport. First, despite how some felt, (not, “Many,” as The Report claims), The Report provides no evidence that anyone has ever been prevented from participating in cross-country or track at BHS, has been prevented from entering their earned spot in a race, or has not made the Varsity team because they did not pay Guy Avery. In fact, the opposite is true. One of the complainants, Brad Vroon, who had been paying Mr. Avery for several years, was upset with Mr. Avery because he did not agree with how Avery placed boys in an indoor meet. Looking forward to the National Championship indoor meet, Brad wrote to Avery, January 15, 2017, the Sunday the meet ended:

Guy- it is my opinion that Jackson has earned a spot on the DMR. He is the fastest one on your squad and he is a part of the core top 4 on the team. Clearly, he can beat Elias, Matthew Walters, or anyone

else. Personally, I think it is hurtful to him to be asking other runners that are not of his caliber and younger. He is a competitor and will race at whatever position he is asked. I think it would be extremely detrimental to your group to ask someone who doesn't train with you or pay you to participate in the DMR, basically handing some kid an all American medal. Going forward, this is the core issue to me and Brenda. You need to decide if Jackson will join Taylor, Scott, and Brody in New York and Vanderbilt. (Appendix 1)

The fact is, Jackson is not as fast as Matthew Walters, for the 400m leg of the DMR, (Distance Medley Relay), so Mr. Avery chose Matthew Walters to run that leg, despite the fact that Walters does not pay or train with him. He chose him, instead of choosing Jackson Vroon, whose parents had been paying Avery. Please notice Vroon’s words, “I think it would be extremely detrimental to your group to ask someone who doesn’t train with you or pay you to participate in the DMR...” Obviously, Vroon thinks Mr. Avery should give preferential treatment to those who have been paying him. That is a proposal for, “pay for play,” which Avery flatly rejected. Odd that Vroon was the one who brought the initial complaint, concerning, “pay to play,” this year. He proposes, “pay to play,” gets rejected, then overnight, grows a conscience and files his complaint alleging, “pay to play,” concerning Avery’s involvement as a coach at BHS. Can we all agree that Vroon bringing that complaint lacks credibility?

Another complainant, (I assume), whom, I believe, lacks credibility, is Tina Caldwell. Her family also paid Guy Avery to train both their son and daughter, both of whom have track scholarships, now. She would have credibility if she objected to hiring a private coach, then, refused to do so. Then, she would have been able to determine if, indeed, “their child would not be on the Varsity team,” rather than just have a feeling about it.

So, labeling payment for Avery’s services, “(pay for play),” is absurd. Parents pay Mr. Avery because BHS and other schools in the county and across the state have either not provided coaches, or provided poor coaches, and athletes and parents have had to find private coaches to fill the void. They hire Avery because he is the best coach around. Parents do not pay for their kids to play, they pay for their kids to improve, in order to reach their goals. This is consistent with the School Board policy 5.611, Ethical Practices for Teachers, which states that the educator, 1. Shall not unreasonably restrain the student from independent action in the pursuit of learning, and, 2. Shall not unreasonably deny the student access to varying points of view. Both of these have been violated by BHS and WCS this semester, in their attempt to make it extremely impractical to train with Guy Avery.

On a side note, there has been more corruption, unfair treatment, manipulation, and preferential treatment toward certain athletes, in the last 2 1⁄2 months by the BHS track program, than in the last seven years, while Avery has been involved. I will address that in another document, later.

4. The Report does not adequately distinguish Mr. Avery’s role as a BHS volunteer coach versus his role as a private coach. As a result, The Report fails to grasp the context in which payments or reimbursements were made, it misapplies Tennessee Rules and Regulations, and it misapplies the meaning of the county’s Volunteer Release Form.

The Correct Context of Payments and Reimbursements

During the cross-country season, the athletes run for the school team. However, there are regional and national meets that the school team is not involved in, so the BHS athletes who train with Mr. Avery run as a Club Team in those meets. A Club Team is like a travel soccer club, which operates independently from the school and is not subject to the school’s jurisdiction. Therefore, as with travel soccer clubs, amounts paid by athletes to participate and reimbursements for travel expenses have nothing to do with Tennessee Rules and Regulations 0520-01-03-.03 governing school fees. So, there is no violation of this rule.

So, after the TSSAA State Championship ended the school season, the team competed regionally in North Carolina, as a Club Team, and later got 3rd in the nation at the national meet in Oregon. Those Club Team meets are the only meets where Mr. Avery’s travel expenses are reimbursed by the families whose athletes are running in those events. Mr. Avery does not require this; it was agreed to when families engaged Mr. Avery’s services. These events are outside the scope of his service as a volunteer coach to the school team, and are within the scope of his private coaching of these club athletes, just like indoor track season is.

So, when The Report has as a complaint that, “Parents were paying Mr. Avery for coaching services...and also required to pay for travel for Mr. Avery,” it misleads the reader to believe these occurred within context of Avery volunteering at BHS. That is incorrect. He receives compensation as a private coach and receives travel reimbursements as the coach of the Club Team, outside the scope of his service to BHS.

The Report, again, mistakenly views Avery’s compensation as a private coach in the context of being a volunteer school coach. It is obvious that amounts paid to Avery for his private coaching, outside the scope of the school, are not, “school fees,” any more than hiring a tutor, privately, would be considered, “school fees.” Neither is a violation of the Tennessee Rules and Regulations cited by The Report.

Volunteer Release Form

In addition, The WCS Volunteer Release Form is an agreement between Avery and WCS, stipulating that he is, “volunteering without promise, expectation, or receipt of compensation for my service.” What is his service? It is volunteering as an assistant coach. A reasonable person understands that a Volunteer Release Form between a party and a school system only governs matters having to do with their relationship. It is obvious that when Avery agrees to not receive compensation for his service, it means he will not receive compensation from WCS for his services at BHS. What he does not agree to, on this WCS form, is to not receive compensation from his private clients.

There was a futile attempt in our meeting to try to use the Volunteer Release Form to show that Mr. Avery agreed to not receive any compensation, and that the form gave Mr. Avery foreknowledge of WCS policies, that he agreed to, regarding not receiving compensation other than what the School Board allowed. That is ridiculous. If that were the case, then, Chris Duncan’s and other coaches’ employment forms would also include wording, that they would have agreed to, that made them aware that they were not to receive compensation, other than what the Board allowed. But, those forms do not contain that wording. (Appendix 2). So, on Avery’s Volunteer Release Form, the wording is not informing him of Board Policy, but simply defining what, “Volunteer,” means, and having him agree to the Board’s definition, and agree that he has no expectation of compensation from WCS.

5. The Report shows that Mr. Avery requested pay for services during the XC season.

For years, Mr. Avery was not employed by WCS as a volunteer coach for the cross-country and track teams. He was simply a personal/private coach to athletes, and received compensation from athletes who hired him, and was paid on a monthly, quarterly, or some other agreed-upon basis. So, WCS and TSSAA rules concerning compensation did not apply to his role, since his role was outside the scope of WCS’s and TSSAA’s responsibility and authority.

However, in the fall of 2015, Mr. Keidel and Ron Seigenthaler compelled Avery to sign on as a volunteer coach for BHS’s cross-country team. (Appendix 3). (Mr. Keidel told me, personally, that they, “Made,” Avery sign on with BHS – Please, note how Mr. Avery felt it was best not to). At that time, he became subject to TSSAA rules and WCS policies governing compensation. TSSAA allows a personal/private coach to receive compensation from the school they are volunteering at, while at the same time, even during the season, receive compensation from his personal/private coaching clients. WCS has a more restrictive policy, not allowing a volunteer coach to, “receive pay other than from Williamson County Schools for any athletic-related services provided to any student who is or may be participating in that coach’s sport...”

When Mr. Avery was hired, the Central Office did not make him aware of their policies concerning compensation. Again, signing a Volunteer Release form agreeing that he would not receive compensation is understood, by reasonable people, to mean he would not receive compensation from WCS for serving as a Volunteer Coach. The principal, Kevin Keidel, also did not make Avery aware of the policies. Mr. Keidel was unaware, himself, of the policies, and believed that it was fine for Mr. Avery to receive other compensation from his team athletes, out of season. (Appendix 4).

So, having a knowledge of TSSAA rules, only, Mr. Avery continued to receive payments for his personal/private coaching during the season, but refused to receive compensation from WCS, as a

matter of personal integrity. Mr. Keidel and Ron Seigenthaler, although they should have already known the WCS policies, were made aware of the policies on February 27, 2017. If the school’s Principal and Athletic Director are unaware of the compensation policies, it is farfetched to place the blame on a newly hired volunteer coach for violating the policy.

6. The Report exaggerates concerning Mr. Avery attempting to collect from one delinquent parent.

The Report states that Avery, “has pushed families to pay him if they are ‘behind’ on payments to him.” First, The Report cites one singular time when Mr. Avery was corresponding with a parent about being late in paying. That was Brenda Vroon, by the way. Can Ms. Quirk provide even one more example of Mr. Avery trying to collect from a delinquent client, in order to make The Report’s statement true, regarding, “families?” The Report can take a leap and call this light-hearted exchange a, “push,” but I think it is a stretch, and simply baloney. Do you think anyone actually believes that Avery was serious about accepting a nice car for payment? More likely, it was an attempt to keep an awkward collection process, light, with a familiar and valued client.

On a personal note, due to all the stress surrounding the track ordeal, and our son’s imposed lack of continuity with Avery, I was, uncharacteristically, late two months in paying him. I did not receive any correspondence from Mr. Avery, at all, concerning paying him. Like I said, “pushing,” families for payment is just baloney. The Report is grasping at straws, here.

It is simply irrelevant, too, because it has nothing to do with his involvement with the school. It is nothing more than a failed attempt to assail Mr. Avery’s character.

7. The Report discusses Mr. Avery’s use of the BHS track, citing a policy violation.

Dr. Looney explained to me, in our impromptu meeting, that the reason Gary Kinder was not banned from all WCS properties, like Mr. Avery was, even though he had violated this policy, (probably more often than Avery had), was that Gary Kinder had been given permission to use the track. So, if Mr. Avery had been given permission, as well, then shouldn’t he be treated like Kinder has been, not banned from WCS properties?

Correspondence in February of 2013 between Ron Seigenthaler and Mr. Avery leads me to conclude that there was an understanding that Avery would use the track after regular practice to coach those with whom he had a private coaching relationship. The same arrangement was discussed regarding Gary Kinder. So, it appears they both had permission to use the track. (Appendix 5). (Please, also note Mr. Avery’s desire to present clarity to the students and parents as to what his exact role would be, and his seeking guidelines from Seigenthaler to better serve the team).

In addition, The Report states that, “Mr. Avery held practice at BHS during the week and on weekends for the athletes he trains.” If so, are we to believe that Ron Seigenthaler, the Athletic Director and Head Track Coach was never there, observing the use of the track? If he observed Avery’s use and did not prevent it, the lack of action on his part constitutes permission to use the track. Also, in his February 27, 2017 email to Guy Avery, Kevin Keidel writes, “We have not been concerned about monitoring that rule since our track is open to the public...” (Appendix 4). Again, lack of action on his part constitutes permission.

Furthermore, The Report cites a portion of Policy 3.206, but leaves out important language in the policy. The policy states the Board’s recognition that these facilities are public property and encourages their use for activities which will enhance the cultural, educational and recreational opportunities in the community. While #4 of the policy states that, “No building shall be available for personal, private or for- profit use,” we all understand that people use the track for personal use/conditioning. In addition, #1. a.v. provides that, “For-profit/non-profit businesses as designated by Williamson County Schools which enhance the education or recreation of the students or staff when invited by the school to perform an activity.” Since the students have access to the facilities, when not interfering with school activities, and since Keidel admitted lack of monitoring and lack of action concerning supposed violations, in addition to Seigenthaler’s awareness, and lack of action, these constitute an invitation to use the track, in my opinion. In addition, Avery is enhancing the education of these runners. So, there is no violation, in my opinion.

Also, Qualls and Farmer reviewed and discussed, extensively, complaints from the Franklin High School coach, in March of 2015, concerning Avery using the track. Dr. Looney copied Farmer, Golden, Keidel, and Qualls in a draft to that coach, informing him of a “No Findings Report,” by Qualls. (Appendix 6).

(Please also note that Qualls’ report refutes Ms. Quirk’s Report, “Complaint #3: Mr. Avery acts as if he is the BHS XC coach and he dictates who runs,” by referring to Ron Seigenthaler and Kevin Keidel, saying, “Both also said adamantly that Guy Avery does not dictate who travels, participates, or coaches the Brentwood High programs.” Of course, if Avery does not dictate who participates, then that comment also refutes The Report’s claim of, “pay to play,” as well. All this relates to when Avery had not yet signed on with BHS as a Volunteer Coach.)

Finally, once Avery was informed of the policy this year, he immediately stopped using the track. So, any implication that Avery knew of the policy and purposely violated it is completely unfounded. Again, a strong case could be made that there is no violation, due to Seigenthaler’s and Keidel’s lack of action, constituting permission. But, even if you do not agree with that, if Seigenthaler and Keidel, who are responsible for knowing policies and enforcing them, had instructed Avery to not use the track, then Avery, like he had in the past with other issues, would have fully complied. So, does Ms. Quirk have any evidence showing that Seigenthaler or Keidel ever told him he could not use the track?

8. The Report lists Complaint #3, saying, “Avery acts as if he is the BHS XC coach and he dictates who runs.

This ridiculous complaint is followed by, “Coach Billy Anderson is listed as the Boys XC country coach for Brentwood High.” “However, most of the parents stated that Guy Avery is the coach.” Newsflash! That is no different than the present situation, Seigenthaler being the Head Track Coach and delegating the responsibility of coaching the mid-distance runners to Duncan. Duncan designs the workouts and the runners view Duncan as their coach. In cross-country, Billy Anderson is the Head Coach, but Avery was delegated the responsibility of coaching the Varsity runners, because he has significantly more experience and expertise than Anderson.

The only difference between Guy Avery’s role as the Assistant Coach and Chris Duncan’s role as the Assistant Coach is that Avery was actually fulfilling the role he was hired for, stated on his Volunteer Release form, “Assistant Coach Boys and Girls Cross Country.” The Report states, “Coach Chris Duncan was hired in 2017 as an assistant track coach to work with the middle and long distance runners.”

Apparently, Ms. Quirk did not look at his Supplemental Staff Approval Form, which says his Position Assignment is, “Girls’ Track Asst.”

Conflict of Interest?

The Report seems to have a problem with Mr. Avery being listed as a volunteer coach for BHS, and also being a private coach, concluding, “The two should not be mixed due to a conflict of interest.” Yet, The Report does not provide one shred of evidence where there was an actual conflict. One might imagine a conflict, if preferential treatment was given to someone, unduly, simply because they were clients of Avery’s private coaching. But, we have already dealt with that false, “pay to play,” allegation. In addition, IF a conflict had ever existed, there existed an easy remedy. An athlete could have gone to the Head Coach, Billy Anderson, and complained about unfair treatment, and he could have handled it. Does Ms. Quirk have any evidence that an athlete complained about unfair treatment, due to this conflict of interest? She certainly did not provide this kind of evidence.

So, all that is necessary to deal with a perceived conflict of interest is clear communication to the students and their parents of the volunteer coach’s separate role as a personal/private coach, and instruction on the process to follow if they ever feel that he is giving preferential treatment to an athlete. Clear communication and having a Head Coach to appeal to completely remove the perceived conflict of interest.

TSSAA Rules

Then, The Report states, “TSSAA rules state that private coaches cannot coach at meets.” The reason The Report does not cite a reference to that rule is because TSSAA rules do not say that!

Article IV, Section 7., of the TSSAA Bylaws, state, “The official rules books as published by the National Federation of State High School Associations shall be used in football, basketball, baseball, girls’ softball, wrestling, girls soccer, soccer, track and field, cross country, and girls volleyball.” In the NFHS rules book, Rule 4. Competitors and Competition, Section 6 Disqualification and Conduct, Article 5 says, “It is an unfair act when a competitor receives any assistance.” “Assistance includes: ...e. Coaching a competitor from a restricted area.” Section 7 Event Start/Conclusion, Article 1 says, “A running event or heat begins when the competitors report to the starting line, and is considered to be official and concluded when places have been determined and the results have been recorded at the finish line.” The rules are basically the same for track and cross-country.

These rules are applicable to all coaches, not just private coaches. In fact, there is no mention of personal/private coaches in the rules book. So, there is no rule prohibiting a private coach from having contact with an athlete, and even giving the athlete instructions, before or after the event. In my correspondence on April 25, 2017, with Richard McWhirter, the representative at TSSAA for Track and Cross-Country, he responded to my email, “Correct,” when I summarized part of our conversation, writing, “You agreed that an athlete may receive instruction from his private coach any time before the athlete checks in for his event, and any time after the conclusion of his event, plus processing. And, TSSAA will not disqualify an athlete for meeting and receiving instruction from his private coach during the time before checking in to his event and after he competes in his event.” (Appendix 7).

So, when Ms. Quirk cites the meeting notes, dated February 23, 2015, from the supposed meeting between Guy Avery and Ron Seigenthaler, in her next paragraph, basically saying that Avery can have no

more contact with the athletes than a fan can have, during a meet, it is not an indictment of Avery, it is a clear indictment of Ron Seigenthaler, demonstrating that he does not have a clue about what TSSAA rules state.

This is why this, “investigation,” is a farce; Ms. Quirk does not know the rules, Keidel does not know the rules, Seigenthaler does not know the rules, yet, The Report claims Mr. Avery violated rules, unfairly incriminating him in the minds of the readers of the Report, when he did not, in fact, violate the rules. How irresponsible!

Ms. Quirk’s Conclusion

The Report says, “There is no clear definition on who the BHS XC coach is for parents.” Incorrect. It was clear that Billy Anderson was the XC Head Coach, and Guy Avery was the Assistant XC Coach, who had been given the responsibility of coaching the top athletes, which were all the athletes on the varsity team, plus a few up-and-coming athletes. Anderson coached the JV athletes, particularly those with a lower commitment level.

The Report says, “Mr. Avery is viewed as the BHS cross country coach when in reality he is a private coach.” Inaccurate. Mr. Avery was viewed as the Varsity cross-country coach, (having been delegated that responsibility), and having signed-on as a Volunteer Coach. He was also viewed as a private coach. Contrary to belief, the two are not mutually exclusive.

The Report says, “Mr. Avery has convinced our students and families that in order to be successful they must train with him which comes at a price of around $400 per child a month.” Is Ms. Quirk under the impression that our students and families are so unsophisticated, and Guy Avery is such a great salesman, that we need to be convinced to train with Mr. Avery? It sounds like Ms. Quirk believes we are all under Mr. Avery’s spell. Mr. Avery’s record speaks for itself. I wonder if there was any investigating of Mr. Avery’s results before that comment was conceived.

Not all students are going to reach the highest ranks in their sport and they and their parents have their own goals and definitions of success. But, when a team, which had not won a state championship in cross-country in years, wins five state championships in six years under Avery’s coaching, and places third in the nation twice, during that time, most intelligent people would not need convincing that Avery is an excellent coach. When athletes he trained finished 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th in the State Indoor Championship, in the mile, this past winter, I really did not need Mr. Avery to come convince me that it would benefit my son to train with him.

Yes, it runs about $400/month. Why don’t we all tally up how much our families spend, going out to eat each month. What we pay Mr. Avery for his excellent coaching is less than the amount we would have to pay to send our kids to a private school, where they actually financially support their track programs.

Finally, The Report says, “There is a lack of institutional control regarding athletics at Brentwood High School and the school has lost trust from various families.” No doubt, the school has lost trust from families. But, it is not because there is not enough control. It is because they arrogantly attempt to control our kids, with their limited mindsets, lack of creativity, and “old-school,” beliefs concerning how athletics should be administered. They leave parents out of the loop, concerning a program the parents are most responsible for having built, because of their thinking outside the box, and hiring someone like Mr. Avery. They have lost trust because, at least one coach has lied to our kids, has been insubordinate

to his Principal, lied to parents, and does not honor his word. Parents have lost trust because BHS has a Principal who lacks discernment and an ability to properly analyze a situation, and believes everything the coach tells him, and as a result, allows multiple agreements to be broken. It is called, the tail wagging the dog.

Conclusion

Since Mr. Avery resigned before the season, there is no continuing issue regarding compensation or a perceived conflict of interest. Since he has been made aware of the policy, regarding the use of WCS property, he has been compliant and has agreed to remain so.

Mr. Avery was in violation of two WCS policies, but violated them, unknowingly. There has been no evidence presented in this report that proves Avery knowingly violated rules. There has been plenty of evidence presented here and evidence in Public Records involving Guy Avery which show that those employed by WCS have been ignorant of the policies and allowed Avery to violate them because of their ignorance.

Regarding Ms. Quirk’s Recommendation

There is no BHS XC club, as Ms. Quirk suggests; there is a Brentwood XC club. The school has no more jurisdiction over this private club than it does the Tennessee Soccer Club. It was formed independently from the school, and has every right to use its name, and seeks no involvement with the Booster Club.

Regarding Ms. Quirk’s recommendation for Mr. Avery to not be allowed on WCS property:

Mr. Avery’s character has been brought into question as a result of Ms. Quirk not adequately knowing the rules, Mr. Keidel not knowing the rules, Ron Seigenthaler not knowing the rules and others at the Central Office not knowing the rules. All of these should be more familiar with the School Board policies and TSSAA rules than Mr. Avery. If, unknowingly, violating these policies is so damaging to WCS that it warrants Mr. Avery being banned from WCS properties, then maybe those more responsible, those who should have been more familiar with the rules, the paid caretakers of the rules, like Kevin Keidel and, especially, the Athletic Director, Ron Seigenthaler, should be banned, as well. If not them, then certainly not Mr. Avery.

Please be reminded that Mr. Keidel and Ron Seigenthaler allowed Mr. Avery to be on the BHS campus for seven years, and had no incident, during that time, where they believed he should be removed. Mr. Avery has not been a threat to anyone. After observing Mr. Avery’s excellent coaching and his involvement with the athletes for several years, they signed him up as a volunteer coach. Certainly, that is an endorsement and a testimony of how they feel about Avery’s coaching and his character. So, banning him from WCS property is an insult. It is an undeserved slap in the face. It is disrespectful and ungrateful. The ban should be lifted immediately, with a sincere apology.

The School Board policies should be reviewed and changed. The policies, along with the mindset of several at the Central Office staff, are old-school. TSSAA recognizes the need for private coaching in track, where there are 19 separate events. It is clear to most that WCS has not supported the cross- country and track programs, adequately, and has created the void that private coaches have filled. That will not change. Since WCS is unwilling and unable to provide what is needed for these talented athletes

to succeed, they should, at least, adopt a more flexible policy that encourages cooperation and collaboration with private coaches, like TSSAA has. In fact, they should just mirror TSSAA policies. They should not continue to violate existing School Board policies by unreasonably restraining these athletes from, “independent action in pursuit of learning,” and unreasonably denying the athletes’, “access to varying points of view.”

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

Appendix 3

Appendix 4

Appendix 5

Appendix 6

Appendix 7

Addendum to my Quirk Report Response

1. Regarding Parents’ Beliefs of “Pay to Play” Accusation

In Ms. Quirk’s report, she writes, “Many felt that if they did not pay Mr. Avery that their child would not be on the Varsity team.”

In Ms. Quirk’s supporting documents, it appears that she interviewed nine parents. When asked if they felt that they had to pay Mr. Avery to be part of the Varsity team, there were eight responses. Six parents indicated that they did NOT feel that they had to pay Mr. Avery for their child to be on the Varsity team. It appears that only two felt that they did have to pay Mr. Avery for their child to be part of the Varsity team. I believe they were the only two complainants in this matter, both of which paid Mr. Avery for several years, and whose kids have college scholarships in track and cross country.

So, does Ms. Quirk believe that two people are, “Many?” A more accurate statement would be, “Most of the parents felt that they did not have to pay Mr. Avery for their child to be on the Varsity team.” Or, Ms. Quirk would have been accurate writing, “Three times as many parents believed that they did not have to pay Mr. Avery to be part of the Varsity team as those who believed they did have to pay him for their child to part of the Varsity team?”

Can we all agree that claiming that, “Many,” felt that way is simply not true? This is a demonstration of the bias with which this report was written.

2. Regarding Facilities Usage

5/19/2014 - Gary Gosch emails Dr. Looney, complaining that, “He, (Ron Seigenthaler), lets Guy Avery and Gary Kinder run for profit training groups at BHS track which is a violation of school policy.”

6/5/2014 – Dr. Looney emails Jason Golden regarding this matter and Jason Golden emails Kevin Keidel, “This is a written complaint for you to investigate Coach Seigenthaler on whether he violated Board Policy, per the WCEA MOU, since you are his superior.”

This is a complaint regarding the use of the track by for-profit entities, which both Keidel and Seigenthaler were made aware of, Keidel having been instructed to investigate Coach Seigenthaler. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that both Keidel and Seigenthaler would review the policy to see what Seigenthaler was possibly violating. From this point on, it was Keidel’s and Seigenthaler’s duty to either give permission to use the facilities or to make the policy known and prevent the use of the track by Avery or Kinder for their private coaching.

10/23/2014 – Ron Seigenthaler writes to John Calton:

Guy Avery is not a coach on staff. There are 3 or 4 of our families that that [sic] have hired him to help train their son or daughter. he [sic] may be on our campus once a week at the most. Guy Avery also works with families from other schools.

So, Seigenthaler, who should have known what the Board Policy regarding facilities usage was, due to the complaint four months prior, acknowledges that Avery is, “...on our campus once a week at most.” He knows Avery is using the track.

If Seigenthaler knows what the policy is and knows Avery is using the track, it would seem logical to conclude that either he is simply looking the other way and letting Avery use the track, which equates to implied permission, or he has given Avery some type of overt permission. Either way, Seigenthaler is responsible, not Avery.

I discussed this email with Mr. Avery, and he informed me that Seigenthaler knew that Avery was coaching many more BHS athletes, closer to 10, and that he knew Avery was using the track one to two times per week, not, “once a week at most.” Seigenthaler was trying diminish this issue.

In Avery’s email correspondence to Seigenthaler the prior year, 2/4/2013, Avery writes, “I hope you will continue to support my working with the athletes who have specifically contracted with me by only being at BHS track a maximum of 2 times a week (plus at meets).” This is further evidence that Seigenthaler was aware that Avery was using the track, and also indicates Seigenthaler understated the amount of use to Calton.

Finally, if we know a complaint about facilities usage was made to Dr. Loony, and investigated by Kevin Keidel, in June of 2014, I believe there are two logical possible outcomes, in 2014. Seigenthaler either informed Keidel that Avery had been given permission, and that information was relayed to Jason Golden and Dr. Looney. Or, possibly, Seigenthaler was not truthful to Keidel about Avery and Kinder using the track, so Keidel concluded that no violation was occurring and reported that back to Golden and Looney. Either way, it seems clear that Avery continued to use the track because he thought he had permission to do so.

Some great points here. You admitted guy avery was a school volunteer coach, charged a fee to parents, and controlled the roster like certain races like the DMR. Very unethical and uncompliant. I think you have cleared things up a lot. Thank you!