Its executive director has been paid by the state.

Its officers — school principals and athletic directors — as well as coaches are employees of the state.

Its players are public school students and its facilities are state Department of Education-run and state-funded.

Yet, curiously, the largest public high school league in the state, the Oahu Interscholastic Association, which lists 31 member schools on its website, is not claimed by or even said to be under the umbrella of the DOE.

That dichotomy has come under the microscope in a high-profile Patsy Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act (also known as Title IX) lawsuit they are currently tethered in involving two Campbell High female athletes.

The suit, filed in U. S. District Court in December by the ACLU for the parents of the athletes, alleges the DOE and OIA have discriminated against them on the basis of their sex by denying them “equal athletic opportunities, treatment and benefits.”

The filing identified the OIA as “… an unincorporated athletic association composed of all of the DOE’s secondary schools on the island of Oahu” and said, “The OIA is an instrumentality of, and is controlled by, the DOE.”

The filing also asserts, “The DOE is pervasively entwined in the management and control of the OIA. The OIA’s executive director is a DOE employee and all five regular members of the OIA’s Executive Council are principals of DOE high schools and, therefore, also DOE employees. The OIA also has controlling authority over many aspects of the DOE’s interscholastic athletic programs, including competitive facilities, scheduling of seasons, games and tournaments; travel, publicity and promotion (and) budget.”

An attorney representing the OIA who has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint was not immediately available for comment.

In its nearly 80-year existence, the OIA, which began with five schools in 1940, has at times operated under the DOE and at others claimed separation. At one point OIA executive directors were appointed by the DOE superintendent. More recently the OIA office has been on a public school campus and the DOE has denied OIA-related open records act requests, citing a lack of association, referring them to the OIA.

What relationship the OIA might hold in the future is under review. “My understanding is that it (the OIA) has been part of the DOE then was separated out of the DOE, that’s all part of the discussions I’m having right now and looking into the history and whether it makes sense to be together or separate again,” DOE superintendent Christine Kishimoto said in a question and answer session with the Star-Advertiser’s editorial board and reporters this week.

“We’re having conversations about the pros and cons of where it should sit and what would drive the decision and what has happened historically,” Kishimoto said.

She said the discussions were not precipitated by the pending lawsuit.

Other questions to the DOE about its relationship with the OIA and history were referred to the OIA.

“Those conversations are being had right now in terms of value of whether (the OIA) should remain separate or whether it should come back within (the) DOE,” Kishimoto said. “We’re working through that and I’m not sure what the timeline is. But I’d like to make a decision as soon as possible.”

Indeed. Clarity — and common sense — on the OIA’s status would be welcome.

Reach Ferd Lewis at flewis@staradvertiser.com or 529-4820.