a. Recommendation. Modify Constitution 3.2.4.3, Certification for Eligibility; Bylaw 14.01.1 Institutional Responsibility and Bylaw 14.10.1 Institutional Responsibility for Eligibility Certification to make it clear that institutions are required to certify the eligibility of their student-athletes prior to allowing them to compete. The modifications would read as follows:

"Constitution 3.2.4.3 – Certification of Eligibility/Declaration of Ineligibility. The active member is responsible for certifying the eligibility of student-athletes under the terms of the constitution, bylaws or other legislation of the Association before permitting a student-athlete to represent the institution in intercollegiate competition. Procedures for eligibility certification shall be approved by the chief executive officer, who may designate an individual on the institution’s staff to administer proper certification of eligibility. The institution shall be obligated immediately to apply all applicable rules and withhold ineligible student-athletes from all intercollegiate competition (see Bylaw 14.11). See Bylaw 14.12 for procedures regarding restoration of eligibility.

"Bylaw 14.01.1 – Institutional Responsibility. An institution shall not permit a student-athlete to represent it in intercollegiate athletics competition unless the student-athlete meets all applicable eligibility requirements and the institution has certified the student-athlete’s eligibility.

"Bylaw 14.10.1 – Institutional Responsibility for Eligibility Certification. The chief executive officer is responsible for approving the procedures for certifying the eligibility of an institution’s student-athletes under NCAA legislation. The chief executive officer may designate an individual on the institution’s staff to administer proper certification of eligibility. Certification of eligibility must occur prior to allowing a student-athlete to represent the institution in intercollegiate competition. See Bylaw 14.01.1."

b. Rationale. Recently, the secondary infractions staff has received several cases that indicate there is a misunderstanding among the membership (in all three divisions) regarding the requirement that institutions certify the eligibility of their student-athletes prior to allowing the student-athletes to compete. It is believed that some of the confusion about this requirement stems from the fact that the NCAA Manual does not expressly state this requirement. What often happens is that an institution will self-report a violation that it permitted a student-athlete to compete without that student-athlete’s name appearing on the squad list (Bylaw 14.10.2) when, in fact, the institution never certified the eligibility of the student-athlete prior to competition.
Bylaw 14.10.2 squad list violations are included on the Secondary Violation Penalty Schedule and are considered de minimis, so the institution does not realize that a more significant violation occurred and that the involved student-athlete is ineligible and needs to go through the reinstatement process. The reason institutions cite Bylaw 14.10.2 in such situations is that there is no other bylaw that specifically states that it is a violation for the institution to allow a student-athlete to compete prior to certifying his or her eligibility. The other common problem is that some institutions are not clear that a violation occurred if it did not certify a student-athlete’s eligibility prior to competition, but the institution subsequently determined that the student-athlete met all eligibility requirements. This is a violation that affects the student-athlete’s eligibility. These issues should be resolved with the suggested editorial revisions.

c. Budget Impact. None.

a. Recommendation. Amend Bylaw 32.10.5 to eliminate confusing language and to specify that, when infractions cases are appealed, the committee needs to respond to the issues raised on appeal. The following amendments are proposed:

"32.10.5 Committee on Infractions' Response to an Appeal. The Committee on Infractions shall submit a response to the appropriate appeals committee per Bylaw 19.3 on each case that has been appealed. This response shall include:

"(c) (a) A statement of the origin of the case;

"(a)(b) The violations of the NCAA Constitution and bylaws, as determined by the committee; (Revised: 10/12/94)

"(e) (c) Disciplinary or corrective actions taken by the institution or conference or any other agency involved in the particular incident;

"(b) (d) A statement of the committee’s proposed penalties;

"(d) Related factors appropriate for consideration in judgment of the case ;

"(f) If appropriate, any additional information that was presented to the committee during its consideration of the case that the Committee on Infractions deems to be relevant to the consideration of the appeal; and (Adopted:10/12/94)

"(e) The issues raised in the appeal.

"(f) The committee’s response to the issues raised in the appeal.

"(g) An attachment to the response will be a transcript of any hearing conducted by the Committee on Infractions."

b. Rationale. The reordering of the information contained in the committee’s response to appeals and the elimination of confusing language such as "related factors appropriate for consideration" and "additional information that was presented to the committee" makes the amended bylaw much clearer and easier to understand. Nowhere does the current Bylaw 32.10.5 state directly that the COI response should indeed respond to the specific issues raised on appeal. This revision addresses that concern.

c. Budget Impact. None.

a. Recommendation. Amend Bylaws 19.1.1 and 19.1.2.2 to specify that a chair for the committee on infractions be chosen and to allow the committee to internally designate a vice-chair who will act on behalf of the chair in his/her absence. The following amendments are proposed:

"19.1.1 Composition of Committee. The Committee on Infractions shall be composed of five members, including one member from the Management Council and one member from the general public. One of the members shall serve as chair and one member will be chosen by the other members to be vice-chair.

"19.1.2.2 Authority of Committee Chair. In the interim between meetings of the committee, the chair shall be empowered to act on behalf of the committee, subject to committee approval at its next meeting. If at any time, at a meeting or between meetings, the chair is unavailable to act as such, the member of the committee longest in service who is available vice-chair is empowered to exercise the functions of the chair."

b. Rationale. The legislation, as it currently reads, does not specify that a chair be designated nor are there provisions for a vice-chair. Bylaw 19.1.2.2 does, however, state that the next senior committee member (in terms of service) has the authority to act in the chair’s stead should the chair be unavailable. The committee believed it was important that a specific provision for a chair be articulated and that the committee members have the authority to select a vice-chair based upon factors other than simple seniority, as the legislation currently states.

c. Budget Impact. None.

a. Recommendation. Amend Bylaw 31.2.2.4 to specify that the Committee on Infractions may take action to vacate performances in cases where there has been ineligible participation in a championship.

"31.2.2.4 Participation While Ineligible. When a student-athlete competing as an individual or representing the institution in a team championship is declared ineligible subsequent to the competition, or a penalty has been imposed or action taken as set forth in Bylaw 19.6.2.2-(e) or 19.8 of the NCAA enforcement program, the following shall occur Committee on Infractions may require the following:

b. Rationale. The legislation, as it currently reads, does not specify the authority which would take the above action. Under current legislation, it is presumed, however, that any such action would fall to the Championships Committee as indicated in Bylaw 31.2.2.5. Discussions in Division I reflect that the Championships Committees (Championships/Competition Cabinet in Division I) are not the appropriate bodies to be assessing or approving penalties. This amendment places the responsibility for assessing penalties for ineligible participation in championship events squarely in the hands of the Committee on Infractions, where it rightfully belongs. [Note: This proposal is being submitted to all three Divisional Management Councils.]

c. Budget Impact. None.