SUPPLEMENT NO. 14

DIII Mgmt Council 04/06

 

 

REPORT OF THE

NCAA DIVISION III COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS

 

 

ACTION ITEMS. 

 

a.         Bylaw 32.2.1.1 - Staff Initiation of Investigation.

 

(1)        Recommendation.  Sponsor legislation to modify Bylaw 32.2.1.1 to clarify when the enforcement staff may initiate an investigation, as follows:

 

“32.2.1.1 Staff Initiation of Investigation.  The enforcement staff may initiate an investigation on its own motion when it receives information that an institution or individual is, or has been or may have been in violation of NCAA legislation.”

 

Effective Date:  Immediate.

 

(2)        Rationale.  This amendment clarifies the current practice of the enforcement staff to initiate an investigation when it obtains information that an institution or individual may have been in violation of NCAA legislation.

 

(3)        Estimated Budget Impact:  None.

 

 

b.       Modification of Bylaw 32.2.2.1.2 _- Identification of Major/Secondary Violation.

 

(1)        Recommendation.  Sponsor legislation to amend Bylaw 32.2.2.1.2 to clarify that the enforcement staff may submit information to the Committee on Infractions for an initial determination of whether the case should be processed as a major or secondary case, as follows:

 

“32.2.2.1.2 Identification of Major/Secondary Violation.  The enforcement staff shall identify information developed by it or self-reported by the member institution as alleged major or secondary violations (as defined in Bylaw 19.02.2).  The staff shall have the discretion to submit information to the Committee on Infractions, or a designated member of the Committee on Infractions, for an initial determination of how that information should be processed.

 

Effective Date:  Immediate.

 

(2)        Rationale.  Although the enforcement staff usually makes the decision as to whether an infractions case should be processed as a major or secondary case, it retains the option to consult with the Committee on Infractions for guidance.  This amendment memorializes that option.


(3)        Estimated Budget Impact:  None.

 

c.                   Modification of Bylaw 32.3.7 - Disclosure of Purpose of Interview.

 

(1)        Recommendation.  Sponsor legislation to modify Bylaw 32.3.7 to specify that the enforcement staff must provide notice to certain individuals at the beginning of an interview that refusing to furnish information or providing false or misleading information may result in an unethical-conduct charge, as follows:

 

“32.3.7  Notice Requirements

 

32.3.7.1 Disclosure of Purpose of Interview.  When an enforcement representative requests information that could be detrimental to the interests of the student-athlete or institutional employee being interviewed, that individual shall be advised that the purpose of the interview is to determine whether the individual has knowledge of, or has been involved directly or indirectly in, any violation of NCAA legislation. 

 

32.3.7.2 Responsibility to Cooperate. Prior to At the beginning of an interview arranged or initiated by the enforcement staff, a current or former student-athlete or staff member institutional employee shall be advised that if the individual has violated the NCAA’s ethical conduct legislation such an allegation may be forthcoming based upon the individual’s refusing to furnish information or providing false or misleading information to the NCAA, conference or institution may result in an allegation that the individual has violated NCAA ethical-conduct legislation (see NCAA Bylaw 10.1).:

 

(a)      Involvement in violations;

 

(b)      Refusal to furnish information relevant to investigation of a possible violation when requested by the NCAA or by the institution; or

 

(c)      Provision of false or misleading information to the NCAA, conference or institution concerning the individual’s knowledge of or involvement in a violation.

 

Effective Date:  Immediate.

 

(2)        Rationale.  This bylaw was amended improperly in April of 2003 and was used against the Association in a lawsuit in early 2004.  This amendment corrects the problem by using the language that should have been incorporated in 2003.


(3)        Estimated Budget Impact:  None.

 

d.                  Modification of Bylaw 32.3.9.1 (Tape Recording(s)), 32.3.9.1.1 (Access to Tape Recording(s)), 32.3.9.1.4 (Statement of Confidentiality), 32.3.9.2 (Non-Recorded Interviews), 32.3.10 (Enforcement Staff’s Responsibility to Maintain a Case File and Access to Information to be Used in Presentation of Case). 

 

(1)        Recommendation.  Editorially revise various bylaws (32.3.9.1; 32.3.9.1.1; 32.3.9.1.4; 32.3.9.2; and 32.3.10) to change the wording from “tape recordings” to “recordings” because the enforcement staff now uses digital recording devices rather than tape-based recorders, as follows:

 

“32.3.9.1 Tape Recordings. It is preferable that an interview conducted by the enforcement staff be recorded through the use of a mechanical device.  However, if a witness objects to being tape recorded or the enforcement staff believes the use of a recording device would have an inhibiting effect upon the witness, a written statement of the substance of the interview shall be prepared per Bylaw 32.3.9.2.”

 

“32.3.9.1.1 Access to Tape Recordings.  Both the enforcement staff and the individual being interviewed may record the interview or the individual may receive a copy of the recording, subject to the confidentiality provisions of Bylaws 32.3.9.2.1 and 32.3.9.1.4.  Copies of recorded interview summaries and any report prepared by the enforcement staff are confidential and shall not be provided to individuals (and their institutions) who may be involved in reporting information during the processing of an infractions case except as set forth in Bylaw 32.6.4.

 

“32.3.9.1.4 Statement of Confidentiality.  Individuals and institutional representatives shall be required to agree not to release tape recordings or interview transcripts to a third party. A statement of confidentiality shall be signed or recorded prior to an interview. Failure to enter into such an agreement would preclude the individual or institutional representative from recording or transcribing the interview.”

 

“32.3.9.2 Non-Recorded Interviews.  When an interview is not tape recorded or in circumstances when the recording device malfunctions, the enforcement staff shall prepare a written summary of the information and attempt to obtain a signed affirmation of its accuracy from the interviewee.  The interviewee shall be permitted to make additions or corrections to the memorandum before affirming its accuracy.  However, testimony as to the substance of an unrecorded interview for which a signed affirmation was not obtained may nevertheless be considered by an Infractions Committee to the extent the committee determines the testimony to be reliable.”


“32.3.10 Enforcement Staff's Responsibility to Maintain a Case File and Access to Information to be used in Presentation of Case.  Copies of tape recorded interviews, all interview summaries and/or interview transcripts and other evidentiary information pertinent to an infractions case, shall be retained on file at the national office.  Information to be used in the presentation of a case by the enforcement staff may be reviewed in the national office or at the site of a custodial agent in accordance with the provisions of Bylaw 32.6.4.”

 

“32.8.7.7 Recording of Proceedings.  The proceedings of institutional hearings shall be recorded by a court reporter (unless otherwise agreed) and shall be tape-recorded by the committee. No additional verbatim recording of these proceedings will be permitted by the committee. The Committee on Infractions shall maintain custody of the tape recordings and any transcriptions.  In the event of an appeal, a transcript of the hearing proceedings shall be reproduced and submitted to the Infractions Appeals Committee and made available for review at the NCAA national office or at custodial sites reasonably near the institution and involved individuals.  [Note:  Involved individuals only will receive portions of the hearing transcripts in which they were in attendance at the hearing.]”

 

Effective Date:  Immediate.

 

(2)        Rationale.  Due to the fact that the enforcement staff is now using digital recorders, any reference to "tape" recordings has become obsolete.

 

(3)        Estimated Budget Impact.  None.

 

e.                  Modification of Bylaw 32.6.2 - Notification by Enforcement Staff.

 

(1)        Recommendation.  Sponsor legislation to modify Bylaws 32.6.2 to require that individuals charged with a major violation submit a response to the Committee on Infractions and to specify that failure to submit a response may be viewed by the Committee on Infractions as an admission that the alleged violations occurred, as follows:

 

“32.6.2  Notification by Enforcement Staff.  The enforcement staff shall notify athletics department staff members and student-athletes at member institutions (including the institution under inquiry) whose employment or eligibility could be affected of the allegations in a notice of allegations in which they are named.  A copy of such notification shall be forwarded to the chief executive officer of the institution that employs the staff member or in which the student is enrolled. All


such individuals may shall submit responses to the Committee on Infractions, and the institution under inquiry shall provide a copy of pertinent portions of its response to each individual who will attend the committee’s hearing in the case. Involved individuals who have submitted a response must also share their response with the involved institutions or other involved individuals as necessary. Failure to submit a response may be viewed by the committee as an admission that the alleged violations occurred.  The enforcement staff shall notify those athletics department staff members named in the notice of allegations who may be subject to the show-cause requirements from the committee if violations are found in which they are named.”

 

Effective Date:  Immediate.

 

(2)        Rationale.  The Committee on Infractions encourages involved individuals to submit a response to alleged violations in an effort to create a full record and to provide ample opportunity to the individuals to present all relevant information about the case.  However, when an individual fails to submit any information, the committee believes it should be permitted to view the failure as an admission that the alleged violation occurred.  The ultimate decision would lie with the committee, and the burden to prove the allegation would remain on the enforcement staff.

 

(3)               Estimated Budget Impact:  None.

 

f.                    Modification of Bylaw 32.6.5 - Deadline for Institutional Response.

 

(1)        Recommendation.  Sponsor legislation to modify Bylaw 32.6.5 to specify that all parties in an infractions case must share their responses with each other, as follows:

 

“32.6.5  Deadline for Institutional Responses. The institution’s and any involved individual’s response to the notice of allegations shall be on file with members of the committee, and the enforcement department and each other, within 90 days of the institution’s and any involved individual’s receipt of the notice, unless the committee grants an extension.  An institution or involved individual may not submit additional documentary evidence (in addition to its initial response) at that meeting point without prior authorization from the committee (see Bylaw 32.6.8 for additional instructions regarding information submitted to the Committee on Infractions).”

 

Effective Date:  Immediate.


(2)        Rationale.  All parties should be able to review relevant information from each other’s responses to the Committee on Infractions prior to a hearing to ensure full disclosure to an institution or individual being charged with an alleged violation.

 

(3)        Estimated Budget Impact.  None.

 

 

INFORMATIONAL ITEM.

 

·                    Statistics Related to Secondary Cases for 2005.  Approximately 2,776 secondary
infractions cases for all divisions were processed and/or reviewed by the enforcement staff during the 2005 calendar year.  Of the 2,776 cases, 1,328 were (48%) were processed by institutions and/or conferences as Level II secondary violations.  Division III had
approximately 245 secondary infractions cases processed.  Of those, 99 (40%) were processed by institutions and/or conferences as Level II secondary violations.  (Attachment)

 

 

 

Committee Chairs:  Gerald Young, Carleton College (Division III)

Staff Liaisons:  Shep Cooper, Chris Strobel