RELATED TO
MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
SUPPLEMENT NO. 10

NCAA DIVISION III STUDENT-ATHLETE REINSTATEMENT COMMITTEE

Summary of Recommendations

ACTION ITEMS ? MANAGEMENT COUNCIL ONLY

1. ISSUE:	NCAA Bylaw 14.11.4.2 (Penalty for Ineligible Participation in NCAA Championship).
Committee Recommendation:
Delete Bylaw 14.11.4.2 from the Manual. Given the fact that the bylaw is not followed in practice due to the committee?s authority in assessing appropriate reinstatement conditions, this bylaw should be deleted to avoid any potential confusion.
Management Council Action:
Agreed to adopt noncontroversial legislation.
2. ISSUE:	Policies and Procedures.
Committee Recommendation:
Support proposed amendments to the committee?s policies and procedures.
Management Council Action:
Agreed to adopt noncontroversial legislation.
3. ISSUE:	Strategic Plan.
Committee Recommendation:
Support development of and resources to fund a poster educating student-athletes about common Division III violations and reinstatement scenarios. The poster would be made available to the membership during 2004-05 academic year.
Management Council Action:
Approved in principle, forwarding to the Budget Committee for budget impact and to the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee for comment.

ITEMS OF INFORMATION

1. ISSUE:	Directive Document.
Committee Action:
The committee created a document incorporating all directives issued by the committee that will be made available to the membership on the student-athlete reinstatement Web site.
Management Council Action:
Accepted the information.
2. ISSUE:	Transfer Violations.
Committee Action:
The committee discussed the withholding conditions applied to student-athletes involved in impermissible competition during a transfer year in residence. There are three different types of these violations processed in reinstatement: (1) Situations where there is no way the student-athlete could have been eligible. In these situations, the committee determined that the reinstatement condition should continue to withhold the student-athlete on a one-for-one basis. (2) Situations where the student-athlete is ineligible due to a paperwork issue at the certifying institution. In these situations, relief has been provided from the one-for-one condition since all necessary documentation was received prior to the competition. (3) Situations where the institution allowed a student-athlete to compete while waiting on information from an outside source (e.g., the institution subsequently is granted a waiver allowing the student-athlete to become eligible, is waiting on a transcript or receives approval from his/her previous institution subsequent to the competition). The committee discussed that if the institution allows an ineligible student-athlete to participate while waiting on information needed to certify the student-athlete?s eligibility from an outside entity, the staff should withhold the student-athlete on a one-for-one basis; and if relief is appropriate in a specific set of facts, the committee is the body that should provide such relief.

Management Council Action:
Accepted the information.
3. ISSUE:	Fifty Percent Threshold in Withholding Conditions.
Committee Action:
Currently, the reinstatement staff and committee do not withhold student-athletes from competition on a one-for-one basis in situations where a student-athlete competes in less then 50 percent of the institution?s season?s contests. Student-athletes have not been withheld in these situations since their limited competition results in them using one of their four seasons of competition. The committee determined that this relief should continue to be provided in situations where a meaningful participation opportunity was not available. Therefore, relief should continue to be applied regard-less of when a student-athlete?s ineligible competition occurs during the season. This is a continuation of current staff application of withholding conditions as to the 50 percent threshold.
Management Council Action:
Accepted the information.
4. ISSUE:	Outside Competition Violations.
Committee Action:
The committee discussed recent issues regarding outside competition violations. The committee discussed the possibility of proposing legislation that would enable a student-athlete to participate in an on-campus event that is facilitated by a recognized student organization, where benefits are provided to an established charity, and that is open to all students and occurs during the academic year but not during the playing and practice season. As a result of the committee discussion, the staff will do a comprehensive analysis of all outside competition violations for the committee?s review at its June meeting.
Management Council Action:
Accepted the information.

5. ISSUE:	Repayment Plan Information.
Committee Action:
The committee noted that the staff will no longer require institutions to submit proof of individual repayments that are pursuant to an established repayment plan. The committee noted that the institution must keep documentation of all repayments, which can be requested by the staff. Further, at the completion of the repayment plan, documentation of each payment must be forwarded to the staff.
Management Council Action:
Accepted the information.
6. ISSUE:	Involvement of Administrative Review Subcommittee (ARS) and Season-of-Competition Waivers in the Extension Analysis.
Committee Action:
The committee discussed the criteria of the newly adopted season-of-competition waiver (Proposal 48) and determined that the first two criteria of the waiver should be considered to be denied participation opportunities under the extension analysis (withdrawing from school as a result of an incapacitating injury or illness to an immediate family member, or withdrawing from school as a result of extreme financial difficulty). The committee noted that both of these criteria are consistent with Bylaw 30.6.1.1 and considered beyond the control of the student-athlete and the institution. The committee also determined that for the purpose of an extension analysis, the second two criteria of the season-of-competition waiver should not be considered denied participation opportunities (coach?s misunderstanding resulting in the student-athlete competing in exhibition or scrimmages or discontinuation of a sports program). The committee noted that for the purpose of an extension, these two occurrences are within the control of the institution. The committee noted that the distinction between ARS/season-of-competition waivers and the extension analysis is that ARS/season-of-competition waivers are determining whether a student can regain one of his/her four seasons of eligibility, and an extension is determining whether he/she should be granted an additional year of his/her 10-semester period of eligibility. To be granted an extension, an institution must demonstrate that the student-athlete did not have four participation opportunities (meaning the student-athlete was denied at least two participation opportunities). Thus, a hardship waiver, an ARS waiver or a season-of-competition waiver does not automatically result in the criteria for an extension being met. Finally, the committee determined that in the case of an extension, if one of the student-athlete?s participation opportunities was ultimately denied because the season meets one of the first two criteria of the season-of-competition waiver but the student-athlete does not need the additional season, the committee, under its extraordinary clause, can consider this a denied participation opportunity without an institution filing for a season-of-competition waiver (since a granted season-of-competition waiver requires that the student-athlete be withheld from competition on a one-for-one basis).
Management Council Action:
Accepted the information.
7. ISSUE:	Extension Analysis Applied to Situations Satisfying Both Bylaws 30.6.1.1 and 30.6.1.2.
Committee Action:
The committee discussed situations where a student-athlete?s participation opportunity meets both the criteria established in Bylaws 30.6.1.1 and 30.6.1.2. The current analysis is that at the staff level, this should be considered a denied participation opportunity. Based on cases processed, the committee noted that there are exceptions to the general rule: (1) In instances where a circumstance such as a perceived permanent injury occurs prior to a student-athlete?s decision to attend an institution that does not sponsor his/her sport, the student-athlete?s injury should cause Bylaw 30.6.1.1 to apply to the situation, resulting in a denied participation opportunity. (2) In instances where a student-athlete sustains an injury that is not career ending, if the student-athlete transfers prior to obtaining the injury, this should be considered a participation opportunity per Bylaw 30.6.1.2. If the student-athlete suffers the injury prior to transferring, the motivation of attendance at the second institution should be considered since the student-athlete may transfer for rehabilitation purposes.
Management Council Action:
Accepted the information.
8. ISSUE:	Student-Athlete Welfare Concerns.
Committee Action:
The committee expressed an interest in knowing how situations are remedied in reinstatement cases where the institution seems to be at fault. The committee requested that the reinstatement staff invite the enforcement staff to present at the 2003 December meetings regarding the secondary enforcement process, providing an overview of Division III cases.

Management Council Action:
Accepted the information.
9. ISSUE:	Conference Visit Program.
Committee Action:
The committee reaffirmed its commitment to offer Division III conferences the opportunity to include NCAA reinstatement staff members as presenters at conference meetings beginning in 2004. The reinstatement staff will provide written correspondence regarding this program to member conferences in July 2003. The committee recognized that, given travel and staff limitations, the staff may not be able to honor all conference requests during the initial year of the conference visit program.
Management Council Action:
Accepted the information.