My grade point average in college was 3.9 out of a possible 4.0 point. I was twice the institution's Rhodes Scholar nominee. I later attended the University of Oklahoma College of Law where I received my juris doctorate degree in 1975.

Mr. MCLAIN. Mr. Clark, you began your tenure as a NCAA enforcement representative in July of 1975. What prompted you initially to seek employment with the NCAA?

Mr. CLARK. Mr. McLain, I have had a longstanding love affair with the law and with sports. I believed, at the time, that the opportunity to combine the two was something that I wished to pursue and the NCAA afforded me that opportunity.

Mr. McLAIN. Did you function as an attorney, as an enforcement representative at the NCAA?

Mr. CLARK. No. I had no authority to represent the NCAA or to serve as legal counsel. My services were limited to those of an enforcement representative dealing with rules and interpretations and investigations.

Mr. McLAIN. This morning you have expressed some very severe concerns about the operations of the NCAA. Did you have occasion during your tenure of employment there to express to Mr. Byers or attempt to express to Mr. Byers some similar concerns which you have expressed here this morning, and if so, on what occasions? Mr. CLARK. Yes, Mr. McLain.

My feelings and my concerns are well known within and without the NCAA. My colleagues know very well that I raised issues on a continuing basis of procedure and practice.

There was one occasion which I found it absolutely necessary to make my views known to Mr. Byers personally. That came at the time of the resignation of Warren Brown as head of the enforcement department. I believe that was April of 1977.

I would like to set the record straight about that series of events. It was a great surprise to all of us when Warren resigned. Subsequent to that, knowing that this was an opportunity to make some real changes in the function and direction of the NCAA enforcement staff, the first step I took was to telephone a man that I had a great deal of confidence in and a great deal of confidence in his sensitivity and his leadership qualities. That was Mr. Tom Jernstedt, who was head of championship events at the NCAA and who also served as an assistant executive director. I called Tom at home, his wife took the call, and he came to the telephone. I spoke with Tom about the fact that Warren had resigned and I thought it was an opportunity to make some real change in the NCAA enforcement program. I urged him to seek the post.

Tom's position was that his duties were very pleasant duties dealing with planning of events and dealing with teams and the press in a very pleasant atmosphere and that he had no wish to undertake the enforcement role for the NCAA.

I told Tom at that time that my concern was that the candidates I knew who would be considered for that post, which were Bill Hunt and David Berst, were not strong enough to make the kinds of changes that were necessitated.

I told Tom that if he could not be convinced that his leadership was necessary in the enforcement division that I myself intended to apply for the post.

Thereafter, I made an attempt to see Mr. Byers personally on a Friday afternoon, and I could not see him. His secretary said that he was otherwise engaged.

So I said that I very much wanted to see Mr. Byers about a matter of concern in the enforcement department, but she indicated that I should give him a call the following Monday.

I said that I was going to be on the road doing my investigative duties on Monday and she told me to call from wherever I was.

So on Monday morning I was in Dallas on the job. I called Mr. Byers from the Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport. He came to the phone and I explained to Mr. Byers that I had some suggestions, recommendations and concerns to discuss with him in the context of the position of assistant executive director of the NCAA enforcement program.

Mr. Byers indicated that he felt there were other persons who were better qualified and had longer tenure at the NCAA than I and that he expected to consider only those persons.

I told him that that was fine with me but I would still like to have an opportunity to have some input about the direction of the department.

He said that when I got back off the trip, he would get in touch with me.

I was never contacted. I drew the conclusion at that point that any input I might have was not well received.

Mr. LUKEN. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Clark, in answer to the question you are discussing recommendations and concerns which you had. This would be about operating procedures at the NCAA enforcement operations, is that right?

Mr. CLARK. My concerns were actually those concerns that I had, of course, been trained to raise in a legal sense, namely, matters of due process, adequate representation and disciplinary procedures against young men and against institutions. These were day-to-day operations of the office that is, those I did not feel that were of sufficient character to bring to Mr. Byers' attention.

Mr. LUKEN. What were those recommendations and concerns that you wanted to express? Did you put them in writing?

Mr. CLARK. No, sir. I never put them into writing. I made an attempt to go to the head of the NCAA to express my opinions. Mr. LUKEN. Did you ever express them to Mr. Hunt?

Mr. CLARK. I expressed those feelings to Mr. Hunt on numerous occasions and these were personal meetings I had with him, and in informal conversations. Mr. Hunt is well aware of my concerns.

Mr. LUKEN. At the time of Mr. Brown's resignation, was there not a request sent around to the staff specifically asking for any recommendations for any operating procedures and changes of that kind?

Mr. CLARK. At the time Mr. Hunt became assistant executive director, Mr. Hunt requested, as I recall, that we draft a case status report for him.

Mr. LUKEN. In addition to that, was there a general request for any changes that you might recommend?

Mr. CLARK. I believe Mr. Hunt requested any suggestions that we might have about day-to-day office procedures. In other words, how to more efficiently operate under the loose procedures that we had at that time.

I certainly included in my general report, which I timely filed at that time, a status of all my cases I was working on and a brief statement that I was not concerned or that I had very few concerns about day-to-day office procedures, such as the time we come to work and the time we go home, or whether we could smoke at our desks. These were not of concern to me.

My concerns were much deeper. They ran to due process, proper representation, discovery and these sorts of issues which I would not have thought were an appropriate forum at that time to express.

Mr. LUKEN. So when you told them at that time that you had no suggestions to make regarding alterations in operating procedures, you were only talking about the day-to-day routine and you did not see that as an opportunity to express your dissatisfaction about due process and other operations of your employer that you disagreed with?

Mr. CLARK. That is correct.

Mr. LUKEN. Thank you.

Mr. MCLAIN. What

Mr. LENT. I would like counsel to yield.

Mr. Moss. Certainly.

Mr. LENT. I would like to follow up on the question of the memorandum that you submitted.

Mr. Moss. The Chair will ask the gentleman to identify the memorandum. The Chair has not seen it.

. Mr. LENT. Mr. Chairman, I understand there is a memorandum in the possession of the clerk that is dated June 27, 1977. Perhaps the memorandum could be distributed to the witness and the members of the committee because I think it is quite important.

Mr. Moss. Without objection, the memorandum will be inserted into the record at this point.

[The memorandum referred to follows:]

allegations lodged, but not by whom. Indeed, there is no indication of source of accusations whatever. Nor is there ever until the day of the accused institution's hearing before the infractions committee. Institutional officials are supposed to be contacted by enforcement staff members to arrange interviews with on-campus athletes, of course, which would itself afford some clues as to sources of allegations. But too often NCAA investigators consciously resort to the tactic of approaching student athletes during summer and other holiday periods, in a living room or on a summer job, rather than at the school where they would have the benefit of counseling by the institution. The idea obviously, is to confront the young man with allegations about himself or his institution when he is truly alone.

Typically, of course, these student athletes are very young, naive, impressionable, and easily intimidated in such a setting. Moreover, instead of being warned that the information they impart may be used against them or their institutions, they are routinely cajoled, or even bribed, into sacrificing their athletic careers.

"Bribed" is a strong word, Mr. Chairman, but I mean it. One of my NCAA superiors, Bill Hunt, once suggested that I finesse an interview with a young athlete by reiterating Hunt's prior offer to the young man of a professional tryout with the Kansas City Kings professional basketball club as bait.

Allegations of a similar kind of flesh peddling by offering legal representation in the pros to a young man with professional aspirations surfaced in another case only recently. That such young men have intense, almost desperate, aspirations to go to the pros is, of course, a foregone conclusion. The point is, in such a setting a confused student athlete is apt to provide unreliable information to a stranger he perceives to be wielding tremendous power over his life and whom, therefore, he wants very much to please.

The investigator, for his part, is under sustained if subtle pressure to bring in violations, and to report the information he obtains untempered by any sort of judgment. I myself was told in effect, "You report the information; we'll evaluate it." The pressure stems, I am sure, from a desire to justify the huge expenditure of time and money which goes into an NCAA investigation. The untoward result, however, is that once an investigation is launched, the institution involved is doomed regardless of the state of the evidence, unless for some reason the case is inexplicably closed regardless of the state of the evidence. I have experienced both situations, Mr. Chairman, and will give specific examples in a moment.

There is another curious stricture on interviews with athletes and institutional representatives. Under NCAA rules they cannot be recorded verbatim. Lest it be said that the purpose of this rule is to prevent the "witness" from clamming up, the real purpose is to prevent the athlete or his institution from having a record with which to defend themselves. Consequently, cases tend to be built on NCAA field investigators' recollections of conversations, which themselves are commonly based on what is already double hearsay.

There are many other infirmities in the information-gathering stage of the process, Mr. Chairman, not the least of these is a general lack of training coupled with broad discretionary powers vested in

field investigators who accordingly are not operating under anything approaching the "approved and established investigative and procedural guidelines" I mentioned before.

But the worst abuses occur in the all-important hearing process before the committee on infractions, which represents nothing so much as the visitation of an enormous deception on member institutions by the NCAA enforcement machinery.

So far as those member institutions and their lawyers know, the committee on infractions hears details of an institution's particular case for the first time in the formal hearing in the presence of the institution's representatives. Actually, the committee and enforcement staff personnel enjoy an intimate relationship. By the time of a hearing the committee has very likely been informally briefed by staffers of the nature of the case. This is always so, of course, when the committee issues an OI.

The committee may have been asked to grant immunity to a prospective informant in the case, and told in the process what evidence is likely to be forthcoming. Finally, just before the hearing actually begins, the committee is prepped by enforcement staff about the nature of the evidence and what to expect from the other side-all without the knowledge of the other side.

During several such instances I observed a superior of mine to make derogatory remarks to the committee about institutional representatives about to appear. David Berst, for example, was heard to say prior to the University of Nevada-Las Vegas-initial hearing that Coach Tarkanian of UNLV could be identified as "the one that looks like a rug salesman."

The hearing itself is taped for the ostensible purpose of providing a record of the proceedings. The taping apparatus is controlled by the staff, which manages not to include informal remarks which are nevertheless heard by the committee. But strangely, only one transcription is made, which is maintained by the NCAA staff primarily for its own use in preparing documents for later appeals. The institution involved is allowed only to listen to the one tape, at the NCAA headquarters, in the presence of NCAA staff. Verbatim notes are prohibited. One has to wonder why.

The real deception, however, comes after the evidence is received, and it is time for the committee on infractions to retired to deliberate the fate of the institution or individual who stands so much to lose. It is not, as schools are led to believe, a matter of the five distinguished gentlemen on the committee dismissing the staff and the institution, going behind closed doors, and thereafter deliberating in a dispassionate atmosphere.

On the contrary, after the school is dismissed, NCAA staff and committee members commonly adjourn to a hotel room, open a richly deserved store of liquor, and begin to discuss the case in earnest. It is at this point that the staff makes its hard pitch to the committee members in a convivial and totally ex parte session. I have observed such sessions continue through some very pleasant dinners, courtesy naturally, of the association.

After committee members have thus exhausted their curiosity about the case through questions to staff members, they turn to the staff for