We will proceed here in a logical fashion in order that this hearing record be fully developed so that it fairly reflects the actualties. Mr. MOFFETT. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. Moss. Mr. Moffett?

Mr. MOFFETT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to get a clarification of that last statement. Having served under the chair for nearly 4 years now, I have great respect for the chair's fairness.

It is my understanding that it has always been our practice to allow documents to be introduced by unanimous consent.

Mr. Moss. The chair cannot take away the right of any member to request a document be introduced by unanimous consent, nor would he. Mr. MOFFETT. I am sure, thank you.

Mr. Moss. But the chair takes steps to see that the hearing is fully briefed to every member of this committee who wants to use that briefing in order to know what we are going to bring up.

The chair expects the same courtesy from the members in dealing with the chair. He had not had that in this case.

Mr. Wonder did call and leave word with counsel yesterday on the document which was talked about earlier. There was no discussion of any other documents, however. The chair was not alerted to other documents.

Mr. LENT. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard?

Mr. Moss. Of course.

Mr. LENT. First of all, I would like to ask unanimous consent that this document be placed in the record at this point because it apparently is germane.

The Chair understands that, other than reading newspaper articles and the article in the Sports Illustrated about this hearing, that the members were not exactly sure of the scope of the witnesses' testimony. So I had no way of knowing when I got here this morning that this would become germane. It now appears that it is most germane. Mr. Moss. The gentleman, of course, is not correct. The chair arranged, as he has for every hearing of this committee, for the fullest briefing of members who want to avail themselves of the briefing. Mr. LENT. This document was not provided at the briefing. Mr. Moss. That document has not been provided to the chair, yet. Mr. LENT. It just came into my possession this morning.

Mr. Moss. My point, Mr. Lent, is this. Mr. Byers is attempting to take over the direction of this hearing by feeding documents, which he has not supplied to the committee, to either selected members of the committee or to the minority counsel.

The Chair does not intend to have that kind of diversionary pattern employed to upset the work of the committee.

You can certainly put it in the record, but we will not take any time discussing it at this point.

Mr. LENT. I thank the gentleman, and I would ask that it be put into the record in accordance

Mr. Moss. We will place it into the record at this point. [The document referred to follows:]

MAY 23, 1977, STAFF MEETING

On May 23, 1977, approximately one week after Warren Brown's resignation, the writer held a staff meeting involving each enforcement representative then employed by the NCAA. During the meeting, the writer reviewed staff procedures and the goals of the NCAA enforcement program.

In addition, the writer requested the following information from each enforcement representative (including Brent Clark). Each investigator was requested to submit a written report to the writer describing each of the cases to which the investigator was then assigned. The description was to include a general statement of the alleged violations reported in each case, the prospects for obtaining additional information in the case, and the investigator's opinion of the case. In this re.gard, each investigator was requested to rank his cases in the order of their importance (in his opinion), and indicate whether he believed the case should be continued.

Finally, each investigator also was requested to make any suggestions he wished related to possible changes in the NCAA's current enforcement procedures and the manner in which cases were processed. Each investigator was asked to submit his report by June 27, 1977.

Attached is a copy of Brent Clark's report written in response to this request.

WBH: cmc
Attachment

WILLIAM B. HUNT
February 22, 1978

Mr. Moss. Mr. McLain?

Mr. McLAIN. Mr. Clark, briefly at any time during the course of your employment at the NCAA, did any of your superiors ever express any displeasure with any aspect of your work product there? Mr. CLARK. Never.

Mr. McLAIN. During the course of your employment, did you enjoy increases

Mr. Moss. The Chair will interrupt. The Chair has now seen the document that was placed in the record and it is not at all what it purports to be.

It is a document headed "May 23, 1977, staff meeting," and then it is not a contemporaneous recollection but a belated recollection by Mr. William B. Hunt of the May 23, 1977, staff meeting. On February 22, 1978, he places his memo of recollection before us and reduces it to writing.

For whatever worth is it, that is the document that has gotten into the record.

The Chair states that that is a good use of staff that appears to be going on and the Chair does not think that this is at all, with all due respect to the gentleman from New York and he is a very distinguished member of this committee, the chair would not object to placing it in the record, but he does not see the relevance.

Mr. MARKS. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Moss. Mr. Marks?

Mr. MARKS. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the chair would entertain a 5-minute recess at this time so that members of the committee might get together?

Mr. Moss. Certainly.

The committee will stand for 5 minutes.

[Brief recess.]

Mr. Moss. The committee will be in order.

Mr. McLAIN. Mr. Clark, I would like to pursue this line of questioning, if I may. I believe my last question was to this effect. Did you enjoy periodic raises in salary during your tenure at the NCAA?

Mr. CLARK. That is correct. During each of the years I was there, I received substantial pay increases and my letters of notification noted that it was based on meritorious service.

Mr. McLAIN. Your term of employment ended on December 30, 1977. What were the circumstances surrounding your leaving the NCAA and the reasons for your departure?

Mr. CLARK. I attempted to give the NCAA the benefit of my assistance, my function of duty, and what input I had to make.

It became evident, after 22 years, that I was having very little impact other than the function of the duties as they were structured and it led to a good deal of frustration and concern which I have expressed through my statement this morning and through the questions this morning.

At the end of the calendar year, it seemed very appropriate at that time for me to resign. I did it. It was an amiable parting of the ways at that point.

Mr. McLAIN. You resigned from the NCAA, is that correct?

26-961 O-79-3

Mr. CLARK. Yes. I resigned to Mr. Bill Hunt, the assistant executive director for enforcement.

Mr. McLAIN. While you were employed as an enforcement representative for the NCAA, did any representative of this subcommittee contact you?

Mr. CLARK. Not at all.

Mr. MCLAIN. Did you have occasion during the course of your employment at the NCAA to contact any representative of this subcommittee?

Mr. CLARK. None whatsoever.

Mr. McLAIN. I have no further questions at this time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. Moss. Mr. Santini?

Mr. SANTINI. I will state by way of preliminary remarks that I would like to submit my written statement.

Mr. Moss. Without objection, your statement will be inserted in the record at this point.

[Congressman Santini's prepared statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SANTINI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF NEVADA

When I was advised of the procedural irregularities used by the NCAA during its examination of recruiting techniques of various universities, I was shocked. The lack of due process provided to accused universities and coaches is contrary to everything I had attempted to do as a practicing attorney and former judge. It is true that I became interested in the NCAA because of the probation imposed on the two Nevada universities. Since that time I have learned of abuses that were conducted during the investigations of other universities which had the misfortune to run afoul of the imperial palace in Shawnee Mission. Many fellow Members of Congress, coaches, university officials and student athletes have come forward to support the efforts of Chairman Moss and this subcommittee. They have related stories that fly in the the face of basic and important fundamentals of fair play.

One of the most significant discoveries to me is the complexity and ambiguity of the rules and official interpretations by which college athletics are governed. As former NCAA investigator, Brent Clark has observed, given six months and the all-encompassing rules and interpretations, he could find any NCAA member guilty of infractions. It may not be because a violation was intented by the University. It is because of the ambiguity, and all official interpretations of the ruling, which make the IRS code read like the Ten Commandments.

There is a need for a body to prevent violation of amateur rules by college athletes. I simply want to see a system developed which will assure that those universities which violate the rules are fairly and consistently punished. Those schools not committing violation should be cleared. Unfortunately, a fair resolution of guilt or innocence is difficult under the existing system.

We should never forget that the NCAA is a voluntary association in name only. Those schools which want to participate in competitive sports can't play in a different league. The NCAA is the only game in town.

It is my hope that these hearings will serve to shed some public light on the dark corners of selective investigations and fair play violations. In so doing, I am confident that the members of the Association will make necessary changes of the investigative and enforcement techniques. The stakes are highwe're talking about not only how intercollegiate athletics are conducted but, more importantly, the careers of coaches and students and the reputation of their institutions.

Mr. SANTINI. I certainly became interested in the topic matter because of the fact that two schools in my congressional district were the subject of both investigation, prosecution and sentencing by the

NCAA. But the dimensions of the problem go far outside, I would suggest, the State of Nevada.

I believe the testimony of Mr. Clark and the testimony of subsequent witnesses will demonstrate that there is very serious need for some general reform within the operating procedures of the NCAA. I hope that we can, in the course of the development of the testimony and evidence in this hearing, Mr. Chairman, continue to focus not on the personality of Mr. Byers, not on the personality of Mr. Clark, but rather on the substance of the allegations contained in the statement of Mr. Clark. If those allegations are credible and I believe them to be credible, based on corroborative testimony that I have heard from almost the inception of my conversations and involvement on this subject, then there is a very serious problem and it should be recognized, addressed, and remedied.

I hope that we can shed some light on that problem and I hope it will produce the desired remedy.

Mr. Clark, I would like to for a moment concentrate with you on the difference between what the pieces of paper say with regard to the operating procedures of the NCAA in its investigative and hearing practices and what in truth and in fact occurred.

As I understood your testimony this morning, initially a university -probably the first time a university becomes aware that it is subject to an investigation by the NCAA, it receives its preliminary inquiry letter. Is that correct?

Mr. CLARK. That is the first information the university has of an official nature. Yes.

Mr. SANTINI. What would have determined, Mr. Clark, that a particular university is being subject to an investigation?

Mr. CLARK. The way the system is supposed to work is that the NCAA is supposed to receive reports of violations of a substantial nature which in turn lead to the notification to the university that they are under preliminary inquiry.

That in fact is not the way it works at all. I think my statement indicates that there are instances where cases are started irrespective of any reports of violations and, in fact, that is noted in some of the procedures in a formal way. It seems rather innocent, but in point of fact, it allows institutions to be subject to the enforcement machinery without any reported violation.

Mr. SANTINI. And, the basis of reported violations must relate in some fashion to the 241, I guess it is, pages of rules and official interpretation upon which the NCAA conducts its enforcement policies. Is that right?

Mr. CLARK. I have in my hand the NCAA Manual which is the bible of the organization. It is 241 pages long. The white pages contain rules and regulations. The blue pages are interpretations of the white pages.

It is an extremely complex and difficult set of rulings to follow. What it leads to are statements being made such as I have made many times, and I understand that other field investigators have said this as well, and that is "Give me 6 weeks and I can put any school in the country on probation."