C. Bylaw 1-7-(j) (transportation off-campus). Relates to institution's tradition of transporting prospective student-athletes in the sport of basketball to the home of representatives. Substantiated.

d.

Bylaw 1-2-(1) (three contact rule]. Two allegations involving excessive contacts of two prospective student-athletes by the same assistant basketball coach.

c.

has

Bylaw 1-4-(c) (slush fund). The writer is certain that had an outside fund to support the basketball program since around 1956. The evidence is scant, but the writer is intent upon pursuing the matter, further.

Overview:

There are approximately 25 substantiated allegations here to date. One shortcoming has been the lack of reportage from former and currently enrolled student-athletes. If there is a slush fund, it should be reflected in benefits provided student-athletes. These matters should be pursued through the summer, pointing to a final disposition of the material by September 1, 1977.

2. University D, Case No. G92.

a.

Bylaw 1-1-(a) [inducements]. Approximately 5 allegations related to one prospective student-athlete ranging from provision of cash and clothing to a job and apartment for cousin of the prospective student athlete. Approximately 7 additional allegations related to offers and provision of cash, clothing and transportation. these allegations are unsubstantiated at this point.

All of

b. Bylaw 1-2 [contacts]. A single hearsay violation of the three contact rule.

c. Bylaw 1-7-(e) (visits to six institutions). A single hearsay violation of the six visit rule.

d. Bylaw 1-4-(c) [slush fund]. Two hearsay sources state cash raised to induce prospective student-athlete to attend the institution.

C. Bylaw 4-1-(,i)-(2) (cligibility under 2.000 rule). "wo hearsay sources state two student-athletes, ineligible under 2.000 rule, received athletic aid. Further, two bearsey sources allege grade chan tes in both football and basketball.

Overview: The writer has spent virtually no time in the field on this cise. ¡lowever, a review of the material in the case file reflects that the recruitment of current. #tudent-athlete

pervades

the record.

Little else exists in the file.

The writer suggests that recruitment be investigated thoroughly. If the complaints appear to be of substance, the investigation should be expanded. lf recruitment appears to have been proper, then the case should be closed for the time being.

The writer has no suggestions at this time to make regarding alterations in operating procedures, except to say that additional streamlining may be necessary to avoid delays which result in stale cases. Progress on this front has been excellent thus far.

BC:15

BRENT CLARK

June 27, 1977

Mr. Moss. Mr. Lent, you may proceed.

Mr. LENT. Mr. Clark, the whole thrust of your testimony is that you, during your period of employment with the NCAA, were very much concerned about the question of due process, proper representation, and you even testified to an allegation of bribery.

Mr. CLARK. Yes.

Mr. LENT. Are you telling us that in May or June of this past year you were given what amounts to a golden opportunity by your superiors to make known all of your suggestions for corrections in the procedures of the NCAA?

Mr. CLARK. This is not what I am saying at all. This opportunity was directed to us and I, as a member of the staff, to allow Bill Hunt to know where we stood with regard to our cases. That was the purpose of this.

Mr. LENT. Excuse me. Was not each and every investigator requested by Mr. Hunt to make any suggestions he wished related to possible changes in the NCAA's enforcement procedures and the manner in which the cases were handled? Weren't you asked to do that by Mr. Hunt?

Mr. CLARK. I would point out that the NCAA's enforcement

staff

Mr. LENT. Were you asked to do that by Mr. Hunt?

Mr. CLARK. I was asked to make a status report of my cases.

Mr. LENT. Referring to the last paragraph of this memorandum, signed by you, and which you have in your possession and which is dated June 27. I will read it to you:

The writer has no suggestions at this time to make regarding alterations and operating procedures, except to say that additional streamlining may be necessary to avoid delays which result in stale cases. Progress on this front has been excellent thus far.

Are those your words?

Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir. Those are my words.

Mr. LENT. With all of this injustice burning within your soul and with your great love for the law that you testified to, and being presented with this golden opportunity by your superior to outline any suggestions for change that you might have had, you summed up in this memorandum by saying that you had no suggestions at this time?

Mr. CLARK. This was a housekeeping memorandum and I summed up my feelings about housekeeping details in that fashion.

Mr. LENT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Moss. The Chair has some curiosity. Was this in response to a memorandum circulated to the staff by Mr. Hunt?

Mr. CLARK. I cannot recall, Mr. Chairman, whether it was preceded by a memorandum.

Mr. Moss. I don't know how we judge what the question put to the staff was without some indication as to the nature of the request. That is not plain on the face of this.

I do not find myself disturbed at all by this effort of Mr. Byers to go through the back door and hand stuff that he did not supply to the committee to members of the committee and to the minority staff.

The Chair doesn't find it at all unusual either. He's also been on committees where they have attempted to try counsel and that doesn't impress the Chair either.

The Chair finds he is not at all concerned over the memorandum. Perhaps Mr. Byers can give us the cover memorandum that indicates what was requested of the staff members.

Mr. Luken?

Mr. LUKEN. Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal of discussion about this case in the press. If the press is to be believed, there have been leaks from the subcommittee staff. Parts of Mr. Clark's testimony which he has given here have already been in the press. So there has been ample opportunity for all members to get all kinds of information on this case.

So, I see no problem with that.

But I do see a problem with Mr. Clark telling us here today that he has all of these concerns and that he never expressed these concerns, whether in response to this memo or in another way, in writing, to his employers in 212 years.

Mr. Moss. I would say to the gentleman this. I have many concerns about the House of Representatives that I have expressed to Speakers time and time again over the years, and I have not necessarily reduced it to writing. I dare say that the gentleman from Ohio has similar concerns that he has not reduced to writing. I daresay that there are many other members of the committee that have similar concerns that they have not always reduced to writing.

Again, the Chair is not the slightest bit impressed by this diversionary effort.

Mr. LUKEN. My effort was not diversionary.

Mr. Moss. It was not your effort. It was called to my attention about 11 p.m. last night. I was advised of it that it would be raised and I expected it to come from another source entirely.

Mr. LUKEN. But it came from this source.

Mr. Moss. It did not come from that source, Mr. Luken, with all due respect. It came because it was initiated by the NCAA. Don't tell me otherwise. I am not naive. I have been around here a long time. I have been chairing investigative committees for 23-plus of my 25-plus years of service on this Hill. I know what I know and I can tell what things are when they occur.

Again, I am not impressed.

Mr. McLain, you may continue.

Mr. MCLAIN. Mr. Clark, for the last few minutes we have been talking about operating procedures. Is there not a document that you were provided with when you began your tenure at the NCAA that described operating procedures.

Mr. CLARK. That is correct.

Mr. McLAIN. What is the title of that document?

Mr. CLARK. I believe it is a blue-covered document called "Operating Procedures of the NCAA."

Mr. McLAIN. Mr. Clark, briefly and generally, can you describe what that document concerns itself with?

Mr. CLARK. It is quite specific about the conduct expected of NCAA members in that hours are very strictly enforced and it is known, of

course, by myself and other members of the staff that at one time Mr. Byers instructed two assistant executive directors, who had offices on the parking lot side of the building, to take the names of staff members who were tardy and to report those to him.

This is reflective of the very strict code of conduct contained in that document and as well, of course, there was no cigarette smoking in the building, no coffee breaks and no food at the desks.

Mr. MCLAIN. Does it deal with the dress code?

Mr. CLARK. Yes.

Mr. McLAIN. Does it deal with the vacation policy.

Mr. CLARK. Yes, it does.

Mr. McLAIN. Does it deal with overtime pay?

Mr. CLARK. Yes, it does.

Mr. McLAIN. Mr. Clark, if you had that document before you today and were asked if you had any changes to make in the operating procedures, would your answer to that be something to the effect that, "I have no suggestions at this time to make regarding alterations in operating procedures"?

Mr. CLARK. I believe there are a lot of changes I would make, if I were given the opportunity to express them.

Mr. MCLAIN. In the operating procedures?

Mr. CLARK. Well, no, those particular aspects are not of a major concern to me. As a nonsmoker, and as a nondrinker, those kinds of strictures did not influence my day-to-day functioning. They were of little or no concern to me.

Mr. McLAIN. At any time

Mr. LENT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to interrupt.

Mr. Moss. You certainly may.

Mr. LENT. Minority counsel has handed me another document which pertains to the call by the director of the enforcement division, William B. Hunt, for this memorandum.

Inasmuch as the chairman mentioned earlier that he would have that in evidence as well as the memorandum, and inasmuch as it has now been placed in my hands, I would ask the clerk if she has a May 23, 1977, staff meeting memorandum signed by William B. Hunt. Mr. Moss. We do not have such a document.

Mr. SANTINI. If the gentleman will yield, and if we are being introduced to a pattern of surprise documents

Mr. Moss. The chair will make a ruling on that now. The chair will say that any document that is going to be used in this hearing is going to be placed in the hands of the chair and the clerk before the hearings commence or it will not be considered until a subsequent time. The chair is not going to have the direction taken over by anyone other than the chair himself.

That has been delegated to me by the members of the subcommittee and until they revoke that delegation, I intend to direct the inquiries of this committee. It is the responsibility of the chair and it derives from the majority of the committee and the chair will conduct himself along those lines. So if you want to give me copies of documents, then we will look at them. But we will not have them thrown in here as diversionary.