Page images
PDF
EPUB

center of the public's perception of the storm has been that university's very well-known head basketball coach, Jerry Tarkanian, who is with us today. Mr. Tarkanian was found by the NCAA to be in violation of NCAA legislation based on some 11 allegations. He is here under subpena to discuss those 11 findings.

With Coach Tarkanian are the Nevada University system's chancelor, Dr. Donald Baepler, and the university's lawyer during the university's NCAA episode, which, I should add, is not over at this time. Not by way of warning so much as comment, I want to emphasize my hope that UNLV's appearance here today not in any way be taken adversely by the NCAA to affect that episode.

I note that, perhaps coincidentally, shortly after testimony before this subcommittee, Mississippi State University was punished by the NCAA ostensibly for obeying a court order. The University of Minnesota, also a witness before this subcommittee, faces a similar problem in the near future. This unseemly invocation of section 10 of the NCAA's rules creates a situation this subcommittee will monitor very closely to see if indeed it is only coincidental. If it turns out not to be or a strong indication that such is the case, then we will ask the Justice Department to investigate the applicability of title 18, section 1505 of the United States Code. At the very least, it is a subject I intend to bring up with NCAA witnesses in this room in mid-July.

Commissioner Neinas, will you please stand and be sworn!
Mr. NEINAS. Yes, sir.

Mr. Moss. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give this subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. NEInAs. Yes; I will. Mr. Moss. Will you identify yourself to the hearing reporter for the record ?

Mr. NEINAS. Charles Neinas. N-e-i-n-a-s.

Mr. Moss. We welcome you and will be pleased to receive your statement.

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES M. NEINAS, COMMISSIONER,

BIG EIGHT CONFERENCE

Mr. NEINAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I realize you have a busy day so in an effort to expedite my participation in the hearings, I chose to summarize at least portions of my statement.

Mr. Moss. Fine. Without objection, at this time the entire statement will be placed in the record (see p. —]. You may then proceed to summarize.

Mr. Neinas. Thank you, sir. My purpose for appearing here this morning is to offer suggestions which I feel may be beneficial to the committee and to the NCAA in improving its enforcement operations. I would like to emphasize that there is a need for a national college organization to administer and conduct college athletics on a national scale.

While the committee's hearings have centered on the enforcement procedures and practices of the NCAA, I hope the committee does note

and recognize the many useful purposes that the NCAA serves. Its national championship program is second to none.

I also would say that I am pleased that the NCAA has taken a leadership role in making the colleges' viewpoint known in the halls of Congress. I do not believe that the organization should be criticized for that effort.

Also, as a professional college athletic administrator, I want to point out to the committee, and I think I can speak for my colleagues, we are not insensitive to the student athlete. The main charge to those of us involved in collegiate athletic administration is to develop an appropriate competitive atmosphere and to provide the athletes and coaches every opportunity to achieve success within the rules which are established by the colleges and universities themselves.

It might prove helpful to the committee when the NCAA does appear next month for the association's representatives to provide some historical background as to the development of the enforcement program. An understanding as to how the program began and the changes through the years might help in evaluating the current situation.

One of the difficulties confronting the NCAA today is that it is frequently misunderstood, both internally and externally. I believe one of the problems which involves the membership as well as the NCAA staff is over legislation. Unfortunately, there has been a tendency on the part of both the NCAA policymaking council and the association's own membership to assume that national legislation can solve all problems. The result has been the adoption of some rules which I feel are impractical and in some instances unenforceable.

I would be the first to admit that it is difficult to develop any type of enforcement program that may be satisfactory to everyone. The objective is to provide an effective but a fair enforcement of the rules.

The Big Eight Conference has its own enforcement program. and we probably are subject to criticism for that. However, the conference attempts to develop a mutually cooperative program. In this effort I am pleased to say that we have the complete cooperation in enforcement of the chief executive officers of our eight member institutions. We have attempted to create a mutual trust between the conference and the membership.

The NCAA must recognize that there has been a social change which has occurred on the campus in the last 10 to 20 years. Current institutional patterns of dealing with disciplinary matters have been subject to close scrutiny which has resulted in greater emphasis on due process than in some times past. Some college presidents have questioned NCAA procedures in view of what has transpired upon their own campuses. As a result, this called for the Big Eight presidents to urge tho Big Eight Conference to submit a resolution to the 1977 NCAA convention.

Simply stated, that resolution called for the NCAA council to appoint a special committee of persons not otherwise associated with the association's enforcement activities to, one, review the investigative practices and procedures of the NCAA enforcement program; two, consider the fairness of these practices and procedures, and three, make recommendations to the NCAA for written publication of the practices and procedures and adherence to fundamental principles of fairness. We were pleased that at the 1978 NCAA convention, the council did place before the membership guidelines defining the NCAA's investigative practices and procedures and, while there was some criticism of those practices and procedures on the convention floor, we view that as a positive step:

There are other suggestions which I would like to bring to the attention of this committee. This has been said before, but I will also underscore the importance of divorcing the committee on infractions from the association's enforcement of staff.

The impression of the close relationships between the committee on infractions and the enforcement staff frequently leads the accused institution to conclude that the hearing procedure may be less than fair, although such conclusion may be based more on appearance than fact.

I would suggest that there be a separate administrative staff appointed to assist the committee on infractions with its clerical and administrative duties. As a result, the accused institution would not find the enforcement staff serving in the dual capacity of prosecutor as well as assisting those who are to judge the case.

Now inasmuch as the committee on infractions is also charged with the responsibility of monitoring the activities of the enforcement staff, it would seem appropriate to separate the committee from engaging in this function. An oversight committee could be appointed to monitor the activities of the enforcement staff, but separate from the committee on infractions.

In addition to separating the enforcement staff from the committee on infractions, there may be other procedural changes which could assure the membership of the impartiality of the hearing procedure. Most emphatically I would suggest a more cooperative investigative process between the NCAA's enforcement staff and the accused institution.

I firmly believe that the vast majority, if not all, college presidents are interested in a clean athletic program and one which can function without violating the rules. But as the investigative process now functions, the NCAA becomes an adversary of one of its own member institutions.

It would be my suggestion that once the NCAA has uncovered substantiated specific allegations and determines that it will conduct a complete investigation of the institution's athletic program, that it provide the chief executive officer of the accused institution the opportunity to appoint his own representative or committee to participate in a cooperative and parallel investigation with the NCAA.

I believe most chief executive officers would welcome this opportunity. Such an investigative procedure would allow both parties to expedite processing of the case. And I might say that one of the frequently heard complaints about an NCAA infractions matter is the delay in processing the case. Again, a cooperative investigative opportunity might expedite the processing of the case and would enable both parties to interrogate witnesses at the same time and, importantly, eliminate a difference of opinion as to the interpretation of a witness' statement.

The thrust of the NCAA exhibiting a cooperative attitude would assist the association's overall enforcement effort, and one could as

[ocr errors]

sume that mutual cooperation would inspire a more expedient and equitable solution to enforcement problems.

A third suggestion would be that the association attempt to distinguish between major and minor violations. Unfortunately, there appears to be some inconsistency in determining the severity of a violation. It has been an NCAA practice to make a shopping list of allegations, regardless of their seriousness. Again I believe that the focus should be on the major violations and the penalties imposed accordingly.

Minor violations should not be ignored, but should be placed in proper perspective.

In civil law there are appeal procedures through the courts. Technically, the NCAA has an appeal procedure through the association's policymaking council. In practice, however, judgments rendered by the Committee on Infractions remain unchanged. Consequently, the hearing procedure assumes increased importance.

During a hearing before the committee on infractions, an accused institution is prevented from introducing witnesses unless they are currently employed by the institution or are students attending the accused institution.

The NCAA manual states that no other individuals may be included among the institution's representatives during an institutional hearing unless specifically requested to be present by the committee. Such an arrangement may be appropriate to an administrative hearing, but it does create the illusion of a home court advantage for the NCAA enforcement staff.

Would it not be appropriate for the committee to allow witnesses to be questioned by both parties during the hearing process ? Conflicting testimony without the opportunity to question a key witness is a major concern which frequently creates tension between the institution and the NCAA staff. The cooperative investigation proposal mentioned earlier could also alleviate this problem.

Others have testified before this committee, and have questioned the NCAA's procedures relative to declaring a student athlete ineligible. Suffice it to say, there appears to be confusion about NCAA procedures in this area when evaluated in comparison with established practices followed at the institutional and conference level.

Several members of the Collegiate Commissioners Association, of which I am a member, have voiced their concern to NCAA representatives in the past about this particular system.

I think it becomes important that a system be developed whereby those student athletes whose eligibility is in jeopardy for other than perhaps academic reasons should have the opportunity for a due process hearing. And the right to be heard by those who will render final judgment should be provided to any student athlete.

In conclusion, may I urge the Congress not to become involved in matters of this nature through enactment of Federal legislation ?

If this committee concludes that there is a need for adjustments in the NCAA enforcement program, it would be my suggestion that the NCAA be encouraged to appoint an impartial and objective committee composed of knowledgeable persons not directly connected with the association's enforcement program to conduct a constructive review of

the current practices and procedures. If necessary, such a committee could report its findings to this committee as well as the NCAA membership.

To give you an idea as to the type of individuals I would have in mind to serve on this committee-I am not saying they should be specifically appointed but at least give you an example as to the caliber of individuals—I would, for example, name three who have had long service within the NCAA:

Marcus Plant, a former president of the NCAA, professor of law at the University of Michigan, extremely well-respected by most everyone within the NCAA; David Swank, associate dean of the College of Law at the University of Oklahoma, served full terms on the NCAA Council and also served on the NCAA executive committee, a highly intelligent independent thinker; Dr. H. Boyd McWhorter, currently the commissioner of the Southeastern Conference, but prior to occupying that position he was the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Georgia and served on the NCAA Council; Dr. McWhorter has a unique combination of great academic credentials as well as being a professional athletic administrator.

I believe coaches' viewpoints should also be heard. I would suggest from the American Football Coaches Association Joe Paterno of Penn State, who is held in high esteem by his peers, as would be Dean Smith of North Carolina NCAA among the National Association of Basketball Coaches.

Then there are those on the outside who have been former athletes and have a continuing interest in athletics who have gone on to achieve success themselves, such as Billy Vessels, the former football player from Oklahoma, now a successful businessman and still connected with the Orange Bowl Committee.

Mr. Chairman, this suggestion is offered in a positive manner in an effort to provide for a meaningful analysis as to the effectiveness of the NCAA enforcement program in deterring future abuses of intercollegiate athletics and insuring a sense of fair play in determining violations and assessing penalties.

It is my opinion that the colleges and universities, the coaches, the student athletes and the NCAA itself would all benefit from such an exercise.

Thank you.

[Mr. Neinas' prepared statement follows:]

« PreviousContinue »