Mr. Moss. Thank you for a most helpful statement. Do the members desire to try to make that rollcall? We will suspend for approximately 10 minutes to permit the members to go to the floor for a vote. [Brief recess.] Mr. Moss. The committee will be in order. Just a comment on your statement, I believe it was another witness who stated that if the NCAA did not exist it would have to be invented. I do not think there is anyone on the committee who would disagree with that. We are not trying to dismantle or destroy; we are trying to come up with something that will be helpful, and helpful in a very constructive sense. As is quite obvious from your statement, you are, too. Mr. Raabe. Mr. RAABE. Just a couple of questions. Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Neinas, for the record, would you describe your position with the NCAA over that 10-year period? Mr. NEINAS. I was hired as an assistant to the executive director and subsequently became assistant executive director, and my basic areas of responsibility were in the conduct of the championship programs at that time, the development of the college division. I served as administrative aide to Mr. Byers and as secretary to the council and executive committee. Those were probably my primary functions. Mr. RAABE. Under Big Eight regulations, when a Big Eight investigator comes on campus, what kind of arrangements do you make for representation to the individual that is going to be interviewed? Mr. NEINAS. We contact an appropriate official of the institution prior to the investigator's arrival and both the institution and the individual are allowed to have a representative sit in on the discussions. In most instances, though, the institutional representative also is the one that represents the individual student athlete. Mr. RAABE. The NCAA regulations do not permit an accused party to obtain a transcript of a proceeding before either the infractions commitee or the council. I am wondering what your opinion is of this, whether you agree with that prohibition or see any reason why it should exist? Mr. NEINAS. At the Big Eight level we do not maintain a transcript, but we do have a tape, and if the institution wished to avail itself of the tape, we would allow them to do it. Mr. RAABE. A verbatim transcript can be made from the Big Eight proceeding tapes? Mr. NEINAS. Yes; we would not object to that. Mr. RAABE. Your statement contains five substantive and very well thought out recommendations. I am wondering if you have any opinion as to the chance for them to be implemented at the present time. Mr. NEINAS. Well, hopefully the NCAA Council would take cognizance of the suggestions. I do feel that the resolution which was cosponsored by the Missouri Valley Conference along with the Big Eight did prompt some disclosure of the investigative procedures, which was basically the thrust of our resolution, so therefore I would hope that the council would look with favor upon some of the suggestions, but I have no assurance of what they would do. That is why I think it is important that a committee be appointed outside of the council, but, as you note from the membership the anticipated membership of the committee-I think you have to have people on the committee who have had Council background so they can understand the NCAA. Mr. RAABE. It is your hope that through this new independent committee reporting back to the association membership and to this subcommittee after its study that these kinds of recommendations will be included? Mr. NEINAS. I am not sure that the recommendations that I suggest are feasible. But I do believe that if an independent committee of outstanding individuals were to conduct a review and report back to the membership, that their report would be well received. They may come in and say that on the basis of what we understand and what we know that, inasmuch as it is an administrative hearing, it would not be practical to have witnesses. I think the membership would accept that. Mr. RAABE. But it is true, is it not, that the recommendations you make here are substantially incorporated into the Big Eight procedures at the working level? Mr. NEINAS. That is correct. And I feel that the plain truth is the most important suggestion I think which I would underscore would be the idea of more cooperative effort on the part of the association and its member institutions, attempting to eliminate the adversary role and work together more on infractions matters. Mr. RAABE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moss. Mr. Lent. Mr. LENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Neinas, I want to thank you for your testimony. I find it is very well balanced and very well thought out and the suggestions bear a lot of merit. The NCAA has been characterized as engaging in selective enforcement by pursuing violations by certain colleges and not pursuing violations by other colleges. Based on your experience in the field, do you believe this is a fair characterization of NCAA enforcement? Mr. NEINAS. No; I do not. I do not believe there is any protected list. Mr. LENT. Well, would you say it is a fair characterization of NCAA enforcement policy that in general it gives a priority to the more serious cases of rules violations which come to its attention? Mr. NEINAS. I would reserve judgment on that, sir, because I think that I am not privy to all of the potential allegations that may come before the enforcement staff. I believe that what happens is that after you obtain certain information which appears to be valid, you naturally start to check it out, and the initial thrust may be major, but after looking into the matter in more detail you may find out that the violations, the substantiated violations, may be relatively minor. Mr. LENT. Well, a number of institutions from your conference have been involved in rather substantial NCAA cases. Mr. NEINAS. Yes. I would like to point out, if I may, Mr. Lent, that with the exception of one case during my 7 years with the Big Eight Conference the conference has acted first on all major infractions matters. Mr. LENT. Well, with respect to those cases, would you say there was—had been a high level of cooperation between NCAA enforcement staff and the Big Eight office? Mr. NEINAS. We have enjoyed good cooperation between the NCAA staff and our office to a degree. I think that that has somewhat deteriorated over the last 2 or 3 years. I am hopeful that it would become a more cooperative effort. Mr. LENT. Well, would you say that it was fair to characterize the NCAA Committee on Infractions or its council as a kangaroo court? Mr. NEINAS. The members of the committee on infractions I mentioned in my statement I think are all men of high regard, and I have great respect for each one. I do think that the suggestions which I make for changing the procedures would eliminate some of the criticism that people do not feel they are having a fair opportunity. That is why I underscored the idea that you separate the committee on infractions from the enforcement staff. Mr. LENT. Well, we have heard the NCAA characterized during these hearings from various witnesses as operating an enforcement policy based on vindictiveness, retaliation against those who question its procedures. Do you believe this to be a fair characterization of the NCAA enforcement staff or its committee on infractions? Mr. NEINAS. I think we are talking about a matter of attitude. I think you must recognize that any institution which is before the NCAA Committee on Infractions naturally is going to be tense, to begin with; it will evaluate on the basis of its understanding of fair procedures, which may not be parallel to the American system of jurisprudence. I am not an expert in law, and certainly not an expert in administrative law. I know that the committee on infractions, the members themselves, are most honorable people, and I believe that most members of the enforcement staff are honorable people. The point that I think needs to be recognized is that as the system now operates there is no trust between the enforcement staff operation and the institution. I believe this is a fair assessment, that the enforcement staff normally would conclude that the institution is trying to cover potential violations which may not be the case. On the other hand, I would say the institution feels that the NCAA procedures are devised in such a manner as to place them at a disadvantage. That also may not be the case. You will note in my statement that I said that the procedures may give the impression of unfair hearing, and this is one of the reasons I suggested again that the staff and the committee on infractions be divorced. Mr. LENT. Well, in your statement you have been somewhat critical of the various procedures set forth in the NCAA official enforcement policy. Does the Big Eight have a similar published procedure by which the rights of members Mr. NEINAS. Yes, sir, and I would be glad to submit it for the record. Mr. Moss. Would the gentleman like to have it for the record at this point? Mr. LENT. Yes. Mr. Moss. Without objection, the record will be held open at this point to receive the material in question. [Testimony resumes on p. 794.] [The procedures referred to follow:] |