Page images

due process.

Mr. Moss. The Chair would like to say this. Tomorrow we will be hearing first from the Mississippi State panel and then from Michigan State.

The Chair would also say that on the matter of what the courts have decided that that should be considered in very careful context with the responsibilities of the Congress. We are the policy-making body, the law-making, body, and whatever the courts have decided, we have a different kind of judgment to make and we will finally make that judgment.

Now, as to what the courts have actually said, the staff will be instructed to make a summary of the decisions of the courts in each of the cited instances. We will have them available for the members of the committee to review.

As I stated to the gentleman from New York, it has been the Chair's experience that the courts never speak quite as clearly as the overly-simplified summary that was presented for the record. I think the gentleman would agree.

If they spoke with such clarity and ambiguity, it would be easy to legislate and would be much easier to know the nature of the rules.

Mr. LENT. I appreciate the chairman's statement. I would respectfully point out that it is the courts and not the legislature, under our system of government, which serves as the protector of the rights of

As Mr. Santini has just stated, every appellate court which has ruled on this question of due process, which Mr. Clark has indicated, was the basis for his resignation, has found that due process did apply and that the action of the NCAA is State action and that the rules of due process and the protections afforded by our Constitution was satisfied in each and every case.

I will stand on that statement.

Mr. Moss. Again, without getting into a debate, we have, on occasion in the Congress, been known to grant due process where it was not adequate. If we make that determination that it is not adequate in this instance, we have the power to grant a kind of due process that ensures adequate consideration of the rights and interests of other parties.

So, that will be resolved at the time when we write our report some months down the road. We will see where we end up by then.

The Chair is trying diligently to arrive at no preliminary conclusions here. The Chair would caution the members that it is a mistake to grap up the other guy's case too quickly. I have seen this happen on the Hill a number of times and it has constituted an embarrassment to some of those who made that determination.

The committee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

[Whereupon, at 2:15 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, February 28, 1978.]




Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Santini presiding.

Mr. SANTINI. The committee will come to order.

We continue this morning with the subcommittee hearings with respect to the enforcement policies and practices of the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

I would mention that subcommittee Chairman John Moss will be back in the Chair in approximately 1 hour. He is appearing himself this morning concerning the subcommittee's budget before the Committee on House Administration. In the interim he has asked that I begin the hearings this morning:

Yesterday we heard from a former investigator with the NCAA's enforcement division, Mr. Brent Clark. Mr. Clark outlined for us some of the abuses he believes to be in the NCAA enforcement process.

We will hear from a number of individuals who have been directly affected by that process.

We will begin with representatives of Mississippi State University, who will be followed by representatives from Michigan State University

Originally scheduled to appear this morning was past NCAA president, Dr. John Fuzak. Unfortunately, Dr. Fuzak is suffering from an acute case of the flu and cannot appear. He assures us he will be able to appear in the near future. We wish him a speedy recovery and look forward to his testimony at our next scheduled hearings on this subject.

I now call the representatives from Mississippi State to come to the witness table.

Will each of you remain standing and raise your right hand and take the oath

Do you swear the testimony you are about to give in connection with the matter before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

[Chorus of I dos.]

Mr. SANTINI. The record will reflect that all witnesses responded affirmatively. The record will additionally reflect that each of the witnesses is appearing today in response to a subpoena. You may be seated.

In order that the record may accurately reflect your presence, would you please identify both your full name and title, starting with Mr. Miskelly.



Mr. WARD. I am Erwin C. Ward, attorney at law from Jackson, Miss.

Mr. TYLER. Bob Tyler, athletic director, head football coach, Mississippi State University. Mr. GILLARD. Larry Gillard, student athlete, Mississippi State. Mr. PYLEs. Dixon Pyles, lawyer, Jackson, Miss.

Mr. SANTINI. We will commence by hearing a prepared statement from Mr. Dixon L. Pyles, attorney, representing Mississippi State University.


Mr. PYLES. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee my name is Dixon L. Pyles.

I am a resident citizen of Jackson, Miss. Since Feb. 1, 1940, I have engaged in the practice of law in my home community, except for approximately 4 years of active duty in the Army of the United States during World War II. I am a member of the American Bar Association, the American Trial Lawyers Association, and the Mississippi State. Bar.

In the early spring of 1975, it was widely reported that Mississippi State University-MSU—had been charged by supporters of rival universities with unfair conduct in the recruiting of student-athletes to participate in its intercollegiate sports contests. The rumors were confirmed when a letter dated Apr. 30, 1975, and signed by Warren S. Brown, assistant executive director of the National Collegiate Athletic Association-NCAA-officially notified MSU that the association had conducted a preliminary inquiry into the athletic policies and practices of the institution in accordance, as the letter said, with the “Official Procedure Governing the NCAA Enforcement Program.” MSU was requested to respond by July 1, 1975, to each of the charges. The letter stated that the committee on infractions would meet in Kansas City, Mo., July 11-14, 1975, to consider the response of the institution.

The president of MSU, as the chief executive officer of the university, was called upon to reply specifically to each charge so that complete information relative to the charges could be developed. It was also requested that MSU be represented at the hearing before the infractions committee by at least head football coach Bob Tyler

and assistant coaches Dennis Aldridge and Thomas Goode. The letter of notification also stated: “any University student-athlete identified in an allegation may be present during the discussion of that allegation if such is the desire of the university."

The “Official Inquiry" alleged that MSU violated 4 provisions of the NCAA constitution, and 10 provisions of the NCAA bylaws, and the official interpretations thereof. Eleven specifications of violations of the constitution and bylaws were set forth.

Included were 32 interrogatories and statements concerning matters to which MSU was directed to supply detailed information. In some instances, the institution was commanded to provide detailed data on the property, finances, and assets of private citizens who had no official connection with either MSU or the NCAA.

During the first week of May 1975, I was employed to assist Erwin C. Ward, a Jackson attorney, in the representation of MSU relative to the "Official Inquiry” of the NCAA. On May 13, 1975, Warren S. Brown sent a supplementary letter to MSU containing two additional allegations and a request for additional information.

The NCAA is a voluntary unincorporated association of public and private colleges, universities, and other institutions of learning. This statement is from Howard University, et al. vs. NCAA-CA DC, 1975, 510 F 20 213, 214. The basic purposes of organization include initiating and stimulating intercollegiate athletic programs, encouraging members “to adopt eligibility rules to comply with satisfactory standards of scholarship, sportsmanship, and amateurism” and supervising the conduct of and establishment of eligibility standards for events promoted by the association. This is also from Howard University, et al. vs. NCAA-510 F 2d at pp. 214, 215; NCAA constitution, article II, section 1(a), (c), and (f).

To implement the above-stated objectives, the NCAA has adopted extensive rules and regulations. A prerequisite to membership in the association is said to be an adherence to the "rules” and to assist in the enforcement thereof. This is from Howard University, et al. vs. NCAA-510 F 2d at p. 125.

All sanctions administered by the NCAA are said to be imposed on its member institutions. This is also from Howard University et al. vs. NCAA, 510 F. 2d at p. 125. However, a careful reading of the NCAA manual reveals that severe punitive sanctions may be imposed by the association indirectly on nonmember coaches, employees, studentathletes, and private citizens. This is from the NCAA manual, Recommended Policy 7: Coaches Contract, pp. 101, 102; Enforcement, section 6(4), p. 106, section 7 (a) (11), (12) (i), (ii), section 9, pp. 106, 107, 108, 109, and 110.

Punitive sanctions may be imposed upon private citizens, by simply labeling them as representatives of the member institutions; and then coercing the member institutions into summarily taking the punitive actions which were unilaterally and indirectly imposed by the NCAA. No proper procedures are set forth in the NCAA manual for the purpose of determining the truth or falsity of charges lodged against a nonmember person accused of violating the association rules and who may be subjected to punitive sanctions. These nonmember individuals are not served with written specific charges. The nonmember

« PreviousContinue »