Athletics and Ethics - A Review of the Sexual Abuse Case

Transcription

1 HOWARD UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT MAY 20, 2014 I. INTRODUCTION The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions is an independent administrative body comprised of individuals from the NCAA Division I membership and the public charged with deciding infractions cases involving member institutions and their staff. This case involves Howard University. 1 It also involves the institution's former head men's and women's track and field and cross country coach ("head coach"). 2 The committee, through a six-member panel, considered this case through the cooperative summary disposition process in which all parties agreed to the primary facts and violations, as fully set forth in the summary disposition report (SDR) and the amended SDR. 3 Further, the institution agreed to the penalties; therefore, it has no appeal option for the institution. This panel's consideration of this case included an expedited hearing in which the head coach contested a show-cause order proposed by the panel for the head coach. The head coach has the opportunity to appeal that decision to the NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee. In this case, the institution violated NCAA legislation when it: (1) issued student-athletes impermissible refunds or credits from unused portions of their athletics grant-in-aid awards; (2) permitted student-athletes to misuse their athletics grant-in-aid awards by purchasing items other than textbooks in the institution's bookstore; and (3) failed to withhold ineligible student-athletes from competition after being made aware of their involvement in NCAA violations. Additionally, the head coach and a citizen of Kenya with whom the head coach developed a relationship ("athletics representative"), not only had impermissible recruiting contacts with track and field and cross-country prospective student-athletes, but also provided impermissible extra benefits to student-athletes who 1 A member of the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference (MEAC), Coastal Swimming Conference, Great West Conference and Atlantic Sun Conference, the institution sponsors 11 women's and eight men's sports. Howard University is located in Washington D.C. and has an approximate enrolment of 10,500. This is the fifth major infractions case for the institution. Previous infractions cases took place in 1973 (men's soccer), 1978 (football), 1991(football) and 2001 (baseball, men's and women's swimming and men's and women's basketball). 2 For purposes of this decision, the former head track and field and cross country coach will be referred to as "head coach," because he held that position when the violations occurred. He is no longer employed by the institution. 3 The panel initially was composed of seven members, but one member was excused when he could not participate in a discussion of this case due to illness. Decisions issued by the hearing panels are made on behalf of the Committee on Infractions.

2 Page No. 2 later enrolled at the institution. The head coach also failed to comply with a directive from the institution's department of athletics, which resulted in the institution impermissibly awarding financial aid to an ineligible student-athlete. The actions of the head coach gave rise to both ethical conduct and failure to promote an atmosphere for compliance violations. Furthermore, the institution agreed that it failed to demonstrate control of and responsibility for its intercollegiate athletics department, thereby resulting in an institutional control violation. The violations occurred intermittently from the academic year through the 2013 summer academic term and involved over 200 studentathletes in 15 sports sponsored by the institution. The panel agrees with the parties' principal factual agreements and respective explanations surrounding those agreements and accepts the parties' SDR. The violations were serious. They were not isolated and they included significant impermissible benefits. Therefore, the panel concludes that the parties' agreed-upon facts and violations constitute major violations of NCAA bylaws. The panel prescribes the following penalties, most of which were self-imposed by the institution: a four-year probationary period, a fine of $140,000, reductions of grant-in-aid equivalencies for the following sports: football, men's basketball, women's swimming, men's and women's cross country/track and field, recruiting restrictions, vacation of wins in men's cross country and track and field, disassociation of an athletics representative, a three-year show-cause order for the conduct of the head coach, as well as other appropriate penalties as detailed in the penalty section of this decision. II. CASE HISTORY On December 22, 2011, the institution submitted a self-report to the NCAA secondary infractions enforcement staff. The report stated that during the academic year and 2011 fall semester, 89 student-athletes in 13 sports purchased impermissible items from the institution's bookstore with athletics aid that had been designated for the purchase of required course-related textbooks. Additionally, the institution concluded that athletics department administrators failed to withhold ineligible student-athletes from competition. Upon review of the institution's self-report, the secondary infractions staff determined that the reported violations were not isolated and appeared to include significant impermissible benefits. They referred the case to the NCAA major infractions enforcement staff for investigation. In October 2012, while the institution and enforcement staff were preparing a SDR related to the textbook distribution system violations, the enforcement staff learned of alleged violations related to the men's and women's cross country and track and field

3 Page No. 3 teams. On October 19, 2012, the enforcement staff informed the institution of its intent to investigate the new allegations and to postpone submitting the SDR to a panel. The parties submitted an initial SDR to the committee in late June However, in August 2013, before the committee completed its written decision in the case, the institution informed the enforcement staff of additional violations related to impermissible athletics aid refunds. On August 21, 2013, the institution and enforcement staff requested that the committee postpone issuing a decision in this case until the parties completed an investigation of the new information. The committee granted the parties' request and awaited a supplemental or amended report. 4 Between August 21 and October 7, 2013, the institution provided additional information regarding the violations and in response to the enforcement staff's requests. Subsequently, the enforcement staff and the institution conducted 32 interviews with student-athletes and current and former staff members. The parties submitted an amended SDR to the panel on December 18, Following the panel's review, it sent a letter to all of the parties in the case (including the head coach, despite his noninvolvement in the processing of the case to that point) asking if the parties believed that the use the summary disposition process was still appropriate. 5 The panel also requested that the parties review certain aspects of the agreed-upon factual findings and proposed penalties. Then, on January 22, 2014, the head coach sent an to the Office of the Committees on Infractions expressing an interest in participating with the processing of the case. Ultimately, the parties, including the head coach, agreed to proceed with the resolution of this case through summary disposition. The parties further amended the December 2013 SDR and submitted it on February 19, The amended SDR included, for the first time, a statement from the head coach. The head coach did not propose any penalties in his statement. The panel reviewed the amended SDR during a February 27 conference call. The panel accepted the agreed-upon factual basis and violations. With regard to the institution, the panel accepted the institution's proposed penalties. 6 With regard to the conduct of the 4 The new panel structure for deciding cases went into effect on August 1, Subsequent to the committee's approval of additional time to investigate newly-discovered violations and submit an amended SDR, it was decided to generate a panel to consider this case. 5 The head coach initially participated in one interview with the enforcement staff in November However, from January 2013 to May 2013, he did not consent to the enforcement staff's requests for an additional interview and to participate in the summary disposition process. In a January 14, 2013, to the enforcement staff, the head coach questioned the need for an additional interview and also wrote, "I have no intention of ever working at an NCAA Institution." In late January 2014, after the hearing panel informed him that the case would move forward without his participation, the head coach ed the Office of the Committees on Infractions. In the he referred to the fact that he had been living in Kenya, that he now had a desire to be involved in the case and that he was interested in coaching again at NCAA institutions. Shortly thereafter, he contacted the enforcement staff, which later incorporated a statement from the head coach into the amended SDR. 6 The Division I Board of Directors enacted a new infractions process that went into effect on October 30, The new process included a revised penalty structure. The violations in this case occurred both before and after October 30, The

4 Page No. 4 head coach, however, the panel proposed a three-year show-cause order. The panel conveyed the conditions of the show-cause order to the head coach in a February 28, 2014, letter. On March 7, the head coach telephonically notified the Office of the Committees on Infractions of his intent to contest the show-cause order. He appeared before the panel in an expedited hearing conducted by videoconference on March 31, After thorough consideration of the information provided by the head coach, the panel maintained its position to prescribe a three-year show-cause order. The head coach has the opportunity to appeal that decision to the NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee. III. PARTIES' AGREEMENTS A. PARTIES' AGREED-UPON FACTUAL BASIS AND VIOLATIONS OF NCAA LEGISLATION The parties jointly submitted an amended SDR that identifies an agreed-upon predicate factual basis and violations of NCAA legislation. The amended SDR identifies: 1. [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws , , , and ( through )] From the academic year through the 2013 summer academic term, the institution allowed student-athletes to spend athletics aid on impermissible items not required for their courses and permitted studentathletes to keep any unspent portion of their athletics aid that was designated solely for the purchase of required course-related items, tuition and housing. These violations occurred as the result of a lack of appropriate athletics-specific safeguards in the textbook distribution and student financial accounting system. Specifically: a. 110 student-athletes participating in 15 sports purchased approximately $17,300 of impermissible items, which included electronic devices, assorted school supplies, personal hygiene and apparel items, and extra books, which were occasionally provided to other student-athletes. panel applied the previous penalty structure because it was more lenient in this case, which included unethical conduct and a lack of institutional control. Although the parties did not provide positions on aggravating and mitigating factors, the panel could objectively view the potential core penalties and corresponding penalty ranges in assessing which penalties were more lenient.

5 Page No. 5 b. 215 student-athletes participating in 15 sports received approximately $119,300 of unused athletics aid (allocated for the purchase of required course-related items, tuition and housing) in the form of cash payments, Visa cash cards, checks, direct deposits into personal banking accounts and student account credits. 2. [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw ( and )] During the academic year and 2011 fall semester, the institution misapplied NCAA legislation governing financial aid and extra benefits, resulting in student-athletes in three sports being ineligible for competition. Athletics department administrators learned that six studentathletes used athletics aid to purchase items other than required courserelated textbooks, but failed to require the student-athletes to undergo the NCAA student-athlete reinstatement process immediately after the discovery of the violations and before allowing them to compete. One football student-athlete competed in 22 contests during the 2010 and 2011 seasons while ineligible, and a second, third and fourth football studentathlete competed in eight, nine and nine contests, respectively, during the 2011 season while ineligible. Similarly, one men's basketball studentathlete competed in 14 contests while ineligible during the season, and one women's swimming student-athlete competed while ineligible in 13 meets during the season. 3. [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws , , and (c) ( )] Between May 2011 and August 2012, in an effort to recruit men's and women's prospective cross country and track and field student-athletes, the head coach deliberately developed a close relationship with a Kenyan national and the founder of a Maryland-based charitable organization, who was previously identified in this decision as "athletics representative." The head coach's specific intention in developing the relationship with this individual was to obtain assistance from him in the institution's recruitment of several prospects from Kenya. In the course of this effort, this individual became a representative of the institution's athletics interests and violations of NCAA recruiting legislation ensued, involving both the athletics representative and the head coach. Specifically: a. From December 23, 2011, until January 2, 2012, during a designated recruiting quiet period, the head coach made

6 Page No. 6 impermissible off-campus recruiting contacts and evaluations with a minimum of four prospective student-athletes while in Kenya. b. Between April and August 2012, the athletics representative engaged in impermissible recruiting activity when, at the head coach's request, he accepted telephone calls from two then prospective transfer student-athletes and eventual Howard University student-athletes ("student-athletes 1 and 2" respectively). During those calls, the athletics representative promoted the institution's athletics interests by speaking to the student-athletes while they were prospects about the institution, the Washington, D.C. area and the head coach. 4. [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws and ( through )] Between August 2011 and January 3, 2013, the head coach and the athletics representative provided approximately $11,500 in inducements and extra benefits to five track and cross country prospective studentathletes who later became student-athletes at the institution. Specifically: a. Between October 2011 and January 3, 2013, the head coach provided or arranged for the athletics representative to provide approximately $8,635 in inducements and extra benefits to a women's track and cross country student-athlete ("student-athlete 3"). Specifically, they provided: (1) Two hundred dollars for the cost of fees associated with women's track and cross country student-athlete 1 obtaining a United States nonimmigrant visa; (2) Approximately $80 for the cost of a Kenyan running training camp; (3) One pair of running shoes valued at approximately $80; (4) A track warm-up valued at approximately $30; (5) Three hundred dollars to the institution for women's track student-athlete 1's enrollment fees; and

7 Page No. 7 (6) Approximately $7,945 in living expenses associated with daily transportation to and from the institution, daily meals, a cell phone and service, clothing and lodging. b. From August 2011 through October 2012, the athletics representative provided four men's track and cross country studentathletes a total of approximately $2,860 in inducements and extra benefits. Further, the head coach arranged for or knew about several of the inducements. Specifically: (1) The athletics representative provided student-athlete 1 approximately $300 in inducements and extra benefits, which included round-trip transportation from the institution to Philadelphia (278 miles) ($154), approximately two nights of lodging ($64), eight impermissible meals ($77) and laundry benefits. (2) The athletics representative provided student-athlete 2 approximately $298 in inducements and extra benefits, which included round-trip transportation from the institution to Philadelphia (278 miles) ($154); one-way transportation from Lanham, Maryland, to the athletics representative's residence in Clarksburg, Maryland ($20); one night of lodging ($32); five impermissible meals ($57); and laundry benefits. Further, on one occasion, the head coach arranged for the athletics representative to provide student-athlete 2 with one-way transportation from the Baltimore airport to the athletics representative's residence (48 miles) ($27). (3) The athletics representative provided a third men's track student-athlete ("student-athlete 4") approximately $630 in inducements and extra benefits, which included round-trip transportation from the institution to Philadelphia (278 miles) ($154), approximately eight nights of lodging ($254), 24 impermissible meals ($219) and laundry benefits. Further, in August 2012, the head coach learned about five of the eight nights of lodging. (4) The athletics representative provided a fourth men's track and cross country student-athlete ("student-athlete 5") approximately $1,631 in inducements and extra benefits, which included round-trip transportation from the

8 Page No. 8 institution to Ocean City, Maryland and to Philadelphia (568 miles) ($302); approximately 20 nights of lodging ($635); and 61 impermissible meals ($694). Further, in August 2011, the head coach learned about one of the 20 nights of lodging. 5. [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws and ( )] In approximately June 2011, the head coach began recruiting studentathlete 3. On June 18, 2012, the institution's financial aid office received and processed her signed athletics grant-in-aid agreement with the institution for the academic year, which provided $34,764 in athletics aid for tuition, room, board, textbooks and other fees. However, at that time, student-athlete 3 was not certified as a first-year studentathlete eligible to compete and receive athletics aid. The NCAA Eligibility Center was attempting to process her certification and was awaiting receipt of her matriculation letter, which is a form, generated by the eligibility center and completed by the institution, which attests to the student-athlete's initial enrollment date at a collegiate institution. In early August 2012, the institution's athletics compliance office and the director of athletics instructed the head coach to cease his recruitment of studentathlete 3 due to concerns related to her eligibility. Shortly thereafter, athletics administrators requested the head coach to remove her from the women's track and cross country student-athlete athletics grant-in-aid recipient list and submit the updated information to the institution's financial aid office. However, the head coach failed to inform studentathlete 3 that she should not travel to the United States. Nor did he immediately remove her from the athletics grant-in-aid recipient list. On August 15, 2012, student-athlete 3 traveled to Washington, D.C., and, within days, registered for her classes online. As a result, the athletics aid was improperly disbursed to her. 6. [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws , 10.1, 10.1-(c), and and 10.1-(d) ( through )] Between May 2011 and November 12, 2012, the head coach acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct when he failed to deport himself in accordance with the generally recognized high standards of honesty and sportsmanship normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics and failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance within the men's and women's cross country and track and field programs. Specifically:

9 Page No. 9 a. The head coach did not promote an atmosphere for compliance when he was involved in and arranged impermissible recruiting activity as detailed in Violation No. 3. b. The head coach acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct and failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance when he knowingly arranged for or provided two prospective and later current men's and women's track cross country and track studentathletes inducements and extra benefits as detailed in Violation Nos. 4-a-(1) through (6) and 4-b-(4). c. The head coach acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct when he knowingly furnished false and misleading information by denying his involvement in providing the three inducements detailed in Violation Nos. 4-a-(1) through (3), despite the fact that women's track and cross country student-athlete 1 originally reported, and the head coach later admitted, that he provided the inducements. 7. [NCAA Division I Manual Constitution and ( through )] The scope and nature of the violations in Violation Nos. 1, 2, 3-a and 5 demonstrate that the institution failed to exercise institutional control and monitor the administration of the student-athlete textbook distribution and the student financial account system. The institution also failed to appropriately monitor the men's and women's cross country and track and field programs to assure compliance with NCAA financial aid, recruiting and extra benefits legislation in that the institution failed to (a) ensure at the time of implementation that the new textbook system would operate in compliance with NCAA legislation; (b) incorporate appropriate athletics specific safeguards in the textbook distribution and Banner student account system's configuration that could have prevented violations of NCAA legislation; (c) recognize an NCAA violation, and timely and properly investigate the extent of student-athlete impermissible purchases and inappropriate credits and refunds being disbursed to student-athletes; (d) ensure that the head coach complied with NCAA legislation during his interactions with then prospective international cross country and track and field student-athletes; and (e) limit first-year student-athletes' receipt of athletics aid to those who were academically certified by the eligibility center. Specifically:

10 Page No. 10 a. Concerning the failure to ensure the new textbook and student financial account system would operate in compliance with NCAA legislation and incorporate appropriate athletics specific safeguards, in August 2010, the institution's office of financial aid implemented the new textbook system for the institution's general student population. However, the institution did not (1) obtain a thorough understanding of how the new system operated, (2) consider how the system's configuration may lead to violations of NCAA legislation or (3) incorporate appropriate safeguards toward monitoring student-athlete bookstore purchases and credits or refunds associated with unused portions of the athletics aid designated for the purchase of required course-related items. As a result, beginning in August 2010, 110 student-athletes made $17,300 in impermissible purchases during the academic year and 2011 fall semester, and $111,700 in impermissible account credits or refunds were disbursed to 214 student-athletes (as detailed in Violation No. 1). Additionally, during the 2012 and 2013 summer terms, the institution did not enter appropriate programming in the institution's student financial account system to prevent the disbursement of tuition and housing athletics aid refunds to student-athletes. As a result, five student-athletes received approximately $7,600 in impermissible refunds (as detailed in Violation No. 1). b. Concerning the failure to recognize an NCAA violation and timely and properly investigate the extent of student-athlete impermissible purchases, as of September 15, 2010, the institution learned that at least one student-athlete purchased an impermissible item (an ipod) at the bookstore while using the newly implemented online voucher system. However, it wasn't until December 2011 that the institution realized it was required to report this violation. Further, the institution did not thoroughly investigate the total amount of impermissible items the identified student-athlete purchased at the bookstore or whether additional student-athletes purchased impermissible items until December 2011 (as detailed in Violation No. 2). c. Concerning the failure to timely and properly investigate the extent of inappropriate credits and refunds being disbursed to studentathletes, as of November 2011, the institution discovered that student-athletes were scheduled to receive inappropriate credits or

11 Page No. 11 refunds related to unused portions of their fall of 2011 athletics aid related book vouchers. At that time, the institution adjusted its system to prevent the disbursement of the majority of the fall of 2011 credits and refunds. However, the institution did not investigate whether credits or refunds were distributed to studentathletes during the academic year until being requested to do so by the enforcement staff in March As of November 2012, the institution learned that student-athletes received impermissible refunds from their 2012 summer term athletics aid allocated for tuition and housing fees; however, it did not thoroughly investigate the refunds to determine the reason for the disbursements or whether they were permissible according to NCAA legislation. d. Concerning the failure relating to the head coach's compliance with NCAA legislation, between April 2011 and November 2012, the institution was aware that the head coach recruited Kenyan international student-athletes; however, it failed to monitor his compliance with the men's and women's cross country and track and field recruiting calendar while recruiting abroad. This contributed to the infractions detailed in Violation No. 3-a. e. Concerning the failure to limit first-year student-athletes' receipt of athletics aid to those who were academically certified by the eligibility center, during the 2012 fall semester, the institution allowed student-athlete 1 to receive aid even though she was determined to be a nonqualifier by the eligibility center. This contributed to the infraction detailed in Violation No. 5. IV. REVIEW OF VIOLATIONS The submitted amended SDR fully details the parties' positions in the infractions case and includes the agreed-upon primary facts and violations. After reviewing parties' principal factual agreements and the respective explanations surrounding those agreements, the panel accepts the parties' SDR and concludes that those facts constitute major violations of NCAA bylaws. As detailed in Section III of the decision, this case focused on two separate areas of violations, both of which include serious infractions. First, in violation of bylaws governing financial aid (Bylaw 15) and extra benefits (Bylaw 16), the institution's administration failed to prevent 110 student-athletes in 15 sports from using athletics related financial aid to purchase impermissible items at the

12 Page No. 12 institution's bookstore that were not required for their courses. These items included electronic devices, assorted school supplies, personal hygiene and apparel items and extra books, which, at times, were provided to other student-athletes. Bylaws , and stipulate that member institutions can provide athletically related financial aid that includes tuition, books, fees, room and board. The above items are not included in what the institution can provide under current NCAA rules. The above items purchased by student-athletes at the bookstore are therefore considered to be extra benefits and their receipt violates Bylaw , which specifies that student-athletes shall not receive benefit(s) not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation. Additional extra benefit violations occurred when the institution's administration permitted 215 student-athletes in 15 sports to retain unspent portions of athletics aid that was designated solely for the purchase of required course-related items, tuition or housing. All of these violations occurred because there was a lack of appropriate safeguards in the student-athlete textbook distribution system, as well as improper administration of the student financial accounting system. When student-athletes receive an extra benefit, their eligibility is affected. Bylaw prohibits student-athletes from receiving financial aid other than that permitted by the Association and the receipt of impermissible financial aid renders student-athletes ineligible for competition. Bylaw requires institutions to withhold ineligible student-athletes from competition. Violations of Bylaws and occurred when, despite the fact that athletics administrators were aware of NCAA violations associated with student-athletes' misuse of financial aid, the institution did not withhold six of these student-athletes and failed to seek reinstatement from the NCAA, as legislatively required. The institution's failure to withhold these student-athletes from competition and seek reinstatement from the NCAA resulted in these six student-athletes competing in numerous contests while ineligible. The second area of violations involved the men's and women's track and field and cross country programs. Bylaw prohibits athletics representatives from being involved in recruiting. In this case, the head coach enlisted the assistance of a Kenyan citizen (identified earlier in this decision as the "athletics representative") to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes in that country. By engaging in recruiting activity on behalf of the institution, this individual became a representative of the institution's athletics interest as defined by NCAA legislation. This individual accepted telephone calls from prospects and spoke to them about Howard University and the head coach. Bylaw provides the definition of recruiting periods including "quiet" periods. Bylaw specifies the exact dates of recruiting periods in cross country and track and field, including the specific time frames which are considered "quiet" periods. The head coach also made off-campus recruiting contacts and evaluations with Kenyan prospects in late 2011 and early 2012 during a designated recruiting quiet period.

13 Page No. 13 Additionally, between August 2011 and January 3, 2013, the head coach and the athletics representative provided approximately $11,500 in inducements and extra benefits to five then prospective and now current men's and women's cross country and track and field student-athletes in violation of Bylaws and Bylaw states that, "An institutional staff member or any representative of its athletics interests shall not be involved, directly or indirectly, in making arrangements for, or giving or offering to give any financial aid or other benefits to a prospective student-athlete...." Bylaw prohibits student-athletes from receiving benefits not expressly allowed by NCAA legislation. Further, in violation of Bylaws and , a women's track and cross country student-athlete received approximately $12,000 in athletics aid even though the eligibility center determined her to be a non-qualifier. Bylaws and specify that, in order to be eligible for practice, competition and the receipt of athletically related financial aid, student-athletes who enroll at NCAA member institutions must meet academic requirements as certified by the eligibility center as well as "conference and institutional regulations." The institution and the head coach agreed that the head coach engaged in unethical conduct and failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance through his knowing involvement in the violations set forth above and through his provision of false and misleading information related to his provision of recruiting inducements to a women's track and cross country prospective student-athlete. Bylaw states, "Individuals employed by a member institution to administer conduct or coach intercollegiate athletics... shall act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times...." Knowing involvement in violations is contrary to this bylaw as specifically set forth in Bylaw 10.1-(c), which establishes that unethical conduct includes, "knowing involvement in offering or providing a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete an improper inducement or extra benefit or improper financial aid." Further, Bylaw 10.1-(d) indicates that unethical conduct occurs when "A current or former institutional staff member... knowingly furnishes... the NCAA or the individual's institution false or misleading information concerning an individual's involvement in or knowledge of matters relevant to a possible violation of an NCAA regulation." Finally, Bylaw states, "It shall be the responsibility of an institution's head coach to promote an atmosphere for compliance within the program supervised by the head coach...." Through his involvement in the violations set forth above and his provision of false information, the head coach clearly failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance. As a result of the violations set forth in this decision, which occurred during the period from the academic year through the 2013 summer academic term, Howard University agreed that it failed to ensure institutional control. Constitution and address institutional control. Among the requirements is that member institutions

14 Page No. 14 shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the Association in the conduct of its intercollegiate athletics programs and that they shall monitor its programs to assure compliance. A lack of institutional control exists when there is a failure to establish a proper system for compliance or a failure to monitor the operations of a compliance system appropriately. Institutional control requires that an institution ensure rules are known by all who need to know and to make proper checks to confirm that the rules are being followed. The institution agrees that it did not complete an initial analysis to determine if a new textbook distribution and student financial accounting system would have the necessary safeguards to ensure compliance with NCAA legislation. Institutional administrators did not consult with athletics compliance staff and other institutional employees responsible for administering student-athlete financial aid to ensure that all the appropriate staff members possessed a thorough understanding of how the new system operated. The institution also failed to ensure that systems were in place to prevent misuse of athletics related financial aid. Moreover, there was also a failure by the institution to understand and comply with well-known NCAA legislation relating to the withholding from competition of student-athletes who, through involvement in NCAA violations, are ineligible and thereby required to undergo the reinstatement process. A lack of institutional control is also demonstrated when a head coach fails to create and maintain an atmosphere for compliance within the program the coach supervises. As set forth in Violation No. 4, the head coach failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance. Further, the institution admitted that it failed to monitor the recruiting activity of the head coach, and that it further failed to monitor when it did not prevent a women's track and cross country student-athlete from receiving aid after she was determined to be a nonqualifier by the eligibility center. The parties agreements in the amended SDR are consistent with a lack of institutional control. V. PENALTIES For the reasons set forth in Sections III and IV of this decision, the panel concludes that this case involved major violations of NCAA legislation. As previously explained in this decision, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors enacted a new infractions process that went into effect on October 30, The new process included a more stringent penalty structure. The violations in this case occurred both before and after October 30, In accordance with policy, the panel applied the previous penalty structure because it was more lenient.

15 Page No. 15 The panel also considered the institution's cooperation in this case. Cooperation during the infractions process is addressed in Bylaw The panel finds that the cooperation exhibited by the institution was consistent with its obligation under the bylaw. As the institution agreed to the factual findings, violations and penalties, there is no opportunity to appeal. As previously mentioned, the head coach may appeal the panel's decision to prescribe the three-year show-cause order. After consideration of the institution's self-imposed penalties and corrective actions, the committee prescribes the penalties identified below. 7 Those self-imposed by the institution are so noted and the institution's corrective actions are contained in the Appendix. General Administrative Penalties 1. Public reprimand and censure. 2. Four years of probation from, through May 19, (Institution proposed) 8 3. A fine of $140,000. [Note: The fine consists of: $135,000 to address the rules violations described in Violation Nos. 1 and 2; and $5,000 to address the participation of ineligible student-athletes described in Violation No. 4.] (Institution imposed) 4. Reduce grants-in-aid in the sport of football by one equivalency from the average annual amount awarded during the four-year period between the and academic years (58.19) during the , and academic years. (Institution imposed) 5. Reduce grants-in-aid in the sport of men's basketball by a.5 equivalency from the average annual amount awarded during the four-year period between the and academic years (12.60) during the academic year. (Institution imposed) 6. Reduce grants-in-aid in the sport of women's swimming by a.25 equivalency from the average annual amount awarded during the four-year period between the and academic years (6.37) during the and academic years. (Institution imposed) 7 All of the penalties prescribed in this case are independent of and supplemental to any action that has been or may be taken by the Committee on Academic Performance through its assessment of contemporaneous, historical, or other penalties. 8 Institutions may propose probationary periods but the authority to prescribe NCAA probation rests solely with the panel. Periods of probation commence with the release of the infractions decision.

16 Page No Reduce grants-in-aid in the sport of men's cross country and track and field by two equivalences from the average annual amount awarded during the four-year period between the and academic years (11.24) during the , and academic years. (Institution imposed) 8. Reduce the recruiting opportunities in men's track and field and cross country by two (from seven to five) for all prospective student-athletes during the , and academic years. (Institution imposed) 9. Reduce the recruiting opportunities in women's track and field and cross country by one (from seven to six) for all prospective student-athletes during the and academic years. (Institution imposed) 10. Reduce, from three to one, the maximum number of coaches in the sports of men's and women's cross country and track and field who may contact or evaluate prospective student-athletes off campus at any one time during the , and academic years. [Note: The institution employs two coaches in the sports of men's and women's cross country and track and field.] (Institution imposed) 11. Permanent disassociation of the athletics representative, who, through his actions, became a representative of the institution's athletics interests. (Institution imposed) The terms of this disassociation include: a. Refrain from accepting any assistance from the individual who would aid in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes or the support of enrolled student-athletes; b. Not accept financial assistance for the institution's athletics program from the individual; c. Ensure that no athletics benefit or privilege be provided to the individual that is not generally available to the public at large; and d. Take such other actions against the individual who the institution determines to be within its authority to eliminate the involvement of the individual in the institution's athletics program. 12. Vacation of all men's cross country and track and field wins in which men's track student-athletes 1, 2, 4 and 5 competed for the institution while ineligible during

17 Page No. 17 the and academic years. The individual records of the studentathletes shall be vacated as well. Further, the institution's records regarding men's cross country and track and field, as well as the record of the head men's cross country and track and field coach during those years, will reflect the vacated records and will be recorded in all publications in which men's cross country and track and field for the through the seasons are reported, including, but not limited to, institutional media guides, recruiting material, electronic and digital media plus institutional, conference and NCAA archives. Any public reference to these vacated contests shall be removed from athletics department stationery, banners displayed in public areas and any other form in which they may appear. Finally, to ensure that all institutional and student-athlete vacations, statistics and records are accurately reflected in official NCAA publications and archives, the sports information director (or other designee as assigned by the director of athletics) must contact the NCAA director of statistics and appropriate conference officials to identify the specific student-athlete and contests impacted by the penalties. In addition, the institution must provide the NCAA statistics department a written report, detailing those discussions with the director of statistics. This document will be maintained in the permanent files of the statistics department. This written report will be delivered to the NCAA statistics department no later than 45 days following the initial decision release. (Institution imposed) A copy shall be provided to the Office of the Committees on Infractions at that time. The institution must confirm in its first annual compliance report that it has taken all required actions relating to changed records. 13. The institution initiated a review of its athletics compliance program by the Mid- Eastern Athletic Conference (MEAC) office in July The institution also will initiate a review of its athletics compliance by an external agency during the academic year. The results of the external reviews shall be included in the institution's and annual compliance reports. (Institution imposed) Penalty Prescribed for the Conduct of the Former Head Coach 14. The head coach knowingly and admittedly committed serious rules infractions as set forth in violations 3, 4-a-(1) through (6) and 4-b-(4). 9 Additionally, he provided false and misleading information to institutional and NCAA investigators. Further, he failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance. Therefore, he will be informed in writing by the NCAA that, due to his involvement in violations of NCAA legislation found in this case, if he seeks 9 Regarding his violations, the panel asked the head coach at the expedited hearing whether everything in the amended SDR was accurate. He replied that it was.

18 Page No. 18 employment or affiliation in an athletically related position at an NCAA member institution during a three-year period (, through May 19, 2017), he and the involved institution shall be required to appear before a panel to consider whether the member institution shall be subject to the show-cause order set forth in Bylaw 19, which could limit his athletically related duties at the hiring institution for the designated period. Other Administrative Penalties and Measures 15. During this period of probation, the institution shall: a. Continue to develop and implement a comprehensive rules education program on NCAA legislation, including seminars and testing, to instruct coaches, the faculty athletics representative, all athletics department personnel and all institutional staff members with responsibility for the financial aid and textbook distribution processes. b. Inform prospective student-athletes in all sports of the violations committed and that the institution is on probation for four years. If a prospective student-athlete takes an official paid visit, the information regarding violations, penalties and terms of probation shall be provided in advance of the visit. Otherwise, the information shall be provided before a prospective student-athlete signs a National Letter of Intent. c. Publicize specific and understandable information concerning the nature of the infractions by providing, at a minimum, a statement to include the types of violations in this case and a direct, conspicuous link to the public infractions decision located on the athletic department's main webpage. The institution's statement must: (1) clearly describe the infractions; (2) include the length of the probationary period associated with the major infractions case; and (3) give members of the general public a clear indication of what occurred in the case so to allow the public (particularly prospective student-athletes and their families) to make informed, knowledgeable decisions. A statement that refers only to the probationary period with nothing more is not sufficient. The institution may meet its responsibility in a variety of ways and the Office of the Committees on Infraction's approval of the statement will not be unreasonably withheld. d. File with the Office of the Committees on Infractions a preliminary compliance report by July , a setting forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program.

19 Page No. 19 e. File annual compliance reports indicating the progress made with this program by March 15 each year during the probationary period. Particular emphasis will be placed on the proper administration of athletics grants, which include textbooks and the education of administrators and student-athletes in this aspect of athletics aid. The reports also will include documentation of the institution's compliance with the penalties adopted and imposed by the panel. 16. At the conclusion of the probationary period, the institution's president shall provide a letter to the committee affirming that the institution's current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations. As set forth in Bylaw , future major violations of NCAA legislation by Howard University may be considered as an "aggravating factor" for the prescription of penalties in subsequent cases. Should the head coach appeal the show-cause order that he did not agree to in this case to the NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee, the Committee on Infractions will submit a response to the Infractions Appeals Committee. As set forth in applicable NCAA bylaws and procedures of the Infractions Appeals Committee, penalties that are appealed are automatically stayed until the appeal is concluded. The Committee on Infractions advises the institution that it should take every precaution to ensure that the terms of the penalties are observed. The committee will monitor the penalties during their effective periods. Any action by the institution contrary to the terms of any of the penalties or any additional violations shall be considered grounds for extending the institution's probationary period or prescribing more severe sanctions or may result in additional allegations and conclusion of violations. An institution that employs an individual while a show-cause order is in effect against that individual, and fails to adhere to the penalties prescribed, subjects itself to allegations and possible violations and penalties. Should any portion of any of the penalties in this case be set aside for any reason other than by appropriate action of the Association, the penalties shall be reconsidered by the committee. Should any action by NCAA legislative bodies directly or indirectly modify any provision of these penalties of the effect of the penalties, the committee reserves the right to review and reconsider the penalties.

20 Page No. 20 NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS PANEL Melissa "Missy" Conboy (Chief Hearing Officer) John Black Lloyd Carr Carol Cartwright Greg Christopher Bobby Cremins

21 Page No. 21 APPENDIX CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE INSTITUTION'S FEBRUARY 19, 2014, SUMMARY DISPOSITION REPORT During the 2012 spring semester, the institution terminated the employment of the former assistant athletics director for compliance. Further, during the 2012 spring semester and 2012 and 2013 summer periods, members of the athletics compliance office and the senior academic advisor resigned their respective positions at the institution. The head coach resigned his employment at the institution November 12, The institution hired a new head men's and women's cross country and track and field coach with extensive compliance experience (the coach is a former compliance officer at an NCAA member institution). The men's and women's cross country and track and field coaching staff is prohibited from engaging in any off-campus recruiting activities in a foreign jurisdiction (e.g., outside of the United States and its territories and possessions) during the , and academic years. 10 The institution has revamped its athletics compliance operations, which began in the summers of 2012 and 2013 with the hiring of an associate director of athletics for compliance and an assistant director of compliance. The institution also will hire a compliance coordinator. The institution created a Compliance Officers Group, which meets regularly to assure compliance with various mandates flowing from government laws and regulations, private grants (from foundations or corporations) and requirements from accrediting agencies and athletics associations. The athletics compliance office is a member of the Compliance Officer Group, which is chaired by the general counsel. During the 2012 spring and fall semesters, the institution implemented an improved textbook distribution and return process, and created enhanced policies and procedures for training, controls and oversight that will eliminate the potential recurrence of book scholarship violations. Further, during the 2012 fall semester, the institution's athletics compliance office began monitoring student-athletes' bookstore receipts after the conclusion of the textbook distribution process. Finally, during this period, the institution required student-athletes to review and sign a statement acknowledging their understanding of NCAA legislation pertaining to permissible textbook purchases using athletically related aid. During the academic year, the institution will implement an enhanced financial accounting system relating to student-athletes (which will include proper programming to prevent impermissible tuition and housing athletics aid refunds). 10 This action was originally included in the institution's self-imposed penalties.