EAST CENTRAL UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS DECISION JUNE 30, 2015

Transcription

1 EAST CENTRAL UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS DECISION JUNE 30, 2015 I. INTRODUCTION The NCAA Division II Committee on Infractions is an independent administrative body comprised of individuals from the NCAA Division II membership and the public charged with adjudicating infractions cases involving member institutions and their staffs. This case involved East Central University. 1 The case also included the institution's former head men's basketball coach. The committee considered this case through the cooperative summary disposition process in which all parties agree to the primary facts, violations and violation levels, as fully set forth in the Summary Disposition Report (SDR). The underlying violations were not in dispute. This case primarily centered on violations of NCAA recruiting bylaws that occurred in the men's basketball program during the spring and summer of It also included a violation resulting from a student-athlete failing to sign the NCAA Drug-Testing Consent Form prior to the student-athlete engaging in athletically related activity. In addition, the former head men's basketball coach violated NCAA head coach responsibility and ethical conduct legislation because of his involvement in the violations in this case and for his failure to engage the institution's compliance staff to determine whether certain actions he took were permissible under NCAA legislation. The committee accepted the parties' SDR. The committee concluded that the parties' agreed-upon facts and violations constituted major violations of NCAA legislation. The committee adopted the institution's self-imposed penalties and those imposed by the Great American Conference. After considering all relevant factors, the committee prescribed the following primary penalties: one year of probation; a $2,500 fine; and a three-year show-cause order associated with the former head men's basketball coach. II. CASE HISTORY The institution first became aware of potential violations of NCAA legislation on September 15, On that date, the institution's director of cafeteria services informed the then assistant director of athletics for academics and compliance that the cafeteria did 1 A member of the Great American Conference, East Central University is located in Ada, Oklahoma, and has a total enrollment of approximately 5,227. The institution sponsors seven women's sports and six men's sports. This is its first major infractions case.

2 Page No. 2 not receive payment for meals provided to two men's basketball prospective studentathletes ("prospects 1 and 2," respectively). Upon learning of the information reported by the director of cafeteria services, the compliance director met with the president, the director of athletics and the faculty athletics representative to inform them that NCAA violations may have occurred. The institution immediately initiated an investigation. On December 1, 2011, the institution submitted a self-report to the NCAA enforcement staff. The enforcement staff's investigation commenced in May The early stages of the investigation included an interview with the former head men's basketball coach (the "head coach"), who admitted involvement in violations of NCAA legislation. The enforcement staff's investigation and further processing of the case did not move forward for nearly two years and the enforcement staff accepted responsibility for that delay. Ultimately, the enforcement staff, along with the institution's outside legal counsel, completed a joint investigation on June 6, The enforcement staff and the institution completed the agreed-upon SDR on December 2, The committee reviewed the report during a December 16, 2014, conference call. After the committee's initial review of the SDR, the committee requested additional information. Following its review of the additional materials, the committee accepted the parties' proposed factual findings and violations as set forth in the SDR. However, pursuant to NCAA Bylaw , the committee proposed further penalties in addition to those in the SDR. Because the institution did not agree to two of the proposed penalties, a two-year probationary period and a $5,000 fine, the committee conducted an expedited hearing on April 29, Members of the enforcement staff attended the hearing as observers. III. PARTIES' AGREEMENTS A. PARTIES' AGREED-UPON FACTUAL BASIS AND VIOLATIONS OF NCAA LEGISLATION The parties jointly submitted a SDR that identifies agreed-upon factual basis, violations and violation levels of NCAA legislation. The SDR identifies: 1. [NCAA Division II Manual Bylaw ( )] The NCAA enforcement staff, institution and the head coach, agreed that the head coach attended an April 8, 2011, basketball camp sponsored by a privately owned organization that sponsors basketball camps, before the start of the institution's summer vacation period. While at the camp, the head coach worked as a camp counselor.

3 Page No [NCAA Division II Manual Bylaws , , , , and ( )] The NCAA enforcement staff, institution and the head coach agreed that in July 2011, a representative of the institution's athletics interests who had been hired to begin his employment as an assistant coach on August 1, 2011, made impermissible recruiting contact and provided impermissible inducements to at least four men's basketball prospective student-athletes, prior to his official hire date. The head coach provided direction to the athletics representative that led him to engage in impermissible recruiting activities. The athletics representative had not taken the NCAA Division II Coaches Certification (Recruiting) Test prior to the provision of the impermissible recruiting contact and inducements that included impermissible telephone contact, automobile transportation and a meal. Specifically: a. In July 2011, the athletics representative made at least one telephone call each to three men's basketball prospective studentathletes ("prospects 3, 4 and 5", respectively). [NCAA Bylaws , , and ( )] b. In July 2011, the athletics representative picked up prospect 4 from the Tulsa International Airport for an official paid visit to the institution's campus. [NCAA Bylaws , and ( )] c. On July 30, 2011, the athletics representative transported a men's basketball prospective student-athlete, ("prospect 6") from the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport to the institution's campus, for an approximate value of $82. In route to the institution's campus, the athletics representative purchased a meal and a few nominal cost items for prospect 6. [NCAA Bylaws , , and ( )] 3. [NCAA Division II Manual Bylaws , , (b), (g), (h), (l), , and ( )] The NCAA enforcement staff, institution and the head coach agreed that in May, June, July and August 2011, the head coach assisted, provided or arranged to provide $5,522 in impermissible inducements to prospects 1, 2 and 6. Specifically:

4 Page No. 4 a. On May 16, 2011, the head coach assisted prospect 1 in the summer school registration process when he used his personal credit card to pay $ for prospective student-athlete 1's tuition at a two-year college, so the prospect could be eligible for the 2011 fall semester. [NCAA Bylaw ( )] b. On July 7, 2011, the head coach arranged for his girlfriend to use her personal credit card to pay $552 for prospect 1's tuition at fouryear institution, so the prospect could be eligible for the 2011 fall semester. [NCAA Bylaw ( )] c. On August 2, 2011, the head coach assisted prospect 1 in the registration process when he used his personal credit card to pay $425 for prospect 1's tuition at a second two-year college, so the prospect could be eligible for the 2011 fall semester. [NCAA Bylaws and ( )] d. In June and July 2011, the head coach provided prospects 1's and 2's meals in the institution's cafeteria free of charge, without determining how the meals were to be paid. Both prospects consumed a total of 110 meals in the institution's cafeteria, at a cost of $ [NCAA Bylaws and (g) ( )] e. In June and July 2011, the head coach arranged for prospects 1 and 2 to stay approximately 26 days in on-campus housing, at no cost to them. The housing department's guest rate is $20 per night, per individual, for a total value of $1,040. [NCAA Bylaws and (h) ( )] f. In June and July 2011, the head coach arranged for prospects 1 and 2 to use the strength facility on 26 occasions at no charge. The two prospects were not enrolled in the institution's summer term before initial full-time enrollment. Neither prospect signed a National Letter of Intent or written offer of admission. The guest rate for the use of the facility is $5 per day for a total value of $260. [NCAA Bylaws (g) and ( )] g. In June 2011, the head coach arranged for prospect 1 to use a music appreciation book for an online music course in which prospect 1 was enrolled. The total value of the book was $ [NCAA Bylaws , (l) and ( )]

5 Page No. 5 h. From July 11 to 15, 2011, during an evaluation period, the head coach attended a second men's basketball camp sponsored by the same organization involved in Violation No. 1. While there, the head coach had a conversation with prospect 6 and the prospect's mother. The head coach also provided prospect 6 with institutional apparel. [NCAA Bylaws and (b) ( )] i. In August 2011, the head coach used his personal credit card to pay $800 for prospect 6's tuition at a two-year college, so that the prospect could be eligible to attend the institution in the 2011 fall semester. [NCAA Bylaws and ( )] j. In July 2011, the head coach assisted prospect 6 in the summer school registration process by using the head coach's girlfriend's personal credit card to pay $744 for prospect 6's summer school courses at Western Oklahoma State so that he could be eligible to attend the institution for the 2011 fall semester. [NCAA Bylaws and ( )] k. On July 30, 2011, after the dinner referenced in Violation No. 2-c, the head coach met the athletics representative and prospect 6 at the institution's athletics facility. The head coach then instructed the athletics representative to transport prospect 6 to the head coach's residence. The head coach allowed prospect 6 to stay at his residence for one night at no charge. The total value for this benefit was $20. [NCAA Bylaws (h) and ( )] l. From July 31 to August 4, 2011, the head coach arranged for prospect 6 to reside in the institution's dormitory for five nights free of charge. The guest rate was $20 for a total value of $100. [NCAA Bylaws (h) and ( )] m. In June or July 2011, on at least one occasion, the head coach arranged for prospect 6 to use his office computer so that the prospect could complete and submit online assignments for an online summer course. [NCAA Bylaw ( )]

6 Page No [NCAA Division II Manual Bylaw ( )] The NCAA enforcement staff, institution and the head coach agreed in August 2011, the head coach allowed a men's basketball student-athlete to engage in strength and conditioning exercising with the men's basketball team 13 times prior to him signing the NCAA Drug-Testing Consent Form. 5. [NCAA Division II Manual Bylaws , 10.1, 10.1-(c) and ( )] The NCAA enforcement staff, institution and the head coach agree that the head coach violated NCAA head coach's responsibility and ethical conduct legislation when he failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance and when he failed to deport himself in accordance with the generally recognized high standards of honesty normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics through his involvement in violations of recruiting legislation. Specifically: a. The head coach violated ethical conduct legislation when he directly engaged in and directed others to engage in impermissible recruiting activities, as outlined in Violation Nos. 2 and 3. [NCAA Bylaws , 10.1, and 10.1-(c) ( )] b. The head coach violated head coach's responsibility legislation when he failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance by (1) directly engaging in and allowing others to engage in impermissible recruiting activities as set forth in Violations 1 through 3; (2) failing to engage the institution's compliance staff to determine whether his actions, or the actions of others violated NCAA legislation, as set forth in Violation Nos. 1 through 4; and (3) allowing a student-athlete to engage in strength and conditioning activities despite warnings from the institution's compliance department prohibiting such conduct, as set forth in Violation No. 4. [NCAA Bylaw ( )] IV. REVIEW OF CASE The submitted SDR fully details the parties' positions in the infractions case and includes the agreed-upon primary facts and violations. In concluding whether the facts constitute violations and the appropriate penalties for those violations, the committee reviewed the applicable bylaws and the jointly submitted SDR. The committee accepted the SDR and

7 Page No. 7 concluded that the primary facts detailed in Section III established major violations of NCAA legislation. Major violations are those that provide more than a minimal recruiting, competitive or other advantage or include any significant impermissible benefit. In this case, the institution agreed that major violations of NCAA legislation occurred in its men's basketball program when the head coach and, in some instances, the athletics representative and the head coach's girlfriend, violated NCAA recruiting legislation. The institution also violated NCAA eligibility legislation when the head coach allowed a student-athlete to participate in physical activity prior to signing the NCAA Drug-Testing Consent Form. Finally, the head coach violated NCAA head coach responsibility and ethical conduct legislation as a result of his involvement in the recruiting violations documented in this case and his failure to consult with the institution's compliance staff regarding the permissibility of his actions. A. Agreed-Upon Violations 1. The head coach committed a recruiting violation when he worked at a privately owned basketball camp prior to the institution s summer break. The first recruiting violation involved bylaws governing non-institutional privately owned camps and clinics. The head coach acknowledged that, in April 2011, he worked as a counselor at a privately owned men's basketball camp located in the British Virgin Islands. NCAA Bylaw ( Division II Manual) allows athletics department personnel to serve in any capacity at a non-institutional, privately owned camp or clinic, provided the camp or clinic owners operate it in accordance with restrictions applicable to institutional camps. In the sports of football and basketball, participation in such camps/clinics is limited to the institution's summer vacation period. Because the head coach worked at the camp prior to the institution's summer break, he violated NCAA Bylaw The athletics representative violated NCAA recruiting legislation when he became involved in the recruitment of four prospective student-athletes. The athletics representative, at the head coach's behest, committed violations in the recruitment of prospects 3, 4, 5 and 6. The recruiting violations occurred in the following areas: (1) telephone calls; (2) recruiting contacts; and (3) impermissible benefits.

8 Page No. 8 When the athletics representative, who the head coach later hired as an assistant coach, made recruiting telephone calls to prospects, he violated NCAA legislation. NCAA Bylaw requires that only coaches certified to recruit may contact prospective student-athletes. Because the athletics representative was not yet a coach and he had not taken the NCAA Division II Coaches Certification (Recruiting) Test, a requirement to engage in recruiting, the athletics representative violated NCAA Bylaw In addition, because NCAA Bylaw specifically prohibits athletics representatives from telephoning prospects, he violated this bylaw as well. NCAA Bylaws and specify that only authorized staff members certified to recruit (and no athletics representatives) may have off-campus recruiting contacts. Additionally, NCAA Bylaw allows institutions to provide transportation for prospects in conjunction with unofficial visits, but under very specific, limited circumstances within the confines of the institution s local area. NCAA Bylaw prohibits athletics representatives from providing benefits to prospective studentathletes. When the athletics representative transported prospect 4 from the Tulsa airport and prospect 6 from the Dallas/Fort Worth airport to the institution's campus, he committed additional recruiting violations. The athletics representative committed other violations when, after picking up prospect 6 at the airport, he purchased a meal and a few nominal cost items for prospect 6. Consequently, the athletics representative violated these bylaws when he made contact with prospects 4 and 6 at the airports, transported them to the institution s campus and when he provided a meal and other items to prospect The head coach violated multiple NCAA bylaws in his recruitment of three prospective student-athletes. The head coach committed violations in the recruitment of prospects 1, 2 and 6. 2 The recruiting violations occurred in the following areas: (1) Tuition payments; (2) Lodging; (3) Transportation; (4) Meals; (5) Use of strength facility; (6) Provision of a textbook; (7) Recruiting contact; (8) Gift of apparel; and (9) Use of a computer. 2 Prospect 2 was a friend of prospect 1, but, according to the head coach, he was not recruiting prospect 2. Nevertheless, prospect 2 expressed a desire to transfer to the institution so that he and prospect 1 could attend the same institution and play together. Similar to prospect 1, prospect 2 was not academically eligible. According to the head coach, prospect 2 "just showed up and was hanging out with (prospect 1)."

9 Page No. 9 The head coach, and, in one instance, the head coach's girlfriend, at his direction, violated NCAA recruiting legislation when they paid the tuition costs for courses taken by two prospects prior to their enrollment at the institution. The prospects needed these courses to become academically eligible and compete at the institution. NCAA Bylaw specifies that an institution's 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 prospective student-athletes other than those expressly permitted by NCAA regulations. NCAA Bylaw prohibits an institution or a representative of its athletics interests from offering, providing or arranging financial assistance, directly or indirectly, to pay (in whole or in part) the costs of prospective student-athletes educational or other expenses for any period before his or her enrollment at a member institution. Consequently, when the head coach and/or his girlfriend paid the tuition costs for prospects 1 and 6 to take courses so that they could become eligible, he violated NCAA Bylaws and Further, the head coach violated NCAA legislation pertaining to housing when he arranged for, or provided cost-free lodging for three prospects. The head coach arranged for prospects 1, 2 and 6 to reside cost-free in institutional housing at various times during the summer of He also allowed prospect 6 to reside in his home for one night cost-free. NCAA Bylaw generally prohibits staff members from providing benefits and inducements to prospects. NCAA Bylaw (h) specifically prohibits "free or reduced cost housing." NCAA Bylaw allows institutions to rent dormitory space to a prospective student-athlete during the summer months, but they must pay for the housing at the regular institutional rate. Consequently, the head coach violated NCAA Bylaws , (h) and when he arranged for the three prospects to reside cost-free in on-campus housing and NCAA Bylaws and (h) when he allowed prospect 6 to reside in his home for one night cost-free. Additionally, the head coach violated bylaws governing transportation when he directed the athletics representative to transport prospect 6 to the head coach's residence on the occasion prospect 6 spent the night in the head coach's home. NCAA Bylaw allows institutions to provide transportation to prospective student-athletes under certain circumstances during official and unofficial visits. The transportation the athletics 3 Prospect 1's father-in-law repaid most of the $1, in tuition costs to the head coach. However, $ was not repaid. Regardless of the repayment, violations of NCAA Bylaws and occurred.

10 Page No. 10 representative provided for prospect 6 to the head coach's home did not meet any of the conditions for which permissible transportation could be provided; therefore, a violation of NCAA Bylaw occurred. Moreover, during the summer of 2011, the head coach violated NCAA legislation when he arranged for prospects 1 and 2 to receive meals free of charge at the institution's cafeteria and allowed both to use the institution's strength facility at no cost. NCAA Bylaw generally prohibits staff members from giving benefits to prospective student-athletes. NCAA Bylaw (g) prohibits the provision of free or reduced-cost services, rentals or purchases of any type. Therefore, the cost-free meals and use of the strength facility violated these bylaws. Further, although NCAA Bylaw permits institutions to pay fees for prospects to use strength facilities during the summer before initial full-time enrollment, the prospects must have signed a National Letter of Intent or written offer of admission and/or financial aid. Because neither of the prospects had signed a National Letter of Intent or written offer of admission, the head coach also violated Bylaw Additionally, the head coach violated NCAA legislation when he arranged for prospect 1 to use a music appreciation book for an online music course. By providing this impermissible benefit to prospect 1, the head coach violated NCAA Bylaw , which forbids staff members from providing benefits to prospects, and NCAA Bylaw (l), which specifically prohibits staff members from providing educational expenses, including books. Further, the head coach committed several other NCAA violations during his recruitment of prospect 6. The head coach committed violations when he had an impermissible in-person contact with prospect 6 and his mother during an evaluation period; when he provided an item of apparel to the prospect; and when he provided the prospect use of a computer. NCAA Bylaw provides the definition of the evaluation period and specifically prohibits in-person, off-campus recruiting contacts with prospects and their relatives/guardians during evaluation periods. NCAA Bylaw (b) forbids institutional staff members from providing a "gift of clothing or equipment" to prospective student-athletes. NCAA Bylaw generally bans institutional staff members from providing benefits to prospective student-athletes. Consequently, the head coach violated these bylaws when he had an impermissible in-person contact with the prospect and his mother during an evaluation period, when he provided an

11 Page No. 11 item of apparel to the prospect during the contact and when he provided use of a computer to the prospect. 4. The head coach violated NCAA eligibility legislation when, despite warnings from the compliance director, he failed to have studentathlete sign a required NCAA form prior to the student-athlete engaging in physical activity. NCAA Bylaw requires student-athletes to sign a form prescribed by the Management Council in which the student-athlete consents to be tested for the use of drugs prohibited by NCAA legislation...." The compliance director warned the head coach that the student-athlete would not be able to participate in any athletically related activity without passing a physical and completing the necessary paperwork, including the drug-testing form. The head coach violated Bylaw when he allowed a men's basketball student-athlete to participate in conditioning activities before signing the NCAA's Drug-Testing Consent Form. 5. The head coach violated NCAA ethical conduct and head coach responsibility legislation when he engaged in, and directed others to engage in recruiting violations, when he failed to heed warnings from the compliance office and when he did not consult with the compliance office regarding the permissibility of his activities. NCAA Bylaw 10.1-(c) specifies that "unethical conduct by a current or former institutional staff member (includes) knowing involvement in offering or providing a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete an improper inducement or extra benefit or improper financial aid." The head coach engaged the athletics representative in impermissible recruiting activity that included the representative providing impermissible inducements. Moreover, the head coach himself knowingly provided impermissible recruiting inducements to several prospective studentathletes. Consequently, the head coach violated NCAA Bylaw 10.1-(c). NCAA Bylaw requires, "it shall be the responsibility of an institution's head coach to promote an atmosphere for compliance within the program supervised by the coach and to monitor the activities regarding compliance of all assistant coaches and other administrators involved with the program who report directly or indirectly to the coach." The head coach directly participated in violations and involved others as well. Moreover, the head coach did not consult with the compliance office regarding the permissibility of his activities, and disregarded a direct warning by the compliance director to withhold a student-athlete from

12 Page No. 12 B. Contested Penalties athletic activity. Because of this conduct by the head coach, he failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance and thus violated NCAA Bylaw The institution contested the committee's proposed two-year probationary period and the $5,000 fine. The institution's men's basketball program committed numerous recruiting violations involving six prospective student-athletes. These violations included the payment of tuition fees for prospective student-athletes to take courses in order to attain academic eligibility. Further, the men's basketball program violated NCAA eligibility legislation when the head coach allowed a student-athlete to engage in physical activity before signing a mandatory drugtesting consent form. Finally, the head coach engaged in unethical conduct and failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance as the result of his involvement in the violations comprising this case. 1. Because the institution is responsible for the serious violations committed by the head coach, combined with the need for a period of monitoring, the committee concludes that probation is appropriate; however, due to the amount of time it took to resolve this case, among additional factors, the committee reduces the proposed two years of probation to one year. The institution asserted that the proposed two-year probation was not an appropriate penalty because: (1) The institution has served a "de facto" probation for four years due to the public nature of the case; (2) There is no finding of either failure to monitor or lack of institutional control; (3) All violations in the SDR were self-discovered and self-reported; (4) According to the enforcement staff, "the institution's investigative team worked diligently to collect various documents that were germane to the institution's investigation;" (5) According to the enforcement staff, the institution was proactive and cooperation was present throughout the investigation; (6) The violations were all committed by individuals who are no longer associated with the institution; (7) According to the enforcement staff, "the violations in this case were the direct result of the actions of the involved party and were largely undetectable by other staff members of the institution;" and (8) The self-imposed and conferenceimposed penalties and extensive corrective actions have addressed the violations. NCAA Bylaw (b) authorizes the committee to prescribe "probation for up to five years" in cases involving major violations. For

13 Page No. 13 at least the past 15 years, the Division II Committee on Infractions has prescribed a probationary period in every major infractions case, ranging from one to five years. Despite the institution's attempt to distance itself from the violations committed by the head coach, the fact remains that member institutions act through their employees, thus East Central University is responsible for the actions of the head coach and the violations he committed. The committee addressed this in Lynn University, Case No. M245 (2007) when it wrote that violations of a head coach, as an institutional employee, are imputed to the institution. Nevertheless, the committee found the institution's argument regarding the probationary period compelling, particularly the fact that this case has taken nearly four years to resolve. The Division III Committee on Infractions addressed this very issue in a decision involving Baruch College, Case No. M256 (2011). In prescribing a one-year period of probation, the Division III Committee focused on the lengthy amount of time it took to complete the case: Had the enforcement staff processed this matter in a timely fashion, the institution most likely would have faced probation of multiple years. However, the committee noted that in the four-plus years since the violations were initially discovered, the institution has put in place significant remedial measures and has indicated the measures will continue. Therefore, to ensure that the institution follows through on the new penalties, a one-year period of probation is imposed. In its argument, East Central University cited a Division II infractions case involving University of Southern Indiana, Case No. M321 (2011). In prescribing only a one-year probationary period in Southern Indiana, the committee cited five factors that justified a minimal period of probation, writing: The committee deviates from the presumptive minimum term of probation for the following reasons: a) there is no finding of either failure to monitor or lack of institutional control by the institution; b) according to the enforcement staff, the institution's level of cooperation was exemplary; c) the violations were all committed by individuals who are no longer associated with the institution; d) the institution's

14 Page No. 14 self-imposed penalties and corrective actions have in large part addressed the violations; and e) other sanctions are more appropriate in this situation. 4 Several of the factors the committee cited in Southern Indiana were also present in this case. Those factors include: a) no finding of either a failure to monitor or lack of institutional control; b) the violations were all committed by individuals who are no longer employed by the institution; and c) the institution fully cooperated by acting promptly to address the violations and conducted a thorough self-investigation. Based on past case guidance, the excessive length of time this case took to resolve and the appropriateness of the institution's response to the violations in this case, the committee prescribes a one-year probationary period. Part of the committee's rationale in prescribing probation is the requirement for the institution to monitor its athletics programs and report to the NCAA. During this one-year period, the institution will be required to submit preliminary and annual compliance reports. These reports will allow the committee to ensure that the institution's compliance education program is in order and that it is taking measures to prevent the occurrence of NCAA violations in the future. 2. Because of the serious nature of the recruiting violations in this case, the committee concludes that a fine is appropriate; however, for the same reasons cited in reducing the probationary period, the committee similarly reduces the proposed fine from $5,000 to $2,500. The institution contended that the proposed $5,000 fine was not appropriate because: (1) Fines should be prescribed for institutions that "don't do it right" and East Central University did everything a member institution could be expected to do in reaction to an infractions case; (2) The violations were strictly attributable to the head coach's actions, not anything the institution did or failed to do; and (3) The institution has already incurred a significant financial burden in the form of legal fees and other expenses associated with this infractions case. NCAA Bylaw (h) authorizes the committee to prescribe a financial penalty in major infractions cases. The committee intends fines to be punitive in nature and the committee has consistently prescribed them in recent years. In its past seven decisions dating back to 2013, the committee has prescribed a financial penalty in six cases. Of those six 4 At that time, the "presumptive minimum term of probation" for major infractions cases was two years.

15 Page No. 15 cases, with one exception, the fines were either $2,500 or $5,000. Based on recent case history and given the serious nature of the recruiting violations in this case, the committee concluded that a fine is appropriate. However, for the same reasons the committee cited in reducing the probationary period by 50 percent, the committee likewise reduces the fine amount by 50 percent, from $5,000 to $2,500. V. PENALTIES For the reasons set forth in Sections III and IV of this decision, the committee concluded that this case involved major violations of NCAA legislation. In prescribing the penalties, the committee considered the institution's cooperation in the processing of this case. NCAA Bylaws and address cooperation during the infractions process. The committee noted the enforcement staff wrote in the SDR that, "the institution was proactive in investigating the allegations outlined in this report, and their cooperation continued throughout the enforcement staff's investigative process." The committee concluded that the cooperation exhibited by the institution met its obligation under the bylaws. After careful consideration of the institution's presentation at the expedited hearing, most notably the fact that the violations in this case occurred nearly four years ago, the committee prescribed the penalties listed below. Because the committee did not agree to the institution's request to prescribe no probation and no fine, the institution has the opportunity to appeal both penalties. The institution's corrective actions are contained in the Appendix. Penalties self-imposed by the institution and those imposed by the Great American Conference are noted: Penalties, Disciplinary Measures and Corrective Actions (NCAA Bylaw ) 1. Public reprimand and censure. 2. The institution shall be placed on one year of probation from, through June 29, (The institution had self-imposed a one-year probationary period from December 1, 2011, to November 30, 2012) 5 3. The institution shall pay a fine of $2,500 to the NCAA. 5 Institutions may propose probationary periods but the authority to prescribe probation rests solely with the respective NCAA Committee on Infractions. Periods of NCAA probation always commence with the date of the infractions decision release.

16 Page No A program-wide reduction by one week in off-campus recruiting for men's basketball during the recruiting period of March (Institution imposed) 5. A 14-day reduction of off-campus recruiting for the interim head men's basketball coach during the period from February 2012 to May (Conference imposed) 6 6. The Great American Conference disqualified the institution's men's basketball team from participation in the 2012 conference basketball tournament. 7. The summary disposition report reflected that the head coach committed multiple, serious recruiting violations, engaged in unethical conduct and failed his responsibilities as a head coach. Therefore, the head coach will be informed in writing by the NCAA that, if he seeks employment or affiliation in an athletically related position at an NCAA member institution during a three-year period (June 30, 2015, through June 29, 2018), he and the involved institution shall be required to either appear before the committee, or submit a written proposal to the committee for consideration whether the member institution shall be subject to a show-cause order pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19. The show-cause order could require that an institution restrict the head coach's athletically related duties. 8. During this period of probation, the institution shall: a. Continue to develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation to instruct the coaches, the faculty athletics representative, all athletics department personnel and all institution staff members with responsibility for the certification of student-athletes' eligibility for admission, financial aid, practice or competition; b. Submit a preliminary report to the Office of the Committees on Infractions by August 15, 2015, setting forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program; c. File with the Office of the Committees on Infractions an annual compliance report by May 1, Particular emphasis should be placed on compliance education pertaining to recruiting administration and practices. The reports must also include documentation of the institution's compliance with the penalties adopted and prescribed by the committee; d. Inform prospective student-athletes in men's basketball that the institution is on probation for one year and explain the violations committed. Such 6 The athletics representative, who the head coach later hired as an assistant coach, served as the interim head coach following the resignation of the head coach.

17 Page No. 17 information must be provided to prospective student-athletes for the term of probation. Information to prospects must be provided before a prospective student-athlete signs a National Letter of Intent and no later than when the NCAA Eligibility Center provides a prospective studentathlete with the institution's academic data per NCAA Bylaw ; and e. Publicize specific and understandable information concerning the nature of the infractions by providing, at a minimum, a statement to include the types of violations, the affected sports program and a direct, conspicuous link to the public infractions decision located on the athletic department's main webpage. The information shall also be included in the media guide for men's basketball. The institution's statement must: (1) clearly describe the infractions; (2) include the length of the probationary period; and (3) give members of the public a clear indication of what occurred in the case. 9. 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. NCAA DIVISION II COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS Douglas Blais John David Lackey Bridget Lyons Julie A. Rochester, chair Carey Snyder Harry O. Stinson III Jane Teixeira

18 Page No. 18 APPENDIX CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE DECEMBER 2, 2014, SUMMARY DISPOSITION REPORT 1. The head men's basketball coach was relieved from head coaching duties and suspended from faculty duties effective December 1, He later resigned. 2. The institution declared prospects 1 and 6 (who later enrolled and became studentathletes) ineligible pending repayment of impermissible benefits and reinstatement by the NCAA student-athlete reinstatement staff As instructed by the conference, the institution issued a letter of reprimand to the athletics representative following his hiring by the institution as an assistant men's basketball coach. 4. Under the direction of the director of athletics, the institution will continue to have monthly compliance meetings as part of the monthly athletic department meetings with athletic staff. 5. Once a semester, the assistant athletic director for compliance/academics will conduct a separate meeting aside from the regular monthly meetings with all coaches and staff to discuss various compliance issues and give a refresher on various topics. 6. The assistant athletic director for compliance/academics will meet once a month with the president of the university to discuss any academic or compliance issues. 7. The institution will allocate funds separate from the Athletic Department budget for the director of athletics, the faculty athletics representative and the assistant athletic director for compliance/academics to attend NCAA regional rules seminars and in addition will also set aside funds for the registrar, director of financial aid, and director of admissions to also attend conference rules seminars or NCAA regional rules seminars. 8. The institution is developing new policies requiring descriptive text to be added on purchase order requests. 9. Any coach must now receive pre-approval from the assistant athletic director for compliance/academics prior to traveling for recruiting purposes or participating in camps or clinics. 7 The institution ultimately did not seek reinstatement of either student-athlete.

19 Page No An official visit approval form signed by the assistant athletic director for compliance/academics must now accompany all requests from coaches for use of complimentary hotel and food coupons distributed by the athletic director for official recruiting visits. 11. The assistant athletic director for compliance/academics will meet monthly with the director of housing and the director of food services to discuss any issues that may arise and insure that the assistant athletic director for compliance/academics is being notified of any requests from coaches for housing and meals. 12. The assistant athletic director for compliance/academics will give a list of current and prospective student-athletes that have signed a National Letter of Intent or athletic financial aid agreement to the strength staff prior to summer workouts so they know who is eligible to use the facility. 13. The assistant athletic director for compliance/academics will continue to coaches and other staff members regarding rules interpretation, changes in by-laws, or other university/conference/ncaa policy changes. 14. The assistant athletic director for compliance/academics and the director of athletics will continue to stress compliance during the start of the year meetings with all the studentathletes, in addition an enhanced overview of recruiting, benefits, and academic integrity will be discussed. 15. East Central participated in the Compliance Blueprint Program through the conference office. The purpose of the program is to provide Division II institutions the opportunity to conduct a thorough review of its athletics department's compliance program. The program is web-based and allows institutions to complete the process at its own pace. Once an institution completes the review, an on campus visit by an outside vendor is conducted (usually in the spring). Following the on-campus visit, a confidential report prepared by the vendor was submitted to the institution's president. 16. Each coach will now be required to provide a list of prospective and enrolled studentathletes, who are attending summer school, to become eligible, either at ECU or another institution to the assistant athletic director for compliance/academics. This list will incorporate the name of the prospective student-athlete (PSA) or current student-athlete (S-A), the institution they are attending, the classes they are taking, how tuition is being paid, where the PSA or S-A is staying, and how their meals are being provided. The assistant athletic director for compliance/academics will then spot-check the list to ensure accountability and accuracy.

20 Page No The assistant athletic director for compliance/academics will begin the process of compliance education with newly hired assistant and head coaches immediately upon notification of hire. 18. The director of athletics or his designee will store all university vehicle car keys and distribute them when requested to a coach who has passed the recruiting exam once the coach designates their destination and the reasons for travel. Upon return, any gas receipts must be presented at that time and a travel completion form submitted. If it is later determined that the vehicle was filled with gas and no receipt was submitted then that coach will lose the privilege of using the university vehicle until they produce the receipt or reimburse the university for un-receipted gas. 19. The university will start the process of launching a Complete Compliance Campaign (CCC) that will incorporate more communication and education to all university constituents. This campaign will reinforce the culture of compliance.