EMORY & HENRY UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS DECISION APRIL 10, 2015 I. INTRODUCTION The NCAA Division III Committee on Infractions is an independent administrative body comprised of individuals from the NCAA Division III membership and the public charged with deciding infractions cases involving member institutions and their staffs. This case involves Emory & Henry College. 1 The institution and enforcement staff are the only parties in the case. 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. Further, the institution agreed to the penalties; therefore, there is no appeal option. This case centered on the institution allowing representatives of the institution's athletics interests to be involved in the financial aid awarding process. On two occasions in 2012, two separate representatives contacted the institution's enrollment management office to advocate for the award of scholarships to two separate football student-athletes. One of the representatives was a university trustee. The institution's head football coach was also involved in one of the incidents. At the request of one of the representatives, the head football coach contacted the institution's financial aid director regarding the funds to be awarded to one of the student-athletes. The involvement of the representatives and the head football coach violated NCAA bylaws and the institution's financial aid procedures for the awarding of aid to student-athletes. The institution committed further violations when it used athletics criteria in the formulation of financial aid packages for student-athletes. From 2010-11 through 2013-14, the institution violated NCAA bylaws when it used athletics leadership, ability, participation or performance as criteria in the formulation of financial aid packages for 27 student-athletes in numerous sports. The violations in the case established that the institution failed to monitor the financial aid process or educate representatives of the institution's athletics interests and various campus constituencies regarding NCAA financial aid rules. 1 The institution, with an enrollment of approximately 1,000, is a member of the Old Dominion Athletic Conference (ODAC). This is the institution s first major infractions case.
Page No. 2 The committee accepted the parties SDR and concluded that the parties' agreed-upon facts and violations constituted major violations of NCAA bylaws. The committee also adopted the institution's self-imposed penalties. The institution accepted further penalties proposed by the committee. After considering all relevant factors, the committee prescribed the following principal penalties: two years of probation, vacation of contests in which the two student-athletes competed while ineligible, attendance by staff members at rules education sessions and reductions in off-campus recruiting opportunities for the football coaching staff. II. CASE HISTORY In April 2013, the institution's director of athletics ("director of athletics") became aware of allegations made by the parent of a former football student-athlete regarding potential recruiting rules violations. The director of athletics relayed the information to the institution's president ("the president"), who directed the faculty athletics representative ("the FAR") to begin an investigation. The FAR conducted an inquiry that uncovered two instances of possible involvement of representatives of the institution's athletics interests in the financial aid awarding process. On September 5, 2013, the institution reported the information to the NCAA. The enforcement staff and institution initiated an investigation on January 10, 2014. The enforcement staff provided a verbal notice of inquiry to the institution on February 13, 2014, and a notice of allegations on August 28, 2014. The parties agreed to process the case through summary disposition and jointly submitted the SDR to the committee on December 1, 2014. Following its review of the SDR, and pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 32.7.1.4.4, the committee requested further information from the parties in a January 6, 2015, letter. On January 9 the institution provided the requested items in its possession, while the enforcement staff provided other requested documents on January 15. Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 32.7.1.4.3, the committee proposed further penalties to the institution on February 3, 2015. The institution informed the committee on February 12, 2015, that it accepted the further penalties.
Page No. 3 III. PARTIES' AGREEMENTS A. PARTIES' AGREED-UPON FACTUAL BASIS, VIOLATIONS AND VIOLATION LEVELS OF NCAA LEGISLATION The parties jointly submitted a SDR that identified agreed-upon factual basis, violations and violation levels of NCAA legislation. The SDR identified: 1. [NCAA Division III Manual Bylaws 13.2.1, 15.4.1-(b) and 15.4.7 (2011-12 and 2012-13)] The institution and NCAA enforcement staff agree that between March and September 2012, the institution violated NCAA financial aid and recruiting legislation as it pertained to then football prospective student-athlete ("studentathlete 1") when a representative of the institution's athletics interests ("representative 1") became involved in the financial aid packaging for studentathlete 1. Specifically: a. In March 2012, representative 1 was indirectly involved in making arrangements for financial aid to student-athlete 1 when he contacted the institution's enrollment management office to aid in the award of a scholarship to student-athlete 1. [NCAA Bylaw 13.2.1 (2011-12)] b. Adjustments were made to the composition of student-athlete 1's financial aid package in March 2012 after the initial packaging was completed, following the involvement of representative 1 in the process. [NCAA Bylaw 15.4.7 (2011-12)] c. The financial aid procedures used for student-athlete 1 were not the same as the existing official financial aid policies of the institution due to the timing of the award and the involvement by representative 1 in arranging the scholarship award for student-athlete 1 in March 2012. [NCAA Bylaw 15.4.1-(b) (2011-12 and 2012-13)] 2. [NCAA Division III Manual Bylaws 13.2.1, 15.4.1-(b), 15.4.1-(c), 15.4.5 and 15.4.7 (2011-12 and 2012-13)] The institution and the enforcement staff agreed that between March and September 2012, the institution violated NCAA financial aid and recruiting legislation as it pertained to a then football prospective student-athlete ("studentathlete 2") when a representative of the institution's athletics interests ("representative 2") and the head football coach ("head football coach") became involved in the financial aid packaging for student-athlete 2. Specifically:
Page No. 4 a. In March 2012, representative 2 was indirectly involved in making arrangements for and offering to give financial aid to student-athlete 2 when he contacted the institution's enrollment management office to aid in the award of a scholarship [Singleton Family Scholarship] to studentathlete 2, which is not expressly permitted by NCAA regulations. [NCAA Bylaw 13.2.1 (2011-12)] b. The head football coach was involved in some manner in the review of the institutional financial assistance to be awarded to student-athlete 2 when he contacted the financial aid director in March 2012 at the request of representative 2, regarding the disparity in the amount of funds actually applied to student-athlete 2's aid package from the scholarship and the amount representative 2 had initially anticipated would be awarded. [NCAA Bylaw 15.4.5 (2011-12 and 2012-13)] c. Adjustments were made to the composition of student-athlete 2's financial aid package in March 2012 after the initial packaging was completed, following the involvement of representative 2 and the head football coach in the process. [NCAA Bylaw 15.4.7 (2011-12 and 2012-13)] d. The financial aid package for student-athlete 2 was clearly distinguishable from the general pattern of all financial aid for all recipients at the institution in that a portion of the funds awarded to student-athlete 2 from the scholarship was stacked on top of prior aid given to student-athlete 2 and not swapped out with previously awarded funds. [NCAA Bylaw 15.4.1-(c) (2011-12 and 2012-13)] e. The financial aid procedures used for student-athlete 2 were not the same as the existing official financial aid policies of the institution due to the timing of the award and the involvement by representative 2 in arranging the scholarship award for student-athlete 2. [NCAA Bylaw 15.4.1-(b) (2011-12 and 2012-13)] 3. [NCAA Division III Manual Bylaws 15.01.3, 15.01.4 and 15.4.1-(a) (2010-11 through 2013-14)] The institution and NCAA enforcement staff agreed that from at least the 2010-11 through the 2013-14 academic years, the institution violated NCAA financial aid legislation by considering athletics leadership, ability, participation or performance as a criterion in the formulation of financial aid packages to studentathletes. Specifically, the following scholarship awards included athletics involvement as a criterion or consideration in their award descriptions:
Page No. 5 Scholarships 1 through 7. A chart (Appendix Two) depicts the impermissible awards made to student-athletes. 4. [NCAA Division III Manual Bylaw 2.8.1 (2010-11 through 2013-14)] The institution and the enforcement staff agreed that from the 2010-11 through 2013-14 academic years, as outlined in Allegation Nos. 1 through 3, the institution violated the principle of rules compliance when it failed to monitor and detect rules violations and educate representatives of the institution's athletics interests, enrollment management staff, financial aid staff and advancement staff on NCAA rules relevant to the establishing and awarding of scholarships. Specifically: a. As noted in Allegation Nos. 1 and 2, the institution did not detect or recognize that the involvement of representatives of the institution's athletics interests or the head football coach in the awarding of financial aid to two prospective student-athletes was contrary to NCAA legislation and, as a result, the violations occurred. b. As noted in Allegation No. 3, the institution did not detect or recognize that athletics participation was identified as a criterion or consideration in the award of seven scholarships and, as a result, the violations occurred. c. The institution did not provide adequate rules education to representatives of the institution's athletics interests, enrollment management staff, financial aid staff or advancement staff and, as a result, the violations occurred. IV. REVIEW OF CASE The submitted SDR fully detailed the parties' positions in the infractions case and included the agreed-upon primary facts and violations. In concluding whether the facts constituted violations and the appropriate penalties for those violations, the committee fully reviewed the applicable bylaws and the jointly submitted SDR. The committee accepted the SDR and concluded that the primary facts detailed in Section III established major violations of NCAA legislation. The Representatives' and the Head Football Coach's Involvement in the Financial Aid Process The institution committed major violations when it allowed two representatives and the head football coach to be involved in the financial aid packaging for student-athletes 1
Page No. 6 and 2, both of whom were prospective football student-athletes. NCAA Bylaw 15.4.1 requires member institutions to package financial aid for student-athletes in a manner consistent with established institutional practices. Subsection (b) of the bylaw further clarifies that the financial aid procedures used to award aid to student-athletes be the same as the existing policies for the institution. Subsection (c) directs that student-athlete aid packages cannot be distinguishable from the general pattern of aid packages for all institutional recipients. NCAA Bylaw 15.4.5 precludes athletics staff from any involvement in the arrangement of financial aid packages, while NCAA Bylaw 15.4.7 prohibits adjustments to student-athletes' aid package following the initial award, unless the adjustments are consistent with established institutional practices. Finally, NCAA Bylaw 13.2.1 precludes representatives of an institution's athletics interests from any involvement in financial aid arrangements for student-athletes. Student-Athlete 1 Representative 1, a member of the institution's board of trustees, contacted the institution's financial aid office regarding the aid from a certain scholarship being awarded to student-athlete 1. Representative 1 had previously met student-athlete 1 at a football recruiting event. Representative 1 made the contact after the financial aid office had completed the initial packaging of student-athlete 1's aid. As a result of representative 1's contact, the institution adjusted student-athlete 1's aid package, which was inconsistent with the existing financial aid policies in effect at the time. Because representative 1's involvement resulted in the institution adjusting student-athlete 1's financial aid package in a manner inconsistent with institutional policy, the institution violated NCAA Bylaws 13.2.1, 15.4.1, 15.4.1-(c) and 15.4.7. Student-Athlete 2 The institution committed similar major violations when it allowed representative 2 and the head football coach to become involved in the financial aid packaging for studentathlete 2. In March 2012, after the financial aid office had completed student-athlete 2's initial aid package, representative 2 contacted the institution's enrollment management office regarding the amount of aid awarded to student-athlete 2. Later that month, and at the request of representative 2, the head football coach contacted the financial aid director to discuss the difference between the amount of aid that had been awarded to studentathlete 2 and the amount representative 2 thought should have been awarded. Following the contacts made by representative 2 and the head football coach, the institution adjusted the financial aid package of student-athlete 2. The institution increased the amount of aid for student-athlete 2 by "stacking" more aid on top of his initial award rather than "swapping out," or exchanging, one award for another when it increased the amount he received from the scholarship fund representative 2 had inquired about. This action by the institution was contrary to the existing financial aid policies of the institution and resulted in student-athlete 2's aid package being clearly distinguishable
Page No. 7 from the general pattern of all financial aid packaging for all recipients at the institution. Due to the involvement of representative 2 and the head football coach, as well as the timing and manner of the adjustments made to student-athlete 2's aid package, the institution violated NCAA Bylaws 13.2.1, 15.4.1-(b), 15.4.1-(c), 15.5.4 and 15.4.7. The Institution's Use of Athletics Criteria When Awarding Financial Aid The institution also committed major violations of NCAA legislation when it considered athletics criteria in the awarding of financial aid. NCAA Bylaws 15.01.3 and 15.4.1-(a) prohibit member institutions from considering athletics leadership, ability, participation or performance when formulating financial aid packages for students. NCAA Bylaw 15.01.4 precludes institutional donors from contributing funds to finance any scholarship or aid for student-athletes. From the 2010-11 through 2013-14 academic years, the institution maintained seven scholarship funds that included athletics criteria as considerations. During that time, the institution awarded a total of $79,628 from the seven scholarship funds to 27 student-athletes in numerous sports (Appendix Two). Because the seven scholarships included an athletics component, they violated NCAA Bylaws 15.01.3 and 15.4.1-(a). And because the aid awarded to the student-athletes were funds contributed by institutional donors, the awards also violated NCAA Bylaw 15.01.4. The Institution's Failure to Monitor The institution committed a final major violation when it failed to monitor the financial aid awarding process. NCAA Constitution 2.8.1 requires member institutions to monitor their athletics programs to assure compliance with NCAA rules and regulations, identify rules violations and report any violations to the Association. The institution did not detect the violations that occurred due to the involvement of the two representatives and the head football coach in the packaging of aid for student-athletes 1 and 2 and the inclusion of athletics criterion in institutional scholarships. The violations occurred at least in part due to the institution failing to provide adequate rules education for a number of constituencies, including representatives of athletics interests and the campus offices of enrollment management, financial aid and advancement. Because it did not recognize the violations, due in part to a failure to provide adequate rules education, the institution failed to monitor the establishment and awarding of financial aid. V. PENALTIES For the reasons set forth in Sections III and IV of this decision, the Committee on Infractions concluded that this case involved major violations of NCAA legislation. The institution committed major infractions when it allowed two representatives of its athletics interests and the head football coach to be involved in financial aid packaging,
Page No. 8 used athletics criteria in awarding financial aid and failed to monitor the financial aid awarding process. In prescribing the penalties, the committee considered the institution's cooperation in the processing of this case. Cooperation during the infractions process is addressed in NCAA Bylaws 19.01.3 and 32.1.4. The committee concluded that the cooperation exhibited by the institution was consistent with its obligation under the bylaws. As the institution agreed to the factual findings and violations, there is no opportunity to appeal any of the underlying facts or violations. The institution, in addition to the self-imposed penalties, agreed to the committee's proposed additional penalties. Because the institution agreed to the penalties, there is no option to appeal. The committee prescribed the following penalties. The institution's self-imposed penalties are specifically identified. The institution's corrective actions are contained in Appendix One. Penalties, Disciplinary Measures and Corrective Actions (NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2) 1. Public reprimand and censure. 2. Two years of probation from, through April 9, 2017. 3. Effective immediately, any of the institution's athletics teams whose rosters include one or more student-athletes receiving funds from any scholarships that included athletics involvement as a criterion at the time the funds were awarded shall end their seasons with the playing of their last regularly scheduled, in-season contest and shall not be eligible to participate in any postseason competition, including conference tournaments and NCAA championships. Further, any affected teams shall not be eligible for regular season conference championship consideration for as long as their rosters include student-athletes receiving funds from any scholarship that included athletics as a criterion at the time the scholarship was awarded. 4. The institution shall vacate all wins in which student-athletes 1 and 2 competed from the time they became ineligible until their eligibility was reinstated (institution imposed). 2 The vacated contests shall be vacated pursuant to NCAA Bylaws 19.5.2-(g) and 31.2.2.3. The individual statistics of the two studentathletes who competed while ineligible shall also be vacated. Further, the institution's records regarding football, as well as the records of the head football 2 The institution has represented that this includes six wins from the 2012 season and five wins from 2013.
Page No. 9 coach, will reflect the vacated records and will be recorded in all publications in which football records are reported, including, but not limited to, institutional media guides, recruiting material, electronic and digital media plus institutional, conference and NCAA archives. Any institution which may subsequently hire the head coach shall similarly reflect the vacated wins in his career records documented in media guides and other publications cited above. Head coaches with vacated wins on their records cannot count the vacated wins to attain specific honors or victory "milestones" such as 100 th, 200 th or 500 th career victories. Any public reference to these vacated contests shall be removed from athletics department stationary, banners displayed in public areas and any other forum 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 Media Coordination and Statistics Office and appropriate conference officials to identify the specific student-athletes and contests impacted by the penalties. In addition, the institution must provide the NCAA Media Coordination and Statistics Office a written report detailing those discussions with the director of statistics. This document must be delivered to the NCAA Media Coordination and Statistics Office no later than 45 days following the Committee on Infractions release. The sports information director (or designee) must also inform the Office of the Committees on Infractions of its submission to the NCAA Media Coordination and Statistics Office. 5. During the first year of probation, the institution shall not allow any trustee, alumnus or representative of the institution's athletics interests to have contact with any prospective student-athlete visiting the institution's campus. This prohibition does not apply to alumni or representatives who interact with prospective students in the course of their official duties (employees of the offices of admissions, housing, financial aid, registrar, etc.). 6. During the first year of probation, the institution shall not allow any trustees, alumni or representatives of the institution's athletics interests to accompany any coaches on any off-campus recruiting visits. 7. The football coaches' off-campus recruiting activities will be restricted to no more than 14 days per calendar month during the entire period of probation (Institution imposed). 8. The associate director of athletics and the three staff members from the Office of Financial Aid shall attend either an NCAA Regional Rules Seminar or a conference rules seminar during one of the two years of probation. During the
Page No. 10 other year of probation, the associate director of athletics, two staff members of the Office of Financial Aid and the present head football coach shall attend either an NCAA Regional Rules Seminar or a conference rules seminar. 9. During 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 June 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 indicating the progress made with this program on February 1. The report must include documentation of the institution's compliance with the penalties adopted and prescribed by the committee; d. Inform all prospective student-athletes in the sport of football that the institution is on probation for two years and explain the violations committed. The information must be provided in writing and for the full term of probation. The institution must provide this information as soon as practicable after the prospective student-athlete is recruited pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 13.02.8 and, in all instances, before the prospective studentathlete signs a financial aid agreement or initially enrolls at the institution, whichever is earlier; and e. For the full term of probation, publicize specific and understandable information concerning the nature of the infractions by providing, at a minimum, a statement including the types of violations and the affected sport programs 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 institution's football media guide and in an alumni publication. The statement must: (i) clearly describe the infractions; (ii) include the length of probation associated with the major infractions case; and (iii) give members of the general public a clear indication of what happened in the major infractions case to allow the public (particularly prospective student-athletes and their families) to make informed, knowledgeable decisions. A statement that refers only to
Page No. 11 the probationary period with nothing more is not sufficient. The institution shall also develop a permanent link on the athletics website setting forth recruiting rules for alumni, trustees and representatives of the institution's athletics interests. 10. 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. The committee 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, prescribing more severe penalties, or may result in additional allegations violations. NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS Dave Cecil, chair Amy Hackett Tracey Hathaway Keith Jacques Nancy Meyer
Page No. 12 APPENDIX ONE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE INSTITUTION'S DECEMBER 1, 2014, RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF ALLEGATIONS 1. The head football coach and the vice president for enrollment management received letters of reprimand from the college president, which were placed in their employment files during the summer of 2013. 2. Off-campus recruiting by the football coaching staff was restricted to two weeks per calendar month for the period from August 2013 through May 2014. 3. The involved board of trustees member received a letter of reprimand from the Board Affairs committee and board chair. 4. The full board of trustees received training on NCAA compliance via a webinar conducted by NCAA staff in March 2014. 5. The staff in the admissions, financial aid and athletics offices received an NCAA training program in November 2014, which was also conducted by NCAA staff. 6. The staff in athletics received a one and one-half hour training in August 2014 using the 'Getting in the Game' videos and slides from Regional Rules Seminar. Updates on various compliance issues are provided at every monthly staff meeting. 7. A training session on NCAA compliance for staff members from the admissions, financial aid and advancement offices was conducted October 17, 2014. This program will be conducted annually. 8. A compliance program for new board of trustees members is scheduled for November 6, 2014, and a refresher program for current members is scheduled for November 8, 2014. This program will be conducted annually. 9. The director of athletics is leading a small working group that consists of the director of admissions, the director of financial aid and a major gifts officer from the office of institutional advancement. The purpose of this group is to discuss compliance with NCAA rules as they apply to the work of these offices. This group will meet at least twice per semester, or more often if questions or issues arise.
Page No. 13 APPENDIX TWO Sport Academic Year Fund Amount Men's Soccer 2010-11 Scholarship 2 $4,848 Men's 2010-11 Scholarship 4 $6,036 Men's 2010-11 Scholarship 3 $359 Men's Soccer 2010-11 Scholarship 4 $4,855 Women's Cross Country 2011-12 Scholarship 2 $7,869 Football 2011-12 Scholarship 2 $3,373 Men's Soccer 2011-12 Scholarship 2 $4,848 Football 2011-12 Scholarship 4 $457 Men's 2011-12 Scholarship 1 $2,571 Men's Soccer 2011-12 Scholarship 7 $550 Women's 2012-13 Scholarship 7 Swimming $200 Men's 2012-13 Scholarship 4 $860 Football 2012-13 Scholarship 4 $861 Men's 2012-13 Scholarship 6 $975 Women's 2012-13 Scholarship 5 $1,580 Men's 2012-13 Scholarship 2 $1,500 Football 2012-13 Scholarship 2 $2,551 Football 2012-13 Scholarship 3 $247 Football 2012-13 Scholarship 2 $721 Baseball 2013-14 Scholarship 2 $2,500 Women's 2013-14 Scholarship 2 Soccer $4,167 Men's Soccer 2013-14 Scholarship 2 $2,500
Page No. 14 Women's 2013-14 Scholarship 2 $2,500 Women's 2013-14 Scholarship 2 Soccer $2,500 Football 2013-14 Scholarship 1 $2,700 Football 2013-14 Scholarship 3 $ 500 Men's Soccer 2013-14 Scholarship 4 $7,000 Men's Soccer 2013-14 Scholarship 2 $6,379 Women's 2013-14 Scholarship 2 Volleyball $3,621