The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions used the summary-disposition process as it imposed three years of probation, reductions in recruiting visits and limitations on grants-in-aid in men's basketball at the University of Dayton for violations of recruiting legislation.

University officials and the NCAA enforcement staff agreed to use the summary-disposition process, which is used when the university, enforcement staff and involved individuals agree on the facts of an infractions case and that those facts comprise major violations.

This process also allows a university to recommend appropriate penalties, which Dayton recommended and self-imposed.

However, the Committee on Infractions imposed some additional penalties, which the university accepted because of the serious nature of the recruiting violations.

The case involved violations that concerned a representative of the university's athletics interests, who also was a member of the university's board of trustees. Specifically, in August and September of 1998, this representative arranged for two loans -- one for $22,000 and the other for $10,000 -- for the father of a prospective student-athlete. The loans were arranged to help the father qualify for a home loan. No member of the institutional staff or the coaching staff was involved in the loan violation.

The athletics representative disclosed the loans to university officials in October 1998. The prospective student-athlete subsequently was declared ineligible for violations of NCAA bylaws regarding the provision of extra benefits. As a condition of reinstatement, the prospect's father was required to repay the loans.

The Committee on Infractions also determined that impermissible contacts by the same representative of the university's athletics interests occurred twice during the 1997-98 academic year during two prospective student-athletes' unofficial visits to the university. In both instances, the prospects were introduced to the representative after home basketball games. The impermissible contacts were secondary infractions.

University basketball staff members believed the introductions to be permissible because the athletics member was a member of the board of trustees. Both introductions were impermissible contacts under NCAA recruiting bylaws.

In determining appropriate penalties to impose, the committee considered the following corrective actions and penalties imposed by the university:

* One year of probation.

* Reduction by one in the number of permissible official paid visits in the men's basketball program during 1998-99 and three expenses-paid visits during the 1999-00 academic year.

* Reduction by five in the total evaluation days for the men's basketball staff during the 1999-00 academic year.

* Issued a written letter of reprimand to the representative of the university's athletics interests involved in the violations.

* Issued an institutional fine to the athletics representative for all legal costs and internal costs incurred by the university as a result of the inquiry.

* The university will not accept financial assistance from the athletics representative that would aid in recruiting for a two-year period, from November 30, 1998, through November 30, 2000. The university also suspended all exclusive benefits in its booster organizations associated with the athletics representative's membership from December 1998 through December 2000.

* Required the representative to attend a NCAA rules education session conducted by appropriate university staff.

* Continue to develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation.

* Produced and distributed an educational brochure to all representatives of the university's athletics interests to serve as a guide regarding recruiting and extra benefits legislation. Other compliance efforts with athletics representatives also have been initiated.

* Conducted rules education sessions for members of the men's basketball coaching staff.

* Require members of the men's basketball coaching staff to attend a NCAA rules seminar during the spring of 2000.

* Send education materials about NCAA legislation to all prospective student-athletes and their parents or legal guardians who sign a National Letter of Intent with the university.

* Recertify current compliance policies and procedures in cooperation with the Atlantic 10 Conference.

The committee recognized the corrective actions and penalties imposed by Dayton. However, committee members were concerned that a member of the university's board of trustees was directly involved in the significant recruiting inducement found in the case. Members believe this representative knew, or should have known, that the loans provided were impermissible. The committee imposed these additional penalties:

* Public reprimand and censure.

* Three years of probation beginning April 18, 2000.

* In addition to the self-imposed reduction of three expenses-paid recruiting visits in men's basketball during 1999-00, the university will be limited to no more than four expenses-paid recruiting visits for 2000-01.

* Limit the total grants-in-aid for men's basketball for the 2001-02 academic year to 12.

* Recommended the disassociation of the representative of the university's athletics interests for three years, beginning on April 18, 2000.

* Continue to implement a comprehensive education program on NCAA legislation, submit a report to the NCAA for establishing schedules for the compliance and education program, and file annual compliance reports.

As required for an institution involved in a major infractions case, Dayton will be subject to provisions concerning repeat violators for a five-year period beginning April 18. Because the university participated in the summary-disposition process, there is no opportunity to appeal the decisions made in this case.

The members of the Division I Committee on Infractions who heard this case are: Alice Gresham Bullock, dean, Howard University School of Law; Richard J. Dunn, professor of English, University of Washington (acting chair); Frederick B. Lacey, attorney and retired judge, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, Newark, New Jersey; Gene A. Marsh, professor of law, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa; James Park Jr., attorney and retired judge, Brown, Todd & Heyburn, Lexington, Kentucky; Josephine R. Potuto, professor of law, University of Nebraska, Lincoln; and Thomas E. Yeager, commissioner, Colonial Athletic Association.

A copy of the complete report from the Division I Committee on Infractions is available on NCAA Online at www.ncaa.org.