All three divisions have approved legislation to modify NCAA enforcement procedures, but the fact that the changes were approved through noncontroversial means should not suggest that the new policies are not important.

While much of the change included in the 36 pages of type-written legislation is routine (for example, nomenclature changes), modifications involving limited immunity and the abolition of the hearing-officer position are more substantial.

The old limited-immunity policy said that immunity could not be granted to student-athletes, coaches or staff unless the individual voluntarily provided information not otherwise available to the enforcement staff when no previous information had been developed that would jeopardize the individual.

The new policy, which is now in effect (Bylaw 32.3.8), is designed to expand the pool of people eligible to receive immunity in exchange for information. The legislation states that if an individual has information that would place him or her at risk, that person still could be granted immunity if the Committee on Infractions considered the information to be otherwise unavailable.

"Say we have a coach who is in violation and is in jeopardy," said Mark Jones, NCAA director of enforcement. "We could not go to the committee and grant immunity because they already are in jeopardy. This change would let us seek it now in exchange for more information otherwise not available. The occurrence would be rare because it's rare that individuals have more information that we know they want to give."

For example, if the enforcement staff believes it has sufficient information to allege that a coach provided improper benefits to student-athletes, the committee could not have granted him an offer of immunity for that violation under the previous legislation since he already would be in jeopardy. The change now would permit the committee to grant immunity to that coach; in addition, that immunity could be used to acquire other infractions information.

Jones said the change should yield more information, even if it is not be commonly used.

"This will give us a few more people who can provide information under the protection of immunity," he said. "But this is not something that the staff will do unilaterally. We would talk to the Committee on Infractions first. For example, if a case included academic fraud in which an individual had written 10 term papers for student-athletes, the committee probably would say 'no' to immunity even if it thought that individual had significant information about another violation."

The other major change involves the abolition of the Committee on Infractions hearing officer. That position was created in 1992 in response to a recommendation from the Special Committee to Review the NCAA Enforcement and Infractions Process, chaired by the late Brigham Young University President Rex Lee.

That committee believed that a widespread perception existed that there was inadequate separation between the enforcement staff and the ultimate decision-making authority, the Committee on Infractions. The Lee committee recommended that a hearing officer be made available to review stipulated facts, resolve factual issues that were not in dispute and recommend an an appropriate disposition to the infractions committee.

The membership ultimately adopted the position with the understanding that it could be used at the request of the involved institution, but only if approved by the Committee on Infractions.

The result has been that hearing officer has been requested very infrequently since its inception. Moreover, the committee never has approved the use of a hearing officer. With that outcome, the committee believed it was pointless to retain the legislation.

'Pink file' can aid institutional hiring process

Member institutions making personnel decisions may use a valuable tool provided by the Committee on Infractions.

The committee maintains a body of information known as the personnel records file or "pink file" (because of the color of the accompanying labels) that identifies individuals who have been involved in major violations back to 1974. Shep Cooper, director of the NCAA Committees on Infractions, encouraged the membership to use the information to verify information provided by prospective staff members. Along with the list of individuals involved in major infractions, the file also contains the text of the associated violations.

The service is not new, but the ease of use is much improved from the past, Cooper said. The information is now digitally accessible so that inquiries receive responses almost instantaneously. In the past, the process could take days.

Cooper stressed that the information is provided confidentially only to institutional personnel with a need to know (directors of athletics, compliance officers or presidents). The committee provides the service at no charge.

Those interested in using the service should contact Cooper (scooper@ncaa.org) or Cheryl DeWees (cdewees@ncaa.org) at the national office. The telephone number is 317/917-6222.