In 2004, NCAA President Myles Brand declared that cutting the time it takes for enforcement cases to be resolved would be a new priority of the Association. Since then, staff members have dedicated more resources and have been more inventive in an effort to accomplish that goal.

Their endeavors are working: In 2005, the enforcement staff and the infractions committees in all divisions cleared 19 cases — seven more than in 2004 and the highest number in more than 15 years. When comparing cases heard by the committees from 2000 to 2003 with those investigated after January 1, 2004, the number of months it took for an investigation into allegations dropped by more than 50 percent — from about 18 to about nine.

Staff and committee members attribute the reduction to a number of factors, including most notably an increase in staff instituted by Brand in 2004. The increase allowed for an entirely new investigative team, which not only added more people to do the work but also freed up time for everyone on the enforcement staff for inventing and implementing ways to improve the process.

“It was more hands on deck to do the work, and it allowed us to innovate more,” said Tom Hosty, a director of enforcement. “We never sacrifice thoroughness for speed, but we’ve been able to find ways to be more efficient.”

Among the methods used to improve efficiency, Hosty said, are three different team approaches to cases:

n The “baton” approach — in which an assigned investigator who becomes too busy for a specific case hands that case off to another investigator who can devote more time to it;

n The “partner” approach — which applies two or more investigators to a single case, resulting in shared paperwork responsibilities; and

n The “divided pieces” approach — which assigns investigators to different pieces of a case and then assembles those into a single case at the end.

Each has been helpful in moving cases, Hosty said. He also pointed to a detailed tracking system implemented by NCAA Vice President for Enforcement Services David Price that allows investigators to keep a closer eye on cases and more quickly identify slow spots.

“I give a lot of credit to that system,” Hosty said. “It helps keep us focused.”

Stephanie Hannah, also a director of enforcement, said monitoring the process of cases also allows the staff to pursue meaningful leads instead of chasing items that could be irrelevant.

In the last year, many schools opted for the summary-disposition process, which is conducted entirely in writing and requires institutions to agree with the findings of an investigation without holding a hearing. An in- stitution also must penalize itself in the summary-disposition process. That saves money for both the institution and the NCAA. Price said some schools prefer that process to having the hearing before the committee. He also said the increase in cases in 2005 to six (the most since 1994) may indicate a trend.

Hosty also credited institutions with helping the enforcement staff by making compliance a priority.

“Especially in Division I, schools are instituting more sophisticated compliance mechanisms,” he said. “More resources are applied to compliance; you have multiple individuals at a single institution. You rarely saw that 10 years ago.”

More changes are on the horizon that will help speed up the resolution of enforcement cases. Instead of using cassette tapes to record all the interviews done over the course of an investigation, the enforcement staff has switched to digital recorders. That allows NCAA staff to immediately copy an entire case file of recordings without the often tedious task of copying cassette tapes.

Digital recorders also factor into another improvement the staff is planning — an electronic case-management system. While not yet complete, staff members hope that soon, case files can be accessed by interested parties through a secured custodial Web site. Currently, when an investigation is complete and a Notice of Allegations is sent to institutions, the case file is opened to the school. That involves photocopying every file and copying audio tapes and sending them to a custodian — often a lawyer’s office — in the general area of the institution. Institutions can then view the file at the custodial site. Switching to an electronic, secure Web site not only will help schools access the case file information, including digital recordings of interviews, at any time but also will cut down on staff time spent photocopying and making audio tapes.

“It will be a huge service to the membership,” Hosty said.

Infractions committee members say that they, too, have rededicated themselves to holding hearings, deliberating, drafting opinions and releasing information in a timely fashion.

“We’ve done the best job we can of moving up the process once the case is in our hands,” said Division I Committee on Infractions Chair Gene Marsh. “By focusing more resources and more time on a case, we move the cases along.”

Tom Yeager, also a member of the Division I infractions committee, said that sometimes, even with all of the improvements, cases cannot be rushed. Yeager, a former enforcement staff member and now commissioner of the Colonial Athletic Association, said letting things linger can affect those involved, but staff and committee members owe it to institutions to conduct a thorough investigation, even if that sometimes takes more time.

“You’re dealing with legal processes. By the very nature of the work, sometimes you can’t short-circuit it,” he said. “It’s got to run its course.”

While many people involved with the process don’t believe the cases themselves have become more complex over the last few years, they all agree that the increase of lawyer involvement in individual cases has complicated the process.

Some cases deal with infractions that could have serious consequences for both institutions and individuals employed at those schools.

“The addition of legal counsel is meant to help, and it does, but it also can slow down the process,” Hannah said. Communicating and scheduling meetings with several different, often busy, attorneys is a factor in the time it takes to resolve a case.

Shep Cooper, director of the NCAA infractions committees, said that cases often have civil litigation that is ancillary to the infractions case handled by the NCAA.

“That makes a case more intense and sometimes creates more paperwork,” Cooper said.

Though technology may help speed up the enforcement process even more, there appear to be few changes planned for the actual procedures.

“We’ve had the same basic process for a long time,” Hannah said. “In 11 years, digitally recording interviews is the biggest change I’ve seen. The process is not always perfect, but we try to make it better. We work out the kinks and improve the system to the extent possible.”

Josephine Potuto, vice chair of the Division I Committee on Infractions, said that while technology improvements and solving small problems will likely always be taking place, those initiatives are on the periphery of a sound process executed by competent people.

“From my point of view, the process works very well in representing all the interests that need to be represented,” she said. “If you had to represent only one interest, you could do more, but it’s a balancing act. It’s juggling and keeping all the balls in the air so that while they’re in the air, they’re each getting the kind of attention and concern they should get.”

Yeager noted that the need for the enforcement staff and the committees on infractions is likely to always exist.

“As long as there are people out there who aren’t going to abide by the rules, there will be a need for the infractions process,” he said. “You still have certain instances where people will just decide they really don’t care what the rule is.”

And now, those people will be dealt with more quickly.