The NCAA News - News and Features

November 17, 1997

Two findings of violations, penalty upheld by appeals committee

The NCAA Infractions Appeals Committee has upheld two findings of violations and a penalty involving a former senior associate director of athletics at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The former administrator appealed the Committee on Infractions' findings in a major infractions case that she demonstrated a lack of institutional control in 1993-94 and that she acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct in 1994-95, on the ground that the findings were contrary to the evidence presented to that committee.

She also appealed a "show-cause" penalty in which she was named that was imposed upon the institution, on the ground that it was inappropriate.

The original decision concerning UCLA was issued by the NCAA Committee on Infractions May 6, 1997. The former senior associate director of athletics filed a notice of appeal May 20, 1997. The Infractions Appeals Committee heard the appeal separately from the institution's appeal of a penalty stemming from the same case during its August 12, 1997, meeting.

The committee considered her assertion that the Committee on Infractions' finding of a lack of institutional control was contrary to the evidence presented to that committee. The Committee on Infractions found that the senior associate director of athletics demonstrated a lack of appropriate institutional control during the 1993-94 academic year by failing to monitor adequately softball financial aid awards and to apply accurately NCAA legislation.

The Infractions Appeals Committee, on reviewing the record, agreed with the Committee on Infractions' conclusion that the former senior associate director of athletics failed to fulfill job responsibilities, which contributed to a lack of institutional control, and that there was sufficient reasonable and credible information upon which to base a finding that the former administrator was responsible for the lack of institutional control.

The former senior associate director of athletics also asserted that the Committee on Infractions' finding that she had acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct during the 1994-95 academic year was contrary to the evidence presented to that committee. The Committee on Infractions found that the former administrator had knowledge of and was involved in attempts to arrange a tryout for softball student-athletes with the women's soccer team well after the start of the women's soccer season and to place the names of those softball student-athletes on the soccer roster, and that these attempts were deliberate actions to circumvent NCAA financial aid legislation.

Again reviewing the record, the Infractions Appeals Committee found that the Committee on Infractions' determination that the former senior associate director of athletics acted knowingly in violating NCAA legislation during the 1994-95 academic year is supported by the evidence.

Regarding the show-cause penalty imposed upon the institution, the Infractions Appeals Committee noted the institutional-control and ethical-conduct findings and found that the Committee on Infractions' action was neither excessive nor inappropriate.

The Infractions Appeals Committee also considered the former senior associate athletics director's assertion in her appeal that a procedural error -- a failure to notify the former administrator in timely fashion that the allegation of lack of institutional control during 1993-94 was directed toward her as an individual -- affected the reliability of information that was used to support the Committee on Infractions' findings.

That assertion was made for the first time after the former administrator appealed the Committee on Infractions' findings and the Committee on Infractions responded to the appeal.

The Infractions Appeals Committee, on reviewing the record, determined that the former administrator received adequate notice of the allegations in which she was named. The committee adopted for future cases a procedural requirement that an institutional or individual appellant must assert any and all bases of appeal in the notice of appeal or written appeal, or otherwise waive the opportunity to pursue any basis of appeal not asserted.

The committee also addressed the question of whether the former senior associate athletics director was entitled to an in-person hearing of her appeal, since she did not appear in person at the Committee on Infractions' hearing in the case. The Infractions Appeals Committee determined that she was entitled to the in-person appeal because she submitted written information for the Committee on Infractions' consideration and because she was not properly notified that failure to attend the hearing would result in forfeiture of her right to an in-person appeal.

The members of the Infractions Appeals Committee who heard this case were Katherine E. Noble, associate commissioner, Big Sky Conference; Michael L. Slive (chair), commissioner, Conference USA; and John W. Stoepler, dean of law, emeritus, and professor of law, University of Toledo.

The full report of the Infractions Appeals Committee will appear in the December 1 issue of The NCAA Register.