NAAC REASONABLE STANDARD Pre-Existing Relationships

Transcription

1 NAAC REASONABLE STANDARD Pre-Existing Relationships Relevant Bylaws: Preferential Treatment General Rule Purpose: Ensure the examination of pre-existing relationships for individuals associated with prospective or current student-athletes who are identified by an institution as high profile or high risk. Establish reasonable standards regarding continuing communications between athletic staff members and prospective or current student-athletes (and/or individuals associated with them) with whom the athletic staff member may have a pre-existing relationship. Monitoring Standards: Activity: Information should be obtained and reviewed for prospective or current student-athletes who, in the judgment of the institution, are considered high profile or high risk. Some examples of information could include: Names of individuals associated with the prospective student-athlete (e.g., previous coaches, mentors, relatives). Names of the parents/legal guardians (including verification of legal status if guardians). Names of individuals providing financial assistance to the prospective student-athlete and/or their family. This includes financial assistance for vehicles, housing, cell phones or other financial obligations, bills or benefits. Names and phone numbers used to contact the prospect or those associated with the prospect during the recruiting process. Names and relationships of individuals accompanying the prospective student-athlete on his/her official and/or unofficial visits. Have coach sign an affidavit confirming that they have provided any and all numbers used to make recruiting calls. Coach also responsible for completing the pre-existing relationship forms. Person(s) Responsible: Senior Compliance Administrator or designee (except a sport specific staff member). Frequency: At least once prior to certifying the prospective student-athlete or current student-athlete as eligible for competition, or earlier as deemed appropriate by the Senior Compliance Administrator or designee.

2 Time Frame: At least once prior to certifying the prospective student-athlete or current student-athlete as eligible for competition, or earlier as deemed appropriate by the Senior Compliance Administrator or designee, with updates as appropriate. Activity: Review pre-existing relationships between athletics staff members and prospective studentathletes or current student-athletes and/or individuals associated with them (e.g., relatives, friends, coaches) as disclosed by the athletic staff member or the prospective or current student-athlete. In addition, where a pre-existing relationship between a representative of athletic interests and a prospective or current student-athlete and/or individuals associated with them becomes known to the institution, then such communications should also be reviewed. The review should include: The type and frequency of communication. Any pattern of benefits. When and how the relationship developed. Whether the relationship developed as a result of participation in athletics. Frequency: At least once per academic year, with updates as appropriate. Time Frame: At the institution s discretion. Education Standards: Activity: Educate student-athletes, parents, representatives of athletics interests, coaches and other appropriate athletics department staff members and university personnel regarding rules and recent cases governing pre-existing relationships. Frequency: At reasonable intervals as determined by the institution, but at least once annually. Time frame: Year round. Activity: Establish an educational program for athletic department staff members regarding their responsibility to notify the compliance staff about any pre-existing relationships they may have with prospective or current student-athletes and/or their relatives and coaches or any pre-existing relationships they know those individuals may have with a third party (e.g., mentor, family friend, representative of athletic interests, club coach or other influencer ). The education program should also include information about what constitutes a red flag and the process for reporting such information to the compliance staff. Frequency: At the institution s discretion. Time frame: At the institution s discretion. Activity: Educate prospective or current student-athletes and those with whom they have pre-existing relationships, particularly institutional constituents (e.g., athletics staff, representatives of athletics interests), that communication, contact, and benefits should be reasonably consistent with the nature of the relationship prior to the individual becoming an elite prospective or current student-athlete. Person(s) Responsible: Senior Compliance Administrator or designee Frequency: At least once per academic year, with updates as appropriate. Time Frame: At the institution s discretion. Documentation:

3 Activity: Maintain a record of the information collected and reviewed regarding any notable pre-existing relationships for a prospective or current student-athlete that was identified as high profile or high risk. Frequency: At least once prior to certifying the prospective student-athlete or current student-athlete as eligible for competition annually, or earlier as deemed appropriate by the Senior Compliance Administrator or designee. Time Frame: Retain documents for the duration of NCAA statute of limitations or in accordance with institutional policy, whichever is longer. Activity: Maintain a record of any education provided to athletic department staff members regarding their responsibility to notify the compliance staff about any pre-existing relationships they may have with prospective or current student-athletes and/or their relatives and coaches or any pre-existing relationships they know those individuals may have with a third party (e.g., mentor, family friend, representative of athletic interests, club coach or other influencer ). Frequency: As pre-existing relationships are disclosed. Time frame: Retain documents for the duration of NCAA statute of limitations or in accordance with institutional policy, whichever is longer. Activity: Develop and maintain written procedures that delineate and assign responsibility for all aspects of evaluating and monitoring pre-existing relationships. Person(s) Responsible: Senior Compliance Administrator or designee (other than a sport specific staff member). Frequency: The document must be reviewed periodically. Time Frame: The document, in its updated form, must be retained indefinitely. NCAA Committee on Infractions Suggestions or Statements: (drawn from major infractions public reports) May 8, 2003 University of Michigan During the hearing, there was discussion regarding the reasons why individuals such as this athletics representative are accepted (if not embraced, as demonstrated in this case) by college coaches. With regard to this issue, the institution wrote the following about the activity of the representative at the center of the 2003 case: There are individuals who, like (the athletics representative), closely follow top prep basketball in their communities and develop relationships with the prospects long before colleges begin recruiting them in their senior year of high school. Whether accurate or not, many college coaches perceive individuals like (the athletics representative) to be influential in a prospect's decision on which school to attend. The coaches believe that if they want to successfully recruit prospects, they must be courteous to those individuals and treat them with respect " The committee wrote the following in response: The committee understands this position as long as no violations of NCAA legislation result. However, in this case, it was clear to the committee that this athletics representative was treated with more than simply "respect" and "courtesy." The institution's men's basketball staff treated this individual with great deference, extending privileges and benefits that are usually reserved for only the most highly regarded individuals associated with the institution's athletics programs. The committee could not help but conclude that such treatment only served to

4 encourage the athletics representative in his illicit activities relative to prospects and studentathletes. June 10, 2010 University of Southern California Third Parties in Recruiting Process. The NCAA is fully cognizant of the corrupting influence of agents and other third parties on high school and even junior high school students and its resultant effect on men's basketball recruiting. The NCAA is working at many levels to respond to the problem, both by education and by the establishment of a special investigative unit within the enforcement staff. This group's mission is to monitor and enforce rules compliance in men's basketball through expanded outreach efforts. Through an enhanced enforcement presence, it seeks increased knowledge and evidence regarding amateurism issues affecting the men's basketball recruiting environment. In this case, a representative of the institution's athletics interests ("representative B") appeared unannounced at the men's basketball offices to say that he could deliver student-athlete 2 to the institution. Representative B was neither a family member nor guardian of student-athlete 2. The conduct of such "handlers" is not, unfortunately, atypical in the current men's basketball recruiting environment. The committee underscores, however, that in acting as the "go to" person between a prospect and an institution, a handler becomes a representative of athletics interests for that institution. As a result, the institution commits violations when it works through such a handler in recruiting prospects. March 12, 2012 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Monitoring Social Media for Third Party Activity. The enforcement staff alleged a failure to monitor because the institution did not "consistently" monitor the social networking activity of its studentathletes. The social networking site of a student-athlete contained information that, if observed, would have alerted the institution to some violations. The committee declined to impose a blanket duty on institutions to monitor social networking sites. Consistent with the duty to monitor other information outside the campus setting (beyond on-campus activities such as countable athletically related activities, financial aid, satisfactory progress, etc.), such sites should be part of the monitoring effort if the institution becomes aware of an issue that might be resolved in some part by reviewing information on a site. For example, there exists no inherent duty of institutions to monitor the purchase of clothes by student-athletes. However, if an institution obtains information that a student-athlete's clothes are being purchased by a booster, and if that studentathlete is seen wearing new and expensive clothes, a duty to investigate the student-athlete's clothing purchases would arise. Similarly, in this case the committee found a failure to monitor because the institution was informed that student-athlete 5 was either planning to travel out-of-town or had made trips out-of-town. The institution failed to act on that information, even though a cursory review would have shown that the travel included trips to California and Miami, locales which might have attracted the attention of the compliance department. While the institution does not have an inherent duty to monitor personal travel by student-athletes, once it became aware of the circumstances of student-athlete 5's travel it had a duty to investigate how the trips were paid for. The same is true with social networking sites; if the institution receives information regarding potential rules violations, and if it is reasonable to believe that a review of otherwise publically available social networking information may yield clues to the violations, this committee will conclude that the duty to monitor extended to the social networking site.

5 The committee recognizes that social networking sites are a preferred method of communication in present society, particularly so among college-age individuals. While we do not impose an absolute duty upon member institutions to regularly monitor such sites, the duty to do so may arise as part of an institution's heightened awareness when it has or should have a reasonable suspicion of rules violations. If the membership desires that the duty to monitor social networking sites extend further than we state here, the matter is best dealt with through NCAA legislation. July 31, 2012 University of Central Florida This case centered on an ever-increasing problem in intercollegiate athletics today, the involvement of outside third parties with prospects and student-athletes, particularly in the "flagship" sports of football and men's basketball. These third parties often assume the roles of so-called runners or handlers when they are associated with sports agencies. Acting on behalf of their employers, they seek to ingratiate themselves with prospective student-athletes and student-athletes who might have a future in professional athletics. In their attempts to involve themselves into the lives of elite athletes, these runners and handlers often provide impermissible benefits in order to obtain the allegiance of prospects and student-athletes. Most agents and their associates attempt to act surreptitiously so as not to be detected by institution officials and the NCAA. However, in this case, and particularly troubling to the committee, was the fact that the impermissible activity undertaken by these third parties was both known by athletics department personnel, and, in some cases, encouraged by them. Specifically, here the third parties were also assisting the institution in its recruitment of prospective student-athletes. This activity was known by athletics department staff, chief among them the director of athletics who not only allowed the third parties to become involved with the institution's recruiting, but also developed a friendship with at least one of them. The director of athletics' acceptance of these individuals, served to "legitimize" them in the eyes of the institution's coaches. Revision History: Date Author Brief Summary of Revisions NAAC s Reasonable Standards are intended to establish an expectation to which all institutions will adhere when monitoring an institution s compliance with NCAA rules, providing education regarding NCAA rules and documenting compliance with NCAA rules. Every institution has different needs and must assess those needs. Such assessment may require institutions to implement monitoring, education, policies or procedures that exceed what is prescribed in this Reasonable Standard. The NCAA Enforcement Staff will give consideration to these standards in reviewing whether institutions have implemented adequate education, systems and monitoring.