YOUNG HARRIS COLLEGE PUBLIC INFRACTIONS DECISION October 12, 2018

Transcription

1 YOUNG HARRIS COLLEGE PUBLIC INFRACTIONS DECISION I. INTRODUCTION The NCAA Division II Committee on Infractions (COI) is an independent administrative body comprised of individuals from the NCAA Division II membership and the public charged with deciding infractions cases involving member institutions and their staffs. This case centered on the actions of two athletics representatives (boosters), who made an impermissible tuition payment for a student-athlete at Young Harris College (YHC). 1 The COI considered this case through the cooperative summary disposition process, in which all parties agreed to the primary facts and violation as fully set forth in the summary disposition report (SDR). Because YHC agreed to the violation and proposed penalties, it has no opportunity to appeal. This case involves a single but significant extra benefits violation caused by two boosters, a married couple, who made a tuition payment on behalf of a women's lacrosse student-athlete. Specifically, in late June 2017, the boosters deposited a $3,737 tuition payment into the studentathlete's account to cover the gap between her institutional aid and the cost of attendance. It is a well-known and fundamental rule that boosters may not pay student-athletes' tuition or provide them with any other benefits not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation. In fact, YHC had recently educated the boosters on this very topic. Thus, in making the tuition payment, the boosters knowingly violated foundational extra benefits legislation. YHC promptly detected the payment, began an investigation and declared the student-athlete ineligible. As a result of YHC's swift and thorough handling of the matter, the student-athlete did not compete or receive expenses while ineligible. The institution and enforcement staff agreed that the boosters' tuition payment constituted a major violation of Bylaw 16 extra benefits legislation. The COI accepts the parties' factual agreements and concludes that a major violation occurred. Utilizing NCAA bylaws authorizing penalties, the COI adopts and prescribes public reprimand and censure for the institution and a three-year disassociation of the boosters. II. CASE HISTORY The violation in this case came to light on September 5, 2017, when YHC's associate director of athletics for compliance and senior woman administrator (associate athletics director) conducted a routine review of student-athlete financial aid accounts. While reviewing the account of a 1 A member of the Peach Belt Conference, YHC's total enrollment is 1,025. The institution sponsors six women's sports and seven men's sports. This is YHC's first major infractions case.

2 Page No. 2 women's lacrosse student-athlete (the student-athlete), the associate athletics director noticed a payment credited to a name she recognized. Specifically, she knew this individual and her husband were representatives of the institution's athletics interests (boosters). The associate athletics director immediately began an investigation. YHC self-reported the violation to the conference office three days later. The enforcement staff issued a written notice of inquiry on March 12, The parties later agreed to process the case through summary disposition and submitted their SDR to the COI on August 28, The COI reviewed the SDR on September 20, 2018, and accepted the parties' agreed-upon violation, as well as YHC's corrective actions and proposed penalties. III. PARTIES' AGREEMENTS PARTIES' AGREED-UPON FACTUAL BASIS AND VIOLATION OF NCAA LEGISLATION The parties jointly submitted an SDR that identified an agreed-upon factual basis and a violation of NCAA legislation. 3 The SDR identified: [NCAA Division II Manual Bylaw ( )] YHC and the enforcement staff agree that on June 28, 2017, the boosters provided an impermissible benefit in the form of a tuition payment to the student-athlete. The approximate value of the impermissible benefit was $3,737. The studentathlete quit the women's basketball team in February 2017, and subsequently joined the women's lacrosse team in April The boosters made the tuition payment despite the student-athlete indicating she planned on joining the women's lacrosse team. The student-athlete did not compete and did not receive actual and necessary expenses while ineligible. IV. REVIEW OF CASE The SDR fully detailed the parties' positions in the infractions case and included the agreed-upon primary facts and violation. After reviewing the parties' principal factual agreements and respective explanations surrounding those agreements, the COI accepts the parties' SDR and concludes that the facts constitute a major violation of NCAA legislation. Specifically, the COI concludes that the boosters violated NCAA extra benefits legislation when they made a tuition 2 Pursuant to COI Internal Operating Procedure (IOP) , the COI in future cases may view this decision as less instructive than a decision reached after a contested hearing because violations established through the summary disposition process constitute the parties' agreements. 3 This decision provides the agreed-upon factual basis and violation exactly as stated in the SDR, except for shortening references to the institution and other named individuals.

3 Page No. 3 payment on the student-athlete's behalf. This impermissible benefit constitutes a major violation of Bylaw 16. Bylaw 16 governs awards, benefits and expenses for enrolled student-athletes. The general rule is set forth by Bylaw , which establishes that a student-athlete shall not receive any extra benefit. 4 The bylaw defines an "extra benefit" as any special arrangement by an institutional employee or booster to provide a student-athlete or his or her relatives or friends with a benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation. The boosters' $3,737 tuition payment on behalf of the student-athlete was an impermissible extra benefit that constituted a major violation of Bylaw The boosters met and grew close with the student-athlete when she was previously a walk-on with the women's basketball team. The student-athlete quit the team in Spring 2017 after learning the program would not award her any athletics aid to cover the shortfall between her institutional aid and the cost of attendance. The boosters offered to help the student-athlete with her tuition, believing this was permissible because she was no longer a student-athlete. She accepted the offer but informed the boosters that she planned to join the women's lacrosse team for the academic year. 5 The boosters nevertheless deposited $3,737 into the student-athlete's account. Not only did the boosters know she was a student-athlete at the time they made the payment, they had also recently received education from YHC on this very topic. This education followed the boosters' involvement in a secondary extra benefits violation earlier in the academic year. Specifically, the boosters provided another women's basketball student-athlete and her father with access to the VIP hospitality room, including free food and drink. Following this violation, the institution took extra steps to educate all boosters regarding extra benefits, including asking them to sign a document verifying that they had received and read an informational pamphlet on NCAA rules. Despite this education and the boosters' knowledge of the student-athlete's status, they proceeded to make a significant payment toward her tuition. This payment was not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation and was not generally available to other YHC students. Accordingly, the boosters' actions violated Bylaw Pursuant to Bylaw , the COI concludes that the violation is major because it was not inadvertent and provided a significant impermissible benefit to the student-athlete. The COI has consistently concluded that major violations of Bylaw occur when boosters or institutional staff members provide student-athletes with significant benefits not available to the general student population. See Fayetteville State University (2017) (concluding major violations occurred when a booster paid institutional expenses for two student-athletes totaling approximately $12,500); Gannon University (2016) (concluding a major violation occurred when a head coach arranged for a men's swimming and diving student-athlete to receive a cash benefit of $3,000 in impermissible financial aid); and University of Alaska, Anchorage (2014) (concluding major violations occurred when a head coach and volunteer coach provided two 4 The full text of Bylaw is set forth in Appendix Two. 5 The head women's lacrosse coach submitted paperwork to add the student-athlete to the team roster in April 2017.

4 Page No. 4 women's basketball student-athletes with cash benefits totaling $7,320). Consistent with these cases, the boosters' extra benefits violation is major. V. PENALTIES For the reasons set forth in Sections III and IV of this decision, the COI concludes this case involved a major violation of NCAA legislation. Major violations are not inadvertent, provide or are intended to provide more than a minimal advantage and/or include significant impermissible benefits. In prescribing penalties, the COI evaluated relevant mitigating factors pursuant to Bylaw In particular, the COI noted that YHC quickly detected the violation through its routine review of student-athlete accounts and then took immediate action to investigate and report the violation. Because of the institution's prompt and appropriate actions, the studentathlete did not compete or receive expenses while ineligible. Moreover, the institution acted appropriately in providing education to the boosters after their previous secondary violation. Finally, no staff members were involved in the violation and the institution did not lack control or fail to monitor. To the contrary, YHC acted in an exemplary manner in detecting and responding to the violation in this case. The COI also considered YHC's cooperation during the infractions process, as addressed in Bylaws and The COI notes that the enforcement staff specifically identified its appreciation of YHC's cooperation. Thus, the COI concludes that the cooperation exhibited by YHC met, and likely exceeded, its obligation under the bylaws. Finally, the COI reviewed past cases for guidance. The COI's recent decision in University of Southern Indiana (USI) (2018) was particularly instructive because it involved impermissible recruiting inducements provided by a booster with no involvement by institutional staff. Furthermore, as in this case, USI acted in an exemplary manner in promptly detecting and reporting the violations and preventing any ineligible competition. Taking into account USI's prompt and appropriate actions, the COI prescribed only public reprimand and censure for the institution and adopted USI's five-year disassociation of the booster. See also Gannon (prescribing only public reprimand and censure for the institution when a head swimming coach arranged for an impermissible cash benefit for a men's swimming student-athlete, but the institution quickly discovered the violation and took immediate action to prevent ineligible competition). Although probation and/or financial penalties are common in cases involving impermissible benefits, the COI finds USI and Gannon to be more relevant due to the limited nature of the violations in those cases. Similarly, this case involved an isolated violation by a booster and exemplary conduct by the institution. Accordingly, the COI concludes that no probationary period or financial penalties are warranted here. Because YHC agreed to the facts, violation and penalties, it has no opportunity to appeal. YHC's self-imposed penalties are specifically identified and its corrective actions are set forth in Appendix One. After considering all information, the COI prescribes the following penalties:

5 Page No. 5 Penalties for Major Violations (Bylaw ) 1. Public reprimand and censure Disassociation of the boosters for a period of three years commencing October 25, (Self-imposed). During the period of disassociation, the institution shall: a. Refrain from accepting from the boosters any financial assistance for the institution's athletics department and its programs; b. Refrain from providing any benefit to the boosters, including attendance at any athletics events and the use of any athletics department facilities such as the institution's recreation center and weight room; and c. Prohibit any contact or association between the boosters and any prospective or enrolled YHC student-athlete. If any of the above occur, the institution shall make the disassociation permanent. 7 As required by NCAA legislation for any institution involved in a major infractions case, YHC shall be subject to the provisions of Bylaw concerning repeat violators for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case,. The COI further advises YHC that it should take every precaution to ensure that it observes the terms of the penalties. The COI will monitor the penalties during their effective periods. Any action by YHC contrary to the terms of any of the penalties or any additional violations shall be considered grounds for prescribing more severe penalties or may result in additional allegations and violations. NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS John David Lackey Richard Loosbrock Harry O. Stinson, III, Chair Jane Teixeira 6 YHC proposed "public reprimand" as a penalty. Pursuant to Bylaw (a), "public reprimand" always includes "censure," although there is no practical difference. The release of the public decision effectuates the penalty. 7 YHC self-imposed all terms of the disassociation.

6 APPENDIX ONE Page No. 1 APPENDIX ONE YOUNG HARRIS COLLEGE'S CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE AUGUST 28, 2018, SUMMARY DISPOSITION REPORT 1. YHC immediately declared the student-athlete ineligible for athletics competition. 2. After further discussion with the student-athlete, YHC determined that she would be dismissed from any Department of Athletics program while she continued to accept financial assistance [from] and maintain contact with the boosters. 3. YHC revised, in conjunction with the Business Office, the policy of setting up payments for student accounts in order to verify athletics participation status if the payment is from a source other than the student and/or the student's parent or legal guardian. 4. YHC audited the last three years of student-athlete accounts to verify, when the information permitted, that the student and/or the student's parent or legal guardian made payments on student-athletes' accounts. 5. YHC provided additional rules education for all student-athletes concerning permissible benefits, representatives of athletics interests and extra benefits. 6. YHC will educate its college staff/faculty on the issues with providing a student-athlete anything that could be considered an extra benefit.

7 APPENDIX TWO Page No. 1 Division II Manual APPENDIX TWO Bylaw Citation General Rule. The student-athlete shall not receive any extra benefit. The term "extra benefit" refers to any special arrangement by an institutional employee or representative of the institution's athletics interests to provide the student-athlete or his or her relatives or friends with a benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation.