UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC INFRACTIONS DECISION JUNE 27, 2014 I. INTRODUCTION The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions is an independent administrative body of the NCAA comprised of individuals from the NCAA Division I membership and the public charged with deciding infractions cases involving member institutions and their staff. 1 This case involves the University of New Hampshire. 2 The committee, through a seven member panel, considers this case through the cooperative summary disposition process in which all parties agreed to the primary facts, violations and violation levels as fully set forth in the summary disposition report (SDR). Further, the institution agrees to the penalties; therefore, there is no opportunity to appeal. The institution and the enforcement staff are the only parties in this case. The agreed-upon violations center on the actions of an alumnus who was also a representative of the institution's athletics interests. From 2008 to 2012, the representative of the institution's athletics interests provided impermissible benefits such as small gifts, meals, money for travel expenses and financial assistance for tuition to one or more of the eight then current or former student-athletes identified in this case and/or their family members. The former student-athletes received the impermissible benefits while enrolled at the institution and after graduating with no remaining years of eligibility. Because the head women's volleyball coach failed in May 2010 to report the representative's graduation gifts and because the senior associate athletic director for compliance failed in August 2012 to inquire or investigate the matter regarding a studentathlete's tuition payment, the institution failed to ensure compliance with the extra-benefit legislation. Therefore, the parties also agreed that the institution failed to monitor the representative's conduct. 1 Infractions cases are decided by hearing panels comprised of NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions members. Decisions issued by hearing panels are made on behalf of the committee. 2 The institution has an enrollment of approximately 12,000. Its primary conference affiliation is with the America East Conference with 14 of 20 sport programs participating in that conference. Women's ice hockey is a member of Hockey East. Women's gymnastics is a member of the East Atlantic Gymnastics league. This is the institution's second major infractions case in the past five years. The parties identified the previous 2009 case as an aggravating factor in their summary disposition report. See NCAA Bylaw 19 (Division I Manual 2013-14).
Page No. 2 The panel accepts the parties' SDR. The panel concludes that the parties' agreed-upon facts and violations constitute violations of NCAA bylaws. The panel determines that this case will be processed as a Level II-standard case. 3 After considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, the panel prescribes the following principal core and administrative penalties: two years of probation, a $5,000 fine, mandatory attendance at NCAA Regional Rules Seminars and rules education for the institution's development staff. II. CASE HISTORY On December 2, 2012, a representative of the institution's athletics interests ("representative") advised the head women's gymnastics coach that he had provided financial assistance to a former women's gymnastics student-athlete and then women's track and field student-athlete. The head women's gymnastics coach notified the senior associate athletic director for compliance ("compliance officer"). After meeting with the student-athlete, the compliance officer determined that a violation may have occurred. On December 11, 2012, the institution notified the NCAA enforcement staff of the potential violation and discussed its investigation plan. The enforcement staff agreed to permit the institution to conduct an independent investigation and to submit a report after its conclusion. During the course of the investigation, the institution discovered other possible violations involving the representative and former student-athletes at the institution. As a result of the institution's investigation, the institution made the decision to disassociate the representative. Nearly six months later, on June 28, 2013, the institution submitted its self-report to the enforcement staff. On August 1, 2013, the enforcement staff issued a notice of inquiry to the institution and, on August 6, 2013, began conducting on-campus interviews with the assistance of the institution. On November 12, 2013, the enforcement staff provided proposed findings to the institution. The institution agreed to the proposed findings and the parties submitted the SDR on February 6, 2014. On March 6, the panel's chief hearing officer requested clarification and additional information concerning the facts of the case and bylaw citations provided so that the panel could have all of the necessary information to review the SDR. On March 12, 2014, the panel reviewed the SDR. On March 17, 2014, the enforcement staff submitted a supplemental document in response to the panel's requests. 3 Although a majority of the violations occurred before the effective date of the new NCAA Bylaw 19 penalty guidelines, the panel processed the case applying the new penalty guidelines because they were more favorable to the institution. See NCAA Bylaw 19.9.1 and Section V. Penalties, below.
Page No. 3 The supplemental document identified all applicable bylaw citations and clarified two non-dispositive factual inconsistencies. 4 In correspondence dated March 21, 2014, the panel advised the institution that it accepted the factual findings, violations and the institution's corrective actions. The panel also noted that the institution did not propose any penalties in the SDR and had taken the position that no additional penalties were warranted in this case. The panel disagreed with the institution's position and proposed additional penalties and corrective measures to the institution in the March 21 correspondence. The institution responded on April 14, 2014, and requested that the panel reconsider its proposed penalties. Emphasizing that rules education is a corrective rather than punitive measure, the panel further adjusted the proposed penalties on May 2, 2014. On May 13, 2014, the institution agreed to the hearing panel's final proposed penalties and corrective measures. III. PARTIES' AGREEMENTS A. PARTIES' AGREED-UPON FACTUAL BASIS, VIOLATIONS OF NCAA LEGISLATION AND VIOLATION LEVELS The parties jointly submitted a SDR that identifies an agreed-upon factual basis and violations of NCAA legislation. The SDR identifies: 1. [NCAA Bylaws 15.01.3 (2012-13 NCAA Division I Manual); 16.11.2.1 (2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 NCAA Division I Manual)] The NCAA enforcement staff and institution agree that beginning in December 2008 and continuing through August 2012, the representative provided impermissible benefits in the form of cash, meals, travel expenses and educational expenses to multiple student-athletes and family members of the student-athletes. The approximate total value of the impermissible benefits provided was $22,336. Specifically: a. Between December 2008 and August 2011, the representative provided cash to a then women's track and field student-athlete ("student-athlete A"), on three separate occasions, totaling $750. Additionally, the representative purchased an impermissible meal on one occasion for student-athlete A. The approximate total value of benefits provided was $766. 4 The parties' agreements are memorialized in this infractions decision.
Page No. 4 b. On March 1, 2009, the representative provided a check in the amount of $1,415 to the father of a then women's ice hockey student-athlete ("student-athlete B"). Student-athlete B's family used the money to purchase airline tickets from Scotland to New Hampshire so they could attend student-athlete B's graduation ceremony. c. In May 2010, the representative provided personalized mugs/steins as graduation gifts to to four then women's volleyball studentathletes ("student-athletes C, D, E, and F", respectively), and each of their mothers. The approximate value of the benefits provided was $32.80 for each student-athlete. d. In August 2012, the representative provided $20,000 in impermissible educational expenses for a then women's track and field student-athlete ("student-athlete G") to attend the institution during the 2012-13 academic year. Specifically, the representative provided $13,000 to student-athlete G and $7,000 to studentathlete G's mother, a combined total of $20,000 used to pay for student-athlete G to attend the institution. 2. [NCAA Bylaw 16.11.2.1 (2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 NCAA Division I Manual)] The NCAA enforcement staff and institution agree that beginning in May 2009, and continuing through December 2012, the representative, provided impermissible benefits in the form of cash, meals and gifts to three former student-athletes who had graduated from the institution and had no remaining eligibility. The approximate total value of the impermissible benefits provided was $427. Specifically: a. In May 2009, the representative purchased a meal for studentathlete B, her parents and her brother. The impermissible benefit was provided after student-athlete B exhausted her eligibility and graduated from the institution. The approximate total value of benefits provided was $138. b. Between January and November 2012, the representative provided $100, a personalized mug/stein and purchased meals on three occasions for student-athlete A. The impermissible benefits were provided after student-athlete A exhausted her eligibility and
Page No. 5 graduated from the institution. The approximate total value of benefits provided was $189. c. In June 2012, the representative provided $100 as a graduation gift to a former women's volleyball student-athlete ("student-athlete H"). The impermissible benefit was provided after student-athlete H exhausted her eligibility and graduated from the institution. 3. [NCAA Constitution 2.8.1 (2011-12 NCAA Division I Manual)] The NCAA enforcement staff and institution agree that the scope and nature of the violations detailed in Finding No. 1 demonstrate that the institution failed to appropriately monitor the conduct of a representative of the institution's athletics interests to ensure compliance with NCAA extra benefit legislation. Specifically: a. The head women's volleyball coach was present when the representative of the institution's athletics interests provided graduation gifts to four women's volleyball student-athletes as described in Finding No. 1-c. However, the head women's volleyball coach failed to recognize the provision of benefits as a violation of NCAA legislation and failed to report the matter to the athletics department. Partly as a result, the representative continued providing impermissible benefits to other studentathletes, as outlined in Finding Nos. 1-d, 2-b and 2-c. b. A compliance staff member became aware that a student-athlete intended to receive educational expenses from an outside source, as described in Finding No. 1-d. Despite that knowledge, the compliance staff member failed to ask the student-athlete appropriate questions or follow up on the matter to determine whether the arrangement was in compliance with NCAA legislation. Partly as a result, the violation detailed in Finding No. 1-d occurred. B. PARTIES' AGREED-UPON AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.6.2-(g), the parties have agreed to the following aggravating and mitigating factors:
Page No. 6 1. Agreed-upon aggravating and mitigating factors. [NCAA Bylaws 19.9.2 and 19.9.4 (NCAA Division I Manual 2013-14)] a. Aggravating factors. Institution. (1) Bylaw 19.9.3-(b): A history of Level I, II or major violations by the institution. Specifically, the institution had a major infractions case involving the men's ice hockey program in 2009. (2) Bylaw 19.9.3-(h): Person of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation or related wrongful conduct. Specifically, the head women's volleyball coach, was aware of and witnessed the provision of impermissible benefits in Finding No. 1-c but failed to recognize the provision as a violation of NCAA legislation and/or report the incident to the compliance staff. (3) Bylaw 19.9.3-(i): One or more violations caused significant ineligibility or other substantial harm to a student-athlete or prospective student-athlete. Specifically, student-athlete A, was declared ineligible for accepting benefits from a representative of the institution's athletics interests, and the institution did not seek reinstatement of her eligibility. b. Mitigating factors. Institution. (1) Bylaw 19.9.4-(b): Prompt acknowledgement of the violation, acceptance of responsibility and imposition of meaningful corrective measures and/or penalties. Specifically, when the information of a possible violation of NCAA legislation was reported to the head women's gymnastics coach, she immediately informed the compliance office. The compliance office immediately declared the involved student-athlete ineligible, and launched an investigation into the possible violation, resulting in the discovery of additional violations. The
Page No. 7 institution has cooperated throughout the investigative process and disassociated from the representative on its own accord. IV. REVIEW OF CASE The submitted SDR fully details the parties' positions in the infractions case, and includes the agreed-upon primary facts, violations, violation levels and aggravating and mitigating factors. After reviewing the parties' principal factual agreements and the respective explanations surrounding those agreements, the panel accepts the parties' SDR and concludes that those facts overall constitute Level II violations. This case was processed pursuant to an infractions process and a revised penalty structure recently approved by the membership and enacted by the Division I Board of Directors. See NCAA Bylaw 19 (Division I Manual 2013-14). In accordance with new NCAA Bylaw 19, a case is processed at the highest violation level. Level II violations, representing an institution's significant breach of conduct, includes one or more violations that "provide or are intended to provide more than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive" recruiting, competitive or other advantage or impermissible benefit. NCAA Bylaw 19.1.2. Level II violations are more serious than Level III and yet do not rise to the level of Level I. NCAA Bylaw 19.1.2-(a). They may include systemic violations that do not amount to a lack of institutional control or collective Level III violations. NCAA Bylaw 19.1.2-(c) and (f). The panel reviewed and agrees that the representative provided impermissible benefits that were more than minimal. The violations were serious and systemic in that they occurred over nearly a four-year period. Because of the representative's conduct the institution failed to comply with bylaws governing financial aid (NCAA Bylaw 15) and extra benefits (NCAA Bylaw 16). From 2008 through 2012, the representative provided financial aid and/or extra benefits to then current and former student-athletes. In one instance, the representative provided $20,000 in education benefits to a student-athlete in violation of NCAA Bylaw 15.01.3. The representative, and not the institution, provided financial aid to student-athlete G in a manner that was not specifically approved under the NCAA's rules of amateurism and the basis of the tuition payment was related to her athletics ability. The aid was therefore impermissible and rendered student-athlete G ineligible. The representative also provided a variety of gifts to student-athletes and his actions resulted in additional institutional violations. Similar to NCAA Bylaw 15, the general rule in NCAA Bylaw 16 is that a student-athlete "shall not receive any extra benefit" from an institutional employee or representative of the institution's athletics interests. The rule extends to the student-athlete's relatives or friends, thereby making it a violation
Page No. 8 if they received any extra benefit or special arrangement. In the present case, the representative provided one or more items such as personalized mugs, meals, small or larger amounts of cash to then current and later former student-athletes and to family members of student-athletes in violation of NCAA Bylaw 16.11.2.1. The institution also agreed that it failed to monitor the conduct of the representative as required by the NCAA Constitution. Because institutional staff failed to report or appropriately follow up on information concerning the representative's provision of gifts or educational assistance, the violations continued. The institution did not fulfill its obligation to monitor its programs to ensure compliance with the Association's rules and regulations. When the institution did not take steps to monitor and the representative did not comply, the institution violated Constitution 2.8.1. In addition to the violation and violation levels, the panel reviewed and considered the aggravating and mitigating factors identified in the SDR. Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.9.2, aggravating and mitigating factors can affect the panel's prescribed penalties. The panel is concerned that there are multiple Level II violations in this case and that the institution has a recent history of major violations. With regard to a third aggravating factor, that a violation caused a student-athlete's ineligibility, the panel agrees that the violation resulted in harm; however, it must be noted that the student-athlete was not completely truthful with the compliance officer and the student-athlete played a role in the violation. The panel also observed and determined that there was no information in this case to suggest that the institution gained a competitive or recruiting advantage of any kind as a result of these violations. In addition to the aggravating factors agreed upon by the parties, the panel determined additional factors that weighed in favor of the institution: many of the impermissible benefits were small and a number were given to student-athletes after their eligibility was exhausted, there was no significant competitive or recruiting advantage, and at least one coach reported a potential violation promptly to the institution's athletics compliance office. While the head women's volleyball coach witnessed the representative providing the graduation gifts and should have advised the compliance office, the violation itself did not result in a significant impermissible benefit nor did it create a recruiting or competitive advantage. Furthermore, the head women's volleyball coach's actions did not constitute knowing involvement in offering or providing an impermissible benefit. More importantly, she had previously intervened and instructed the representative on more than one occasion about permissible and impermissible activities with student-athletes and their parents. And the head women's volleyball coach had reported these other earlier incidents to the athletics compliance office.
Page No. 9 The panel also considered the institution's cooperation in the processing of this case, particularly the institution's prompt response and investigation. Cooperation during the infractions process is addressed in NCAA Bylaw 19.2.3. The panel finds and concludes that the cooperation exhibited by the institution was consistent with its obligation under NCAA Bylaw 19.2.3. The institution acted promptly to investigate information it received regarding possible violations, self-discovered and self-reported additional violations and cooperated with NCAA enforcement staff. Therefore, in consideration of the facts and the aggravating and mitigating factors present in the case, the panel concludes that violations occurred and prescribes the penalties identified in Section V as appropriate. 5 V. PENALTIES For the reasons set forth in Sections III and IV of this report, the panel concludes that this case involved violations of NCAA legislation. Because violations occurred both before and after October 30, 2012, the effective date for new NCAA Bylaw 19, the panel processed the case in accordance with that new bylaw. The panel then conducted a separate analysis and made a separate determination as to whether to prescribe penalties under the former NCAA or current NCAA Bylaw 19 penalty guidelines. Because the violations predominantly occurred before the effective date, the panel reviewed whether the new penalty guidelines were more lenient. In considering the penalties under the former penalty structure, the panel used past cases as guidance. The panel concluded that the new penalty structure was more lenient. Given that the violations occurred over four years and that this is the institution's second major infractions case in five years, the panel determines that core and additional penalties within the Level II-standard range are warranted under the new penalty guidelines, in addition to other administrative penalties. Because the institution agreed to the facts, violations, the penalties and additional corrective measures prescribed by the panel, there is no opportunity to appeal. The Appendix contains the institution's corrective actions. 5 The panel accepts the parties' position that when student-athletes received benefits after graduation and after exhausting eligibility that violated NCAA Bylaw 16. This conclusion is consistent with an AMA Official Interpretation: "Providing benefits of nominal value to student-athletes who have exhausted eligibility" (Issued and published: January 6, 1989). The panel notes, however, the challenges for an institution to effectively identify, monitor and report as a violation the receipt of any kind of benefits that take place one day or one year after a student-athlete has graduated or exhausted eligibility.
Page No. 10 All of the penalties prescribed in this case are independent of and supplemental to any action that has been or may be taken by the Committee on Academic Performance through its assessment of contemporaneous, historical, or other penalties. After considering all information relevant to the case, the panel prescribes the following: Level II Standard Core Penalties (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.5) 1. Probation: Two years from, through June 26, 2016. 2. Competition limitations: 0. 3. Financial penalty: The institution shall pay a $5,000 fine to the NCAA. 4. Scholarship reduction: 0. 5. Show cause: N/A. 6. Head coach restrictions: N/A. 7. Recruiting visit restrictions: 0. Level II Standard Additional Penalties and Corrective Measures (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.7) 8. Public reprimand and censure. 9. Regional Rules. The institution shall require mandatory attendance at NCAA Regional Rules Seminars during the period of probation for all athletics compliance staff and the head coaches of women's ice hockey and volleyball, who were employed by the institution at any time between 2008 and 2012 and who remain employed by the institution in an athletics capacity. Athletics compliance staff members and head coaches shall certify in writing which sessions of the seminar she/he attended. The institution shall send a letter to the Committee on Infractions certifying each head coach's and staff member's attendance at the seminar no later than 30 days after the completion of the seminar. Additionally, during this period of probation, the institution shall implement the following standard administrative penalties and measures:
Page No. 11 Level II Standard Additional Administrative Penalties (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.7) 10. Continue to develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation to instruct the coaches, the faculty athletics representative, all athletics department personnel, all development or fundraising staff assigned to athletics and all institution staff members with responsibility for the certification of student-athletes' eligibility for admission, financial aid, practice or competition; 11. Submit a preliminary report to the Office of the Committees on Infractions by August 15, 2014, setting forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program; and 12. On May 1 during each year of probation, file with the Office of the Committees on Infractions an annual compliance report indicating the progress made with this program. The report must include documentation of the institution's compliance with the penalties adopted and prescribed by the panel. 13. Inform all prospective student-athletes in the affected sports that the institution is on probation for two years and the violations committed. If a prospective studentathlete in an affected sport takes an official paid visit, the information regarding violations, penalties and terms of probation must be provided in advance of the visit. Otherwise, the information must be provided before a prospective studentathlete signs a National Letter of Intent. 14. Publicize specific and understandable information concerning the nature of the infractions by providing, at a minimum, a statement to include the types of violations and the affected sport programs and a direct, conspicuous link to the public infractions report located on the athletics department's main webpage. The institution's statement must: (i) clearly describe the infractions; (ii) include the length of the probationary period associated with the major infractions case; and (iii) give members of the general public a clear indication of what happened in the major infractions case to allow the public (particularly prospective studentathletes and their families) to make informed, knowledgeable decisions. A statement that refers only to the probationary period with nothing more is not sufficient. The institution may meet its responsibility in a variety of ways. 15. At the conclusion of the probationary period, the institution's president shall provide a letter to the committee affirming that the institution's current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations.
Page No. 12 The committee advises the institution that it should take every precaution to ensure that the terms of the penalties are observed. The committee will monitor the penalties during their effective periods. Any action by the institution contrary to the terms of any of the penalties or any additional violations shall be considered grounds for extending the institution's probationary period or prescribing more severe penalties or may result in additional allegations and findings of violations. NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS PANEL Eleanor W. Myers (Chief Hearing Officer) Norman Bay John Black Carol Cartwright Roscoe Howard Joel Maturi Sankar Suryanarayan
Page No. 13 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS APPENDIX The University of New Hampshire has put in place significant corrective actions and penalties in response to this matter. The following details these actions: 1. Disassociated the representative in December 2012 the institution's athletic department will no longer accept any financial support from the representative. In addition the representative will no longer be invited to any of the functions conducted for "Friends" of the University of New Hampshire programs. 2. Increase Booster Education The institution has implemented a more defined booster education program to include a calendar timeline of when information will be shared. Information will be disseminated through a variety of sources to include social media, mail, email, and through signage around the facilities. The institution will also include Booster materials in thank you notes and other forms of correspondence sent out. 3. Increase student-athlete education greater emphasis has been placed in student-athlete training sessions as to what a "friend" is and what actions are permissible. The studentathletes will have this as part of their beginning of the year compliance meetings as well as the end of the year meetings prior to summer vacation. The institution has also extended educational efforts to the parents of student-athletes through meetings at after competition functions. 4. Continued educational efforts to the various "friends Groups" the compliance staff will meet with each friends group on a yearly basis to provide rules education. 5. The compliance office has re-evaluated how it monitors outside aid and has implemented new forms for monitoring such aid with an emphasis placed on individuals who have exhausted eligibility but remain in school and those who are no longer on aid yet remain in school. 6. The institution issued a letter of reprimand to the head women's volleyball coach.