December 6, 2001
Response letter from University of Alabama President Andrew A. Sorensen to the NCAA
October 22, 2001
Mr. Paul T. Dee, University of Miami
Mr. Frederick B. Lacey, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & Macrae
Ms. Andrea Myers, Indiana State University
Mr. James Park Jr., Frost Brown Todd LLC
Ms. Josephine R. Potuto, University of Nebraska
Mr. Thomas E. Yeager, Colonial Athletic Association (Chair Elect)
Mr. Jerry Parkinson, University of Wyoming
Re: Response to the Letter of Official Inquiry
Members of the Division I Committee on Infractions:
I have enclosed the University of Alabama’s Response to the Letter of Official Inquiry, dated September 5, 2001, which was forwarded to me by David Price.
In the letter of September 5, 2001, we were asked to state the position of the University regarding the application of NCAA Bylaw 19.6.2.3. The application of Bylaw 19.6.2.3 (Repeat Violator), which triggers consideration of the presumptive penalties outlined in Bylaw 19.6.2.3.2, requires a Committee on Infractions’ Finding that a major violation has occurred within five years of the starting date of a major penalty. The effective date of the penalties of the 1995 football case was June 3, 1995, and the violations outlined in the Letter of Official Inquiry in this case occurred within the five-year window, from June 3, 1995, forward. We believe the repeat-violator rule applies in this case.
The genesis of the 1998 basketball case was a telephone call from one of our boosters to then Associate Athletics Director and current Director of Athletics, Mal Moore. The booster reported that he had received a request from a former assistant basketball coach, which the booster considered offensive and a violation of NCAA rules. Mr. Moore immediately reported the problem to then Director of Athletics, Bob Bockrath, and the Associate Athletics Director of Compliance, Marie Robbins. Because the University was within the five-year period from the 1995 football case, we were not able to use the summary disposition process in the 1998 case. However, no institutional penalties were imposed.
At the University’s appearance before the Committee on Infractions on November 18, 1998, the University reported that it had undergone a total change in personnel and procedure since the 1995 case, including a change in all of the administrative positions critical to effective rules compliance. And although my view is that the responsibility for institutional control is an institutional responsibility, which follows through time and, in part, is separate from institutional personnel, I do believe that the knowledge and integrity of the individuals in critical compliance positions are probably as determinative of outcomes as written policies and procedures.
Although I know we have included the full February 9, 1999, Committee on Infractions opinion in our response, it is –most important to me that you consider the following excerpt from that opinion as you study the allegations and our response in this case:
C. Summary of Penalties.
Had not the institution and representatives of its athletics interests responded so forthrightly and cooperatively following the attempt of the assistant men’s basketball coach to solicit money in connection with the improper recruitment of a prospect, it is likely that a number of major infractions with severe penalties would have resulted. But the university, following its 1995 case and during its period of probation, took steps necessary to meet NCAA expectations for institutional control and proactive rules compliance. As the Committee on Infractions learned from the university’s response to the official inquiry and from its presentation and responses to questions at the hearing, this is a case in which representatives of the university’s athletics interests informed the institution of the incident, the university reported the alleged violations to the NCAA enforcement staff, the university immediately investigated the violations, and then suspended and later terminated the employment of the assistant men’s basketball coach. These actions demonstrated the success of institutional controls developed since the major infractions case in 1995. These controls include extensive changes of personnel, establishment not simply of shared compliance responsibilities but also of an environment of compliance for athletics and other university staff. The faculty athletics representative has been closely involved with compliance, as have been a compliance committee and a coordinator of compliance.
Most important to the reporting of this present infraction was the institution’s ongoing education of its representatives of the university’s athletics interests. The case is major because it involves a serious individual violation of recruiting legislation and unethical conduct by a former assistant men’s basketball coach. Rather than impose institutional penalties, the committee commends the university for its effective institutional control and proactive compliance, which culminated in the January 28, 1998, suspension of the assistant men’s basketball coach involved in the violations and his ultimate termination on May 1, 1998. As a result of the findings concerning the former assistant men’s basketball coach, the committee issues a show-cause penalty for a period of four years (May 1, 1998, through April 30, 2002). (Emphasis added.)
My colleague, Professor Gene Marsh, has characterized our current predicament as a case with several elements, but reduced to a few words, it would be "renegade boosters and their involvement in recruitment". It has not been lost on me that, sadly, we find ourselves here in a booster case, after having received recent praise from the Committee for effective institutional control, booster education, and proactive rules compliance in February 1999.
Two individuals who are most critical to our compliance program, and who led our response in the 1998 case, are our Director of Compliance and Faculty Athletics Representative. They have demonstrated their integrity at every turn, and have strongly maintained independence in our compliance efforts. Their diligence both in the 1998 basketball case, and since that time, has been documented time and again in our response. The extent to which they are respected and trusted by the NCAA enforcement staff and the Southeastern Conference has been proven in this case, where from the beginning, they have developed important evidence, have been entrusted with the most sensitive information in this investigation, have been involved in most of the dozens of interviews conducted in Memphis, across the country and here on campus, and proven to be fully cooperative in all aspects of this investigation. From the very beginning, they have been driven by only one goal—to find out what happened and to recommend appropriate remedial measures. They have no interest in protecting people who have damaged our program, and they have never paid heed to individuals who would have us adopt the "win at all costs" approach. They have never failed to thoroughly investigate a matter when information was developed relating to a possible rules violation.
Although I know it is not customary to address specific elements of the case in this cover letter, I want to state clearly the University’s position regarding the boosters in this case. We have disassociated all of the offending boosters in our case, including Mr. (name redacted), Mr. (name redacted), and Mr. (name redacted). Their disassociation letters are included in our response.
The booster who has been at the center of the controversy in Memphis is Mr. (name redacted). There is an important aspect of (word or words redacted) conduct that, although it is not raised as part of the allegations in this matter (and is perhaps not even a violation of an NCAA rule) has a material effect on the University’s response to the Letter of Official Inquiry and to Mr. (name redacted) himself. The investigative record compiled by the enforcement staff, the University and the SEC clearly establishes that Mr. (name redacted) ahs been guilty of a history of intemperate, false and highly inappropriate statements and assertions concerning his relationship with the University and its football program.
In the volatile and public arena where the recruitment of high profile athletes has been played out in the Memphis area, Mr. (name redacted) has a public persona which has been developed over the years which attaches to him correctly or not, an inappropriate involvement in the recruitment process. The record developed in this investigation shows that Mr. (name redacted) is sometimes given credit for conduct that violates NCAA recruiting rules and that Mr. (name redacted) has sometimes accepted that credit in his comments to others. Whether these comments have been unfounded braggadocio, the results of (word or words redacted) (which are inappropriate to detail here, but which are detailed in the investigative record), or in fact true, the injurious results are undeniable. Although the University questions whether the underlying reality of all of Mr. (name redacted) behavior will ever be established one way or the other to satisfy the requisite degree of proof, by his words alone, Mr. (name redacted) has caused a substantial injury to the University and to the principles of this Association and the SEC.
Finally, let me express my appreciation for your willingness to hear our case in November. I know we have presented you with a substantial record, less than a month before the hearing. All of our institutional representatives are committed to making a presentation of only the critical evidence, avoiding repetition and rehashing of our written submission.
Sincerely yours,
Andrew A. Sorensen
President
C: Mr. David Price, NCAA
Mr. Shepard Cooper, NCAA
Mr. Mark Jones, NCAA
Mr. Rich Johanningmeier, NCAA
Mr. Rich Hilliard, Ice Miller
Mr. Roy Kramer, SEC
|
