1. Processing Level I and II Violations 2013 Regional Rules Seminars Laura McNab and Mike Zonder NCAA Enforcement Staff

2. Overview Levels I and II Processing options Hearing Summary Disposition Resources

3. Why Severe (Level I) and Significant (Level II) Breaches of Conduct? Infractions may be more appropriately categorized and penalties may be prescribed that better reflect the severity of the infraction. Provide member institutions and involved individuals with more detailed notice of infractions, including the level of seriousness assigned the infractions, for which they may be held accountable. Member institution may be charged with violations at a different level than those with which an individual is charged. Allows enforcement staff to resolve less significant infractions more efficiently and focus its primary resources on most serious infractions cases.

4. Severe Breaches of Conduct (Level I) NCAA Bylaw 19.1.1 Seriously undermine or threaten integrity of NCAA Collegiate Model (Constitution and bylaws), Including any violation that provides or is intended to provide a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage, Or a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit.

5. Severe Breaches of Conduct (Level I) Lack of institutional control; Academic fraud; Failure to cooperate in an NCAA enforcement investigation; Individual unethical or dishonest conduct, regardless of whether the underlying institutional violations are considered Level I; Bylaw 11.1.2.1 violation by a head coach resulting from an underlying Level I violation by an individual within the sport program; Cash payment or other benefits provided by a coach, administrator or representative of the institution's athletics interests intended to secure, or which resulted in, enrollment of a prospective student-athlete; Third-party involvement in recruiting violations in which institutional officials knew or should have known about the involvement; Intentional violations or reckless indifference to the NCAA constitution and bylaws; or Collective Level II and/or III violations.

6. Significant Breaches of Conduct (Level II) Bylaw 19.1.2 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; Include more than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit; or Involve conduct that may compromise the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model (Constitution and bylaws).

7. Significant Breaches of Conduct (Level II) Do not rise to the level of Level I violations and are more serious than Level III violations; Failure to monitor (such violations will be presumed Level II but may be deemed to be of a Level I nature if the failure is substantial or egregious); Systemic violations that do not amount to a lack of institutional control; Multiple recruiting, financial aid, or eligibility violations that do not amount to a lack of institutional control; Bylaw 11.1.2.1 violation by a head coach resulting from an underlying Level II violation by an individual within the sport program; or Collective Level III violations.

8. What happens prior to alleging Level I/ II violations? Notice of Inquiry. Investigation. Interviews. Document requests. Communication with institution/involved individuals.

9. Level I and II Processing Options Hearing Level II Accelerated Hearing Docket Level II Written Record Summary Disposition Report (SDR)

10. Staff provides proposed findings (19.6) and/or issues Notice of Allegations (NOA) (19.7.1) Summary Disposition (19.6) Hearing (19.7) Hearing panel (HP) approves findings and penalties. HP notifies institution and involved individual of decision. HP does not approve findings. NOA issued and case processed through a hearing. HP does not approve penalties. Institution/involved individual may accept additional penalties; or Request an expedited hearing/written record review on penalties. Prior to hearing, institution, involved individual and enforcement staff prepare written responses for HP’s review. HP holds hearing to make factual findings and concludes whether violations occurred. HP determines appropriate penalties (19.9). HP notifies institution/involved individual of decision (19.8). After HP decision, institution/involved individual may appeal findings (not with summary disposition) and/ or penalties to Infractions Appeal Committee (19.10).

11. Hearings

12. Notice of Allegations (NOA) Bylaw 19.7.1 Same standard for issuing NOA: “If the enforcement staff determines after an investigation that there is sufficient information to conclude that a hearing panel of the Committee on Infractions could conclude that a violation occurred…”

13. New Components of NOA Overall level of the case. Individual level of each violation. List of specific evidence on which the enforcement staff will rely. Aggravating and mitigating factors and supporting evidence. Use of Technology (Box).

14. Aggravating Factors Bylaw 19.9.3 Aggravating factors warrant a higher range of penalties in a particular case. A hearing panel determines whether aggravating factors are present and weight assigned to each factor. Examples: Multiple Level I violations by institution or involved individual; Obstructing investigation or attempting to conceal violation; Unethical conduct, compromising the integrity of an investigation, failing to cooperate during an investigation or refusing to provide all relevant or requested information; Violations were premeditated, deliberate or committed after substantial planning.

15. Mitigating Factors Bylaw 19.9.4 Mitigating factors warrant a lower range of penalties in a particular case. A hearing panel determines whether mitigating factors are present and weight assigned to each factor. Examples: Prompt self-detection and self-disclosure of the violation(s); Prompt acknowledgement of the violation, acceptance of responsibility and (for an institution) imposition of meaningful corrective measures and/or penalties; An established history of self-reporting Level III or secondary violations; Implementation of a system of compliance methods designed to ensure rules compliance and satisfaction of institutional/coaches control standards.

16. Written Response Bylaw 19.7.2 Institution and involved individual(s) have 90 calendar days to submit a response after receipt of NOA. Failure to submit a timely response may be viewed as an admission.

17. Subsequent to Receipt of Written Response Bylaw 19.7.3 Within 60 days of receipt of written response: Pre-hearing conference. Enforcement Written Reply. Statement of the Case.

18. Prehearing Conference Bylaw 19.7.4 The purpose of the prehearing conference is to: Clarify positions on the allegations, levels, and aggravating/mitigating factors. Discuss remaining issues. Provide a brief overview of the hearing procedures and policies.

19. Enforcement Written Reply Bylaw 19.7.3 Details the enforcement staff’s analysis of the applicable evidence. Comparable to substantive portions of the former case summary.

20. Statement of the Case Bylaw 19.7.3 Provides a short synopsis of the case, including: Docket chronology; Allegations; Alleged level(s) of the case and allegations; Each party’s stated positions; and Any remaining issues. May be submitted simultaneously with enforcement written reply.

21. Panel Hearings Bylaw 19.7.7 Level I hearings in person. Level II hearings by telephone or video conference.

22. Accelerated Hearing Docket Level II

23. Permits institutions/ involved individuals in Level II cases to request an accelerated hearing (120 days vs. 180 days). 14 calendar days of NOA, institution/ involved individual may submit request to Committee on Infractions (COI). Five (5) business days of receipt of request, enforcement staff may submit response to COI. Accelerated Hearing Docket Level II

24. Accelerated Hearing Docket Level II If accelerated request is granted by the chair, general timeline: Institution/ involved individual respond to NOA within 45 days. Enforcement staff completes prehearing conference, enforcement written reply and statement of the case within 45 days of receipt of response to NOA. Hearing panel has 30 days to review.

25. Written Record Level II

26. Written Record Permits institutions/ involved individuals in Level II cases to request review of case on written record. All parties must agree to the process (including COI). Allegations may be contested. Appeal of findings and penalties.

27. Summary Disposition Process

28. Summary Disposition (SD) Process Bylaw 19.6 SD process available only if all parties, including enforcement staff, agree to: Use the SD process, Proposed findings of fact are substantially correct/ complete, and Overall level of the case. Parties waive appeal of agreed upon factual findings through use of SD process.

29. Summary Disposition Report Bylaw 19.6 Main content of report: Proposed findings and factual basis; Overall level of the case; Agreed upon aggravating/mitigating factors; Position statements of the parties; A statement of unresolved issues; Corrective actions and proposed penalties.

30. SDR - Panel Review Hearing panel approves findings and penalties. Hearing panel notifies institution and involved individual of decision (Bylaw 19.8).

31. SDR - Panel Review Hearing panel does not accept the findings of facts: Panel notifies parties of decision and any proposed changes to findings: If institution and/or involved individual accept amended findings, the infractions report is released (Bylaw 19.8). If the institution and /or involved individual reject amended findings, case will be processed through the appropriate hearing process (Bylaw 19.7).

32. SDR - Panel Review If hearing panel does not accept penalties: Panel will notify parties of alternative or additional penalties: If institution and/or involved individual accept the additional penalties, the infractions report is released (Bylaw 19.8). If additional penal­ties are rejected, the institution and/ or involved individual may request an expedited hearing on penalties (Bylaw 19.6.4.5).

35. Violation(s)Processed (hearing/ SDR) before August 1, 2013 Processed (hearing/ SDR) after August 1, 2013 Occurred before October 30, 2012 Current process and current penalties New process and current or revised penalties, whichever is more lenient Occurred before and after October 30, 2012 Current process and current penalties New process and revised penalties unless conduct predominately occurred before October 30, 2012 Occurred after October 30, 2012 Current process and current penalties New process and revised penalties Implementation of Adopted Recommendations

36. Resources LSDBi for NCAA Bylaw 19 legislation and previous cases Enforcement staff Office of Committee on Infractions staff Enforcement website Case analysis library Policies and procedures Summary disposition guide

37. Questions? Thank you for attending!