» «

20TH NACDA CONVENTION
CAESARS PALACE
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA (JUNE 10- 12, 1985)

OPENING REMARKS AND KEYNOTE ADDRESS: ETHICS AND INTEGRITY
(Monday, June 10, 8:45 -9:30 a.m.)

ANDY MOORADIAN:

It is a real pleasure for us to see a large turnout at the national Convention, and it's a special pleasure and distinct honor for me to have the opportunity to open this Convention. This year's Convention was put together with the help of Kit Green from Washington, Barbara Hollmann from Montana and Nancy Olsen who was at Florida International.

In effect, as you look at the program and go through the Convention, many have done an outstanding job in putting together a Convention that we can all be proud of and get some ideas. I would also like to thank the head of the pre-Convention women's meeting; Jean Cerra who worked at the University of Missouri, who started it~ and a special thanks to Judy Sweet from San Diego and to the NCAA Special Committee of Women's Interest for wanting a real successful meeting. I also would like to thank the NACDA Insurance Company for its continued support of active functions and especially for putting on the continental break- fast yesterday morning for the Women's Meeting.

As you came into this meeting you noticed the exhibitors and I think we have some really interesting exhibitors. I hope that you take the time to make sure that you visit them all. They all have done a great job in supporting us and, hopefully, you will pass through there and take some time to meet the people. At this time, I'd also like to tell you about the breakfast that will be held Wednesday morning. It's the first time we're having that. It's a breakfast with about 27 topics and the titles are all listed in the back of your program. We'll have a continental breakfast. There will be 30 tables set up with a different topic at each table. Between now and Wednesday morning you should have your first choice and I would also suggest that you have a backup choice, because each table will seat 10 people. once that table is filled, then you go to your second choice and sit at that table. There are 30 tables with 10 people and we're set up to accommodate the people who come in to the continental breakfast. Hopefully, we will have an overflow. It will be a good opportunity for discussion. I'd like to introduce the president of NACDA, John Clune, who will take over.

JOHN CLUNE :

Thank you very much, Andy. I know that Andy has put an awful lot of time and effort into making this hopefully, the best Convention ever. From the program that he's put together and with the people that he's worked with, I think it's going to be an outstanding Convention. I would like to welcome you all to this, the 2Oth NACDA Convention. I would also like to say that immediately following the Keynote Address we will go right into our Business Session.

Our Keynote speaker is a native of Minnesota, having received both a bachelor's and master's degree from the University of Minnesota. He later received a doctorate from Michigan State in agricultural engineering. He was the Dean of the college of engineering at the University of Nebraska and is presently the director of the Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station and associate Dean of agriculture at Oregon State University. The Experimental Station includes 16 academic departments on campus.

In 1979, our speaker was elected to a two-year term as NCAA vice president and was re-elected again in 1981. In January of 1983, he became the secretary-treasurer of the NCAA and this past year in January was elected president. It is with great pleasure and pride that I introduce our Keynote speaker, Dr. Jack Davis, president of the NCAA.

JACK DAVIS:

Thank you, John. There's a great one-liner and it goes like this: there was a budding young actor who got stranded in the city of Buffalo one winter. The young man was having trouble find~ng a job and things were really bad. The winter was bad. Things got worse and worse and the young fellow said, "it got so bad

I contemplated suicide.

When Andy first gave me the topic of ethics and integrity, I though that might be redundant, but aftE studying that I can assure you that ethics and integrity are not redundant. I'll tell you why. Because j important to understand some of the motivations behind the current efforts to ensure the quality of intercollegiate athletic programs and institutions of higher education. Ethics is defined as a group of D principals or set of values and includes principals of conduct governing individuals on professions. The NCAA constitution 3-6 is titled Principals of Ethical Conduct, and defines our group of ethics as honesty and sportsmanship. But much like the Ten Commandments, it's much easier to say what's unethical or, what j not appropriate conduct. We do the same thing in the constitution, then we go to define what is unethica] Such is refusal to furnish information, involvement in fraudulant academic credit, involvement in impropel benefits, gambling, representing professional interest and so forth.

Ethics is embodied in higher education, generally. In the eyes of the American public, higher educat represents the highest standards of ethical conduct. The search for truth is the foundation of research j higher education. The quality of education and honesty are characteristics that are manifested in institutions of higher education. In fact, of all the organizations today in which the public will place its trust and confidence, higher education must rank high at the top. I was going to add the church, but then I go to the old cliche, sometimes I wonder about thee. So one should understand that if there was a] one issue that could underline or even destroy an institution of higher education, and if that was to happE eventually a nation itself, there would be a lack of ethics or ethical conduct of those institutions. It' a small wonder then, that the chief executive officers are greatly concerned about the impact of their athletic programs on the reputation of their institutions. In effect, the ethical conduct or detract froD the reputation of that institution.

Then it dawned on me that living in Buffalo and suicide would be redundant."

Now, let me define integrity; integrity is the uncompromising adherance through a code of moral or ethical values. It's a condition of being unimpared, undivided, or unmarred. This means for an institut of higher education, it must adhere to its ethical values and code of ethical conduct relentlessly and wj a high degree of resolve. There's no room for bending the truth in the search. There's no room for teac false doctrine. There's no room for dishonesty. So, for higher education and all that's included in institutions of higher education, it's all or nothing at all. It either has integrity or it's failed as institution in which we can place our confidence. Unfortunately, not everyone believes that. There are who separate athletics from academics and believe that bending the rules of ethical conduct in athletics in order to have a winning program will bring fame and glory to that institution. Not so. Would you send your son or daughter to an institution that cheated on its athletics by not requiring them to learn! They may cheat on your children also. Or, would you give to the university foundation if you learned th! its internal auditors had covered up fraudulant expenditures? Would you trust the research of that institution if you learned that researchers plagiarized the work of others or dreamed up phony data to support their conclusions? Of course not. You look elsewhere for placing your children or your money 0! your confidence. Now this is the background and motivation for the concern that all of us have in intercollegiate athletics and higher education today; and part of the reason for the adoption of Amendment 48, the progress rule, and the special convention in II days in New Orleans.

Most of my comments to follow deal with matters of integrity that involve rules violations primarilj This should not infer that issues of academic integrity aren't just as important. Indeed, the most embarrassing thing of all matters dealing with integrity is the failure of an institution to educate its students, or to cheat on them academically. In this regard, the requirements for eligibility embodied il Amendment 48, or whatever might be proposed next January by the special committee on Academic Requiremen1 could be the most significant legislation in the NCAA for some time. It has the potential of a forced restoration of academic quality for entering students and the integrity in our institutions. On this ma1 all of you as athletic directors have a responsibility to ensure full knowledge of this requirement. Aru I'd strongly urge each of you to contact high school coaches and athletic directors about the extra-currj ulum requirements especially so that good students do not find themselves ineligible because of a lack oj an academic course in high school.

You may have read in the NCAA News about the results of a survey conducted last December by an independent private company for the Presidents Commission of the NCAA; to obtain views of chief executi, officers, and I'll refer to them as CEOs, on the NCAA member institutions regarding their perceptions tl areas; the extent and nature of problems dealing with integrity and economics of athletic programs. Secondly, the possible solution the Presidents Commission might recommend to your membership. The resp< from Division I was 71 percent and 60 percent for all divisions, which is extraordinarily high for a SUJ of this kind. It indicates key concerns among the CEOs over these issues. One hundred percent of the responses expressed either a strong or a moderate concern about the state of integrity in intercollegi athletics Over 80 percent of the CEOs in Division I were very concerned that higher education's image .I might be damaged by intercollegiate athletics. Ninety-six percent of the respondents were seriously or moderately concerned about the degree of institutional control over their athletics programs. With this background, the survey concluded that it appears that institutional leaders, as a group, are seriously dissatisfied with the current situation, and are determined to assert more institutional control over intercollegiate athletics than they have had in the past.

Most respondents believe that serious integrity problems exist within I-A football programs and Division I men's basketball programs; primarily because of the financial stakes involved. In this regard, respondents describe the most serious problem as the indiscretion boosters. Onlya few of the athletic directors, student-athletes, institutional administrators and faculties were perpetrators of serious violations. If one analyzes these perceptions of the CEOs, there is the inescapable conclusion that the persons believed to be the most involved in serious violations are coaches and boosters working together to break the rules. Only 22 percent felt that student-athletes were responsible for serious violations.

I personally believe that directly or indirectly a much higher percentage of student-athletes are willing participants in serious violations. In fact, the Presidents Commission agrees with that point of view, for Proposition Five for special convention is a resolution which calls for a higher degree of accountability for student-athletes who knowingly participate in rules violations.

What are the violations that CEOs are most concerned about? Generally, CEOs agreed that improper inducements to prospective student-athletes are the most serious problems. Next on the list was inadequate academic standards and performance for enrolled student-athletes; although the effects of bylaw 51 requiring initial elegibility in progress should appropriately meet that criticism.

I pause at this moment to caution athletic directors about a flaw in the progress rule, which if abused, could avert the principles of requiring progress for the degree and could certainly raise additional questions about the integrity of institutions and the athletic program. The problem is this; to accommodate institutions that allow for special studies programs without a degree objective, or those that do not allow an early declaration of a major. Student-athletes do not need to designate a program of studies leading to a specific degree until the beginning of the third year of enrollment. This could permit a student to participate in three years of competition by completing 12 credits per term of degree credit work without progressing toward a degree at all. The only progress to meet degree requirements would be the 36 credits between the third and the fourth years of competition. There is no question in my mind that some student-athletes and perhaps some coaches will attempt to complete four years of competition by abusing the system in this way. You must be alert to this possibility and do everything you can to ensure the liability of the progress rule.

This comment leads me back to the list of violations that CEOs are most concerned about. The third kind of problem identified was lack of institutional control and I'll comment on that a little bit later. Last on the list of most serious violations was improper financial benefits for enrolled student-athletes. Why do violations occur? What motivates boosters or coaches to student-athletes to sacrifice the integrity of their institution? Along with a general cultural tendency to reward winning at any price, the CEOs have identified simple facts or several specific factors they felt contributed to the problem. Eighty percent rated income-generating demands on major sports as a major contributing factor. So, at least they are recognizing the pressure on the program. Seventy-eight percent rated powerful alumni trustees or donors as serious problems; and about one-half felt that the influence of professional athletics was a serious factor. In Division I-A, 96 percent felt there was a lack of commitment to the rules on football and basketball coaches. Some other factors, not considered nearly as serious, included the past inadequacy of institutional control, lack of sufficient NCAA authority to enforce rules and weak or non-existent academic progress standards for student-athletes.

In my opinion, there are two additional factors that could cause serious problems in the conduct and the integrity of intercollegiate athletics. One comes on the heals of the spectator violence in Belgium. Last month, poor crowd control and gross unsportsmanship caused mob violence. It has no place in our athletic events. A far more serious issue, however, is the use of performance enhancing drugs and the combination of addictive drugs and gambling. Either of these will shake the very foundation of either amateur or professional sports, as well as the integrity of the institution and its athletic program. I urge all of you to embrace the concept of an effective drug-testing program for that reason. I can pledge to you the complete assistance and support of the NCAA in both drug education and drug-testing.

A substantial part of the NtAA survey dealt with solutions to the problems mentioned recently, and indeed, proposals considered at the special NCAA convention in New Orleans are based on response to the questions. How can the situation be improved? First and foremost, by acknowledging the importance of improving their own performance in the monitoring and oversight of our athletic programs. CEOs strongly support the need for the following; 96 percent said they must have control of athletic budgets by institutional heads or governing boards. This is Proposal Six at the NCAA convention. Eighty-nine percent said that head coaches must report directly to the athletic program administrators; that is athletic directors. Eighty-seven percent said that there must be annual audits or athletic expenditures by institutional or independent auditors. This is Proposal Seven. Eighty-three percent found that regular insitutional review of athletic programs and policies and procedures are a necessity. That is Proposal One in New Orleans. Seventy percent felt that the CEOs should be the final authorities for hiring head coaches. It would be interesting to see what happens at the panel later on about hiring and firing.

Solutions by a majority of CEOs were some of the following alternatives; a periodic institutional self-study, and this again, isProposal One; a mandatory reporting on outside income of coaches.

Sixty percent of CEOs say there ought to be a control on the amount of money that a coach can earn outside. Incidentally, I'm citing percentages for you. In come cases, you get a feeling for what the majority or th larger group of the administrators of higher education feel. Now right or not, some felt that there ought be a mandatory involvement of the faculty representatives in athletic programs. As a faculty representativ I disagree with that. There are some other suggestions that appear to be favored by a majority of CEOs. O is a mandatory program of reporting admissions, including special admits, satisfactory progress and graduat rates. Eighty-percent of the executive officers in I-A viewed this report as a potentially useful tool if it's developed properly. Another item that we'll talk about a little bit later is a substantially increase group of sanctions against coaches, administrators and student-athletes found guilty of serious or repeated violations. There is considerable feeling among the CEOs to punish those who have broken the rules, includ ing permanent ineligibility of student-athletes or the restriction on the appointment by other member institutions of coaches found guilty of repeated and serious violations. CEOs felt that there should be a change in the procedures for infractions and simplifying the rules was also suggested. The CEOs did not favor any change in the governments of the NCAA. Seventy-one percent of the Division I-A respondents favored increased autonomy. Only 37 percent of all CEOs favored that idea. The perceptions of the CEOs as expressed in the survey have resulted in those eight proposals endorsed jointly by the Presidents Commission and the council for action for the membership at the special convent! in New Orleans. These proposals are related directly to the survey results and reflect directly the intere and concerns of the CEOs in the integrity of an athletic program.

Now let's review the proposed agenda very briefly. Proposal One, the intent here is to require an institution, as an obligation of membership, to conduct a self-study of its intercollegiate athletic programs at least once every five years. If this proposal passes, the NCAA will provide standard format in other documents to assist an institution in such a self-study. We've already discussed this with an independent contractor who would include the evaluation as a part of the development of the materials. This is a constitutional amendment which requires of all divisions voting together. It's effective date would be August, 1986.

Proposal Two would establish an annual reporting program concerning entering freshmen; compliance wit eligibility requirements and graduation rates for recruited student-athletes and students generally. For football and men's basketball, the data for each entering student-athlete would be more detailed. It may not be understood well, but the data to be provided by October lst will be for the previous year so that there should be ample time to prepare the report. This is Division I only.

Proposal Three responds to a number of suggestions for a revision of the NCAA enforcement program ar it's a response to a continuing expression from coaches and CEOs alike, that penalties for violation shot be made tougher and more meaningful. Proposal Three would increase the efficiency of the enforcement system. It should enable institutions and the NCAA enforcement system to deal promptly with minor or secondary violations and it would establish a more astringent and meaningful penalty structure for major violations. The first part of that measure adds a new paragraph which states that institutional staff members filed in violation of NCAA regulations shall be subject to disciplinary or corrective action; in addition to the usual sanctions applied to institutions. Secondly, the proposal establishes and generalJ defines distinctions between major and secondary violations. It also authorizes the assistant executive director, after consultation with the member institution, to determine that perhaps no penalty is warrant. or if appropriate, to require one or more of the alternative panalties listed. And incidentally, on thii matter, in response to the number of questions from the membership, there will be an ammendment proposed that would take the authority to assign penalties away from the assistant executive director, and insteac replace it with the Infractions Committee.

For an institution, incidentally, the procedures for major penalties would not be changed, and if allegations with the major institutions of major violations are sustained, minimum penalty would include all seven of the sanctions listed in the proposal. There would be exceptions, but as you know and look through the agenda, remember all seven of those sanctions listed in the proposal. For an institution which is a repeat violator, that is if it commits a major violation within the five-year period following the starting date of a major penalty, the minimum penalty would include all four of the sanctions listed in the proposal. This section on repeat violations is probably the most controversial of the proposals. Though some feel that it could be extraordinarily severe, for example, if a football program is found involved in a serious major violation following three years after penalties from a major violation, say in gymnastics. Then the cancellation of the football schedule. The major income-producing activity of t program would essentially force cancellation of most of the other non-revenue producing sports. On the other hand, many ADs,coaches and CEOs have said constantly that if an institution were involved purposelJ in repeated major violations, there is every reason to consider not competing with that institution unti it plays by all the rules. Now on this issue the Presidents Commission appears determined that the entil athletic department must be accountable. There is no question that if a major violation has occurred in an institution" everyone would watch the revenue program like a hawk to make certain that this program is operated honestly. The degree and the quality of supervision would be high, for there is much more to ti than television appearances. The entire department would be at risk. Measure three would be voted upon generally by all the divisions. Effective day is August, 1985.

Proposal Four follows up the concept of providing for individual sanctions and for the overriding attitude that those responsible for violations should be penalized, even if they have left the institution and are employed by a second institution. It's important to note that in the application of this proposal, employment contracts between coaches and the institution must include a stipulation that the coach is subject to disciplinary or corrective action as set forth in this Proposal. Institutional processes for hearings, as well as NCAA infraction hearings, must be observed, of course. This is a divided vote in all divisions and in various parts, so I won't go into detail about how this is voted upon, but the effective date is immediate.

Proposal Five was mentioned earlier. This Proposal to instruct the Eligibility Committee to restore eligibility to student-athletes involved in violations only when circumstances clearly warrant it. The Proposal also directs the council to prepare legislation for the 1986 convention to ensure greater accountability for student-athletes who knowlingly participate in serious violations. All divisions should vote on that together in a common vote. Effective date is immediate.

Proposals Six and Seven are linked to the proposal of the CEOs of greater institutional control of intercollegiate athletics. Proposal Six simply states that an institution's annual budget for its intercollegiate athletic program is under the control of the institution and its CEO. Proposal Seven states that all expenditures for the intercollegiate athletic programs must be audited annually by an outside auditor selected by the institution's CEO. This Proposal refers to institutional expenditures, expenditures of a booster club or those funds expended for athletics by a foundation alumni or private group of persons. This-is a constitutional amendment and would be voted upon by everyone as a common vote. Effective date is immediate.

Proposal Eight is a resolution that deals with increased concern about lost class time, and the extension of football and basketball seasons especially. The resolution, if passed, would prohibit for a period of one year any legislation to increase the number of contests or dates of competition in any sport. Some of the Division II institutions that want to increase the number of baseball contests will find themselves out of business for a year. This measure also directs the council to prepare legislation for the 1986 convention that would restrict basketball to the number of allowable contests, that is 28 in Divisions I and II, plus only one of the contests listed as exception opportunities; maximum of 29 games.

Proposal Nine is also a resolution which has the effect of legislation for a period of one year. This Proposal provides for a one-time recommitment of institutions to the rules governing financial aid and the definition of amateur athletics. This would be for 1985 and 1986 only, and it's intention of the council to call for a role call vote on this ammendment, as well as on the first eight.

Proposals Ten and Eleven and Twelve are ammendments proposed by the NCAA council on response to concerns that were expressed by the membership, and which had been accepted by the Presidents Commission because of economic impacts. Proposal Ten simply changes the mandatory summer legislative meetings to optional meetings. It's my understanding that if the Proposal passes, the council will cancel the Divisions I-A and I-AA legislative meetings scheduled for August 7th and 9th in Chicago. If this does not pass, be prepared to attend another legislative meeting this summer. Proposal Eleven corrects an omission in legislation passed last January, which in effect requires Division I-A institutions to sponsor eight women's sports starting 1985 and 1986. The proposal instead would stage the increase from six to eight women's sports over a three-year period; so that eight sports for women would be required in 1987-88 instead of 1985-86. This is a I-A measure only. Proposal Twelve would have the effect of postponeingadoption of NCAA playing rules for all sports in which the NCAA develops playing rules, except for football and men's and women's basketball. In some application of playing rules, next fall would create some severe financial problems and a burden of enforcement problems for a number of 1nstitutions. With field size for example, some institutions simply cannot adopt the standard field size for some sports like hockey or soccer. So, we wish to postpone the application of those rules for the urge of all institutions to adopt either the standard rules or to ammend them, or to change their minds about adopting those rules.

While there are legislative steps towards achieving integrity in intercollegiate athletics, it should be obvious to you that the tools of institutional control are dominant. Without saying it, this legislation proposes to provide the CEO and the athletic director the authority and the means for exercising the proper control. The legislation also proposes a cleaner, equitable system for dealing with violations. First, CEOs are becoming increasingly involved and athletic directors should take heart; for this should mean an increased understanding and sympathy for the financial pressures that all of you bear. It should infer that CEOs would work more toward institutional support for athletics as this survey indicated. Although CEOs object to higher limits of athletically-related financial aid, many favored the idea of greater flexibility. Secondly, there seems to be an increased interest in simplifying NCAA rules, just as there is in simplifying income tax rules. To accomplish this, the NCAA Administrative Committee recently appointed a special committee to recommend rules simplification.

Thirdly, the NCAA Council at its April meeting adopted a program proposed by the Division I Steering Committee to further support our efforts to enhance compliance with rules for college athletics. This seven-step program includes actions already reported as a part of the special convention in June; namely that the Presidents Commission endorsed the proposal. Other measures adopted by the council, some of whi will come to you in January, involve the following: a requirement of greater involvement of conferences Division I, in rules clinics and assistance to institutions and self-study programs and rules compliance generally. It's the intention of the council to place institutions and their conferences in a more compl partnership regarding compliance and rules education generally.

Fourth, we believe that the present certification of compliance forms should be revised so that the annual certification by student-athletes and by coaches is much more meaningful than it is now.

Fifth, the council, in its concern for basic honesty of competition, purposes that the NCAA seek increased state and federal penalty for those who seek to corrupt athletics to benefit the gambling inter In addition," we requested the Executive Committee to devote all efforts to the possible development of ~ early warning system to detect the possible influences of gambling in Division I basketball games. Some the council went on record in strong support of a viable drug-testing program to the end of preventing users from obtaining unfair competition advantage, performance enhancing drugs, or protecting young student-athletes from the harmful physical effects of drugs and protecting the integrity of competition from the corrupting influences that can be brought to bear on student-athletes who use drugs. The counci has therefore expanded its thought" that our drug-testing program ought to include, not only performance- enhancing drugs, but street drugs as well.

The seventh is a consideration of the deregulation and moderation of some NCAA rules which is now under aid by the special committee headed by Will Bailey. In addition, the council may sponsor legislatj to require head coaches to obtain approval to generate outside income related to athletics, similar to ti same kind of approvals required of a faculty to do consulting and to report the sources and amounts of ti income to the AD and the CEO. Such measures would not necessarily control the amount of income coaches could generate, but would provide for institutional control to avoid conflicts of interest.

There is some support for reducing the financial pressure on student-athletes and on coaches and programs. For student-athletes, more flexibility in legitimate employment during the school year and fo] programs means for increasing institutional support and for increasing program revenues. The NCAA is no1 likely to be of major assistance in the later case, but we are certainly interested in any proposals whi( will assist athletic directors in their efforts to maintain broad-based athletic opportunities within a balanced budget. Moses walked down from the mountain with 10 simple Commandments. There's an old story about the country person who thought somebody in the congregation had stolen his umbrella and proceeded on the next Sunday to give the congregation his best sermon on the Ten Commandments, planning to emphisi: "Thou Shalt Not Steal." He did fine, until he got to "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultry", and remembere, where he left his umbrella. We've all done pretty well in maintaining ethical conduct in our integrity until we remember what it is that fears the fires of successful programs: money and winning.