Working Group for Compliance Issues
NCAA Governance and Compliance Sub-Committee
April 24, 2002
Attending: Paul Beck, Carla Curtis, Jeff Daniels, Leslie Fine, Heather
Lyke, Jack Rall, Kris Richardson, Linda Schoen, Katie Virtue
Heather Lyke and Kris Richardson prepared and handed out folders
containing:
1. Pamphlet: "A quick reference guide to NCAA rules and regulations"
2. List of compliance staff, mission statement and compliance office
goals
3. List of assigned responsibilities for each compliance office
employee
4. Document: "Athletic compliance office staff, summary of
responsibility for coaches 2001-02"
5. List of compliance committees and meeting frequencies
6. List of organizations and people who received "A Quick Reference
Guide" beginning Spring 2000
7. A copy of a form used to evaluate coaches with regard to Compliance
8. 2001-01 Calendar of compliance education events conducted by
Compliance office
9. Summary of sports and coaches' attendance at compliance meetings
Using these documents and review of the 1996 NCAA self-study report,
Heather Lyke guided the group through a discussion of compliance
activities since 1996, focusing on activities that took place after
she arrived at OSU in 1998. The intent on the Compliance office is to
create a "Compliance Conscience" among anyone associated with
athletics.
Compliance Staff work with all teams. It is more important to develop
an expertise in compliance issues, than an expertise in specific team
issues. The compliance office at OSU has a staff size that is
comparable with other Big 10 institutions, but is probably smaller
than would be optimal for a program as large as ours.
One important issue that was raised and discussed is the
responsibility for compliance among Booster organizations. The
Compliance office supports the creation of a booster education plan.
It is unclear at this point who bears responsibility for booster
groups.
The nature and tasks of each compliance committee were discussed in
detail.
We discussed the regular, formal audits conducted by the Big 10 and by
OSU's Internal Auditing group of the Compliance office. These audits
were begun at the request of Athletic Director Andy Geiger, and have
proven helpful in identifying areas of strengths and weaknesses.
The group asked about the nature of compliance offices in other
schools. Lyke and Richardson explained that nationally, compliance
programs are evolving as Athletic Directors begin to view compliance
as insurance against inappropriate activities. It was agreed that
OSU's compliance office is very technologically sophisticated with
excellent database management capabilities.
Lyke and Richardson informed the group that a compliance manual was
nearly completed, and would be provided to the group in a timely
fashion for the completion of the self-study process.
The group was informed of the nature and consequences of secondary and
primary violations. OSU reports approximately 40-50 secondary
violations per year, which is strong evidence of a "compliance
conscience."
The group was also informed about the many ways that the compliance
office makes compliance information available, and about how the
compliance office documents requests.
The group agreed that the following additional information would be
helpful:
1. A summary of comparable staff sizes for compliance offices in the
Big 10
2. A copy of the "Coaches' Guide to Compliance"
3. More information on booster activities, and on who interacts with
boosters
4. The chart which shows how OSU compares to other institutions in
reporting of violations
At the conclusion of the meeting, the group suggested that the
self-study should include:
1. A description of the database system, including how it works and
how it was implemented.
2. A discussion of "what do we need to do differently?"
3. Information on changes in the NCAA and Big 10 Compliance rules
since 1996
4. Interviews with various constituencies, including student-athletes,
SASSO counselors, the marketing office, ticket office, etc.
Leslie Fine will propose a list of constituencies for interviews, and
will ask each member of the working group to be responsible for one or
more groups. These interviews will assure that data gathering is as
comprehensive as possible.
|
