INDIANAPOLIS---The National Collegiate Athletic Association today presented testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution to discuss the Association's enforcement and student-athlete reinstatement procedures.

Speaking on behalf of the Association was Josephine (Jo) R. Potuto, the Richard H. Larson Professor of Law at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Law. Potuto currently serves as the vice chair of the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions, which is an independent body composed of individuals from NCAA member institutions.

In testimony supplied to the House Subcommittee, Potuto noted that the enforcement and infractions processes are in place to help the membership meet its self-policing responsibility. Potuto noted in her testimony that institutional control, as adopted by the membership, locates the primary responsibility for rules compliance squarely on each institution and requires each institution both to self-police and to self-report when potential violations are uncovered.

She went on to say:

"If we lived in a world where all institutions at all times had perfect ability and willingness to self-police AND where all institutions at all times had perfect trust and confidence in the self-policing of all other institutions AND where self-policing handled exclusively at the institutional level nonetheless achieved across all institutions a consistent approach to evaluation of the severity of violations and the appropriate penalties attendant on any such violations, THEN there would be need for neither NCAA enforcement staff nor the Committee on Infractions. In the real world, however, both are necessary to assure the integrity of the process and consistency of treatment among and between institutions. In the real and competitive world of intercollegiate athletics, moreover, both are necessary to provide a comfort level to each institution that all are being held to the same standard."

Of key importance for the House Subcommittee is how the membership procedurally conducts an investigation to ensure fair and equal treatment of all institutions. To help guarantee fair treatment, the Association has checks and balances with multiple layers that provide every institution the same access to information without the risk of built-in prejudice, as Potuto stated in her written testimony:

"…the procedural protections afforded in the Committee on Infractions adjudicative process include (a) notice of the allegations; (b) a list of particulars regarding each allegation that includes the names of individuals providing information and a summary of the information on which the allegation is based; (c) an opportunity pre-hearing to discuss the substance of the allegations and to present information leading to the enforcement's staff's amendment or withdrawal of allegations; (d) access to all information relevant to an allegation; (e) an opportunity, and sufficient time, to provide exculpatory or explanatory information and a written response to the allegations; (f) a requirement that information provided to the Committee on Infractions must come from sources identified to the Committee on Infractions and to the institution and any individuals appearing before the Committee on Infractions; (g) representation by counsel at the hearing; (h) a full opportunity at the hearing to present one's case; (i) an independent fact-finder; (j) fact-finding based only on that information made part of the hearing record; (k) a finding of violation requiring a high burden of proof; (l) a written report by the Committee on Infractions that sets forth the grounds for its decision; and (m) the opportunity to appeal adverse findings or penalties to the Infractions Appeals Committee."

The House Subcommittee also had interest in the Association's student-athlete reinstatement process, which is a separate process and working group within the national office independent of the enforcement and infractions groups. Answering questions on behalf of the Association was Jennifer Strawley, Director of Student-Athlete

Reinstatement and a former softball student-athlete at the University of Pennsylvania.

The student-athlete reinstatement process provides for the evaluation of information submitted by an NCAA member institution on behalf of enrolled or prospective student-athletes who have been involved in violations of NCAA regulations that affect their eligibility. If the national office staff renders an unfavorable decision regarding the eligibility of a student-athlete, an institution may appeal the decision to the Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee, which is an independent body composed of five individuals from various institutions and conference offices. Recent figures indicate that 99% of the student-athlete reinstatement requests submitted this past year to the national office staff resulted in the student-athlete regaining his or her collegiate eligibility once conditions levied for the rules infraction were met by the student-athlete.

Members of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution include: Mr. Steve Chabot (R-OH), Mr. Steve King (R-IA), Mr. William Jenkins (R-TN), Mr. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), Mr. John Hostettler (R-IN), Ms. Melissa Hart (R-PA), Mr. Tom Feeney (R-FL), Mr. Randy Forbes (R-VA), Mr. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Mr. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Mr. Robert Scott (D-VA), Mr. Melvin Watt (D-NC), Mr. Adam Schiff (D-CA).