The Principle of Institutional Control and Responsibility

[BlckNGldHwk]

For those few insane folks trying to argue that the PSU situation is not an NCAA issue...let me help clear that up for you.

First...here is the letter than the NCAA sent to Penn State on November 17, 2011 regarding their intent to investigate their athletic program. They do well to lay out WHY they are being investigated as it pertains to NCAA rules violations.

Second...this is directly from the NCAA Division 1 Manual, regarding Institutional Control, and is referenced by the NCAA in the linked letter.

Article 2.1 The Principle of Institutional Control and Responsibility

2.1.1 Responsibility for Control It is the responsibility of each member institution to control its intercollegiate athletics program in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Association. The institution's president or chancellor is responsible for the administration of all aspects of the athletics program, including approval of the budget and audit of all expenditures.

2.1.2 Scope of Responsibility The institution's responsibility for the conduct of its intercollegiate athletics program includes responsibility for its staff members and for the actions of any other individual or organization engaged in activities promoting the athletic interests of the institution.


Having read the letter and the NCAAs definition of institutional control...if you are STILL of the belief that this is not an NCAA issue, please raise your hand...and then proceed to smack yourself with it.

 

[DexterMorgan]

The argument people are making is that the NCAA's definition of LOIC speaks specifically to an environment of compliance with NCAA rules. You can see that in the first sentence you failed to bold.

Now whether you think PSU violated those rules or not is a completely different argument.

 

[treychase]

David79?

 

[BlckNGldHwk]

The argument people are making is that the NCAA's definition of LOIC speaks specifically to an environment of compliance with NCAA rules. You can see that in the first sentence you failed to bold.

Now whether you think PSU violated those rules or not is a completely different argument.

It doesn't matter if any of us think they commited a rules violation. All that matters is that the NCAA thinks a rules violation was committed. Reading the letter, the NCAA makes it very clear that they suspect several violations were committed and to a great degree of severity. They even go as far as to establish historical precedent. They're going to go after PSU and enact the highest degree of punishment possible.

 

[fsanford]

David79?

To take a line from David 79, he is now trying to pull a rebuttal from his butt.
Seems he thought those of us who sited Institutional Control were just grabbing at straws.

Penn State is a member institution of the NCAA, that alone gives them great authority on what they can do to them, and the public out cry puts more added weight on them to act.

This was lack of institutional control in one of the most heinous ways possible.

 

[treychase]

Anyone that doesn't think this is a LOIC is either lying or rtard.

 

[ssckelley]

Anyone that doesn't think this is a LOIC is either lying or rtard.

or from Pennsylvania

 

[latrans]

Anyone that doesn't think this is a LOIC is either lying or rtard.

or from Pennsylvania

Same diff.

 

[David79]

f you read this it is clear that an NCAA rules violations is required. Now if the NCAA can somehow strain intrepetation of rules to fit this situation than more power to them but the key is NCAA rules and I don't see one that it covers this situation. Now there are bylaws that take about ethical conduct and they could say Penn State violated the bylaws of ethical conduct, but either way they are going to have to stretch the meaning of the bylaws and rules to fit a situation they weren't written for. I just don't think this is the place for the NCAA. To me it should be left for the courts, the state of Penn. the Dept. of Ed. etc. To make it about football just seems to trivialize the situation in some way.

Former head of NCAA infractions says NCAA unlikely to punish PSU because outside its purview

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-07-04/sports/sns-mct-expert-penn-state-unlikley-to-face-ncaa-sanctions-20120704_1_infractions-committee-penn-state-football-related

PRINCIPLES OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL
AS PREPARED BY THE NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS
A. "CONTROL" IS DEFINED IN COMMON-SENSE TERMS.​

In determining whether there has been a lack of institutional control when a violation of NCAA
rules has been found it is necessary to ascertain what formal institutional policies and procedures
were in place at the time the violation of NCAA rules occurred and whether those policies and
procedures, if adequate, were being monitored and enforced. It is important that policies and
procedures be established so as to deter violations and not merely to discover their existence
after they have taken place. In a case where proper procedures exist and are appropriately
enforced, especially when they result in the prompt detection, investigation and reporting of the
violations in question, there may be no lack of institutional control although the individual or
individuals directly involved may be held responsible.
In a situation in which adequate institutional procedures exist, at least on paper, a practical,
common-sense approach is appropriate in determining whether they are adequately monitored
and enforced by a person in "control." Obviously, general institutional control is exercised by the
chief executive officer of a member institution. However, it is rare that the chief executive officer
will make decisions specifically affecting the operations of the institution's athletics program.
Instead, the day-to-day duties of operation, including compliance with NCAA rules, will have been
delegated to subordinates either by specific action or by the creation of appropriate job
descriptions. Moreover, it is usually left to senior subordinates, such as the director of athletics,
further to delegate various duties regarding compliance with NCAA rules.
In most institutions, especially those with large and varied athletics programs, such delegations
are made to a number of individuals who are expected to exercise control over compliance with
regard to specific aspects of the program. The specific obligations of such individuals should be
in writing, and not merely an understanding among the senior officials of the university and the
athletics department. Not only the director of athletics, but other officials in the athletics
department, the faculty athletics representative, the head coaches and the other institutional
administrators outside of the athletics department responsible for such matters as the certification
of athletes for financial aid, practice and competition, are expected to assume a primary role in
ensuring compliance. Even though specific action has been taken to place responsibility
elsewhere, these individuals will be assumed to be operating on behalf of the institution with
respect to those responsibilities that are logically within the scope of their positions. Their failure
to control those matters so as to prevent violations of NCAA rules will be considered the result of a
lack of institutional control.​

B. VIOLATIONS THAT DO NOT RESULT FROM A LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL.​

An institution cannot be expected to control the actions of every individual who is in some way
connected with its athletics program. The deliberate or inadvertent violation of a rule by an
individual who is not in charge of compliance with rules that are violated will not be considered to
be due to a lack of institutional control:
• if adequate compliance measures exist;
• if they are appropriately conveyed to those who need to be aware of them;
• if they are monitored to ensure that such measures are being followed; and
• if, on learning that a violation has occurred, the institution takes swift action.​

C. ACTS THAT ARE LIKELY TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL.​

The following examples of a lack of institutional control are not exclusive, but they should provide
important guidance to institutions as to the proper control of their NCAA compliance affairs.​

1. A person with compliance responsibilities fails to establish a proper system for
compliance or fails to monitor the operations of a compliance system
appropriately.​

When an individual is responsible for ensuring that a particular rule or set of rules is not
violated, that person will be considered to be exercising institutional control. That
individual must not only ensure that the rules are known by all who need to know them but
must also make proper checks to ensure that the rules are being followed.
It is important for institutions to understand that the mere compilation and distribution of
rules and regulations, along with written compliance procedures, is not sufficient if no one
regularly checks on the actual operations of the system.​

2. A person with compliance responsibilities does not take steps to alter the
system of compliance when there are indications the system is not working.​

If a system of control is in place, a single deviation by a member of the athletics staff or a
representative of the institution's athletics interests will not be considered a lack of
institutional control. However, if there are a number of violations, even if they all are minor,
indicating that the compliance system is not operating effectively, the person(s)
responsible cannot ignore the situation, but must take steps to correct the compliance
system.​

3. A supervisor with overall responsibility for compliance, in assigning duties to
subordinates, so divides responsibilities that, as a practical matter, no one is, or
appears to be, directly in charge.​

The failure to designate who is responsible for ensuring compliance with NCAA rules is a
serious breach of the obligations of a university athletics administrator. Individuals are
unable to operate appropriately if they are uncertain of their duties and obligations.
Moreover, those subordinates who are not in charge must know who is. They need to
know the person or persons to whom they can turn for advice before taking an action that
may be questionable. They also need to know to whom and how to report violations that
come to their attention.​

4. Compliance duties are assigned to a subordinate who lacks sufficient authority
to have the confidence or respect of others.​

A supervisor may be acting in good faith when assigning responsibility for compliance to
an athletics department secretary, or a student intern, or to someone who does not have
stature in the organization. Nevertheless, that very action often makes it appear that the
institution is not serious about compliance. If coaches, alumni, boosters and others do
not respect the person responsible, they may well ignore that individual. Violations that
occur may then be considered the result of a lack of institutional control.
PRINCIPLES OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL
Page No. 2
__________​

5. The institution fails to make clear, by its words and its actions, that those
personnel who willfully violate NCAA rules, or who are grossly negligent in
applying those rules, will be disciplined and made subject to discharge.​

Any operating compliance system may be thwarted by an individual who acts secretly in
violation of the rules or who fails to ascertain whether a questionable action is or is not
permissible. If an institution does not make clear that individual violations of NCAA rules
will result in disciplinary action against the involved individual, and if it does not actually
discipline those who are found to have violated such rules, it has opened the door to
permitting further violations. In such a case, future violations of an individual nature will
constitute failures of institutional control.​

6. The institution fails to make clear that any individual involved in its
intercollegiate athletics program has a duty to report any perceived violations of
NCAA rules and can do so without fear of reprisals of any kind.​

Compliance is everyone's obligation. Loyalty to one's coworkers, student-athletes, or
athletics boosters cannot take precedence over loyalty to the institution and its
commitment to comply with NCAA rules. There is a lack of institutional control if individuals
are afraid to report violations because they have reason to fear that if they make such a
report there will be negative consequences.​

7. A director of athletics or any other individual with compliance responsibilities
fails to investigate or direct an investigation of a possible significant violation of
NCAA rules or fails to report a violation properly.​

When a director of athletics or any other individual with compliance responsibilities has
been informed of, or learns that there exists a possible significant violation of NCAA rules,
and then fails to ensure that the matter is properly investigated, there is a lack of
institutional control. Similarly, if an actual violation of NCAA rules comes to the attention of
the director of athletics or a person with compliance responsibilities and there is a failure to
report the violation through appropriate institutional channels to a conference to which
the institution belongs and to the NCAA, such failure constitutes a lack of institutional
control.​

8. A head coach fails to create and maintain an atmosphere for compliance within
the program the coach supervises or fails to monitor the activities of assistant
coaches regarding compliance.​

A head coach has special obligation to establish a spirit of compliance among the entire
team, including assistant coaches, other staff and student-athletes. The head coach
must generally observe the activities of assistant coaches and staff to determine if they
are acting in compliance with NCAA rules. Too often, when assistant coaches are
involved in a web of serious violations, head coaches profess ignorance, saying that they
were too busy to know what was occurring and that they trusted their assistants. Such a
failure by head coaches to control their teams, alone or with the assistance of a staff
member with compliance responsibilities, is a lack of institutional control.
This is not to imply that every violation by an assistant coach involves a lack of institutional
PRINCIPLES OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL
Page No. 3
__________
control. If the head coach sets a proper tone of compliance and monitors the activities of
all assistant coaches in the sport, the head coach cannot be charged with the secretive
activities of an assistant bent on violating NCAA rules.​

D. COMPLIANCE MEASURES IN PLACE AT THE TIME OF VIOLATION AS A FACTOR IN
DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THERE HAS BEEN A LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL
CONTROL.​

Institutions are eager to learn what measures can be taken to reduce the likelihood that in the
event a violation does occur, it will result in a finding of a lack of institutional control. The following
are some of the steps that assist an institution in avoiding such a finding. It must be emphasized,
however, that the presence of such measures are not a guarantee against such a finding. The
way in which the measures are carried out and the attitude toward compliance within the institution
are vital factors.​

1. The NCAA rules applicable to each operation are readily available to those
persons involved in that operation.​

Those individuals involved in recruiting activities should have ready access to the
recruiting rules, and those university staff members engaged in determining eligibility for
financial aid, practice and competition should have ready access to the NCAA rules
governing those matters.​

2. Appropriate forms are provided to persons involved in specific operations to
ensure that they will properly follow NCAA rules.​

With respect to certain operations, specific forms or checklists can be of great help in
assuring compliance with NCAA rules. Clerical employees may find the rules themselves
daunting. But if they can follow a form, many problems can be obviated. This is certainly
true with regard to such matters as ensuring that student-athletes do not receive
excessive financial aid individually or by sport, that initial eligibility standards are met, and
that continuing eligibility standards are properly enforced.​

3. A procedure is established for timely communication among various university
offices regarding determinations that affect compliance with NCAA rules.​

For example, there should be a method of direct communication between the registrar
and the department of athletics so that the latter learns at once if an enrolled studentathlete
drops a course that brings that student-athlete below the required number of units
for eligibility to participate.​

4. Meaningful compliance education programs are provided for personnel engaged
in athletically related operations.​

It is important that new personnel, both coaches and administrative staff members,
receive training regarding NCAA rules that are relevant to their positions shortly after
beginning employment. The institution should also continue to educate its staff by
conducting compliance sessions on a regular basis for all involved personnel as refresher
PRINCIPLES OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL
Page No. 4
__________
courses, with an emphasis on changes in NCAA rules. Not infrequently, persons who
have been involved in intercollegiate athletics for many years and who violate longstanding
rules attempt to excuse their actions on the grounds that they were unaware that
their activities constituted a violation. On occasion such personnel rely on long outdated
interpretations of legislation that have been eliminated or dramatically altered for a number
of years.
Obviously the nature and strength of the compliance education program is of
significance. Educational programs run by the NCAA and by various conference offices
may, because of the expertise of those involved, be superior to training by in-house
personnel.​

5. Informational and educational programs are established to inform athletics
boosters of the limitations on their activities under NCAA rules and of the
penalties that can arise if they are responsible for rule violations.​

Distribution of rules education materials (e.g. brochures and articles) to season ticket
holders is significant as are special programs for booster organizations.​

6. Informational and educational programs are established for student-athletes
regarding the rules that they must follow.​

All institutions conduct information sessions for student-athletes and obtain the required
signed statements from each. However, the extent to which these are truly informative
and are taken seriously varies. The extent to which these sessions are made important by
the institution is a significant factor.​

7. An internal monitoring system is in place to ensure compliance with NCAA rules.​

It is of significance if, on a regular basis, a person (or persons) charged with monitoring
compliance frequently checks operations throughout the athletics department and
related departments of the university. Such a person should make certain that required
forms are being utilized and utilized properly. A compliance person should speak with all
coaches frequently and regularly to find out if they have any concerns or questions about
what they can or cannot do or what they have already done. A compliance person should
be aware of what actions have been taken with regard to a variety of areas, including
recruitment, awarding of financial aid, practice requirements and travel arrangements.
From time to time the compliance person should meet with student-athletes in the various
sports to see if any problems exist. All potential violations must be reported and an
investigation must ensue in accordance with appropriate institutional procedures.
Other internal monitoring measures are also of significance, including one-on-one
meetings between coaches and the athletics director, and meetings of university
committees on athletics in which student-athletes and others are involved.​

8. An external audit of athletics compliance is undertaken at reasonable intervals.​

An important control exists if an independent university or outside unit undertakes audits
of the athletics enterprise to determine if there have been violations of NCAA rules and to
PRINCIPLES OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL
Page No. 5
__________
suggest changes in operating methods and procedures wherever such action could
eliminate the danger of future violations.​

9. The chief executive officer and other senior administrators make clear that they
demand compliance with NCAA rules and that they will not tolerate those who
deliberately violate the rules or do so through gross negligence.​

It is an important factor when the senior administrators in an institution by word and, when
necessary, by action make clear that compliance is vital. The pressure to run a winning
program must not overcome the dedication of the institution to ethical conduct in all
aspects of its athletics program and to compliance with NCAA regulations.​

10. The institution and its staff members have a long history of self-detecting, selfreporting​

and self-investigating all potential violations

 

[racerhawk]

For those few insane folks trying to argue that the PSU situation is not an NCAA issue...let me help clear that up for you.

First...here is the letter than the NCAA sent to Penn State on November 17, 2011 regarding their intent to investigate their athletic program. They do well to lay out WHY they are being investigated as it pertains to NCAA rules violations.

Second...this is directly from the NCAA Division 1 Manual, regarding Institutional Control, and is referenced by the NCAA in the linked letter.

Article 2.1 The Principle of Institutional Control and Responsibility

2.1.1 Responsibility for Control It is the responsibility of each member institution to control its intercollegiate athletics program in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Association. The institution's president or chancellor is responsible for the administration of all aspects of the athletics program, including approval of the budget and audit of all expenditures.

2.1.2 Scope of Responsibility The institution's responsibility for the conduct of its intercollegiate athletics program includes responsibility for its staff members and for the actions of any other individual or organization engaged in activities promoting the athletic interests of the institution.


Having read the letter and the NCAAs definition of institutional control...if you are STILL of the belief that this is not an NCAA issue, please raise your hand...and then proceed to smack yourself with it.

Having read the letter and the NCAAs definition of institutional control...if you are STILL of the belief that this is not an NCAA issue, please raise your hand...and then proceed to smack yourself with it.[/QUOTE]

LOVE it. Thanks for the post.

 

[treychase]

What was PSU's compliance system?

LOL

Hint: they didn't have one.
Hence: LOIC

 

[ssckelley]

The Department of Education can do way more damage than the NCAA can ever do.

 

[David79]

The Department of Education can do way more damage than the NCAA can ever do.

yeah, I agree. The State of Pennsylvania could do some major damage as well.

 

[DodgerHawki]

The higher-ups at PSU

Having read the letter and the NCAAs definition of institutional control...if you are STILL of the belief that this is not an NCAA issue, please raise your hand...and then proceed to smack yourself with it.

LOVE it. Thanks for the post.[/QUOTE]

deserve whatever they have coming to them. They made about zero effort to do anything to stop what they had reason to suspect was going on.

With that said, I'm not sure how this arises to Lack of Institutional Control as related to NCAA rules violations/compliance. Take the case of the recent KU Ticket Office personnel who spent time in jail for diverting tickets to KU football/basketball games and selling them for their own personal gain. You could argue there was certainly lack of oversight in the athletic department, but not related to NCAA rules being broken. What NCAA rules were being broke in the PSU case? Is enabling a pedophile non-compliance with NCAA rules?

I understand the NCAA's stance that they will look into this matter, but that's still a leap from investigating to proving NCAA rules were broken.

 

[ssckelley]

The NCAA has already announced that they will be investigating this matter citing the lack of institutional control. There really should not be anymore discussion on IF they are going to take action, the question is WHEN.

 

[HawkeyesWin]

David79

Please reread D.9 in your post. Seams pretty clear ethical behavior is not just related to compliance with NCAA rules. Considering the pervasive cover up, at the highest levels of the u::university over a long period of time I can't see how this isn't LOIC.

 

[shuman346]

After reading that letter and after knowing what has already come out... I think it's safe to say that PSU is going to see the hammer drop hard.

 

[tm3308]

After reading that letter and after knowing what has already come out... I think it's safe to say that PSU is going to see the hammer drop hard.

That's not how I read it. They will likely get hit for LOIC because of their understaffed compliance department, but that penalty won't be even in the same time zone as the death penalty. It'll probably be similar to USC and Ohio State, and that's not much of a punishment for schools with the kinds of resources available to the big-time programs.

 

[shuman346]

The fact that Emmert worded his letter as the codes of ethical conduct are not limited to just those delineated in the guidelines and he put that in italics makes me believe that something is definitely going to happen. It appears that he is making it clear way ahead of time that the NCAA has the jurisdiction to do so.

 

[shuman346]

I don't mean that I expect the death penalty but I would certainly expect there to be sanctions and for them to be severe.