INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETIC COMMITTEE
GOVERNANCE AND COMPLIANCE SUBCOMMITTEE
2009 REPORT
The responsibilities of this committee include the oversight of compliance with Big
Sky Conference, NCAA, and Board of Regents rules and policies that related to
student athletes, and oversight of relationships between the Department of Athletics
and any and all booster organization. The subcommittee on Governance and
Compliance is comprised of Jared Bruggeman (Liaison), Richard Hofstetter (Chair),
Pat Peterson, Wayne Sjoberg and Dave Brown (who was not present).
The information within this report and in the information presented to the IAC on April 10, 2009
is provided by Lynn Newson, Compliance Assistant and Jared Bruggeman, Associate Athletic
Director.
The NCAA Division I Committee on Athletics Certification is charged by the NCAA Division I
membership with assisting institutions in identifying mechanisms which ensure intercollegiate
athletics programs are operating in accordance with NCAA Division I standards and core values.
Institutional control and responsibility for the conduct of intercollegiate athletics is exercised by
NAU and by the conference. Administrative control or faculty control, or a combination of the
two, shall constitute institutional control. Athletics is part of the institution and thus it is not
permitted to be a stand-alone or autonomous entity of the institution. Additionally it is vital that
departments and staff outside the athletic department have responsibilities and safeguards
regarding funding, financial aid, admissions, eligibility certification, additional student support
services. This is also required by ABOR.
Reporting Structure
of Compliance at NAU
1
Rules and regulations for compliance come directly from NCAA, Big Sky Conference,
and Northern Arizona University. The most restrictive rule, is the rule that is applied. The NAU
compliance staff members are educated regularly at Regional Rules seminars, Big Sky
Conference Compliance meetings, NAAC (National Association for Athletics Compliance)
Meetings, LSDBi – NCAA Legislative Services Database. They also keep an Interpretation Log
– Continual tracking method of NCAA bylaw interpretations.
Education and outreach of compliance and governance regulations:
Coaches and staff are educated on a monthly basis regarding pertinent issues. Education
of rules is a continuous effort as they are constantly changing. Education is required after a
violation for anyone involved. Compliance meets with campus entities on a yearly basis
(housing, financial aid, dining services, etc.).
Education for student athletes occurs at the beginning of each academic year. Each team
goes through the compliance presentation and fills out NCAA paperwork prior to certification.
Compliance also meets with SAAC (Student-Athlete Advisory Committee) regarding new
legislation and any other issues that may arise. The SAAC is made up of student-athletes
assembled to provide insight on the student-athlete experience. The SAAC also offers input on
the rules, regulations and policies that affect student-athletes' lives on our campus.
Types of violations:
Violations consist of Major or Secondary Violations: Major violations are typically systemic
issues associated with a “lack of institutional control”; generally providing an extensive
recruiting or competitive advantage. Secondary violations are isolated or inadvertent in nature,
provides or is intended to provide only a minimal recruiting, competitive or other advantage and
does not include any significant recruiting inducement or extra benefit. There are two types of
secondary violations: Level I – more serious, and Level II – less serious. Penalties for secondary
violations are enforced by staff using case precedent. Any penalty imposed by the staff is the
“minimum threshold” penalty for that violation. This means that institutions and conferences
have the authority to impose more significant penalties than the NCAA minimum. The penalty
should affect the area in which it occurred (e.g., a recruiting violation should result in a
recruiting penalty); And should be designed to affect the individual responsible for the violation
and/or that individual’s sport program. A penalty should be imposed over and above just
eliminating the advantage (2-for-1).
An example of a 2-for-1 penalty:

Facts: A member of the coaching staff telephones a prospective student-athlete on two
occasions during the same one-week period (Bylaw 13.1.3.1).
2

Penalty: The institution should be required to preclude the coaching staff from
telephoning the prospective student-athlete for a period of two weeks (twice the number
of weeks as the number of impermissible calls that occurred – a 2-for-1 reduction).
Corrective actions for violations typically involve ‘Rules education’ and improved monitoring
procedures. These include database programs, new software, additional staffing, and delegation
of responsibilities.
Reporting violations and noncompliance issues:
It is mandated by NCAA constitution 2.8.1 for institutions to report all instances of
noncompliance with NCAA rules and regulations. Self-reporting is an efficient and effective way
to handle secondary violations, and reporting is an educational tool & a proactive procedure for
coaches and staff. Violations are reported to the Big Sky Conference and the NCAA. If studentathlete reinstatement is necessary, the violation is reported to student-athlete reinstatement.
Penalties for student-athletes are tracked through CAi (compliance assistant internet).
Hardcopies of the following where also provided to the IAC meeting on April 10, 2009:







Form 08-2: Certification of Compliance for Staff Members of Athletics Departments
Self-Report for Secondary Violations
Summary of level II violations processed by the Big Sky Conference
Level I and II violations reported to NCAA by NAU and Big Sky
2007-2008 By-law violation breakdowns for NAU
Level I and II violations reported to NCAA by Big Sky from 2001 to 2008.
Violations reported by NAU in 2007-2008. Includes the program, number of student
athletes, the Bylaw broken and the respective penalty administered.
This report was written by Dr. Rich Hofstetter, Chair of the committee in April 10, 2009 to
summarize the information presented to the IAC committee.
3