?? First time I've heard this...
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25128672/mcnair-documents-raise-questions-about-dissenting-opinions-in-usc-case
Two weeks before the release of documents critical of the NCAA's handling of the USC case, the association distributed a memo stating "... there will be no dissenting opinions" allowed in deciding infractions cases.
Dissenting opinion seems to be at the heart of controversial documents unsealed last week in former assistant coach Todd McNair's defamation lawsuit against the NCAA. At least two members conferring with the infractions committee that applied the crippling penalties to USC questioned the investigation performed by the NCAA enforcement staff.
The powerful infractions committee ultimately dealt USC some of the worst penalties in NCAA history -- a two-year bowl ban as well as the loss of 30 scholarships. McNair was a central figure in deciding those penalties announced June 2010. He was hit with an unethical conduct charge and handed a one-year show-cause order. McNair hasn't worked in football since not being retained by Lane Kiffin in January 2010.
University of Nebraska constitutional law professor Jo Potuto sat on that infractions committee. She was asked Sunday if the committee got the USC sanctions right.
"Yes, I still think so," she said.
While dissenting opinions aren't included in public infractions reports, the idea there aren't differences among the infractions committee stretches credulity.
Former committee member Gene Marsh wrote in a 2009 law review article, "In nine years and over 100 major NCAA infractions cases, what are the odds that eight Committee members are in agreement on all the findings and penalties in every case? Near zero.
"Yet the written opinions never reflect those differences. Committee members who are outvoted do not write dissenting opinions. They simply join the majority."
The NCAA seemed to confirm the existence of that dissent in a Thursday statement. The association responded to the negative publicity resulting from the unsealed McNair documents.
"... the Committee on Infractions is not a body of single-minded individuals but rather a group of individuals with different perspectives who worked diligently to reach a consensus based on information presented to the committee."
Asked again Sunday about the appearance of dissent by the committee, an NCAA spokesman said, "At the end of deliberations, consensus must be reached and there is no dissent."
CBSSports.com has learned at least one influential infractions committee member once wanted to write a dissenting opinion in a high-profile case (not USC's). He was told no by a high-ranking NCAA staffer.
The entire infractions committee internal operating procedures memo is posted on the NCAA website. The memo from Derrick Crawford, an NCAA managing director of enforcement, is dated March 11. It is a "roadmap" for the committee on how it decides cases, according to an NCAA spokesman.
The development of the procedures has been ongoing since new penalty structures were implemented in 2013 according to the NCAA. The spokesman added they have nothing to do with any existing legal case.
The eight-person infractions committee decides penalties in major cases. It is typically made up of college administrators, academicians and law professionals. Lately, the scope of the roster has been expanded to include the likes of former Michigan coach Lloyd Carr.
While written dissenting opinions are included in federal and state court proceedings, the infractions committee operates under a different standard. Its hearings are more administrative relying on evidence that is obtained without traditional due process allowed to the accused.
The unsealed McNair documents appear to show improper influence by three non-voting members of the infractions process. At one point, according to a plaintiffs brief, an NCAA staffer calls McNair "a lying morally bankrupt criminal, in my view, and a hypocrite of the highest order."
Another -- former U.S. attorney Roscoe Howard -- said the enforcement staff had "fallen short" in its original investigation of USC. McNair's lawyers said such statements had undue influence on the infractions committee that decided his fate.
"I'm sorry that documents like that are released," Potuto said. "It inhibits a body to discuss issues and say what's on their minds. I think it's better to be direct and forthright.
"There are reasons why courts meet when they deliberate are in private. More generally, in the time I served on the committee people decided on the case based on the information ... I don't think there was ever a time that if the information didn't fit, it didn't sway anybody."
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25128672/mcnair-documents-raise-questions-about-dissenting-opinions-in-usc-case
Two weeks before the release of documents critical of the NCAA's handling of the USC case, the association distributed a memo stating "... there will be no dissenting opinions" allowed in deciding infractions cases.
Dissenting opinion seems to be at the heart of controversial documents unsealed last week in former assistant coach Todd McNair's defamation lawsuit against the NCAA. At least two members conferring with the infractions committee that applied the crippling penalties to USC questioned the investigation performed by the NCAA enforcement staff.
The powerful infractions committee ultimately dealt USC some of the worst penalties in NCAA history -- a two-year bowl ban as well as the loss of 30 scholarships. McNair was a central figure in deciding those penalties announced June 2010. He was hit with an unethical conduct charge and handed a one-year show-cause order. McNair hasn't worked in football since not being retained by Lane Kiffin in January 2010.
University of Nebraska constitutional law professor Jo Potuto sat on that infractions committee. She was asked Sunday if the committee got the USC sanctions right.
"Yes, I still think so," she said.
While dissenting opinions aren't included in public infractions reports, the idea there aren't differences among the infractions committee stretches credulity.
Former committee member Gene Marsh wrote in a 2009 law review article, "In nine years and over 100 major NCAA infractions cases, what are the odds that eight Committee members are in agreement on all the findings and penalties in every case? Near zero.
"Yet the written opinions never reflect those differences. Committee members who are outvoted do not write dissenting opinions. They simply join the majority."
The NCAA seemed to confirm the existence of that dissent in a Thursday statement. The association responded to the negative publicity resulting from the unsealed McNair documents.
"... the Committee on Infractions is not a body of single-minded individuals but rather a group of individuals with different perspectives who worked diligently to reach a consensus based on information presented to the committee."
Asked again Sunday about the appearance of dissent by the committee, an NCAA spokesman said, "At the end of deliberations, consensus must be reached and there is no dissent."
CBSSports.com has learned at least one influential infractions committee member once wanted to write a dissenting opinion in a high-profile case (not USC's). He was told no by a high-ranking NCAA staffer.
The entire infractions committee internal operating procedures memo is posted on the NCAA website. The memo from Derrick Crawford, an NCAA managing director of enforcement, is dated March 11. It is a "roadmap" for the committee on how it decides cases, according to an NCAA spokesman.
The development of the procedures has been ongoing since new penalty structures were implemented in 2013 according to the NCAA. The spokesman added they have nothing to do with any existing legal case.
The eight-person infractions committee decides penalties in major cases. It is typically made up of college administrators, academicians and law professionals. Lately, the scope of the roster has been expanded to include the likes of former Michigan coach Lloyd Carr.
While written dissenting opinions are included in federal and state court proceedings, the infractions committee operates under a different standard. Its hearings are more administrative relying on evidence that is obtained without traditional due process allowed to the accused.
The unsealed McNair documents appear to show improper influence by three non-voting members of the infractions process. At one point, according to a plaintiffs brief, an NCAA staffer calls McNair "a lying morally bankrupt criminal, in my view, and a hypocrite of the highest order."
Another -- former U.S. attorney Roscoe Howard -- said the enforcement staff had "fallen short" in its original investigation of USC. McNair's lawyers said such statements had undue influence on the infractions committee that decided his fate.
"I'm sorry that documents like that are released," Potuto said. "It inhibits a body to discuss issues and say what's on their minds. I think it's better to be direct and forthright.
"There are reasons why courts meet when they deliberate are in private. More generally, in the time I served on the committee people decided on the case based on the information ... I don't think there was ever a time that if the information didn't fit, it didn't sway anybody."
