On Wed, 16 Mar 1994, John Grover wrote:
 
> In Tupper's report, he did not absolve Carville or Ploszek of
> responsibility. In fact it was not his charge really to assign blame, but
> rather to detail the break down that took place. Briefly:
>
> Carville--Tupper said that Carville stumbled in a couple places.
 
I understand you've said that Tupper is not assigning blame, but several
key points about Tupper's statements (or our various paraphrases of them)
seem to connotate blame on some while removing it from others.  Pointing
out Carville's "stumbles" is the first.
 
 He did
> not notify anybody as soon as he had been told by his student worker of
> the problem. Then, while he is actually responsive to the Registrar's
> office (read Ploszek is NOT his boss) he told only Ploszek.
 
For clarification, am I to understand that as a general rule NCAA
compliance officers issue their reports to the registrar?  Or to coaches
directly?  I'd be interested in trying to establish how the procedures
Maine used (or did not use) differ from those at other schools. i have
been running under the assumption that the usual channel for such things
would be for Carville to tell the AD, who would tell the multiple coaches
involved.  Yes, Carville did wait... but none of the athletes played
during that delay.
 
 Tupper felt
> that he should have told others, including the various coaches and despite
> whatever Ploszek may have said to him.
>
 
Perhaps he should have.  However, even if Ploszek is not Carville's
supervisor, it seems counter-intuitive that there might not be some
self-preservative thoughts that kicks in if the AD tells you not to worry
about something.
 
> Ploszek--Tupper brought up the idea of Ploszek being traumatized to
> explain his actions, not to relieve him of the responsibility of them.
 
That does seem plausible.  Did he, by any chance, make similar attempts
to explain Carville's actions?
 
 I
> believe he said something to the effect that it was "unconscionable" for
> him to allow 2 athletes whose eligiblility was in question participate in
> athletic events.
 
On that point I agree with Tupper- and would again point out that the
person delaying the coaches' notification at that point in time was
Ploszek, not Carville.
 
 However, he (Tupper) felt any delay in notifying NCAA was
> an attempt to make double sure the facts were right, that there were no
> other similar problems in past years and that this delay did not reflect a
> cover-up or the intent to cover-up.
 
I don't quite follow this reasoning.  Ploszek was faced with two
possibilities:  A. The athletes (including Tardif) are ineligible, or B.
They are not.
 
If A is true, and Ploszek did nothing or delayed reporting, it could be
said that the Maine athletic department knowingly allowed ineligible
athletes to play.  (This has, of course, come true.)
 
If A is true and Ploszek reports it as soon as he knows, and the coaches
are informed and the athletes don't play, then Maine has successfully
self-reported... but there is still the problem of how the violations
occurred.
 
If B. is true, and Ploszek does nothing, most likely nothing happens.  At
the worst, though, it is possible that rumours circulate about the
possible ineligibilities because no formal statement was made.
 
If B is true and Ploszek stops the athletes from playing only to find out
that they are in fact eligible, then those athletes lose one weekend and
if anything, Maine looks a bit overcautious after the Tory and Ingraham
problems.  PR problem, sure, but not like the one they have now.
 
In short, I don't see how Ploszek's delay can in any way be interpreted
as caution or a desire to "make sure the facts were right." If anything,
it seems like an attempt to minimize damage, if possible.
 
> Hutchinson--Even President Hutchinson was criticized. Tupper felt that as
> the chief officer of the U of Maine, Hutchinson was ultimately responsible
> for making sure the proper people had been notified and proper steps taken
> to ensure the athletes in question would not participate and NCAA would be
> informed. He was notified of the problem before the weekend in question
> and his error, apparently, was in taking for granted that his subordinates
> would take care of the situation properly.
 
Here, for the first time, Tupper and I agree wholeheartedly.  In an
altruistic sense, Hutchinson *should* be responsible for what goes on at
his school. What I'm not sure of is whether Hutchinson had any
communication with Carville, Ploszek, or anyone else about this prior to
the weekend the athletes played when it was known they were ineligible.
>
> The athletes--Tupper found the athletes affected by this to be totally
> innocent. They relied in good faith on the advice from the Compliance
> Office and in no way had any hand in this incident.
 
In this case that would seem true. Where Tupper rightfully examines the
roles of the athletes, and of Hutchinson, it does seem a bit odd to me
that he *appears* to focus more attention on Carville (who was working
under less-than-ideal circumstances that have already been detailed here
by others) than on the AD- who, like Hutchinson, should assume
responsibility for what goes on in his department.
 
David M. Josselyn
[log in to unmask]
 
GO MERRIMACK!  GO ARGUS!  /\
                         /  \
                        /(*) \
                       /      \
                      /________\