Paulette writes:
>Is there any person or organization to which the NC$$ is accountable (other
>than member schools which it can easily intimidate)?
 
Yes and no...in the late 70s, Congress investigated the NC$$ and heard
testimony from many people, including former investigators and other
employees of the NC$$, and this forced them to make some changes in the way
they do things.  And they are still supposedly answerable to the schools
themselves, who have the ability to pass legislation to affect business at
the NC$$.  But so far, it appears that the NC$$ has been effective at two
key things: one, convincing enough schools with voting power that major
changes aren't really necessary (including raising the fears that making
such changes would actually be detrimental), and two, reserving the REAL
power to itself to re-interpret the new rules as it sees fit.
 
I suppose in the end you would have to blame the schools, who have allowed
their governing organization to run amok, but at the same time it is easy
to see how without a unified voice, there is a real fear of speaking out.
Some of those who have done so (LSU hoop coach Dale Brown is an example
given) have suffered, and no one wants to take the chance.
 
>Perhaps what is needed
>is a third party which would have the ability to clamp down on the NC$$ when
>it makes some of these absurd rulings, something resembling the checks and
>balance system of our federal government.
 
Unfortunately, the NC$$ has been able to operate under the guise of a court
with many of the same powers while at the same time conducting investigations
that run counter to many of the principles espoused in American law.  Due
process as we understand it simply seems not to exist once you come under
investigation by the NC$$.  Taped interviews are admissible in court, yet
the NC$$ refuses to tape interviews it conducts, claiming it would be too
intimidating to those being interviewed.  And by not taping, the
investigators are able to fabricate their own version from written notes,
and this version is what the Committee on Infractions bases its decision
upon.  Interviewees are given an opportunity to review the statement
created by the investigators, but examples abound of people who say what
they said and what the investigators wrote up were two entirely different
things.  They refused to sign the statements and the Committee was told
simply that they were uncooperative - guess how that looks.
 
By the way, some of those interviewed have requested taping or a court
reporter and have offered to pay the cost for such out of their own pockets
to ensure that their statements were being taken accurately...they were all
denied.
 
I can only hope that some of the tactics have changed since the book was
written in 1991, but there seem to be so many changes needed that I doubt
things have gotten much better.  I'd like to be told otherwise.
---
Mike Machnik    [log in to unmask]   Color Voice of the Merrimack Warriors
alternate address days: [log in to unmask]             *HMN*  11/13/93
(Any opinions expressed above are strictly those of the poster.)