I requested and recieved a copy of the original NCAA letter sent to Royce Engstron from the BOR as is my right under the Montana Constitution.
Here is the actual letter copied and pasted onto this site. If you want me to email the original to you PM me thanks. This copied version is kind of wonky but you get the idea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.O. Box6222
Indianapolis, Indiana 462:00
Telephone: 317/917-6222
Shipping!OvemightAddress:
1802 Alonzo Watford Sr. Drive
Indianapolis,Indiana 46202
http://www.ncaa.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
President Royce Engstrom
University ofMontana
32 Campus Drive
Missoula, Montana 59812
RE: Notice of lnquiry, University ofMontana, Case No. M377.
Dear President Engstrom:
The purpose of this letter is to advise you that the NCAA has begun an investigation into the institution's football program in accordance with the provisions of NCAA Bylaw 32.5 of the NCAA enforcement procedures. This will confirm that Stephanie Harmah, director of enforcement, and Nathan Leffler, assistant director of enforcement, will coordinate the processing of this case on behalf of the NCAA. It is the present intention of the enforcement staff to complete this investigation during the spring of 2012.
At this time, the possible violations primarily involve the football program. However, please note that new IDformation often is developed during an investigation that leads to expanded inquiries. In the event such information is developed, you will be kept informed insofar as possible. Also, in accordance with Bylaws 32.5.1.1 and 32.5.1.2, the general status of this quiry will be reported to you in writing at the end ofsix·month intervals. The date ofyour first six·month reporting period will begin with the date of this letter.
The bylaws also indicate that you may request a meeting with the enforcement staff to discuss the inquiry in more detail. If you are interested in scheduling such a meeting, please contact Ms. Hannah or Mr. Leffler at 317/917-6222.
The institution and any individual my be represented by legal counsel at all stages of the proceedings. In addition, this letter is designed to assist the institution in understan.ding the enforcement staff's expectations relating to obligations imposed by NCAA Bylaw 32.1.4, the Cooperative Principle. Please note that should this matter come before the NCAA Committee on Infractions, the enforcement staff may be asked to comment on the level of cooperation exhibited by the institution during the inquiry. ·
The cooperative principle in Bylaw 32.1.4 can be broken down into two primary duties: (1) the duty to develop full information and (2) the duty to protect the integrity of the investigation.
National Collegiate Athletic Assoc ation
An association of over 1,200 members serving the student-athlete
Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
FAX No. P. 003
President Royce Engstrom
January 30, 2012
Page No.2
Duty to develop full information
"The cooperative principle imposes an afftrmative obligation on each institution to assist the enforcement staff in developing full information to determine whether a possible violation of NCAA legislation bas occurred and the details thereof." The key to this duty is that an institution is expected to assist in the development of complete facts regardless the potential impact those facts may ha·v-e on the institution's interests. For example, if institutional representatives are present during interviews, those representatives are expected to ask probative questions designed to elicit full and complete information. If institutional representatives establish a pattern of asking leading questions designed to steer interviewees to provide specific answers, the institution's level of cooperation may be questio... This y impact the amount . and nature of the information the enforcement staff shares during this inquiry.
Under the NCAA enforcement process, all individuals who are subject to NCAA bylaws are expected to provide full and complete information when questioned. In other words, administrators, coaches and student athletes should not be instructed to provide only "yes" or "no" answers, or to limit their answers to minimal information. Similarly, if the enforcement staff requests documentation or other information that is within the control of the institution, the expectation is that institutional representatives will seek out all information that is reasonably relevant to such a request. It is expected that if the institution is aware of additional information relevant to an issue being investigated, the institution will suggest that the additional information be reviewed. For example, if the enforcement staff asks for all emails sent by a men's basketball staff member relating to a particular subject, the expectation is that the institution will search the computer files of the men's basketball staff member. If the email search yields results suggesting other coaches' inboxes should be searched, the institution will raise it.
Once full information has been developed, the institution and enforcement staff may disagree as to the significance of or the conclusions to be drawn from those facts. However, what is critical is that full and complete ll:Uormation is developed during the inquiry.
Duty to protect the integrity of the investigation
The cooperative principle also "requires that all individuals who are subject to NCAI\. rules protect the integrity of an investigation." If an individual fails to protect the integrity of an investigation, that individual could be personally at risk for a finding of unethical conduct pursuant to Bylaw 10.1. Bylaw 32.1.4 authorizes the enforcement staff to take the lead in inquiries, and the institution should not conduct any independent investigation or interviews or engage in any independent investjgative activities without prior authorization from the enforcement staff.
FAX No. P. 004
President Royce Engstrom
January 30, 2012
Page No.3
An NCAA inquiry can be compromised if case-related information is disclosed to potential interviewees, involved individuals or extraneous persons. The enforcement staff expects that an institution v.i.ll restrict the disclosure of case-related information to a limited number of institutional representatives, as deflned by the enforcement staff, and that under no circumstances will persons involved in the activities that gave rise to the inquiry (e.g., involved coach or student-athlete) be given access to case-related information without the express authorization from the enforcement staff. In addition. the enforcement staff expects the institution to advise any individual who is granted access to case-related information that there is an expectation of confidentiality and that serious repercussions could result if that individual shares information about the case with unauthorized mdividuals. Institutions often believe they have an obligation to inform the head coach of the sport program under review ofthe existence and nature of the mquiry. This should not occur without the knowledge and approval of the enforcement staff.
It is important to elicit candid, contemporaneous responses from interviewees during an interview related to potential NCAA rule violations. If the enforcement staff asks the institution to schedule interviews with institutional employees, the institution may inform the interviewees that the purpose of the interview is to determine whether the individual has knowledge of or involvement in violations of NCAA legislation, but the institution should not disclose the specific nature of the inquiry or the specific allegations in advance of the interviews. Similarly, an institution should not engage in interviewee preparation beyond an explanation of procedural matters.
Finally, 'vith regard to document requests, there may be instances when an institution may have to provide some explanation in order to obtain access to records. In making such a request, the institution may indicate that an NCAA inquiry is· underway, but that explanation should be limited to a statement indicating that the review relates to potential NCAA rules violations.
In summary, Bylaw 32.1.4 requires that an institution assist in developing full information and that it protect the integrity of an investigation. During the course of this inquiry, the enforcement staff expects that the institution will coordinate in advance with the enforcement staff with respect to all case-related activities.
The investigation by the enforcement staff is being conducted under my direction. However, in the event of procedural disputes or if the mvestigation results in a notice of allegations, the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions would assume jurisdiction for correspondence concerning any procedural issues and the hearing process. All correspondence to the committee should be forwarded to Shepard C. Cooper, director of the Committees on Infractions, at the NCAA national office.
l . •MA30. :01. WED 01:49 ?M FAX No . P. 005
President Royce Engstrom
January 30, 2012
Page No.4
In the event· allegations related to possible major violations of NCAA legislation are substantiated, the Conunittee on Infractions will consider the case either through the summary disposition or hearing process. A summary disposition involves a written report that is jointly prepared by the institution, enforcement staff and all involved parties. Bylaw 32.7 describes the summary disposition process, and a guide is available from the enforcement staff for your review when applicable. Bylaw 32.8 explains the procedures that are followed when it is necessary for the institution, enforcement staff and involved parties to appear before the committee.
The enforcement program of the NCAA is a cooperative undertaking involving individual member institutions and allied conferences working together through the NCAA- a unified effort designed to improve the administration of intercollegiate athletics. You are called upon as president of the University of Montana for your cooperation and assistance to the end that complete information related to this matter may be·developed.
Your assistance is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Vice President of Enforcement
JRL:klk
cc: :Mr. Shepard C. Cooper
:Mr. Douglas B. Fullerton
Mr. James J. Lopach
Mr. Jim O'Day
NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions
